Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibitCity of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update EXHIBIT A March 2015 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN UPDATE Prepared By: City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department Affil, 9 �-c,-r�v0-r10v April, 2015 March 2015 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statutory History 1.2 Statutory Requirements 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Overview 2.2 Relevant Regional Issues 3.0 DATA AND ANALYSIS 3.1 Population Information 3.2 Maps of Current and Future Areas Served 3.3 Potable Water Level of Service Standard 3.4 Population and Potable Water Demand Projections by Each Local Government Utility 3.5 Water Supply Provided by Other Entities 3.6 Conservation 3.6.1 Countywide Issues 3.6.2 Local Government Specific Actions, Programs, Regulations, or Opportunities 3.7 Reuse 3.7.1 Regional and Countywide Issues 3.7.2 Local Government Specific Actions, Programs, Regulations, or Opportunities 4.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 4.1 Work Plan Projects 4.2 Capital Improvements Element/Schedule 5.0 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE 5.1 Sea Level Rise 5.2 Saltwater Intrusion 5.3 Extreme Weather Events 5.4 Infrastructure Development 5.5 Recent Governmental Actions 6_0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES FIGURES/MAPS APPFNnIX A APPENDIX B March 2015 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan) is to identify and plan for the water supply sources and facilities needed to serve existing and new development within the City's jurisdiction. Chapter 163.3177 6 c 3, Part II, F.S., requires local governments to prepare and adopt Work Plans into their comprehensive plans within 18 months after the water management district approves a regional water supply plan or its update. The Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Governing Board on February 15, 2007. The City adopted a 20 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan April 22, 2010. The SFWMD governing Board subsequently approved an update to the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update (LEC Update) on Sept. 12, 2013. Based on Florida Statutes, the City must now update its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan by March 12, 2015. The City of Miami has recognized the importance of water conservation through the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP). The City recognizes that in order to maintain a proactive water conservation program there has to be an effective coordination program with Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) to ensure the success of the program. In addition, the City maintains an excellent working relationship with WASD as a retail customer to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The City of Miami is one of 15 municipal "retail" customers. Residents receive 100% of its potable Residents of the City of Miami obtain their water directly from the Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD), which is responsible for ensuring that enough capacity is available for existing and future customers. Under this arrangement, the City will coordinates with MDWASD to ensure that enough capacity is available for existing and future customers and supporting infrastructure. The Updated City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan) will reflect whatever changes in the regional plan affect its local water supply and work plan. In addition, since the City is a retail buyer, it will reference the initiatives already identified in Miami -Dade County's 20 -year Work Plan c+iooe the Git„ Is a retail bu yer. According to state guidelines, the Work Plan and the comprehensive plan amendment must address the development of traditional and alternative water supplies, bulk sales agreements and conservation and reuse programs that are necessary to serve existing and new development for at least a 10 -year planning period. The City of Miami Work Plan will have the same planning time schedule as the most recently approved Miami -Dade County's 20 -year Work Plan. Southeast Florida is one of the most vulnerable regions to the impacts of climate change and sea level rise and is expected to present significant challenges related to water resource planning, management and infrastructure. Mitigation and adaption strategies are addressed herein as a orimary focal area. dears of the Miami Dade Geunty'G Water Supply Ca/NlitieD VVE)Fk Ran The information contained within this Work Plan Uadate will be included as amendments to the various elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan 12 April, 2015 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update The City's Work Plan is divided into five sections: Section 1 — Introduction Section 2 — Background Information Section 3 — Data and Analysis Section 4 — Work Plan Projects/Capital Improvement Element/Schedule Section 5 — Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Section 56 — Goals, Objectives, Policies 1.1 Statutory History The Florida Legislature ' enacted bills in the 2002, 2004, and 2005 sessions to address the state's water supply needs. These bills, especially Senate Bills 360 and 444 (2005 legislative session), significantly changed Chapter 163 and 373 Florida Statutes (F.S.) by strengthening the statutory links between the regional water supply plans prepared by the water management districts and the comprehensive plans prepared by local governments. In addition, these bills established the basis for improving coordination between the local land use planning and water supply planning. In 2005, lawmakers revised state water law, Section 373.707, F.S., and created the Water Resource Protection and Sustainability Program, which requires a higher level of water supply planning coordination between water management districts and local governments. Effective July 1, 2010, the Florida legislature passed an amendment to Section 373.707, F.S., which concerns water management district funding of alternative water supply projects. The legislation added "water conservation projects that result in quantifiable water savings" to those projects eligible for funding In 2011, the Florida Legislature updated Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., to include The CommunityPlanning Act (163.3164, F.S.), which addresses the state's water supply needs. The Act requires each municipality and county to adopt and maintain a comprehensive plan. In Florida, all proposed and approved development in the community must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. In terms of water supply planning, information about state requirements for local government comprehensive plans is available in each regional water supply plan update, As of June 2012, 90 percent of all local governments within the SFWMD developed and formally submitted their Water Supply Facilities Work Plans. The development of these plans has assisted the SFWMD in coordinating future water supply planning and permitting with local government land use planning. 1.2 Statutory Requirements April, 2015 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update NINON@ own am! Mal ■-. NMI -- n- OEM own April, 2015 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update In order to meet water supply and water facilities planning requirements, local government comprehensive plans must address the following: 1. Coordinate appropriate aspects of their comprehensive plan with the appropriate water management district's regional water supply plan. [Section 163.3177(4)(x), Florida Statutes.l 2. Revise the Potable Water Sub -Element to adopt a water supply facilities work plan covering at least a 10 -year planning period to meet existing and projected demand. The work plan should address those water supply facilities for which the local government has responsibility and include the facilities needed to develop alternative water supplies. The work plan should also identify conservation and reuse measures to meet future needs. [Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes.l Revise the Conservation Element to assess current and projected water needs and sources for at least a 10 -year planning period. The analysis must consider the existing levels of water conservation, use, and protection and the applicable policies of the water management district, and the district's approved regional water supply plan. In the absence of an approved regional water supply plan, the analysis must consider the district's approved water management plan. [Section 163.3177(6)(4)3, Florida Statutes.l Revise the Capital Improvements Element to identify capital improvements projects to be implemented in the first 5 years of the work plan for which the local government is responsible, including both publicly and privately funded water supply projects necessary to achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards; and adopt a five-year schedule of capital improvements to include those projects as either funded or unfunded, and if unfunded, assigned a level of priority for funding. [163.3177(3)(x)4, Florida Statutes.l 5. Revise the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to adopt principles and guidelines to be used to coordinate the comprehensive plan with the regional water supply authority (if applicable) and with the applicable regional water supply plan. [163.3177(6)(h)1, Florida Statutes. April, 2015 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update 6. During the Evaluation and Appraisal review, determine if comprehensive plan amendments are necessary to reflect statutory changes related to water supply and facilities planning since the last update to the comprehensive plan. If necessary, transmit the amendments to incorporate the statutory changes as appropriate. [Section 163.3191(1) and (2), Florida Statutes.l Ensure that adequate water suppliers and facilities are available to serve new developments no later than the date on which the local government anticipates issuing a certificate of Occupancy and consult with applicable water suppliers prior to approving a building permit, to determine whether adequate water supplies will be available to serve the development by the anticipated issuance date of the Certificate of Occupancy. [ s.163.3180(2)(a), effective July 1, 2005.1 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Overview The City of Miami, known as the "Magic City", is located in Southeast Florida, in Miami -Dade County on the Miami River, between the Florida Everglades and the Atlantic Ocean. The eFig+Hal current boundaries of the City encompassed an area of approximately 35 square miles. The City of Miami was incorporated in 1896 and has grown into one of the world's renowned centers where people can work, live and play while enjoying a high quality of life. The City of Miami, known for its diverse culture and ethnicities, is the largest municipality in Miami -Dade County. The City of Miami is substantially built -out. Between 1999-R 2000 and 2010, the City of Miami population grew from 359,�v 362,470 to 399,457, an increase of eae ten percent (10.4-20/}4- Although the 1995 EAR pFediGted aR IRGFease IR pepulat'E)R, IR 2995 it wa& ez.-tim.—Attedd that the Gity'G resin Rts based erg the 2995 BEBR (ShimheFg GeRter of , �crcrrc�--rmv Affordable Heus'Rg Bureau of Gnnnnmin aR d R, isiness Reseornh\ r opulatinn data. By all projections, growth will continue to occur in the region, with future development potential and population growth limited by the scarcity of vacant and developable land. Current, estimates of population trends have incorporated the relatively9f recent deluge of development and redevelopment of new large scale residential projects. The City's greatest development potential will occur as mid to high rise redevelopment projects. For these reasons, it is anticipated the City of Miami will receive a much greater share of the County's population growth. 'Population projections provided by Miami -Dade County RER, Planning Division, 2010 Census TAZ Data z April, 2015 0 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update 2.2 Relevant Regional Issues The Lower East Coast, LEC, Planning Area traditionally has relied on fresh groundwater from the Surficial Aquifer System, SAS, and fresh surface water from Lake Okeechobee as the primary water source for urban, agricultural, and industrial uses. In many areas of the LEC Planning Area, development of these sources has been maximized due to potential impacts on the regional system, wetlands, existing water users, and the potential for saltwater intrusion. As population and water demand increased, the development of other water source options also increased. Therefore, new or increased allocations from these freshwater sources will be reviewed on an application -by -application basis to determine if a project meets the consumptive use permitting criteria. As a result, diversification of water supply sources, such as use of the upper Floridan aquifer, increased storage, reclaimed water, and appropriate water conservation has been occurring in the LEC Planning Area and is expected to continue to occur in the future. The source options are dependent on location, use type, demand, regulatory requirements, and cost. Since the previous water supply plan updates, the national economic downturn has slowed residential and commercial development, and in turn, overall population growth, leading to a reduced rate of increase in future urban water demands. Although population growth may be slower than previously projected, the growth is such that additional water supplies over the 20 -year planning horizon will likely be required in many areas. This reinforces the need for local governments to develop alternative water sources to ensure adequate future water supplies. Additionally, Southeast Florida is one of the most vulnerable regions to the impacts of climate change and sea level rise as a result of our flat topography, porous limestone geology, and dense coastal development. Climate change and sea level rise are expected to present significant challenges relating to water resource planning, management and infrastructure for the counties located in south Florida, including Broward, Miami -Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach Counties. The primary concern to water supply is salt water intrusion into the freshwater Biscayne aquifer, the primary source of drinking water in Miami -Dade County. Local governments and water utilities in the southeast Florida region have begun to formalize the integration of water supply and climate change considerations as part of coordinated planning efforts, including updates to local government and water utility 10 year Water Supply Facility Work Plan and enhancements to local government's Comprehensive Plans. Key considerations for communities within the four County Compact planning area areas include: 1) sea level rise, 2) saltwater intrusion, 3) extreme weather, and 4) infrastructure investments to support diversification and sustainability of water supply sources, and adaptive storm water and wastewater systems. Results of evaluation and data analysis completed to date indicate that within the next thirty years MDWASD will be able to operate well fields and water treatment facilities as designed, as groundwater modeling indicates even with a high level of projected sea level rise, our well fields will not be impacted by salt water intrusion. Further modeling is currently underway to extend the planning scenarios fiftv vears out, and will include climate chanae such as increases and decreases in annual precipitation, and extreme weather events. Regional issues that affect the City of Miami include minimizing pressure on the Everglades ecosystem. The South Florida Water Management District is the state agency responsible for water supply in the Lower East Coast planning area which includes the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Miami. SFWMD plays a pivotal role in resource protection, through criteria used for Consumptive Use April, 2015 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update Permitting. As pressure increased on the Everglades ecosystem resource, the Governing Board initiated rule making to limit increased allocations dependent on the Everglades system. As a result, the Regional Water Availability Rule was adopted by the Governing Board on February 15, 2007 as part of the SFWMD's water use permit program. This reduced reliance on the regional system for future water supply needs, mandates the development of alternative water supplies, and increasing conservation and reuse. As a result of these regional water supply issues the City has updated its "Water Supply Facilities Work Plan" as required by Florida Statutes. Since the City is a retail customer, adopted policies within the City's Comprehensive Plan currently require the City to be consistent with the approved versions of the SFWMD's LECWSP, and the County's Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. The City shall coordinate with the County's Work Plan to identify and develop those water supply projects necessary to meet the City's projected water demands. Additional Comprehensive Plan policies require the City to consider the impacts of climate change and sea level rise as an integral component of all planning processes. Rise in sea level shall be taken into consideration in all future decisions regarding the design, location, and development of infrastructure and public facilities in the City to meet or exceed adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standards. The City shall work with Miami -Dade County to support the implementation of climate related policies. The City of Miami has also established a "City of Miami Sea Level Rise Committee", February 26, 2015, to study sea level rise and its effect on the City of Miami and make recommendations. 3.0 DATA AND ANALYSIS The intent of the data and analysis section of the Work Plan is to describe the information that local governments need to provide to state planning and regulatory agencies as part of their proposed comprehensive plan amendments, particularly those that would change the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to increase density and/or intensity. Additionally, population projections should be reviewed for consistency between the County and South Florida Water Management District's Water Supply Plan. For the purpose of this report 2893 Miami -Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Planning Division, based on the 2010 Census and derived from Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) population projections will be used to calculate City of Miami projected water demands. 3.1 Population Information The City's existing and future population figures as shown in Table A are derived from ''0�Z=. 2010 census and TAZ. Between 4999 2000 and 2010, the City of Miami population grew from 359,548 362,470 to 362,479 399,457, an increase of Bee ten percent (10.42%)3. Although the G;+ 2995 the G;+ pepulatieH had ,RGFeaGe + to 386,879 FesiQe,s. By 254.9 2015, the City's population is anticipated to increase to 491,287 444,485; 204-520 to 431,595 490,456; 20295 to 461,3 536,427; 'Population projections provided by Miami -Dade County, RER, Planning Division, 2010 Census TAZ Data April, 2015 10 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update 20-530 to 4941-582,398; and 2033 to 609,981 5 (represents an increase of forty percent over the 209-914 population). By all projections, growth will continue to occur in the region, with future development potential and population growth limited by the scarcity of vacant and developable land. Table A. City of Miami Population Projection Comparisons YEAR MDC-RER 200910 CENSUS TAZ4 2099 399,290 20184 4917-435, 290 2015 459-5-444, 485 2020 4 6 1 7 -2 3-490,456 2025 4941-536,427 2030 522,1 ig--582,398 2033 609,981 3.2 Maps of Current and Future Areas Served The map depicting the current ire City boundar served by the MDWASD system aye is provided in Figure 1. 3.3 Potable Water Level of Service Standard Based on the adopted 20 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan of April 22, 2010, tThe City of Miami adopted and currently maintains a potable water LOS level of 155 gallons per capita per day which was +s 17% of the county total demand for water. An Update of the per capita use estimated by Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department 20 -Year Water Supply was determined by taking a 3 -year average from 2011 to 2013. Results indicate that the initial per capita rate has declined due to water use reductions resulting from water conservation and reuse irrigation water projects. Therefore, the current water demand projections for Miami Dade County are based on an initial system -wide finished water daily per capita use rate of 137.2 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The MDWASD as also determined the Citv of Miami water demand Droiection has declined to 92.05 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The City of Miami There -is needs to revise the LOS level that the City has adopted. If future population increases project higher demands, the City will work with the County and SFWMD to refine projections during the five year updates to the water management plan and also through the State mandated Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. 3.4 Population and Potable Water Demand Projections by City 4 Population projections provided by Miami -Dade Department, RER, Planning Division, 2010 Census TAZ April, 2015 11 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update Population projections for the City of Miami's service area in five year increments from Year 20 `' to 202-533 and Year 2934 are shown in Table B. Within the City, the population served by MDWASD is expected to increase approximately . : % from Year 200914 to Year 203 '. Table B. Existing and Projected Potable Water Demand for the City of Miami WATER SUPPLY UTILITY SERVICE WITHIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S JURISDICTION Million Gallons/day (MGD) Year Population Pro'ections5 Gallons/Capita/ Day Average Demand MGD MDWASD6 Adjusted Finished System Demand Demand as%of Count MDC Alexander Orr Plant Capacity MGD MDC Hialeah- Preston Plant Capacity MGD 2=2014 369.200435,291 45592.05 60:3340.07 34698306.43 4713 244.74217.74 225 20102015 404;227444 485 45592.05 62:2040.91 35495308.80 4913 244.74217.74 225 20452020 431 723490,456 45592.05 &6:8>345.17 378 02319.76 4814 214.74217.74 225 20202025 43743536,427 45592.05 71-5749.38 396:80330.72 4915 214.74217.74 225 20252030 494944582,398 45592.05 762553.61 41664344.37 4916 244.74217.74 225 20382033 522-58609,981 45592.05 60-9356.15 43453352.98 4916 444.-4L1 7.74 225 3.5 Water Supply Provided by n+hor Gn++ e MDWASD The Miami -Dade County 20 -Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (2014 - 2033) is attached as Appendix B. The intent of the County Work Plan is to meet the statutory requirements mentioned in subsection 1.2 of this plan and to coordinate the MDWASD's water supply initiatives with the SFWMD's Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update. The SFWMD initiallv issued a Water Use Permit, (WUP) for Miami -Dade Countv on November 15 2007. The water use permit limits the annual allocation and the maximum monthly allocation until the permit expires. Latest modification to this WUP, No.1300017-W, to the MDWASD were approved on February 91h, 2015. The modified and extended Permit has a duration of 20 vears and expires on February 9th, 2035. The MDWASD's service area is all portions of Miami -Dade County within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), excluding the service area of North Miami Beach, Homestead, Florida 'Population projections provided by Miami -Dade Department RER, Planning Division, 2010 Census TAZData 6 Adjusted after taking credit in finished water demand projections for reductions in finished water use associated with water conservation Miami -Dade County Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, 2015 April, 2015 12 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update City, and approximately 65% of North Miami's service area. The water demands of the areas within the Urban Expansion are wed considered in the planning horizon between a#ter 2015 - 2033. The MDWASD water service area contains interconnected systems and, for the most part, functions as a single service area. The service area may be broken down into three sub areas by water treatment facilities: the Hialeah -Preston area, the Alexander Orr Jr. area, and the South Dade area. The County's 20 -Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (2014 - 2033), Appendix C, "Water Supply for Municipalities" The fellewiRg summarizes Miami -Dade County's Work Plan for Municipalities as follows: (Exhibit C 3-1 a+4d through 348, describe Water Supply Service Areas, Retail and Wholesale Customers, respectively, by utilizing municipal population projections and projected water demand projections. These water demand projections were computed utilizing the Municipal per capita value that applies to each municipality. The system wide water demands noted in Table 5-2 of the County's Work Plan are based on a system wide finished water daily per capita rate of 137.2 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) AADS "AnHual n„ e�r ane Bail„ Plow" finiGh-v ateF For the City of Miami the daily per capita rate is 92.05 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) was used. The population data was derived from Miami -Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) , Planning and Z=E)R'„g Division based on the 2010 Census and derived from Transportation Analysis Zone JAZ) 2994 pepulatieR data. This subsection also provides a brief discussion of WASD's water conservation @Rd reuse pregmms ); The Water Supply Facilities Work Plan details the facilities and proposed alternative water supply (AWS) projects that are planned in order to meet the water demands through 202-733. gFE)Wtthh 6 t forth IR tho . The proposed projects, by their location, volume of water produced, and timing of implementation will be sufficient to meet the water demand increases. The AWS projects and annual average daily demand (AADD) assumes that all current wholesalers will remain in the WASD system through 202-733, GXGGpt for the Gity of NO# Miami Ghr The AWS projects are included in the County's Capital Improvement Element. In the 20 -Year Work Plan, the MDWASD is committed to meet the water demand for the municipalities within the service area. The City of Miami is served by the Alexander Orr, Jr. sub -area and Hialeah - Preston sub -area water treatment plants. Alexander Orr Jr. sub -area is comprised of a high pressure system with two major piping loops. This sub -area delivers water to nearly all of Miami -Dade County south of Flagler Street to SW 248th Street, including Virginia Key, Fisher Island, The Village of Key Biscayne and, upon request, to the City of Homestead, and Florida City. The Alexander Orr, Jr. subarea, water treatment plant is supplied by four water supply wellfields (Alexander Orr, Jr.- capacity 74.4 MGD; Snapper Creek — capacity 40.0 MGD; Southwest — capacity 161.2 MGD; and West 32.4 MGD), with a total designed capacity of approximately 308 MGD. In this subarea, there are also Upper Floridan Aquifer wells at two of the wellfields (West Wellf+ledfield WWF and the Southwest Wellfield (SWWF)). These wells have a total capacity of 25.2808 MGD. MDWASD anticipates using these wells for storage of fresh Biscayne Aquifer water during the wet season (when operating water levels in the canal allows) for extraction and use in the dry season. In order to use the Upper Floridan Aquifer wells, the MDWASD des+gRed April, 2015 13 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update installed an ultra -violet (UV) light disinfection system for eaGh AS +o at both the SWWF and the WWF to provide treatment of the Biscayne aquifer water beforerip or to injecting in the Floridan Aquifer. MDWASD is currently cycle testing the Aquifer Storage/ Recovery (ASR) wells at both the West and Southwest Wellfields. Hialeah -Preston sub -area is comprised of dedicated low-pressure pipelines, remote storage tanks, a+4 pumping facilities, and high pressure systems. This sub -area delivers water to ReaFl„ all ^f Miami Hialeah, Miami Sp ings, the City of Miami, and other portions of northeastern Miami -Dade County. The Hialeah -Preston sub -area, water treatment plant is supplied by four water supply wellfields (Hialeah- capacity 12.5 MGD; John E. Preston — capacity 53.28 MGD; Miami Springs — capacity 79.30 MGD; and Northwest -149.35 MGD), with a total designed capacity of approximately 295 MGD. 3.6 Conservation 3.6.1 County -wide Issues The Miami -Dade Water Use Efficiencv Plan ro^ ^^moi governments. Currently, MDWASD is implementing a 20 year Water Use Efficiency Plan and is experiencing reductions in per capita water consumption. S@Y'Rg sbibSta Rti@l @m^,,Rte of wateF by implementing all Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the 20 -year Water Use Efficiency Plan, which was approved by the South Florida Water Management District in May 2007. The lower demand is also the result of lower -than -projected population growth, permanent landscape irrigation restrictions, water loss reduction from Florida Friendly landscaping in new construction, in right of ways, and the installation of high efficiency plumbing fixtures in new construction and some reuse within the three wastewater treatment plant sites or in their vicinities.. As a result, the Water Conservation projections included within the MDWASD Water Supply Facilities Work Plan were revised based on the 2010 Annual Water Conservation Plan Conserve Florida Report (March 2011). The savings from water conservation G#eR translate into more potable water available for residential and non-residential use, capital and operating savings, which allow systems to defer or avoid significant expenditures for water supply facilities and wastewater facilities. Water Conservation Plans and Development Codes Miami -Dade County has developed recommendations for new development that would achieve higher water use savings than currently required by code. Miami -Dade County has enacted water use efficiency -legislation including permanent landscape irrigation restrictions, landscape ordinances requiring Florida Friendly landscaping in new construction, in right of ways, and the installation of high efficiency plumbing fixtures in new construction and some reuse within the three wastewater treatment plant sites or in their vicinities. This was done by The Board of County Commissioners adOpt8d—the amending Water Use Efficiency standards creating or amending Sections 8-31, 32.84, 32-8.2, 32-83.1, 8A, 8B of the Code of Miami -Dade County OR P^"r„^^, 5, 2998 April, 2015 14 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update IdeRtIfied in the 20 yeaF VVateF Use E#inionnY Dion, All future development within the City will be required to comply with these water conservation measures as provided through these water use efficiency -legislations GhapteF 8 BbilldiRg Gede, Gh'nteF 32 WateF and geweF Dego ilatieRs, and Chapter 18A and 186 LandGGape QFdiRaRG8, of the Miami Dade (;E)uRty Gede of , which may be amended from time to time. The list of legislation ronnmmeHdatinne s ihmitted 4n +ho 139r and tl�,—ordinances relating to water use efficiency standard are presented in Appendix D of the MDWASD Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and are also posted in the Miami -Dade Water Conservation Portal. Per Capita Consumption F Fth e ±the MDWASD 44 establish:; per capita consumption for all municipalities including those in its retail customer service area. Based on this data, the MDWASD will work with the municipalities to address those with higher than average per capita and will target programs for those areas. The County anticipates that the implementation of the BMPs identified in the 20 -year Water Use Efficiency Plan will result in an adjusted system wide per capita of 447.92 133.56 gpcd by 20 . 3.6.2 Local Government Specific Actions, Programs, Regulations, or Opportunities The City will coordinate future water conservation efforts with the I WASD and the SFWMD to ensure that proper techniques are applied. In addition, the City will continue to support and expand existing goals, objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan that promotes water conservation in a cost- effective and environmentally sensitive manner. The City will continue to actively support the SFWMD and Miami -Dade County in the implementation of new regulations or programs that are design to conserve water during the dry season. 3.7 Reuse 3.7.1 Regional and County -wide Issues State law supports reuse efforts. For the past years, Florida's utilities, local governments, and water management districts have led the nation in implementing water reuse programs that increase the quantity of reclaimed water used and public acceptance of reuse programs. Section 373.250(1) F.S. provides that "water reuse programs designed and operated in compliance with Florida's rules governing reuse are deemed protective of public health and environmental quality." In addition, Section 403.064(1), F.S., provides that "reuse is a critical component of meeting the state's existing and future water supply needs while sustaining natural systems." The City of Miami supports water reuse initiatives under consideration by both the SFWMD and Miami - Dade County. The County has committed to implement a total of 47-0117.5 MGD of water reuse as noted in Appendix F. of the County's 20 -year water Supply Facilities Work Plan (2014-2033) 4% . In the 20 -year Work Plan, the County identified a number of water reuse projects and their respective schedule. According to the Plan, MDWASD is currently implementing a total of 16.49 mqd of reuse at the North, Central, and South Wastewater Treatment Plants, used for industrial, public and non-public irrigation. Furthermore, 27.6 mqd of reclaimed water will be used to recharge the Floridan Aquifer, and up to 90 mqd of reuse water will be provided to the FPL for Turkey Point cooling. April, 2015 15 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update III mill • Plot -eWE■ The Countv's Droiected finished water demands are now markedly lower than anticipated when the first 20 -year water use permit application was submitted. This demand reduction has eliminated the anticipated supply shortages which were the basis for an ambitious schedule of several costly alternative water suooly Droiects. As such, reuse to address water suaDly is no lonaer reauired or needed. 3.7.2 Local Government Specific Actions, Programs, Regulations, or Opportunities The City will support the SFWMD and Miami -Dade County water reuse projects, and implementation of new regulations or programs designed to increase the volume of reclaimed water used and public acceptance of reclaimed water. 4.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Work Plan The City is within Miami -Dade County WASD service area which provides potable water and sanitary sewer services. As discussed the potable water and sanitary sewer systems have adequate capacity to meet the needs of current and future residents. At this time the City of Miami has no water facility projects planned. This section details water supply facilities that are planned within the County in order for the City of Miami to meet MDWASD's water demands through 20383. 4.1 Alternative Water Supply Projects The County's projected finished water demands are now markedly lower than anticipated when the first 20 -year water use permit application was submitted to South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in 2007. This demand reduction has eliminated the anticipated supply shortages which were the basis for an ambitious schedule of several costly alternative water supply projects which are no longer required or needed. The decrease in water demands is a result of a successful implementation of the County's Water Conservation Plan and new population projections based on the 2010 Census. As a result, the MDWASD applied for a modification and extension of the Water Use Permit No. 13- 00017-W. to remove the requirements to complete costly and unnecessary alternative water supply projects from the existing permit. The SFWMD issued a revised Water Use Permit to the MDWASD on February 9t", 2015. The Permit has a duration of 20 years and now expires on February 9t", 2035. The Proposed alternative water supply (AWS) projects are to meet MDWASD's increase water demands through 20383, which encompasses the modification to the 20 -year Consumptive Use Permit period. AWS projects have been identified to meet water demands in the MDWASD service area and may be found in the 299 9 .MDWASD FY 2014-2020 Capital Budget and Multi -Year Capital Plan April, 2015 16 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update Miami Dade GOA inty Coherll lle of Gaoi+al lmpFevemeRts (Table 9 and 12 of AppeRdix ) the MDC 20 - Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan201( 4-2033) and Alternative Water Supply and Wastewa+er Reuse Projects, (Table 1 of Appendix A). 4.2 20 Year Work Plan and Capital Improvements C'^`„^l*SGhadule Plan As demonstrated in the previous sections, the Alternative Water Supply Plan being proposed by the County should meet the increased water demands through 20303. As a confirmation that the County is committed to fund these projects, the projects for the 20 -Year Work Plan may be found in the 209912 MDWASD FY 2014-2020 Capital Budget and Multi -Year Capital Plan Miami Dade SGhedule of Capital ImprevemeRts(Table 52 _4 12 of Appendix A) and within the MDC 20 -Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Appendix B). 5.0 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Southeast Florida is one of the most vulnerable regions to the impacts of climate change and sea level rise as a result of our flat topography, porous limestone geology, and dense coastal development. Climate change and sea level rise are expected to present significant challenges relating to water resource planning, management and infrastructure for the counties located in south Florida, including Broward, Miami -Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach Counties. These communities have agreed to partner in regionally -coordinated climate mitigation and adaptation strategies as part of the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact (Compact) and have adopted a Regional Climate Action Plan (RCAP) which highlights "Water Supply, Management, and Infrastructure" as a primary focal area. Investigations and evaluations conducted at the national, regional, and local levels have reinforced the need to plan for the predicted impacts of more frequent and severe drought, increases in tidal and storm -related flooding, and the loss of coastal wellfield capacity due to saltwater contamination. In the absence of proactive planning, these impacts will present liabilities for coastal and inland communities with implications for urban water supplies, water and wastewater infrastructure, and both regional and local drainage/flood control systems. Investments in water supply planning and infrastructure that account for these Dredicted trends will imarove the resilience of our communities. Drovide public health benefits, and reduce the potential for economic losses. The City of Miami along with Miami -Dade County, Broward, Monroe, Palm Beach Counties, local governments and water utilities in the southeast Florida region have begun to formalize the integration of water supply and climate change considerations as part of coordinated planning efforts, including updates to local government and water utility 10 year Water Supply Facility Work Plan and enhancements to local government's Comprehensive Plans. Key considerations for communities within the four County Compact planning area areas include: 1) sea level rise, 2) saltwater intrusion, 3) extreme weather. and 4) infrastructure investments to suDDort diversification and sustainabilitv of water supply sources, and adaptive storm water and wastewater systems. April, 2015 17 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update 5.1 Sea Level Rise Sea level rise has significant implications for water management and water supply planning in southeast Florida, the rate of which is accelerating. During the previous century, the global rate of sea level rise averaged approximately 1.6 mm per year. The rate or rise increased to an average of 1.7 mm Per year during the second half of the last 1 century, followed by a more significant increase to 3.3 mm Per year measured during the last decade. This trend of rising sea level is reinforced by local tide data which documents an increase in regional sea level of about 9 inches during the last 100 years. While there continues to be uncertainty about the overall extent of sea level rise that might be realized in the coming century, the draft report of the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA) presents a probable range of 1 to 4 feet by 2100. In southeast Florida, partner counties in the southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact have collectively agreed to use modified guidance developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a planning scenario of 9 to 24 inches additional rise by 2060, consistent with projections presented in the 2014 NCA. This unified sea level rise prosection has been formally adopted by Palm Beach, Broward, Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties and is now being used to inform planning process and project design throughout the region. As the impacts of historic sea level rise are already being realized and acceleration of the rate of rise is expected to compound local impacts and vulnerabilities, it is prudent that planning processes begin to formally reflect consideration of sea level rise as a future condition with recognized implications for near-term and longer-term planning decisions. Sea level rise produces varied challenges with the respect to water resources sustainability, water management, and water/wastewater facilities and infrastructure. Impacts include salt water contamination of coastal wellfields, infiltration of groundwater with chloride levels into wastewater collection systems, impairing normal operations and maintenance as well as opportunities for beneficial use of reclaimed water as an alternative water supply. Water management systems are also at risk with systems constrained by rising groundwater and tail water elevations which reduce soil storage and discharge capacity, with increased potential for both inland and coastal flooding and less opportunity for long-term storage of storm water for beneficial reuse. These realities necessitate consideration of plans and investments that may be needed to compensate for loss of existing water supplies through relocation of wellfields and the development of alternative water supplies while also seeking opportunities to expand regional water storage opportunities. These investments and considerations are in addition to concurrencv Dlannina for Dooulation arowth and water demands that are typical requirements for water supply planning requirements. 5.2 Saltwater Intrusion The primary concern to MDWASD water supply is salt water intrusion into the freshwater Biscayne aquifer, the primary source of drinking water in Miami -Dade County. Results of evaluation and data analysis completed to date indicate that within the next thirty years MDWASD will be able to operate its wellfields and water treatment facilities as designed, as groundwater modeling indicates even with a high level of projected sea level rise the county's wellfields will not be impacted by salt water intrusion. However, with that being said, along the coast of southeast Florida, and several miles inland, groundwater supplies and potable wells are vulnerable to saltwater contamination. The Biscayne Aquifer which serves as the region's primary water supply is a shallow, surficial aquifer characterized by limestone karst geology which is highly porous, and transmissive. As a result, coastal saltwater April, 2015 18 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update intrusion of the aquifer has begun to restrict coastal water supplies and necessitates the development of western wellfields, changes in wellfield in water management operations, and reclaimed water projects to enhance aquifer recharge. Historically, changes in land use, drainage of the Everglades, wellfield operations, and sea level rise have been recognized to influence the location of the saltwater front within the productive laver of the aquifer. At the toe of the front, chloride concentrations exceed drinking water standards of 250 mg/I and thus restrict and/or require abandonment of wellheads located east of the saltwater intrusion line. Hydrologic modeling has revealed that sea level rise when combined with coastal wellfield pumping has accelerated the movement of the front, doubling the rate at which the front has progressed during the last several decades. It is expected that sea level rise will constitute an increasingly significant influence on the rate of saltwater migration during the next several decades and that significant wellfield capacity will be lost with an additional 2 foot increase in sea level, the extent of which will vary along the coast. It is therefore prudent for water utilities throughout the region (both inland and coastal) to consider adaptation plans that might include wellfield relocation or expansion of western wellfields as part of planned efforts to meet regional water demands. .Continuation of groundwater monitoring and modeling efforts will be critical to predicting the movement of the front under sea level rise scenarios anticipated over the next several decades and adaptation efforts should continue to be refined in accordance with predicted and realized trends. 5.3 Extreme Weather Events As extreme events increase in frequency and severity, the city and MDWASD will consider impacts and risks associated with drought, water shortages and reduced groundwater tables, all of which can hasten saltwater intrusion and exacerbate water supply impacts. Conversely, more intense and rapid rainfall will cause flooding, increased runoff, as well as impacts to the natural systems and provide less recharge potential. Extreme rainfall events can increase damage to low-lying utility infrastructure and prolong surface water flooding. The increases in groundwater and sea level will challenge the function of drainage systems and can contribute to excessive flooding for even mild storm events. Predicting for the combined influences of storm events, high tides and sea level rise on drainage system functions and other public infrastructure is a critical planning need as is the assessment of viable water supplies and impacts to the natural systems from prolong droughts. 5.4 Infrastructure Development With increasing climate change there is a need to diversify water supply sources, treatment technologies and to provide adaptive storm water and wastewater infrastructure design criteria to ensure long-term sustainability of key facilities. Conversely, alternative water treatment technologies generally have a high energy demand and carbon footprint that can exacerbates the climate change impacts. Strategic infrastructure planning should incorporate these constraints and work within with the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the City's Comprehensive Planning processes and water supply facility work plans- to provide for long-term sustainable and balanced approach for future development. Options that provide for a diversification of water projects and protection of resources will be fundamental to this effort and may include: regional water storage such as the C- 51 Reservoir; aquifer storage and recovery (ASR); the development and use of highly treated wastewater (reverse osmosis) April, 2015 19 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update for recharge hydrodynamic barriers; the relocation and/or regionalization of wellfields and treatment facilities away from low-lying areas; and enhancing operational flexibility. Finally, the support of regional water conservation efforts is a proven strategy for extending the timeline to develop these expensive alternative water supply technologies and should be a prominent objective and dedicated effort to support water resource protections under the threat of sea level rise and climate change. 5.5 Recent Governmental Actions As part of the Miami -Dade County Evaluation and Appraisal Report adopted in 2011, climate change was identified as one of the priorities to address in the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). Miami -Dade has incorporated climate change considerations and language in several of the Elements of the CDMP update which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in October, 2013. Additionally the following has taken place. 1. The Miami -Dade Sea Level Rise Task Force was created by Resolution R-599-13 on July 2, 2013 to review the relevant data and prior studies, assessments, reports, and evaluations of the potential impact of sea level rise on vital public services and facilities, real estate, water and other ecological resources, water front property, and infrastructure. 2. Miami -Dade Board of County Commissioners adopted in September an ordinance relating to the rules of procedures of the Board of County Commissioners amending Section 2-1 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida, to require that in all agenda items related to planning, design, and construction of county infrastructure a statement be included that the impact of sea level rise has been considered. 3. Sampling of the monitor wells is done by the USGS, under a co-operative Joint Funding Agreement (JFA) contract with Miami -Dade County for wells currently included in the salt front monitoring program (JFA #14GGESMC0000109). 4. Miami -Dade WASD entered into a JFA with the USGS in 2007 (JFA #08EOFL208004) to delineate the current extent of saltwater intrusion in the Biscayne aquifer, to characterize how the extent has changed since the last mapping effort, to improve salinity monitoring in the Biscayne aquifer and to identify the sources of the saltwater to better understand the actions required to prevent or mitigate saltwater intrusion. 5. Miami -Dade County entered into a Joint Funding Agreement GFA 08EOFL20817) with the USGS in February 2008 to develop an integrated surface/ groundwater numerical flow model, with one of the objectives of the project to evaluate if sea level rise will cause salt water intrusion into coastal wellfields. The numerical model is designed among other uses to evaluate if the current surface -water structure control operational criteria effectively control saltwater intrusion with projected population increase and sea level rise. The USGS has completed the preliminary model and initial scenarios regarding sea level rise, and results are pending publication. The model simulation period is from 1/1/1996 to 12/31/2010, with daily surface -water and groundwater timesteps. April, 2015 20 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update 6. MDWASD entered into a JFA in 2014 (JFA 14GGESMC000OIIO) with the USGS to continue the modeling effort, and will develop additional future scenarios with County Departments, local governments, regional agencies for further climate change and sea level rise assessment. 7. The Citv of Miami established a "City of Miami Sea Level Rise Committee", February 26. 201 (Resolution File Id: 15-00059) to study sea level rise and its effect on the City of Miami and make recommendations. "6.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES FUTURE LAND USE Objective LU -1.8 The location, design and management practices of development and redevelopment in the City shall ensure the protection of natural resources and systems by recognizing, and sensitively responding to constraints Posed by climate change and sea level rise Policy LU -1.8.1 The City shall assist Miami -Dade County in their analysis on climate change and its impacts on the built environment addressing development standards and regulations related to investments in infrastructure, development/redevelopment and public facilities in hazard prone areas including areas vulnerable to sea level rise, tidal flooding and other impacts of climate change. Recommendations from the analysis shall address appropriate changes to land use designations and zoning of impacted properties, and development standards, among other relevant considerations. Policy LU -1.8.2. The City shall make the practice of adapting the built environment to the impacts of climate change and sea level rise, an integral component of all planning processes, including but not limited to comprehensive planning, infrastructure planning, building and life safety codes, emergency management and development regulations, storm water management, and water resources management. Policy LU -1.8.3. The City shall actively participate in the Southeastern Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and collaborate to increase regional climate change resiliency by sharing technical expertise, assessing regional vulnerabilities, advancing agreed upon mitigation and adaptation strategies and developing joint state and federal legislation policies and programs. Policy LU -1.8.4. The City shall work with Miami -Dade County to determine the feasibility of designating areas in the City as Adaptation Action Areas as provided by Section 163.3177(6)(8)(10), Florida Statute, and designate Adaptation Action April, 2015 21 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update Areas as provided by Section 163.3164(1), Florida Statute, in order to determine those areas vulnerable to coastal storm surge and sea level rise impacts for the purpose of developing policies for adaptation and enhance the funding potential of infrastructure adaptation projects. Policy LU -1.8.5. The City shall work with Miami -Dade County to support the implementation of climate related policies, through education, advocacy and incentive programs such as public outreach, including workshops and a website with relevant information. POTABLE WATER Policy PW -1.2.2: Pursuant to Chapter 163.3177(6)(c), F.S., the City adopted an updated Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (contained in Appendix PW -1 of the MCNP) for a 20 - year planning period 201{ 4-2033) that is consistent with the current Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update approved by the South Florida Water Management District (SRWMD) and the current adopted County Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. The City's Work Plan and the County's Work Plan are incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's work plan will be updated, at a minimum, every 5 years and within 18 months after the South Florida Water Management District's approval of an updated Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. (See Natural Resource Conservation Policy NR - 2.1.7.) Policy PW -1.3.1: The City's adopted an updated Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan), dated March 2015, is incorporated as follows in Appendix PW -1 of the MCNP. This document is designed to: assess current and projected potable water demands; evaluate the sources and capacities of available water supplies; and, identify those water supply projects, using all available technologies, necessary to meet the City's water demands for a 20 -year period. The Work Plan shall remain consistent with projects as listed in the South Florida Water Management District's Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. The Work Plan will be updated, at a minimum, every 5 -years and within 18 months after the South Florida Water Management District's approval of an updated Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. The Work Plan shall address climate change and sea level rise that may impact the potable water infrastructure and sources. The potable water supply facilities necessary to satisfy projected water demands for the City of Miami during the 2nnz�97 2639 2014-2033 period are shown in Appendix A of the Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Appendix PW -1). April, 2015 22 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update Policy PW -1.3.4: The City shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all future development shall comply with the landscape standards in Sections 18-A and 18- B of Miami -Dade County Code. (See related Policies NR -2.1.8 and NR -2.1.9) COASTAL MANAGEMENT Policy CM -1.4.2: Rise in sea level projected by the federal government, and refined by the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, shall be taken into consideration in all future decisions regarding the design, location, and development of infrastructure and public facilities in the City. (See related policy CI -1.2.6) NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION Policy NR -2.1.7: The City adopted an Updated Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (contained in Appendix PW -1 of the MCNP) for a 20 -year planning period from 2014 to .:. that is consistent with the current South Florida Water Management District Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Updates approved by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the current adopted County Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. The City's Work Plan and the County's Work Plan are incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. (See Potable Water Policy PW -1.2.2.) Policy NR -3.2.6: The City will reduce human exposure to air pollution by taking into consideration climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies from the recommendations of the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with all applicable regulations. April, 2015 23 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Policy CI -1.2.3: b) Potable Water Transmission Capacity — X92.05 -gallons/ resident/day. (See Potable Water Policy PW -1.2.1 and Natural Resource Conservation Policy NR - 2.1.5.). Policy CI -1.2.6: Rise in sea level projected by the federal government, and refined by the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, shall be taken into consideration in all future decisions regarding the design, location, and development of infrastructure and public facilities in the City to meet or exceed adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standards. (See related policy CM -1.4.2) INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Policy IC -1.1.89: In its development of future potable water supplies and the Water Supply Facilities Work Plan as outlined in Objective PW -1.3, the City shall consider, and be compatible, with the South Florida Water Management District's Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. Policy IC -1.1. The City of Miami shall coordinate with Miami -Dade County WASD by requiring applications to be reviewed by MDWASD during the site plan review process prior to approving a Building Permit, in order to determine whether adequate water supplies will be available to serve the development by the anticipated issuance date of the certificate of occupancy for properties located within the City of Miami. The City will monitor proposed amendments to the Miami -Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan as they relate to water supply and sea level rise planning in the City of Miami and provide input as necessary. Policy IC -1.1.11: The City shall participate in the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and shall coordinate with other agencies, local municipalities, and the private sector to develop initiatives and goals to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. Climate related goals that support regional climate change objectives shall be integrated into the City's Comprehensive Plan as appropriate. Policy IC -1.1.12: All City departmental master plans and strategic business plans shall include and prioritize climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Climate change related amendments shall be recommended through April, 2015 24 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update the next feasible, regularly scheduled amendment process or departmental master plan update for each respective planning document. a) Each City department shall consider extending planning horizons as appropriate to adequately address (i.e. 30, 50, 75 -year plans) the projected long-term climate change impacts into resource allocation recommendations. b) All new departmental climate change policies and programs shall be monitored for effectiveness. Policy IC -2.1.1: The City will continue its active participation in the Miami -Dade Planners' Technical Committee (PTC) for the purpose of addressing common concerns and sharing resources toward solving planning problems, water supply needs and coordinate water use issues stemming from sea level rise as needed with particular emphasis on examining State of Florida planning requirements in the context of Miami -Dade County's unique governmental structure to more effectively coordinate local planning efforts April, 2015 25 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update FIGURES/MAPS The following map indicates the City of Miami service area by Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD). April, 2015 26 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update !wCity of Miami - Retail Water Supply Area 1�J� WASD Service Area 16 96 Figure 1 Legend of County Area O Other Municipalities V VE MIAMI 0 Current Service Area S Feet 0 4,375 8,750 17,500 26,250 35,000 27 Disclaimer This map Is for referance, only and it Is no[ to be used as a legal docxiniein for fulure land use and/or any other infomration. For any OFFICIAL land use information please contact the City of Miami Planning Department Proparod by. Tho City of Miami Planning Dopartment Data July 22, 2008 Souce_ CIMyDocuments/GIS MiamiNVaterSupplyMap08mxd April, 2015 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update APPENDIX A The following Alternative Water Supply Tables o++onhments have been extracted from the �Ai.Ami Dade GG61RtY GGMPFehonoiVe DeVe'GpMent Master Dl. -n 14.lstar SeWer and Gapital lmr,Feyemonto GlomontS MDWASD FY 2014-2020 Capital Budget and Multi -Year Capital Plan, and the MDC 20 -Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (2014-2033), Alternative Water Supply Projects, April, 2015 28 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update WKMI-O:T=- -„_ --_ 1.3 :20:24 -2a 7-5 20062011 4-9-2 20062010 4-$2 plMIWI •TrL�NmKgfflj _■ •lipwalffmMaMMUM ■ ■ April, 2015 29 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update NEW TABLE Table 1 MDWASD Water/Alternative Water Supply Projects Proiect Name Expenditures (a) Six Year Totals 2014- 2015 2015- 2016 2016- 2017 2017- 2018 2018- 2019 2019- 2020 Water Facilities South Miami Heights W.T.P. & Wellfield 4.90 30.44 36.48 5.73 15.73 0.00 93.28 Hialeah Floridan Aquifer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R.O.W.T.P Phase 1 10.0m d Source: MDWASD Adopted 2014-2015 budget. (a) Millions of Dollars April, 2015 30 W April 2009 CDMP Amendment Cycle Application No. 7, Capital Improvements Element TABLE 8 SEWER FACILITIES Expenditures Project Number Project Name And Location Purpose*/ Year of Completion Prior Years 2009/10 2010/11 Revenues (In Millions of Dollars) 2011/12 2012/13 2013114 2014/15 Six Year Totals Future Years Project Totals Funding Source 1) Central M -D W.W.Tr.Mains & Pump St. Improv. 3/2013 3.52 6.52 28.65 20.08 28.00 0.00 0.00 83.25 0.00 86.77 490,521, W.W. System - Central District Area 7.02 5.52 26.15 20.08 28.00 0.00 0.00 79.75 0.00 86.77 1170,11 71 1222 2) Gravity Sewer Renovations 1/2015 34.49 14.15 15.28 10.94 9.95 2.62 0.40 53.34 1.32 89.15 490,1170, Systemwide 36.89 11.75 15.28 10.94 9.95 2.62 0.40 50.94 1.32 89.15 1171,1222 3) Sanitary Sewer Improvements 1/2015 0.90 1.71 2.23 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.70 6.77 0.71 8.38 497,521 Systemwide 6.86 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.00 8.38 4) W.W. General Maintenance &Office Facilities 3/2015 0.26 7.80 16.88 19.78 9.87 6.30 4.70 65.33 8.02 73.61 490,521, Systemwide 2.39 6.80 16.88 18.65 9.87 6.30 4.70 63.20 8.02 73.61 1170,1171 1222 5) W.W. Telemetering System 3/2015 4.16 3.73 2.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.45 0.00 10.61 490,1171, Systemwide 4.16 3.73 2.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.45 0.00 10.61 1222 6) Lift Station Upgrades & Struct. Maint. Impr. 3/2015 4.65 4.22 3.33 4.33 5.88 6.86 6.86 31.48 3.96 40.09 490,1171, Systemwide 4.65 4.22 3.33 4.33 5.88 6.86 6.86 31.48 3.96 40.09 1222 7) South DistrictW.W.Tr. Mains&Pump St. Improv. 3/2012 0.00 3.18 4.37 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.65 0.00 9.65 521,1171, W.W. System - South District Area 0.00 3.18 4.37 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.65 0.00 9.65 1222 8) Wastewater System Maint. & Upgrades 3/2015 15.54 10.60 16.43 16.43 16.42 16.42 16.42 92.72 16.43 124.69 490 Systemwide 15.54 10.60 16.43 16.43 16.42 16.42 16.42 92.72 16.43 124.69 9) Pump Station Improvements Program 3/2015 30.54 11.60 14.25 13.00 8.00 3.00 0.00 49.85 0.00 80.39 490,521, Systemwide 33.04 9.10 14.25 13.00 8.00 3.00 0.00 47.35 0.00 80.39 1170,1171 1222 10) Corrosion Control Facilities Improvements 1/2012 10.97 1.20 2.06 3.07 1.50 1.50 1.50 10.83 1.37 23.17 1170,1171 Systemwide 11.82 0.35 2.06 3.07 1.50 1.50 1.50 9.98 1.37 23.17 1222 11) Wastewater Engineering Studies 3/2010 6.39 1.66 0.50 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.26 0.00 8.65 1170,1171, Systemwide 7.22 0.83 0.50 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.00 8.65 1222 12) Sanitary Sewer System Extension 3/2015 22.58 21.26 9.62 8.59 5.47 4.88 8.81 58.63 59.43 140.64 490,1026, Systemwide 25.58 21.26 8.12 7.09 5.47 4.88 8.81 55.63 59.43 140.64 1135,1171, 1222 13) Peak Flow Management Facilities 1/2016 11.62 15.96 93.27 90.05 155.38 244.53 147.72 746.91 342.03 1100.56 490,521, Systemwide 18.63 11.95 90.27 90.05 155.38 244.53 147.72 739.90 342.03 1100.56 1170,1171 1179,1222 14) W.W. Equipment & Vehicles 3/2015 12.88 7.64 8.57 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.57 50.52 8.57 71.97 490 Systemwide 12.88 7.64 8.57 8.58 8.58 8,58 8.57 50.52 8.57 71.97 * 1=Existing Deficiency; 2=Future Growth; 3=Combined Projects "stricken through" are proposed deletions O W M M r D 0 M 0 W N April 2009 CDMP Amendment Cycle Application No. 7, Capital Improvements Element " 1=Existing Deficiency; 2=Future Growth; 3=Combined Projects "stricken through" are proposed deletions -i O W M M U r D 0 M 0 Table 8 - Sewer Facilities (continued) Expenditures Pu rp Os e'! Revenues Project Project Name Year of Prior (In Millions of Dollars) Six Year Future Project Funding Number And Location Completion Years 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Totals Years Totals Source 15) Central District Upgrades - W.W.T. P. 32015 2.93 12.34 45.08 27.79 3.66 6.37 2.39 97.63 0.00 100.56 490,521, Virginia Key 7.24 10.01 43.10 27.79 3.66 6.37 2.39 93.32 0.00 100.56 1170,1171 1222 16) North District Upgrades - W.W.T.P. 32013 1.78 3.28 9.15 35.56 42.90 17.15 7.89 115.93 0.00 117.71 490,521, 2575 NE 151 St. 2.57 2.49 9.15 35.56 42.90 17.15 7.89 115.14 0.00 117.71 1170,1171 1222 17) South District Upgrades -W.W.T.P. 12015 5.15 6.17 14.90 11.16 2.88 1.28 1.28 37.67 0.00 42.82 521,1170, 8950 SW 232 St. 5.55 5.77 14.90 11.16 2.88 1.28 1.28 37.27 0.00 42.82 1171,1222 18) W.W. Treatment Repl. & Renovation. 32015 5.57 14.45 4.29 4.29 4.29 4.29 4.29 35.90 4.29 45.76 490,1171 Systemwide 5.57 14.45 4.29 4.29 4.29 4.29 4.29 35.90 4.29 45.76 19) Pump Station Generators & Misc. Upgrades 32015 0.18 1.42 12.26 6.68 9.68 5.28 5.28 40.60 4.80 45.58 490,1171, Systemwide 0.18 1.42 12.26 6.68 9.68 5.28 6.28 40.60 4.80 45.56 1222 20) W.W.T.P. Automation Enhancements. 32014 6.45 1.64 2.34 1.27 3.73 1.83 0.00 10.81 0.00 17.26 521,1170, Systemwide 6.45 1.64 2.34 1.27 3.73 1.83 0.00 10.81 0.00 17.26 1171.,1222 21) W.W.T.P. Miscellaneous Upgrades 32015 0.00 0.66 3.96 2.95 0.98 3.10 2.87 14.52 0.00 14.52 1171,1222 Wastewater Treatment Plants 0.00 0.66 3.96 2.96 0.98 3.10 2.87 14.52 0.00 14.52 22) North M -D W.W.Tr. Mains & Pump St. Improv. 32010 3.33 1.74 0.59 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.88 0.00 8.21 490,521, Wastewater System- North District Area 3.33 1.74 0.59 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.88 0.00 8.21 1170,1171 1179,1222 23) South District W.W.T.P Expansion (Ph III) 22015 0.78 1.77 2.18 4.69 3.66 5.23 11.57 29.10 5.67 35.55 490,521, 8950 SW 232 St. 1.28 1.27 2.18 4.69 3.66 5.23 11.57 28.60 5.67 35.55 1171,1222 24) South District W.W.T.P.-High Level Disinfect. 22015 105.00 147.57 201.58 76.93 40.27 19.80 0.00 486.15 0.00 591.15 490,521, 8960 SW 232 St. 159.50 105.53 189.88 76.17 40.27 19.80 0.00 431.65 0.00 591.15 1170,1171, 1177,1222 25) Village of Key Biscayne Reuse Distr.System 32009 1.10 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 2.00 914 Village of Key Biscayne 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 26) Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Rehydr. Pilot 22011 1.68 4.50 4.70 3.12 3.12 2.12 0.91 18.47 0.00 20.15 914,961 Systemwide 2.18 4.00 4.70 3.12 3.12 2.12 0.91 17.97 0.00 20.15 1222 27) North Dist.W.W.T.P.Reuse Proj.-Plant/Pipeline 22012 0.32 1.44 3,27 4.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.45 0.00 9.77 521,914, W.W. System - North District Area 0.82 0.94 3.27 4.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.95 0.00 9.77 961,1222 28) Central District W.W.T.P. Reuse Project 22012 2.04 6.48 11.09 12.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.75 0.00 31.79 521,914, W.W. System - Central District Area 3.04 5.48 11.09 12.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.75 0.00 31.79 961,1222 29) South District W.W.T.P. Reuse Project 22015 4.10 8.91 69.52 137.61 99.76 10.10 0.00 325.90 0.00 330.00 521,961, Ph. 1 (30 mgd) 17.01 0.00 65.52 137.61 99.76 10.10 0.00 312.99 0.00 330.00 30) West District W.R.P. Canal Recharge 22025 0.00 10.14 17.37 29.63 13.35 2.06 48.36 120.91 494.90 615.81 961,1222 Ph. 2 (21 mgd) (WR -B) 0.00 10.14 17.37 29.63 13.35 2.06 48.36 120.91 494.90 615.81 " 1=Existing Deficiency; 2=Future Growth; 3=Combined Projects "stricken through" are proposed deletions -i O W M M U r D 0 M 0 w w April 2009 CDMP Amendment Cycle Application No. 7, Capital Improvements Element 1=Existing Deficiency; 2=Future Growth; 3=Combined Projects "stricken through" are proposed deletions 0 W M �Q M U r D 0 M U Subtotals Table 8 - Sewer Facilities (continued) 336.16 635.05 574.88 479.37 374.01 280.52 2,679.99 951.50 3,931.04 405.21 Expenditures 607.14 570.78 478.66 373.30 279.82 2,575.04 950.79 3,931.04 Purpose" Proposed Additions, April 2009 CDMP Amendment Cycle Revenues Project Project Name Year of Prior 1 34) CL -E 72 Inch Influent to Proposed W.D.W (In Millions of Dollars) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Six Year Future Project Funding Number And Location Completion Years 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Totals Years Totals Source 31) o me ❑aY Q9a6t Wetiand6 P@h.(92 .. gd) =QPP4 0-99 9-94 0-94 4$4 0-94 9-94 0-94 4-94 QP4 9A =4 9A 1171 3.36 mow', ;e 4.13 &96 9-08 9-08 A96 0-.96 9:OB 8-08 9:06 621.00 62406 32) North District W.W.T.P - Injection Wells Improv. 3/2015 0.24 0.17 0.36 2.73 1.33 0.00 0.00 4.59 0.00 4.83 914,961 0.00 ND Floridian Aq. Monitoring W.W. Systemwide 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.36 2.73 1.33 0.00 0.00 4.42 0.00 4.83 33) South District W.W.T.P- Pipeline from SD to 3/2015 0.40 1.35 14.25 13.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.84 0.00 29.24 521,961, Miami Springs Sewer System Metrozoo W.W. System - South District Area 0.52 1.40 1.35 13.25 13.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.84 0.00 29.24 1222 1=Existing Deficiency; 2=Future Growth; 3=Combined Projects "stricken through" are proposed deletions 0 W M �Q M U r D 0 M U Subtotals 299.55 336.16 635.05 574.88 479.37 374.01 280.52 2,679.99 951.50 3,931.04 405.21 265.34 607.14 570.78 478.66 373.30 279.82 2,575.04 950.79 3,931.04 Proposed Additions, April 2009 CDMP Amendment Cycle 34) CL -E 72 Inch Influent to Proposed W.D.W 32015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.19 87.19 961 Reclamation Plant (WDWRP) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.19 87.19 35) CR -D 72 Inch Reclaimed Water Pipeline 32015 0.00 0.00 3.36 6.47 4.13 52.23 52.23 118.42 3.58 122.00 961 SDWWTP to FPL (Turkey Pt) 0.00 0.00 3.36 6.47 4.13 52.23 52.23 118.42 3.58 122.00 36) WE -B Injection Well 32015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.73 82.73 961 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.73 82.73 37) Miami Springs Sewer System 32013 0.52 0.62 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 1.55 1035 Miami Springs 0.52 0.62 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 1.55 38) Outfall Legislation 32020 0.00 0.70 6.24 3.09 11.66 27.04 49.51 98.24 377.09 475.33 1171,1222 Systemwide 0.00 0.70 6.24 3.09 11.66 27.04 49.51 98.24 377.09 475.33 Subtotals of Proposed Additions 0.52 1.32 10.01 9.56 15.79 79.27 101.74 217.69 550.59 768.80 0.52 1.32 10.01 9.56 15.79 79.27 101.74 217.69 550.59 768.80 TOTALS 300.07 337.48 645.06 584.44 495.16 453.28 382.26 2897.68 1502.09 4,699.84 405.73 266.66 617.15 580.34 494.45 452.57 381.56 2792.73 1501.38 4,699.84 Source, Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department and Department of Planning and Zoning. Data provided by the Office of Strategic Business Management. 1=Existing Deficiency; 2=Future Growth; 3=Combined Projects "stricken through" are proposed deletions 0 W M �Q M U r D 0 M U w .p April 2009 CDMP Amendment Cycle Application No. 7, Capital Improvements Element TABLE 12 WATER FACILITIES Prcject Number Project Name and Location Purpose"/ Year of Completion Prior Years 2009/10 Expenditures Revenues (In Millions of Dollars) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014115 Six Year Totals Future Years Project Funding Totals Source 1) South M -D Water Trans. Mains Improv. 3/2012 0.00 0.00 1.01 5.51 5.29 0.00 0.00 11.81 0.00 11.81 1171 South Miami -Dade County 0.00 0.00 1.01 5.51 5.29 0.00 0.00 11.81 0.00 11.61 2) Water T. Plant - Alexander Orr,Jr. Expansion 3/2014 4.43 10.25 22.29 33.16 5.61 1.20 0.00 72.51 0.00 76.94 495,520, 6800 S.W. 87 Ave. 5.77 9.38 21.82 33.16 5.61 1.20 0.00 71.17 0.00 76.94 1170,1171, 1178 3) Water T.Plant- Hialeah/Preston Improv. 3/2015 3.86 5.96 21.33 19.23 9.78 15.59 7.44 79.33 0.00 83.19 495,1170, 700 W. 2 Ave./1100 W. 2 Ave. 3.86 5.96 21.33 19.23 9.78 15.59 7.44 79.33 0.00 83.19 1171,1178, 1221 4) Wellfield Improvements 32015 3.27 8.93 69.50 34.00 14.35 1.50 0.00 128.28 0.00 131.55 495,520, Systemwide 3.27 8.93 69.50 34.00 14.35 1.50 0.00 128.28 0.00 131.55 1135,1171, 1221 5) Water Main - Extensions 12014 1.05 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.53 0.35 2.28 0.14 3.47 496 Systemwide 3.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 6) Central M -D Water Trans. Mains Improv.. 32014 3.99 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.12 2.60 9.10 12.87 6.18 23.04 520,1170, Central Miami -Dade County Area 4.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 2.60 9.10 12.82 6.18 23.04 1171 7) Nath M -D Water Trans. Mains Improv. 32012 2.33 8.96 5.34 4.41 1.40 0.26 1.41 21.78 1.33 25.44 495,520, North Miami -Dade County Area 3.85 7.72 5.06 4.41 1.40 0.26 1.41 20.26 1.33 25.44 1135,1171 1222 8) W.T.P. Replacement & Renovations 32015 11.81 8.37 8.03 8.56 7.03 4.78 4.78 41.55 4.78 58.14 495,1171, Water Treatment Plants 11.81 8.37 8.03 8.56 7.03 4.78 4.78 41.55 4.76 58.14 1221 9) Water System Maintenance & Upgrades 32015 29.73 19.30 20.14 20.14 17.92 17.92 17.91 113.33 17.92 160.98 495,1171, Systemwide 29.73 19.30 20.14 20.14 17.92 17.92 17.91 113.33 17.92 160.98 1221 10) Water Distribution System Extension Enhanc. 32015 67.82 22.79 28.76 26.22 11.47 15.75 27.45 132.44 79.94 280.20 403,495, Systemwide 70.80 19.81 28.76 26.22 11.47 15.75 27.45 129.46 79.94 280.20 952,1135, 1170,1171 11) Water Equipment & Vehicles 32015 13.39 6.47 7.09 7.09 7.08 7.08 7.08 41.89 7.09 62.37 495 Systemwide 13.39 6..47 7.09 7.09 7.08 7.08 7.08 41.89 7.09 62.37 12) Water General Maintenance & Office Facilities 32015 7.06 4.87 12.54 12.91 3.02 1.55 4.10 38.99 5.19 51.24 520,1170, Systemwide 7.24 4.69 12.54 12.91 3.02 1.55 4.10 38.81 5.19 51.24 1171,1221 13) Water System Fire Hydrant Installation 12015 8.20 4.17 2.87 1.58 1.58 1.57 1.57 13.34 1.50 23.04 403 Systemwide 12.97 1.47 1.46 1.45 1.43 1.42 1.41 8.64 1.43 23.04 14) Water Engineering Studies 32009 5.85 1.41 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 0.00 7.41 1170,1171, Systemwide 7.16 0.10 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 7.41 1221 15) Safe Drink.Water Act Mod. -SWT Rule&D-DBP 32015 6.16 15.49 34.97 86.49 137.97 127.24 46.55 448.71 0.00 454.87 520,1170, Systemwide 15.73 15.44 34.97 81.52 133.42 127.24 46.55 439.14 0.00 454.87 1171,1178, " 1=Existing Deficiency; 2=Future Growth; 3=Combined Projects "stricken through" are proposed deletions 0 W M M r D n M 0 W Cn April 2009 CDMP Amendment Cycle Application No. 7, Capital Improvements Element TABLE 12 - WATER FACILITIES (continued) Expenditures Purpose"/ Revenues Project Project Name Year of Prior (In Millions of Dollars) Six Year Future Project Funding Number and Location Completion Years 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Totals Years Totals Source 16) South Miami Heights W.T.P. & Wellfield 11800 SW 208 St. 17) Water Telemetering System Enhancements Systemwide 18) W.T.P. Miscellaneous Upgrades Water Treatment Plants 19) Alternative Water Supply 3/2012 19.34 16.57 34.62 38.39 8.24 25.90 3/2015 3.85 0.60 0.44 3.85 0.60 0.44 3/2011 3.96 4.43 12.79 10.29 0.85 10.43 A. ASR Ultraviolet(U1)Disinfection System 3/2011 3.38 1.00 for ASR Syst.@W&SW Wellfield 0.00 7.88 0.00 0.00 4-9007 4-.24 4.90 Southwest 95.52 1170,1171, 4-.24 9.W G. n....aaR Aquif., RleRdiRgr e"field 342008 9:73 4489 1178,1221 0.44 0.43 3:22 D. Hialeah Floridan Aquifer Reverse 1/2012 12.94 7.98 Osmosis (RO) WTP Ph 1 (10 mgd) 0.43 42.88 2.59 E. Hialeah Floridan Aquifer Reverse 22017 0.00 0.00 Osmosis (RO) WTP Ph II (5 mgd) 0.25 0.00 0.00 F. Hialeah Floridan Aquifer Reverse 22028 0.00 0.00 Osmosis (RO) WTP Ph 111 (2.5 mgd) 0.00 0.00 0.00 G. ASR - 20 Year Water Use Permit 32028 1.20 0.80 Regional Impact Projects 2.04 0.00 H. Installation of 36 Inch DI Water Main 32011 0.52 2.82 NW 87 Ave from NW 154 St to 186 St** 0.00 0.52 2.82 20) Automation of Water Treatment Plants 32010 0.35 0.35 Systemwide 7.88 1170,1178 1.05 0.00 TOTALS 9-.09 214.49 151.92 4-:24 520,912 9.99 299.99 122.74 **Project number 19, component "Id", is a proposed addition, April 2009 CDMP Amendment Cycle 4424 Source: Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department and Department of Planning and Zoning. 0400 Data provided by the Office of Strategic Business Management. 04)9 4311 520,959, 2-.n * 1=Existing Deficiency, 2=Future Growth; 3=Combined Projects "stricken through" are proposed deletions 3.50 0.00 8409 9.99 3bA A80 27.89 3.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 2.66 2.66 0.35 0.00 316.64 274.61 23.99 1.00 0.00 0.00 76.18 0.00 95.52 403,520, 22.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.13 0.00 95.52 1170,1171, 1178,1221 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 2.77 0.43 7.05 495 0.44 0.43 0.43 0..43 2.77 0.43 7.05 1.51 1.50 0.25 0.00 20.48 0.00 24.44 495,1170 1.12 1.50 0.25 0.00 14.15 0.00 24.44 1171,1178, 1221 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 0.00 7.88 969 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.88 1170,1178 0499 0499 0499 9-.09 0499 04)9 4-:24 520,912 9.99 0.00 9.99 0.09 0.90 9.99 4424 2-.n 4.90 0499 0400 4-238 04)9 4311 520,959, 2-.n 0.00 0:89 0.09 649 0-00 43.11 998,1178 9.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.29 0.00 58.23 520 9.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.36 0.00 58.23 0.00 1.35 7.38 4.09 12.82 0.00 12.82 998 0.00 1.35 7.38 4.09 12.82 0.00 12.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 998 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 2.04 1178 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.48 0.00 6.00 520 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.48 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 1.05 520 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 295.03 228.25 205.63 132.26 1,329.73 130.60 1,674.82 288.19 222.20 204.95 131.75 1,244.44 130.39 1,674.82 -i O W M M U r D 0 M 0 W rn _%LLA_NI1-BADE NVATER -A-ND SEWER DEPARTMENT ADOPTED FY 2014-2020 CAPITAL BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN SEPTEMBER. 18, 2014 FlreparRd Iry [:spital Plannin i and Coord+natio^i S9cticr z M 4Z ami 0 W 'kf kN%-T1ADF WATER AND SFA -TR TJFPAR7NTF.NT w, 2OW20211 C.APITAT. BUDGET AND NITIJI-YFAR CAlIT AL PLAN Projecilnn by Project Sub-pro]P0 b}V fear - Wlt" Yr ills AM of-. 9.30.7013 ( rWmw Kgmudr.vm pwra;11> +. PKl7i,AX,S1iiN4 1'rvl 5u Vmj Su►P.vJ D�,Wphwi .LI..s1xn .'M 13.Eh1 11[*=LlI 20Ll1J1d Vm4tly 20.':.0137 .[1.=70[5 Mo4w P[7P-71¢i Pica-$utr z)zacI.J rktl VuiL -Ti IWO 'A'aL=MAkv-MWr lJGC�rC-MY']I': onkrrAA.*.H a2xju il:_—i: 2 AX) EAK.IX 19"mi ]RIS_..1D '"(AMM tC}IUM! 33AUM -Df t 1 "-nf7Nc3 "x.Tl:.l RI.11 . •.� .1 ... . f$%IVR:T.+A'YfPf� V."ti W V-6%%OF kKMX-P,,;:-PJW41 AIM •S to lS t 4'::1gAL1 t . I,VLM1 1:,;'lj:m W/ 5f.• w$xo) :,2.1)[1 f } J 0 42YA i ♦vut -:w u... Jn. 1%;, m +R+esw w1JP +. ,v.a x:arr +...�.yrl Mw". M. Wivap F:.✓ -111 W4MKz= 1C _TAM vi - 5CF".'+J,T-4 •19"37 3X44 1,}x%+i ARCM WS -:M 17.:.l}i-5:_1u: f 1 r 7 1 I&W;4 7R31.:.1�'CNr .nw LLy:N NtY.'}HC101R>l ti..r RA4 >•f NVNa.UATCW s_J.a iDim iW,JY M,(-> IALKM 'LAA/M) LM -f6 1 D 0 a L 1 MLYI]o gal CT4>•V.l'�T'H%R'#LE'.aC h-R'1!'N 11lWf •.)1109! ft}r 101T11. W. I'? t n f 0 y f L Elx " T16'�1115'fT' I[I-5 7(li[N .+WD I}aSL+YTJCF crmongm it :,= 1091777 1. 19 ',Wx" I,:.+fl'0 i f 1 ! . r '. L 'JriK. WIT:L LW. uaxi wxJ t 0 a•A10YC1 C ) L -L$M1K6 !A>:. d'JJfE 1ti1N111GK116 }y.\1JL.VIY I>T�C E�'L[R• C 21.w .. 0 ! 4 1 J i Y +wlL'!: 0 a R FI.ILa PN 7urAL-Ign WKW4311 'I.lta) IrAdis Who 1.111XI 1WClp T ,VlT • "A" . P r trA,.J•1 a:i 11041 IDJM[1G4w ITA:,!,'W77A. OWin ZVE.11 13 -.Jia I.11:1.n i"fl.- 11Lr. I4%J&• ZJCC[1R Una; 0 1 D I- N'N ort.!'m.Lj}im f'avAe.Avf.kf.k.. Rp 0, I0 0 n N 0 3ep-.,•<t1•C1l+w , 1nw'q+n I'Y..»Ss�e.n Arm1 ATTA3fT-T)ADF WATT.R .1 ND Sri T.R T)TMA RTiNlT.\'T Klanl .0 _ 2014-2020 C kKTAL BUDGET AND MULTI-ILTAR C.AYITAL AT.A—V $rojecriou by Project Sub -project by Year - i'4ater version a At of: t1... r. ...r,Iu1-w A.vr:.•..L P'RC]I1C7MFi5 mne.lnnn a. �r rt.r.�lmni Pru) S.IA-.,.j aAh.a'.-y l},var"pilr•1 All—l— R'irc-m1 xlpec.1n 211.1•:!-11 .[H -=w 2:ns:117•; WII&Mf. 721'7-21111 2MF.`a'1 11119 -AW Mf -!M1 ]LQWIia2 71?7•:pT? To,.,^ ro"I /•r'.:I. a. �. -,3.a -I l.1 .i:1 atllr, s•: .: -sAp! I I'low I^ XL- LRtl' -.n71M 2o%.Iq wd110"1 ? r 0 0 llx l:,lfi M& 1[tl16i ia'PAFhNi4AMf:AV hjfmif0i 5'A^^1H.1W^;�1 :•ya[a.. Y+g(y+a! 1+1.'.1 rll. r n F 1 C 1 O f o 0 q M:�J[ 'a.ty. RF90"a 44xIP 7F . ti_•.i �^N HShZIM R 9.WffA ri -- •le 4%liM 1 a.P1SX% 0 w 0 1 ) 1 a 17.1"GA13 0 0 144:1/6 Ham. $IX9 IC\l3U:FECCMI'.ey37i:1%C. �f 1.i.FWS'il l7'• YN31i. I fli•PR v . u 1 ! 1. 1 µR AK u _ 1 1DSF]a .TFIAL-MR HMiL tl+. Vf• U WM I1.*7A l 1 0 t 1 1 'X9151: r 1 Avdf : JA[ Ilieale 311rA1L'.1:!!]117-1rrtEf11:+7."!A%Ftlilf Ir:,M; "Su V,. I'lu itm 1 u 1 1 1 li 1 T&L-AFF :2:.414 6;9J* 14+8 WAS 11111 1 7 F + 5 IW IF M7 T1 zx-." 7:.Z_42' SMn,',j Irt 3.61 IMIX ';<it-. 1801111 -n? A U}.1:1 :llM Y S n p yritri TH2aL.•.ril L'Y+2{fM .=.42:.X7 3A"1: 152111:[ 4i[tlEH .yxu6 ::1101 Sfw:.m ukla •:PJM 1 t 1 v "1" 1411AL-n.a tlfl:,ily413 111.1!514` .l}5 WJUAX� 111Ag1.d11 7111[4MI 4MiF1t91S -fl.-Mo Fa.Mow aeLMAw »1>Wwm Awl ul"I 1 IAF! 1,111 3ep-.,•<t1•C1l+w , 1nw'q+n I'Y..»Ss�e.n Arm1 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update /q»=1kiIQPAI :1 The following attachment is the Miami Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) Final 20 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (2014-2033) adopted rlo+orJ I�Iniomhor �nn� February 2015. April, 2015 39 City of Miami Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update April, 2015 40 Miami Dade Water and Sewer Department 20 -year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (2014- 2033) Support Data November 2014 (Revised January 2015) Report Executive Summary The Update to the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department's (MDWASD) 20 - Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan is prepare as required by Section 163.3177(6)(c)3 of the Florida Statutes. Said statutory provision requires all local governments to adopt a water supply work plan that identifies the alternative water supply projects, traditional water supply projects and conservation and reuse measures necessary to meet projected water demand. The work plan is to be updated, at a minimum, every five years and within 18 -months of an adopted update to the regional water supply plan. The Lower East Coast (LEC) Regional Water Supply Plan was adopted by the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board in September 2013. The Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update presents MDWASD's water supply systems and provides a plan for implementing water supply facilities, including the development of traditional and alternative water supplies necessary to serve existing and new development, This Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update includes the following primary sections: • Section 1- Introduction • Section 2 - Water Service Area • Section 3 - Existing Water Supply Facilities • Section 4 - Population and Water Demand Projections • Section 5 - Planned Water Supply Facilities • Section 6 - Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan The County's projected finished water demands are now significantly lower than anticipated when the first 20 -year water use permit application was submitted to South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in 2007. The updated water demand projections have resulted in a 71 million gallons per day decrease by the year 2030. This demand reduction has eliminated the anticipated supply shortages which were the basis for an ambitious schedule of several costly alternative water supply projects which are no longer required or needed. As such, reuse projects to address water supply have been eliminated. However, MDWASD will be implementing a total of 117.5 mgd of November 2014 Page 1-1 RM Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Executive Summary reuse to address the Ocean Outfall Legislation which includes 27.6 mgd of Floridan Aquifer Recharge and up to 90 mgd of reuse water to FPL for Turkey Point Units 5, and6. The decrease in water demands has been a result of the successful implementation of the County's Water Conservation Plan, and new population projections based on the 2010 Census. Through 2013, a total of 11.2 mgd have been saved through the implementation of the Water Conservation Plan Best Management Practices. Additionally, Miami -Dade County has enacted water use efficiency -legislation including permanent landscape irrigation restrictions, landscape ordinances requiring Florida Friendly landscaping in new construction, in right of ways, and the installation of high efficiency plumbing fixtures in new construction Based on the decrease in water demands, MDWASD submitted an application for modification and extension of the 20 -year Water Use Permit (WUP) on June 20, 2014. The requested modification to the WUP included new population data, revised water demand projections and alternative water supply projects to support water demands through the year 2033. The alternative water supply project include a new South Miami Heights Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant with a capacity of 17.45 mgd. This update to the Water Supply Plan reflects the water supply projects required per the WUP Modification request, which is anticipated to be approved by November 2014. In addition, MDWASD's evaluation and planning for sea level rise and climate change is detailed over the planning horizon in the Work Plan. The primary concern to MDWASD water supply is salt water intrusion into the freshwater Biscayne aquifer, the primary source of drinking water in Miami -Dade County. Results of evaluation and data analysis completed to date indicate that within the next thirty years, MDWASD will be able to operate its wellfields and water treatment facilities as designed, as groundwater modeling indicates even with a high level of projected sea level rise, the wellfields will not be impacted by salt water intrusion. Further modeling is currently underway to extend the planning scenarios fifty years out, and will include climate change such as increases and decreases in annual precipitation, and extreme weather events. November 2014 Page 1- 2 Wan �ID Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Background...................................................................... ........1-1 1.2 Purpose and Objectives...........................................................................................1-2 Section 2 Water Service Area 2.1 MDWASD Service Area........................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Hialeah -Preston Subarea......................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea...................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 South Dade Subarea................................................................................................. 2-2 2.5 Wholesale Customers............................................................................................... 2-7 2.6 Other Water Suppliers (Non-MDWASD)........................... .................................. 2-8 2.6.1 City of North Miami................................................................................. 2-8 3.1.3 Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea Wellfields...................................................3-6 2.6.2 City of North Miami Beach...................................................................... 2-8 2.6.3 City of Homestead.....................................................................................2-10 3-7 3.1.3.3 Southwest Wellfield..................................................................3-7 2.6.4 Florida City ......... .................................. .................................................... 2-10 2.6.5 Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority........................................................ 2-11 3-7 2.6.6 Large and Small Public Water Supply Systems..................................2-11 3-8 Section 3 Existing Water Supply Facilities 3.1 Wate { Supply Wellfields (Sources of Water)........................................................3-1 3.1.1 Wellfields and Capacities......................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Hialeah -Preston Subarea Wellfields.......................................................3-1 3.1.2.1 Hialeah Wellfield...................................................................... 3-6 3.1.2.2 John E. Preston Wellfield......................................................... 3-6 3.1.2.3 Miami -Springs Wellfield..........................................................3-6 3.1.2.4 Northwest Wellfield................................................................. 3-6 3.1.2.5 Medley Wellfield.......................................................................3-6 3.1.2.6 Floridan Aquifer Blending....................................................... 3-6 3.1.3 Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea Wellfields...................................................3-6 3.1.3.1 Alexander Orr, Jr. Suarea Wellfield........................................3-7 3.1.3.2 Snapper Creek Wellfield.......................................................... 3-7 3.1.3.3 Southwest Wellfield..................................................................3-7 3.1.3.4 West Wellfield...........................................................................3-7 3.1.3.5 Floridan Aquifer Blending (and ASR) .................................... 3-7 3.1.4 South Dade Subarea WeIlfields............................................................... 3-8 3.1.4.1 Elevated Tank Wellfield...........................................................3-8 3.1.4.2 Everglades Wellfield................. ................................................ 3-8 3.1.4.3 Leisure City Wellfield.................. ........ ..................................... 3-8 3.1.4.4 Naranja Wel field...................................................................... 3-8 3.1.4.5 Newton Wellfield...................................................................... 3-9 U Section 4 Population and Water Demand Projections Table of Contents 4.1 Water Facilities Work Plan 4-1 3.1.4.6 Future South Miami Heights Wellfield..................................3-9 Population Projections ..................................................................................... 3.1.5 Other Water Supply Wellfiields.......................................... -- ...... ........... 3-9 3.1.5.1 City of North Miami................................................................. 3-9 4-2 3.1.5.2 City of North Miami Beach......................................................3-9 Water Conservation and Reuse.............................................................................. 4-6 3.1.5.3 City of Homestead.................................................................... 3-9 3.1.5.4 Florida City................................................................................ 3-9 3.2 Water Treatment/Storage Facilities......................................................................3-10 3.2.1 Hialeah -Preston Water Treatment Plants (WTPs)................................3-10 4.5.2 Other Water Suppliers.............................................................................. 3.2.1.1 Hialeah Water Treatment Plant (WTP)................................3-10 4.5.2.1 City of North Miami................................................................. 3.2.1.2 John E. Preston Water Treatment Plant...............................3-10 3.2.1.3 Hialeah Reverse Osmosis (RO) Water Treatment Plant.. 3-10 3.2.2 Alexander Orr, Jr. Water Treatment Plant...........................................3-11 3.2.3 South Dade Water Treatment Plants....................................................3-11 3.2.4 Other Water Treatment Plants ................... ............................................ 3-12 3.2.4.1 City of North Miami............................................................... 3-12 3.2.4.2 City of North Miami. Beach .................................................... 3-12 3.2.4.3 City of Homestead.................................................................. 3-12 3.2.4.4 Florida City.............................................................................. 3-12 3.2.5 Finished Water Storage........................................................................... 3-13 3.2.5.1 Hialeah Preston Subarea ................................................ I........ 3-13 3.2.5.2 Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea.....................................................3-13 3.2.5.3 South Dade Subarea................................................................ 3-13 3.2.5.4 Other Water Suppliers............................................................3-13 3.3 Water Distribution Facilities.................................................................................3-14 3.3.1 Hialeah -Preston Subarea........................................................................ 3-14 3.3.2 Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea.....................................................................3-15 3.3.3 South Dade Subarea................................................................................ 3-16 3.3.4 Other Water Distribution Facilities.......................................................3-17 3.3.4.1 City of North Miami ........................................................... 3-17 3.3.4.2 City of North Miami Beach .................................................... 3-17 3.3.4.3 City of Homestead.................................................................. 3-18 3.3.4.4 Florida City.............................................................................. 3-18 3.4 Summary .................... .....................................................................................3-18 Section 4 Population and Water Demand Projections 4.1 Historical Population....................,.......................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Population Projections ..................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Historical Water Use................................................................................................4-2 4.4 Water Demand Projections...................................................................................... 4-2 4.5 Water Conservation and Reuse.............................................................................. 4-6 4.5.1 MDWASD...............................................................................................4-6 4.5.1.1 Water Conservation..................................................................4-6 4.5.1.2 Water Reuse...............................................................................4-6 4.5.2 Other Water Suppliers.............................................................................. 4-7 4.5.2.1 City of North Miami................................................................. 4-7 M Table of Contents Water Facilities Work Plan 4.5.2.2 City of North Miami Beach......................................................4-7 4.5.2.3 City of Homestead....................................................................4-8 4.5.2.4 Florida City................................................................................ 4-8 4.6 Summary....................................................................................................................4-8 Section 5 Planned Water Supply Facilities 5.1 Alternative Water Supply Projects.........................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.O, W.T,P..................................................... 5-5 5.2.1.1 Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.O. W.T,PPhase 1-a (7.5 MGD) 5-5 5.2.1.2 Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.O. W.T.PPhase 1-b (2.5MGD) 5-5 5.1.2 South Miami Heights WTP and Wellfield (20 MGD) -17.45 MGD Floridan Aquifer RO and 2.55 MGD Biscayne Aquifer..................5-5 5.2 Miscellaneous Projects.............................................................................................5-6 5.2.1 Water Conservation/Non-Revenue Potential Water Loss Reduction Program (up to 19.62 MGD)......................................................5-6 5.3 20 -Year Work Plan and Capital Improvement Plan..............................................5-6 5.4 Other Water Suppliers Future Plans.......................................................................5-7 5.4.1 City of North Miami..................................................................................5-7 5.4.2 City of North Miami Beach.....................................................................5-7 0 5.4.3 City of Homestead................................................................................... _5-7 5.4.4 Florida City............................................................................................... 5-7 5.5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 5-8 Section 6 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan 6.1 Introduction.................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Miami -Dade County Sea Level Rise and Climate Change. Recent Government Action............................................................................................ 6-2 6.3 Saltwater Intrusion, .......................................................................... 6-3 6.3.1 Salt Intrusion Monitoring Network ............................................ 6-4 6.4.1 Salt Intrusion Front Delineation ................................................. 6-5 6.4 Urban Miami -Dade County Surface Water/ Groundwater Model ................ 6-7 6.5 Extreme Weather Events.................................................................... 6-11 6.6 Infrastructure Assessment.................................................................. 6-11 References....................................................................................... 6-13 Tables 2-1 Wholesale Water Agreements for 20 Year Period ................................................ 2-7 3-1 Biscayne Aquifer Wellfield Data............................................................................ 3-5 3-2 Floridan Aquifer Wellfield Data............................................................................. 3-2 3-3 Hialeah -Preston Finished Water Storage Facilities............................................3-13 3-4 MDWASD Facilities Capacities............................................................................ 3-19 3-5 Other Suppliers' Facilities Capacities.................................................................. 3-20 0 Figures Table of Contents Water Facilities Work Plan 4-1 Historical Population Served by MDWASD........................................................ 4-1 4-2 Population Projections by the Served MDWASD.......................... ...................... 4-2 4-3 MDWASD Past Water Use (2004 - 2013)..............................................................4-4 2-4 4-4 MDWASD Water Demand by Source...................................................................4-5 2-5 4-5 MDWASD Service Area Incremental Water Demands.......................................4-9 2-6 5-1 MDWASD Proposed Alternative Water Supply Projects .......................... ;...... 5-1 5-2 Finished Water Demand by Source ....................................... ................... 5-2 5-3 MDWASD Water Alternative Water Supply CIE Program................................5-6 3-4 2-1 MDWASD Service Area and Wholesale Customers............................................2-3 2-2 Hialeah -Preston Subarea and Water Treatment Plants ....................................... 2-4 2-3 Alexander -Orr Subarea and Water Treatment Plant ........................................... 2-5 2-4 South Dade Subarea and Water Treatment Plant ................................................ 2-6 2-5 Other Water Suppliers in Miami -Dade Co ........................................................... 2-9 3-1 MDWASD Wellfields, Wellfield Protection Areas .............................................. 3-3 3-2 MDWASD Water Treatment Plants and Finished Water Lines ......................... 3-4 5-1 Miami -Dade County Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Projects (June 2014)... 5-4 6-1 Utilities and Risk and Utilities of Concern, Miami -Dade County (SFWMD, 2007) 6-4 6-2 Salt Water Intrusion extent, Miami -Dade County, Fl (USGS 2011) .................... 6-6 6-3 Unified Southeast Florida Sea Level Rise Projections for Regional Planning Purposes.......................................................................................... 6-8 6-4 Scenario 3 Salt Water Intrusion Results (Walsh and Hughes, 2014) ..................6-10 Appendices Appendix A Wellfield Data Tables Appendix B 4'44ami -Dade 4�RMDWASD FY 2014-2020 Capital Budget and Multi -Year Ca ital Plan Appendix C Water Supply for Municipalities Appendix D Water Use Efficiency Appendix E Table 5 Countywide BMP Implementation Schedule, Costs, and Savings Projections from the Water Use Efficiency 5 -Year Plan Appendix F Reuse Project and Deadlines Appendix G List of Large and Small Public Water Supply Systems Appendix H MDWASD 20 -Year Water Use, Permit, July 16, 2012 Modification Appendix I MDWASD June 2014 Modification request to the 20 -year Water Use Permit Section 1 Introduction Miami -Dade County (County) is continuing to experience growth, as it has over the last several decades. The Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) provides drinking water to approximately two million customers in the County. Because of rapid population growth, complex environmental issues and regulatory and statutory requirements, MDWASD is updating its comprehensive 20- year plan for water supply development. The previous Water Supply Facilities Work Plan was dated April 2008 and adopted by the County's Board of County Commissioners on April 24, 2008. 1.1 Background In response to the finding that traditional water supply sources will not be sufficient to meet demands of the growing population, of industries and of the environment, the Florida Legislature enacted bills in 2002, 2004 and 2005. These bills, Senate Bills 360 and 444, significantly changed Chapters 163 Intergovernmental Programs and 373 Water Resources, Florida Statute (F.S.), to improve the coordination of water supply and land use planning by strengthening the statutory requirements linking regional water supply plans prepared by the water management districts and the comprehensive plans prepared by local governments. Section 373.709, Florida Statutes, Section 163.3177(6) (c)3, Florida Statutes, requires that the water supply and work plan be updated within 18 months after a water management district's governing board approves an updated regional water supply plan to reflect whatever changes in the regional plan affect their local water supply and work plan. The current statutory provisions direct local governments to do the following with regard to water supply: 1. Coordinate appropriate aspects of its comprehensive plan with the appropriate water management district's regional water supply plan. [s. 163.3177(4) (a), P.S.] 2. Revise the Potable Water Sub -Element to adopt a water supply facilities work plan covering at least a 10 -year planning period to meet existing and projected demand. The work plan should address those water supply facilities for which the local government has responsibility and include the facilities needed to develop alternative water supplies. The work plan should also identify conservation and reuse measures to meet future needs. [Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes.] 3. Revise the Conservation Element to assess current and projected water needs and sources for at least a 10 -year planning period. The analysis must consider the existing levels of water conservation, use, and protection and the applicable policies of the water management district, and the district's approved regional water supply plan. In the absence of an approved regional water supply plan., November 2014 Page 1.1 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan introduction the analysis must consider the district's approved water management plan. [Section 163.3177(6) (d)3, Florida Statutes.] 4. Revise the Capital Improvements Element to identify capital improvements projects to be implemented in the first 5 years of the work plan for which the local government is responsible, including both publicly and privately funded water supply projects necessary to achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards; and adopt a five-year schedule of capital improvements to include those projects as either funded or unfunded, and if unfunded, assigned a level of priority for funding. [163.3177(3)(a)4, Florida Statutes.] 5. Revise the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to adopt principles and guidelines to be used to coordinate the comprehensive plan with the regional water supply authority (if applicable) and with the applicable regional water supply plan. [163.3177(6)(h)1, Florida Statutes.] 6. During the Evaluation and Appraisal review, determine if comprehensive plan amendments are necessary to reflect statutory changes related to water supply and facilities planning since the last update to the comprehensive plan. If necessary, transmit the amendments to incorporate the statutory changes as appropriate. [Section 163.3191(1) and (2), Florida Statutes.] 7. Ensure that adequate water supplies and facilities are available to serve new development no later than the date on which the local government anticipates issuing a certificate of occupancy and consult with the applicable water supplier prior to approving a building permit, to determine whether adequate water supplies will be available to serve the development by the anticipated issuance date of the certificate of occupancy. [s. 163.3180(2)(a), F.S., effective July 1, 2005.] Local governments should update their comprehensive plans and land development regulations as soon as possible to address this water supply concurrency requirement. This Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update is meant to satisfy portions of the above statutory requirements (other portions are satisfied through existing policies in the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan) as stated in Item 1 above, to coordinate with the Lower East Coast (LEC) regional water supply plan. The 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update was adopted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Governing Board on September 12, 2013. 1.2 Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update is to present MDWASD's water supply systems and to provide a plan for implementing water supply facilities, including the development of traditional and Alternative Water Supplies necessary to serve existing and new development. These water supplies were developed by first incorporating demand reductions due to conservation. In addition, November 2014 W152 �rj� Page 1- 2 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Introduction this plan incorporates information on wholesale customers and other water suppliers that provide water to portions of Miami -Dade County: the City of North Miami, the City of North Miami Beach, and the City of Homestead. On May 2, 2014, the MDWASD and the SFWMD held a joint workshop with local governments to assist them in their efforts to prepare an update to the Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan). MDWASD will coordinate and provide information to the local governments in Miami -Dade County to assist them in the preparation of their Work Plans Update. The information contained within this Work Plan Update will be included in an amendment to various elements of the County's Comprehensive Plan. This Work Plan Update is to be updated and updated every five years within 18 months after the SFWMD Governing Board approves an updated LEC regional water supply plan. This Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update includes the following primary sections: • Section 1- Introduction • Section 2 - Water Service Area • Section 3 - Existing Water Supply Facilities • Section 4 - Population and Water Demand Projections • Section 5 - Planned Water Supply Facilities • Section 6 - Climate Change November 2014 Page 1- 3 Miami Section 2 Water Service Area 2.1 MDWASD Service Area The MDWASD water service area contains interconnected systems and thus, for the most part, functions as a single service area. However, for the convenience of discussing existing facilities, the service area may be broken down into three subareas by water treatment facilities: the Hialeah -Preston area serving the northern part of Miami -Dade County, the Alexander Orr, Jr. area serving the central and portions of the southern part of Miami -Dade County and the South Dade area (formerly known as the Rex Utility District) serving the southern part of Miami - Dade County, shownon Figure 2-1. Within the MDWASD service area, there are 15 wholesale customers. Thirteen (13) of the fifteen (15) wholesale customers have executed 20 -year water use agreements, and one (1) has executed a 30 -year water agreement. The water use agreement between MDWASD and the City of Hialeah is currently under negotiations. The City of North Miami Beach stopped purchasing water from MDWASD in 2008, and has a 30 -year wholesale agreement with MDWASD to purchase water on an as needed basis. The City of Miami Springs is no longer a wholesale customer of MDWASD, as the water and sewer infrastructure was transferred to the County in July 2008. Table 2-1 identifies the 15 wholesale customers and the status of their large user contracts. In addition to MDWASD, there are four other water suppliers within Miami -Dade County that provide water to parts of unincorporated Miami -Dade County and within their respective municipal boundaries. Two such water suppliers in the South Dade area are Florida City and the City of Homestead. MDWASD does not have an agreement with Florida City. Water is sold to and purchased from the City of Homestead. MDWASD purchases water from the City of Homestead to provide water to serve the Redavo area and pays retail rates. In 2010, the City of Homestead entered into a 20 -year water use agreement with MDWASD to purchase up to 3 MGD to meet the demands of its retail water customers. The water furnished will be received by the City of Homestead at the interconnection point located at SW 137th Avenue and 288th Street. In the North Dade area, the City of North Miami and the City of North Miami Beach provide water to portions of unincorporated and incorporated parts of Miami -Dade County. 2.2 Hialeah -Preston Subarea The Hialeah -Preston (H -P) subarea is comprised of dedicated low-pressure pipelines, remote storage tanks, pumping facilities and high pressure systems. This system delivers water to Hialeah, Miami Springs, the City of Miami and other portions of northeastern Miami -Dade County, shown on Figure 2-2, d November 2014 Page 2- 1 Water Supply Facilities Worts Plan Water Service Area generally north of Flagler Street. The Hialeah Reverse Osmosis (R.O.) plant was completed in October 2013 and is providing water to the City of Hialeah and unincorporated Miami -Dade County. 2.3 Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea The Alexander Orr, Jr. (AO) subarea is comprised of a high pressure system comprised of two major piping loops. This system delivers water to nearly all of Miami -Dade County south of approximately Flagler Street and north of SW 248th Street, including Virginia Key, Fisher Island, the Village of Key Biscayne and, upon request, to the City of Homestead, and Florida City, shown on Figure 2-3. 2.4 South Dade Subarea The South Dade subarea consists of small distribution systems and storage tanks that evolved around each individual water treatment plant (WTP) within each WTP's distinct service areas. These systems deliver water to nearly all of Miami - Dade County south of S.W. 248th street and east of S.W.197th avenue. Homestead and Florida City are within this area. Florida City provides water service within its incorporated boundaries and to a small portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County. In addition, Florida City purchases water from the City of Homestead to service a small portion of Florida City's service area on the southeast corner of U.S. 1 and S,W. 328th Street. The City of Homestead provides water within its municipal boundary and for a portion of unincorporated Miand-Dade County including the Redavo development. This development consists of 107 homes and an approximate population of 310. Figure 2-4 shows the current South Dade subarea. The design of the new South Miami Heights (SMH) WTP in the South Dade subarea is underway. The SMHWTP is scheduled to come on line by December 31, 2018. Of the five existing plants in the South Dade subarea, only Everglades and Newton WTPs will remain in service on a stand -by -basis after the SMHWTP begins operations. The existing distribution and storage systems will be incorporated into the future plans. A general shift will occur in the northern boundary of the South Dade subarea once the proposed South Miami Heights Water Treatment Plant comes into service by 2018. The northern boundary will be shifted northward such that portions of the population currently within the Alexander -Orr subarea will be within the South Dade subarea. Figure 2-1 and 2-4 illustrate the boundary shift. The boundary shift will cause a general redistribution of service between the Alexander -Orr and South Miami -Dade areas, but will not have other effects on the population expected to be served by MDWASD. November 2014 Page 2- 2 W1,01 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Water Service Area „ Figure 2-1: MDWASD Service Area and Wholesale Customers e CPA 4� r N RaMeah-Preslo4n Subarea sw Vj FR Ak)ander-DT Subarea Miami �eighrs J °' cjW Fiarrrestead { ' .�yl South Dade Subarea Hornesteld Florida'Oily MwD Mt ily 2074 0 a a irlf IF Ml8M 11 Beach h' Miami sfw s f s ! �I. FbOda CP. liNTREfea6 —1 hpu h M —x7,I NW15 Uarprl Bei umnkipidly MAKE F—I SAL HAfMC R CI BAY HARBOR ISLKN S HIALEm a FRALE H e,A»4 a HOMESTEAD a F40M CREEK b LLAGF [71MEDLEY M[W BEACH rl4Pfm BAY MLLALE Q NORTH MAU E7 NDRTH MAM BEACH a OPA-LOW ® SURFUDE = VIRGI1NtA C,1 � Va er sutaea Bm ray 4m3115 ihbw Deveklprrerft BaurL-.qy M 2U25 'i1Yflw ExparWion Bur4 M ® IVAORTB ",.,EAYI CEBOEMS DARff=-S Qvem er 2014 Page 2- 3 Wafer Supply Facilities Work Plan Water Service Area November 2014 ';1l1 Page 2- 4 Figure 2-2: Hialeah -Preston Sub -Area and Water Treatment Plants w 21 TH 57 w ic' - Hialeah RQ Fiarrt x- North iilrfiami Beach C),• C]o Ncirth Miami' � ® r �.' Hia[Bah c to �' ro r u a I - - se Co l I - h STH ST Vo soEW SD.WUNwbmdPtzM SHENAME A -en A Rvam L a Vmwr3 h aE fbf� I ,Z:M I E- Ur6w 13"E4 ffMft ®aadr.0 3425 UMM Edi BOMWE ll Vbb9SwVkxU raa PJ F[w'idaCm _aHvme teno Liam W ala; May 2014 f � � ar^i 4 r,u" k .-= ami � rec N+�-res�a�avicmuurlo��€a November 2014 ';1l1 Page 2- 4 November 2014 Page 2- 5 M r,Ik Figure 2-3; Alexander -Orr Sub -Area and Water Treatment Plant sw+ gOFr J + — f--'.~-. 1-� I Y l MIHI7L rJ cS1 ca a[l , = I � l f s F� �YL A iFeet May 2014 A ..r�,. o s.DDO 10JI o 3ZDCC 48.00n oa.coo November 2014 Page 2- 5 M Water Supply Facilities Worn Plan Water Service Area November 2014 Page 2- 6 Iwo FlgUre 2-4: south Dade sub -Area and water Treatment dant - � , $�uttii air; Heephts _ +tea � arrFULAUF � ��.� � r`j. �`� �• � l --' .�1. 4.yry¢I` ftd.7Ira +i8rama I _ _ &*LL- MC PAi..Y � a+ Ii cmr A.-PrA — - May 2014 0 4.7.0 9,500 10.000 28.OM 38.000 November 2014 Page 2- 6 Iwo 2.5 Wholesale Customers Fourteen (14) of the 15 wholesale water customers within the MDWASD service area have large user agreements. One (1) wholesale water agreement with the City of Hialeah is under negotiations. These agreements, with the exception of the City of North Miami Beach, are for 20 -year periods. The water agreement with the City of North Miami Beach is for a period of 30 -years. In 2007, the City of Miami Springs indicated their desired to pursue the transfer of the Miami Springs water and sewer department to the County. Said transfer was approved by the Miami - Dade County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on July 17, 2005. Table 2-1 identifies the 15 wholesale customers and the status of their large user contracts. As outlined in the Miami -Dade County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article XXXVII, Section 2-347, if a private or municipal water or sewer utility proposes to expand its assigned service area, the Director or designee shall determine whether or not the Department shall release the portion of the service area requested. Table 2-1 Wholesale Water Agreements for 20 Year Period Municipality Status Bal Harbour Village (BLH) Signed, executed agreement Town of Bay Harbour Islands (BHI) Signed, executed agreement City of Hialeah (CH) 20 Year agreement under negotiation. Joint participation agreement between Miami - Dade County and the City of Hialeah for the RO Plant was entered on 12/ 27/ 07. City of Hialeah Gardens (HG) Signed, executed agreement City of Homestead (HOMSTD) Signed, executed agreement; 3 MGD Max. Indian Creek Village (IC) Signed, executed agreement Town of Medley (MED) Signed, executed agreement Signed, executed agreement City of North Bay Village (NB) Signed, executed agreement City of North Miami (NM) Signed, executed agreement City of North Miami Beach (NMB) Signed, executed agreement, as needed basis City of Opa-Locks (OPLOC) Signed, executed agreement Town of Surfside (SURFS) Signed, executed agreement Village of Virginia Gardens (VG) Signed, executed agreement City of West Miami (WM) Signed, executed agreement Source: MDWASD Water Use Permit No. 13-00017-W, Re -issue July 16, 2012 Page 2- 7 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Water Service Area 2.6 Other Water Suppliers (Non-MDWASD) Other water suppliers located in Mian -.-Dade County have facilities and provide water to portions of Miami -Dade County. These facilities are located in the extreme northern and extreme southern parts of the County as shown in Figure 2- 5. Other water suppliers within the County are: • City of North Miami • City of North Miami Beach • Florida City • City of Homestead The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) has facilities in the southern part of the County to serve Monroe County. These facilities include supply wells, a treatment facility and a transmission main to serve Monroe County. 2.6.1 City of North Miami In the northern part of the County, the City of North Miami provides water service to parts of northern Miami. -Dade County within its municipal boundaries, as well as outside of its municipal boundaries extending into the northwestern parts of unincorporated Miami -Dade County. The City's service area consists of a high pressure distribution system comprised of three main distribution lines, which are interconnected. The service area is generally bounded by NE 163rd Street to the north, Biscayne Bay to the east, NW 105th Street to the south, and NW 27th Avenue to the west. It serves a population of over 91,000 people in a 13 square -mile area, servicing the City of North Miami, the Village of Biscayne Park, small area of Mian- Shores, and parts of unincorporated Miami Dade County. The City currently purchases approximately 37% of their water needs from MDWASD. 2.6.2 City of North Miami Beach In the northern, part of the County, the City of North Miami Beach provides water service to parts of northern Miami -Dade County within its municipal boundaries, as well as outside of its municipal boundaries extending into the northeastern and northwestern parts of unincorporated Miami -Dade County. The City of North Miami Beach provides service entirely or to portions of the City of Aventura, Town of Golden Beach, City of Miami Garden, and City of Sunny Isles Beach, The City of North Miami Beach has emergency interconnections with Bal Harbor Village, City of Hallandale Beach, and City of North Miami. November 2014 Page 2- 8 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Water Service Area The City's distribution system consists of a high pressure system, distributing November 2014 Page 2- 9 Wuim WN Figure 2-5; Cather Water Suppliers in Miami -Dade County +f� y co w NE iTH 9T Y— rM w ism 112 od SW eT $1 1 1a Legend Municipality NAME 5V;FLORJDA CFTY 1HOMESTEAD I� NORTH MIAMI f NORTH MIAMI BEACH VVaterServiceArea {` UTIUT-YNAME (� Florida City Homestead r ,' - 1 North Miami Nrxth Miami Beach r�2015 Urban Dev+eiopment Boundary 2025 Urban Expansion Boundary sw s� wa 3: May 21114 �Yr. tl 13 ] The City's distribution system consists of a high pressure system, distributing November 2014 Page 2- 9 Wuim Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Water Service Area potable water service to more than 163,962 people in northeast Miami -Dade County, specifically servicing the City of North Miami Beach, City of Miami Gardens, City of Aventura, City of Golden Beach, and City of Sunny Isles Beach and some areas of unincorporated Miami -Dade County. The service area is generally bounded by the Snake Creek Canal and Ives Dairy Road to the north, NW 37th Avenue to the west, NE and NW 135th Street to the south, and Collins Avenue to the east. Only about 25 percent of the City system's service area is within City limits. 2.6.3 City of Homestead The City of Homestead provides water within most of its municipal boundaries and to a small part of southern Miami -Dade County including a portion of Florida City and parts of unincorporated Miami -Dade County. The City of Homestead sells water to MDWASD to serve a portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County in a development consisting of 107 homes. This development, named Redavo, has an estimated population of 310. Currently, the City of Homestead and Miami -Dade County have an agreement. Pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree between the City of Homestead and the SFWMD, dated December 7, 2009, the City is required to reduce its withdrawl from the Biscayne Aquifer by approximately 3 MGD to meet the conditions of the City's Water Use Permit. On July 9, 2010, the City of Homestead entered into a 20 -year water wholesale agreement with MDWASD to purchase up to 3 MGD of water to meet the demands of its retail customers. In addition, MDWASD provides some water service within portions of the municipal boundary of the City of Homestead. Furthermore, the City of Homestead sells water to Florida City to service a small portion of Florida City's service area on the southeast corner of U.S.1 and S.W. 328th Street. The City of Homestead's service area comprises a high pressure water distribution system that services approximately 10,240 acres in southern Miami - Dade County, with an estimated present population of over 65,000. The service area is generally bounded by SW 296th Street to the North, SW 137th Avenue to the east, SW 3446, Street to the south, and SW 192nd Avenue to the west. 2.6.4 Florida City In the southern part of the County, Florida City provides water service to parts of southern Miami -Dade County within its municipal boundaries and to a small portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County. The City's service area is comprised by a high pressure distribution system that services approximately 1,520 acres in southern Miami -Dade County. The service area has a current population of over 9,700, and is generally bounded by SW 328th Street to the north, SW 172nd Avenue/SW 16711, Avenue to the east, SW352nd Street/SW 360th Street to the south, and SW 187th Avenue to the west. November 2014 Page 2- 10 ' u Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Water Service Area 2.6.5 Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) has facilities in the southern part of the County to serve Monroe County. The FKAA does not provide service within Miami- Dade County, despite some of their water supply, treatment, and transmission facilities being located within Miami -Dade County. These facilities include supply wells, a treatment facility and a transmission main to serve Monroe County. 2.6.6 Large and Small Public Water Supply Systems Additional public water supply systems within Miami -Dade County exist. Miami - Dade County has conducted a preliminary survey of these public water systems. A list of these public water supply systems provided by the State of Florida Department of Health is contained in Appendix G. November 2014 Page 2- 11 M Section 3 Existing Water Supply Facilities 3.1 Water Supply Wellfields (Sources of Wafer) The MDWASD water system is currently served by the previously mentioned three large treatment plants, the new Hialeah Reverse Osmosis (RO) Water Treatment plant (WTP), and the five (5) smaller treatment plants in the southern portion of Miami -Dade County. The existing water supplies serving these treatment plants originate from two major aquifer systems in Miami -Dade County: the Surficial and the Floridan Aquifer Systems. The Surficial Aquifer System, also known as the Biscayne Aquifer, is the major source of drinking water and occurs at or near the land surface in most of the County, and is the principal water -bearing unit of the Surficial Aquifer System in the region (Causaras,1987). Groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer (FA) is the drinking water source for the new Hialeah RO WTP. The 20 -Year Water Use Permit (WUP)for Miami -Dade County was approved by the SFWMD Governing Board on November 15, 2007. Subsequent modifications were issued, with the latest one dated July 16, 2012. The water use permit limits the annual allocation to 149,906 million gallons (MG) and the maximum monthly allocation to 13,117 million gallons until the permit expires on December 31, 2030. These allocations are further limited by the wellfield operational plan described in Limiting Condition 27 of the water use permit. A copy of the approved water use permit and limiting conditions is located in Appendix H. On June 20, 2014 the MDWASD submit an application for modification and extension of the existing WUP. Said modification includes new water demand projections based on 2010 population data and revised, alternative water supply and reuse projects. 3.1.1 Wellfields and Capacities The existing MDWASD water supply system is comprised of eight (8) major Biscayne Aquifer wellfields in the Hialeah -Preston and Alexander Orr, Jr. subareas, twelve (12) Biscayne Aquifer water supply wells located at five individual water systems (formerly Rex Utility District water system) in South Dade County and the ASR wells at the Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea, as shown in Table 3-1, Table 3-2 and Figure 3-1. Each of the wellfield is described below. 3.1.2 Hialeah -Preston Subarea Wellfields The Hialeah -Preston WTPs are supplied by four water supply wellfields, shown on Figure 3-1. The total designed installed capacity from the four wellfields in the Hialeah -Preston subarea is approximately 295 million gallons per day (MGD). Appendix A provides detailed information about well construction and capacities of the Hialeah -Preston area wellfields. November 2014 Page 3-1 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities The new Hialeah RO WTP is supplied by six (6) FA wells, as noted on Figure 3-2. The total installed capacity for the six wells is 12 MGD. A total of four (4) additional FA wells wi+ll be constructed with a total capacity of 8 MGD. The City of Hialeah is in the process of bidding the four wells and are scheduled to be completed by April 2015. In addition to these wellfields, four abandoned wells at a Medley Wellfield have been rehabilitated and would be available on a stand-by basis in the event of an emergency. Table 3-2 Floridan Aquifer Wellfield Data Wellfield Wellfield Data Design Capacity m d Number of Wells Alexander Orr WTP (use of FA Wells for ASR) (c) Southwest 10.00 2 West 15.00 3 Subtotal 25.00 5 Hialeah RO WTP (use of FA Wells for RO) Hialeah RO (b)(d) 12.00 6 Future Hialeah RO(a)(d) 8.00 4 South Miami Heights WTP (Future use of FA Wells for RO) )(c) Future South Miami 24,00 7 Existing MDWASD System Total (Floridan Aquifer) 37.00 11 Future MDWASD System Total (Floridan Aquifer) 69.00 22 (a) Proposed wells Hialeah RO WTP (Phase 1,10 mgd by 2015; C) Source: MDWASD Water Use Permit No. Re -issue 13-00017-W, July 16, 2012 Source: MDWASD Water Use Permit No. 13-00017-W proposed modification, June 2014 November 2014 Page 3- 2 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities Figure 3-1: MDWASD Welifields, Wellfield Protection Areas r No Miami Beachr i HiQ QRAnemy PKW,, . 2 NorthViam! Northwest Wellfield - A Hialeah 'Preston WWellfield 01 SY' OC i f 195 BR EXT m :E 45 Mli cit C/ Allexalder DT We416eld West Wellfield I Fir _ lti 51 Snapper Creek WVellFe4d LI� .. Southwest WellFeeld aaoc w. aawrsa AF141fE 1�. �- -•_.._ `� QnsyRxso Trelu [M)lii� 1J1D141Yo V M '� y IgY!'J'I[M6A11 iLR[L [/�0[ . 1 � �f �I YMIi YRlffl� l9YiR �wR.41x Pa�Y. Proposed South Miami Heights bVellfieid wa i 7 �_y Gl v lllI WWI IILTi�IfS a=VIfP�S� NaeanjaPakWEllfield L'■awmu vK:eoaRauca: Leisure City Wellfield E3 vated-Tank WeQfreld i 'r Homestead Air Force Base VWellfaeld Nornes..... — HomeSteradr l Newton WeE6e1d Florida City____ -!t LT 1�r 2trl4, UI nl-nsde CWnly 1YYiYr Soppy FaMbft wort Plan . i.. Novem er 2014 Page 3- 3 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities MR -0 Figure 3-2: IVIDWASQ Water Treatment Plants and Finished Water Lines RO Rt P,. I Hialeah an s6 North Miami Beach ' North Miami E Hialeah�reshori Di kA Water ,3 a i rn Ffiaieah• Pmstan i � ' tU 1lt8S 5W 8T - i— - Alexander Orr, 1 I Alexa nder C)rr District Wa4er.r.. ubarea wr r.s� nr sari south Miarri HeigNs:l .may^y zjNaania L' i w Etevaled Tank A �--- -w 1Homestead.-I ...,�.._...., � Q Horriesteacd �-- �— yrti ,k-_— v_ I :Sough Distrix Water Subarea Florida CEtjl : `_a �hlewean Euergtades Latxjr Camp � L ! PAflyy 21114, �1-U2Cw caurrty Water 5uppiy Fae111tim Wog% Plea November 2014 Page 3- 4 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities Table 3-1 Biscayne Aquifer Wellfield Data Wellfieid WeRfield Installed Design CapacityHialeah-Preston Number of Wells Hialeah 12.54 3 John E. Preston 53.28 7 Miami. S rin s 79.30 20 Northwest a 149.35 15 Subtotal 294.47 45 Medley Wel field (b) 48.96 4 (emergency only) Alexander Orr Alexander Orr 74.40 10 Snapper Creek 40.00 4 Southwest 161.20 17 West 32.40 3 Subtotal 308.00 34 Existing South Dade Elevated Tank(c) 4.32 2 Everglades Labor(d) 5.04 3 Leisur i (c) 4.18 4 Naranja(c) 1.15 1 Newton(d) 4.32 2 Subtotal 19.01 12 Proposed South Miami Heights(e) Former Plaut 4 1 Roberta Hunter Park 6 4 Subtotal 10.00 5 Existing MDWASD System Total(Biscayne Aquifer) 670.44 95 Proposed MDWASD System Total(Biscayne Aquifer) 680.44 100 (a) Northwest wellfield capacity at 150 mgd when pumps operate at low speed. (b) Wells in this wellfield had been abandoned. They have been restored with the purpose of using them only during an emergency (c) Abandoned when SMH WTP on line by 2018 (d) Stand-by when SMH WTP on line by 2018 (e) SMH WTP on line by 2018 Source: MDWASDWater Use Permit No. Re -issue 13-00017-W, July 16, 2012, and proposed modification, June 2014 November 2014 Page 3- 5 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities 3.1.2.1 Hialeah Wellfield The three active wells located in the Hialeah Wellfield were constructed in 1936. Each well is 14 inches in diameter, 115 feet deep and have casing depths of 80 feet. The total wellfield capacity is 12.54 mgd or 8,700 gpm (2,900 gpm for each well). 3.1.2.2 John E. Preston Wellfield The seven active wells located in the John E. Preston Wellfield were constructed in 1966 and 1972. Each well is 42 inches in diameter, 107 feet deep and have casing depths of 66. The capacity of wells No. -1 through No. 6 is 5,000 gallons per minute (gpm) each and the capacity of well No. 7 is 7,000 gpm. The total Wellfield capacity is 53.28 mgd. 3.1.2.3 Miami -Springs Wellfield The twenty active wells located in the Miami Springs Wellfield were constructed between 1924 and 1954. These wells are 14 inches and 30 inches in diameter, 80 to 90 feet deep and have casing depths of 80 feet. The total wellfield capacity is 79.30 mgd or 55,070 gpm (ranging between or 2,500 and 5,000 gpm for each well). 3.1.2.4 Northwest Wellfield The Northwest Wellfield has fifteen active wells that were constructed in 1980. The wells are 40 inches and 48 inches diameter and 80 to 100 feet deep, with casing depths ranging from 46 to 57 feet. These wells have two -speed motors. The total nominal capacity of the wells at the low speed flow rate is 149.35 mgd. The capacity of each well, except well No. 10, is 10 mgd at the low speed flow rate. Well 10 have a low speed capacity of 9.35 mgd. The total nominal capacity for the wells at the high speed flow is 220.94 mgd. 3.1.2.5 Medley Wellfield The Medley Wellfield had previously been abandoned. However, four wells were recently rehabilitated for emergency use only. The wells are 42 inches and 48 inches in diameter and 100 to 115 feet deep, with casing depths ranging from 42 to 48 feet. The total wellfield capacity is 48.96 mgd or 34,000gpm 3.1.2.6 Hialeah RO Wellfield The Hialeah RO wellfield has six (6) active wells that were contructed in 2012. The wells are 16 and 17 -inches in diameter, with depth ranging from 1,452 to 1,490 and casing depths ranging from 1,060 to 1,080 feet. The capacity of each well is 2 mgd. The total capacity of the wellfield is 12 mgd. 3.1.3 Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea Wellfields The Alexander Orr, Jr. WTP is supplied by four water supply wellfields as shown on Figure 3-1. The total designed installed capacity from the four wellfields in the Alexander Orr, Jr. service area is approximately 308 mgd. There are Floridan Aquifer wells at two of the wellfields. Appendix A provides detailed information about well construction and capacities, of the Alexander Orr, Jr. area wellfields. N� ber 2014 Page 3- 6 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities 3.1.3 Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea Wellfields The Alexander Orr, Jr. WTP is supplied by four water supply wellfields as shown on Figure 3-1. The total designed installed capacity from the four wellfields in the Alexander Orr, Jr. service area is approximately 308 mgd. There are Floridan aquifer wells at two of the wellfields. Appendix A provides detailed information about well construction and capacities, of the Alexander Orr, Jr. area wellfields. 3.1.3.1 Alexander Orr, Jr. Wellfield The ten active wells located in the Alexander Orr, Jr. Wellfield were constructed between 1949 and 1964. These wells are 16 inches and 42 inches in diameter, 100 feet deep and have casing depths ranging from 40 to 50 feet. The capacity of the wellfield is 74.4 mgd (ranging between 4,170 and 7,500 gpm for each well). In the past, there was some concern about Saltwater intrusion in this wellfield. As a result improvements were implemented to a control structure on the C-2 Canal, which reduced the saltwater intrusion. 3.1.3.2 Snapper Creek Wellfield The four active wells located in the Snapper Creek Wellfield were constructed in 1976. These wells are 24 inches in diameter, 108 feet deep and have casing depths of 50 feet. The total wellfield capacity is 40.0 mgd or 27,760 gpm (6,940 gpm for each well) . 31.3.3 Southwest Wellfield The seventeen (17) active wells located in the Southwest Wellfield were constructed between 1953 and 1997. These wells are 20 inches to 48 inches in diameter, 88 to 104 feet deep and have casing depths ranging from 33 to 54 feet. The total wellfield capacity is 161.20 mgd (ranging between or 4,900 and 7,500 gpm for each well). 3.1.3.4 West Wellfield The West Wellfield has three wells that were constructed in 1994. The wells are 24 inches in diameter and 70 feet deep, with casing depths of 40 feet. The total wellfield capacity is 32.4 mgd or 7,500 gpm per well. This wellfield is limited by the SFWMD to 15 mgd on either an average or maximum daily basis. Well No. 29 pumpage is limited to 5 mgd; Well No. 30 is limited to 10 mgd; and Well No. 31 is to be used as a standby well only to be used with prior written approval from the SFWMD. 3.1.3.5 Floridan Aquifer ASR Three Upper Floridan Aquifer wells are located in the West Wellfield (WWF) and two are located in the Southwest Wellfield (SWWF). These wells were constructed in 1996 and 1997 and are 30 inches in diameter. The total depth of these wells is between 1,200 feet and 1,300 feet with casing depths between 835 feet and 850 feet. The total capacity of the West Wellfield wells is 15.00 mgd or 3,500 gpm per well. The total capacity of the Southwest Wellfield wells is 10.08 mgd or 3,500 gpm per well. MDWASD is cycle testing the ASR wells at the SWWF and WWF. MDWASD anticipates using these wells for storage of fresh Biscayne Aquifer water in the November 2014 Page 3- 7 Ma Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities Floridan Aquifer during the wet season for extraction and use in the dry season. As part of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) ASR permit requirements, MDWASD installed an ultra -violet (W) light disinfection system at both the SWWF and the WWF to provide treatment of Biscayne Aquifer water prior to injecting in the Floridan Aquifer. MDWASD operates the ASR system, according to Department of Environmental Protection UIC permits. Injected water from the Biscayne Aquifer is from the Biscayne Aquifer water allocation in the 20 -year Water Use Permit 13-00017-W for the WWF and the SWWF. 3.1.4 South Dade Subarea Wellfields The five (5) South Dade WTPs are supplied by five individual water supply wellfields as shown on Figure 3-1. The total designed installed capacity from the five wellfields for the South Dade subarea is 19.01 mgd. Appendix A provides detailed information about well construction and capacities, of the existing South Dade area wellfields. The proposed South Miami Heights Wellfield will serve the South Dade area by December 31, 2018. 3.1.4.1 Elevated Tank Wellfield The two (2) active wells located in the Elevated Tank Wellfield were constructed in 1982 and 1996. These wells are 12 inches and 16 inches in diameter, 45 to 50 feet deep and have casing depths of 35 and 40 feet. The wel field's capacity totals 4.32 mgd or 1,500 gpm for each well. 3.1.4.2 Everglades Wellfield The three (3) active wells located in the Everglades Wellfield were constructed from 2000 to 2001. These wells are 18 inches in diameter, between 50 and 55 feet deep and have casing depths of 40 and 45 feet. The wellfield's capacity totals 5.04 mgd, ranging between or 700 and 1,500 gpm for each well, excluding the three abandoned wells. 3.1.4.3 Leisure City Wellfield The four (4) active wells located in the Leisure City Wellfield were constructed between 1953 and 1971. These wells are 6 inches and 12 inches in diameter, approximately 30 to 40 feet deep and have casing depths ranging from 25 to 35 feet. The wellfield's capacity totals 4.18 mgd, ranging between or 450 and 1,500 gpm for each well. 3.1.4.4 Naranja Wellfield The only active well located in the Naranja Wellfield was constructed in 1975. This well is 12 inches in diameter, 40 feet deep and has a casing depth of 35 feet. The wellfield's capacity totals 1.15 mgd or 800 gpm. November 2014 MIh MIr�4fF',� Page 3- 8 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities 3.1.45 Newton Wellfield The two (2) active wells located in the Newton Wellfield were constructed in 2000 and 2001, These wells are 18 inches in diameter, approximately 65 feet deep and have casing depths ranging from 50 to 53 feet. The wellfield's capacity totals 4.32 mgd or 1,500 gpm for each well, excluding two abandoned wells. 3,1.4.6 Future South Miami Heights Wellfield MDWASD has commenced the design of the South Miami Heights WTP and associated wellfields in the South Dade subarea. Of the five existing WTPs and wellfields in the South Dade subarea, only Everglades and Newton WTPs and wellfields will remain on a stand-by basis The three anticipated wellfields and their capacities are: Former Plant Wellfield, 4.0 mgd; Roberta Hunter Park Wellfield,6 mgd; and South Miami Heights 24 mgd. The future SMHs WTP will have a capacity to produce 20 mgd (max day) finish water using a combination of Floridan and Biscayne raw water. 3.1.5 Other Water Supply Wellfiel.ds 3.1.5.1 City of North Miami The City of North Miami Winson Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is currently supplied exclusively from the Biscayne Aquifer. There are presently eight (8)12 -inch diameter wells, ranging in depths from 56 to 124 feet. They were drilled and put into service in 1962. Two wells are located at the WTP site, and another three pairs are located at three different public parks in the vicinity of the WTP. These wellfields provide water supply to a portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of North Miami municipal boundary. 3.1.5.2 City of North Miami Beach The City of North Miami Beach Norwood Water Treatment Plant is supplied by sixteen (16) Biscayne aquifer and four (4) Floridan aquifer wells. These wellfields provide water supply to a portion of unincorporated and incorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of North Miami Beach municipal boundary. 3.1.5.3 City of Homestead The City of Homestead is currently supplied by six Biscayne Aquifer withdrawal wells, with a current capacity of 15.22 MGD. There are two 16 -inch, two 18 -inch, and two 20 -inch diameter wells, all 60 feet in depth. The Wittkop Park wellfield, in the northwest part of the service area, has 4 wells, and the Harris wellfield, located just east of Federal Highway, US -1, has two wells. These wellfields provide water supply to a portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of Homestead municipal boundary. 3.1.5.4 Florida City The City of Florida City water treatment plant is supplied by four (4) production wells located on a site adjacent to the treatment plant. There are two (2) 12 -inch and two (2) 10- inch diameter wells. All four wells withdraw water from the Biscayne Aquifer. November 2014 Page 3- 9 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities 3.2 Water Treatment/Storage Facilities The MDWASD water system is based on the three large treatment plants, the Hialeah RO plant and the smaller treatment plants in the extremely southern portion of Miami - Dade County, as shown on Figure 3-2. 3.2.1 Hialeah -Preston Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) The Hialeah and John E. Preston WTPs are located at 200 W. 2nd Avenue and 1100 W. 2-J Avenue, respectively. The adjacent facilities in Hialeah share interconnected source water and finished water storage capacity. These two plants serve the Hialeah - Preston subarea, generally, the service area that lies north of Flagler Street. The two plants have similar treatment processes, which are described separately below. 3.2.1.1 Hialeah Water Treatment Plant The Hialeah WTP was originally designed in 1924 with a total capacity of 10 mgd. By 1935, the plant's capacity totaled 40 mgd. In 1946, capacity was increased to 60 mgd. Air strippers with a capacity of 84 mgd were added to the treatment process in 1991 to remove volatile organics from the finished water. A 3.2 MG storage reservoir for both the Hialeah and John E. Preston WTPs was also added in 1991. There are plans to rerate and upgrade the Hialeah WTP to a capacity of 70 mgd, if necessary. The source water for Hialeah WTP is from the Hialeah -Miami Springs Wellfields, supplemented by the Northwest Wellfield. The Hialeah WTP has a current rated capacity of 60 mgd. The treatment process includes lime softening with sodium silicate activated by chlorine, recarbonation, chlorination, ammoniation, fluoridation, filtration, and air stripping. The plant site is relatively small, and is surrounded by residential areas. 3.2.1.2 John E. Preston Water Treatment Plant The John E. Preston WTP was originally designed as a 60 mgd plant in 1968 and upgraded to 110 mgd in 1980. The plant was rerated to a total capacity of 130 mgd in 1984. The plant reached its present capacity of 165 mgd with another addition in 1988. In 1991, the plant was modified with an air stripping capacity of 185 mgd to remove VOCs. In 2005, the plant process modifications to provide enhanced softening for reduction of color and total organic carbon came on line. The main source of water for the Preston WTP is from the Northwest Wellfield. The current rated capacity is 165 mgd with a treatment process similar to that of the Hialeah WTP. This includes lime softening with ferric and other coagulant and chemicals added prior to lime for enhanced softening, recarbonation, chlorination, ammoniation, fluoridation, filtration, and air stripping. The Preston plant is also cited in a residential area of Hialeah. 3.2.1.3 Hialeah Reverse Osmosis (RO) Water Treatment Plant On December 27, 2007, the Miami -Dade County and the City of Hialeah entered into a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) to design, construct, and operate a water November 2014 Page 3-10 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities treatment plant. The JPA specified that the County and the City would be equal partners in funding the project. The Hialeah RO WTP was released for operation by the Florida Department of Health in November 2013. The Plant is located at 4250 W. 114th Terrace in the City of Hialeah, and is approved to operate at a capacity of 7.5 MGD. An additional capacity of 2.5 MGD is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2015. The main source of water for the Hialeah RO WTP is the Floridan Aquifer. The Hialeah RO plant is currently in operation serving 50% of its water capacity to the City of Hialeah and 50% to unincorporated areas within the MDWASD's service area. 3.2.2 Alexander Orr, Jr. Water Treatment Plant The Alexander Orr, fr. WTP is located at 6800 S.W. 87th Avenue in Miami. The original design capacity was 40 mgd in 1954. This plant has undergone several expansions during the past 50 years. The raw water pumping capacity was increased by 32 mgd to 262 mgd in 1995 with an additional source from the West Wellfield. Additional reservoir and high pressure service capacities were also added to bring the total plant design capacity to 256 mgd. The plant rated capacity is 217.74 mgd. The Alexander Orr, fr. WTP receives its source water from the Alexander Orr, Jr. Wellfield, Snapper Creek Wellfield, Southwest Wellfield, and the West Wellfield. The Alexander Orr, fr. WTP treatment process is similar to the other two major plants utilizing lime softening with activated sodium silicate added prior to lime as a coagulant aid, recarbonation, fluoridation, chlorination, ammoniation, and filtration. Unlike the Hialeah and Preston WTPs, this plant does not utilize enhanced softening or air stripping towers. The Alexander Orr, fr. WTP can also receive groundwater from five Upper Floridan Aquifer wells located in the West Wellfield and the Southwest Wellfield. Finished water is distributed to a service area generally delineated as south of Flagler Street. 3.2.3 South Dade Water Treatment Plants In 1985, MDWASD purchased an existing private utility known as the Rex Utility District Water System. Today, this system is referred to as the South Dade Water System. At the time of purchase, the system consisted of six plants and associated wellfields. Since the time of purchase, the Redavo WTP has been taken out of service. The South Dade Water System is currently made up of five small WTPs that draw groundwater from the 12 wells located at the plant sites. The five small plants serving the South Dade Service Area include Elevated Tank, Everglades Labor Camp, Leisure City, Naranja, and Newton WTPs. These plants are located in the Southern portion of the County as shown on Figure 3-2. The plants utilize in-line disinfection with free chlorine and stabilization with the addition of polyphosphate. The 2013 annual average daily flow (ADF) for the plants is 7.29 mgd. This system serves a population of approximately 46,673 in the Leisure City, Everglades Labor Camp, and Naranja areas excluding the cities of Homestead and Florida City, which provide their own water service. These small treatment plant capacities are limited by the pumping capabilities at each plant. ovem er 2014 Page 3-11 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities MDWASD commenced the design of a new South Miami Heights (SMH) WTP in the South Dade subarea. Of the five existing plants in the South Dade subarea, only Everglades and Newton WTPs will remain on a stand-by basis when the SMH WTP comes into service by the end of 2018. The total annual average daily demand for the future South Miami Heights WTP will be approximately 18 mgd. 3.2.4 Other Water Treatment Plants 3.2.4.1 City of North Miami The City of North Miami Norman H. Winson Water Treatment Plant is located at Sunkist Grove, 12098 NW 11th Avenue, and was commissioned in 1962. The Winsom WTP utilizes lime -softening and is capable of supplying 9.3 MGD of water to consumers, but on average the plant produces 7.7 MGD, or 63 percent of the total demand which is approximately 12.2 MGD. The Winson WTP provides treated water to a portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of North Miami municipal boundary and the Village of Biscayne Park. 3.2.4.2 City of North Miami Beach The City of North Miarni. Beach supplies water through the City owned and operated Norwood-Oeffler Water Treatment Plant, located on the northeast corner of NW 191St Street and NW 9th Avenue. The Norwood-Oeffler Water Treatment plant, originally constructed in 1953, is a lime -softening water treatment facility. The plant was upgraded in 2007 to include membrane treatment of raw water from the Biscayne and Floridan Aquifers. The treatment now consists of blending of lime softening and nanofiltration of Biscayne Aquifer water with reverse osmosis for the Floridan Aquifer water. The treated water is stored in two above -ground storage tanks at the Norwood-Oeffler WTP prior to being pumped into the City's water transmission and distribution system. The Water Treatment Plant is currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to withdraw 26.31 mgd of raw water from the Biscayne Aquifer and 12.07 mgd from the Floridan Aquifer The treatment plant has an approved capacity of 32 mgd. The WTP provides treated water to a portion of unincorporated and incorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of North Miami Beach municipal boundary. 3.2.4.3 City of Homestead The City is supplied by two water treatment plants. The Wittkop Park plant is located at 505 NW 9th Street, and is supplied by four Biscayne Aquifer wells with a capacity of 11.2 MGD. The Harris Field water treatment plant is located at 1084 NE 8th Street. This plant is supplied by two Biscayne Aquifer wells, and has a capacity of 5.7 MGD. Both water treatment facilities use chlorination for disinfection, and have a combined capacity of 16:92 MGD. The Wittkop Park and Harris Field WTPs provide treated water to a portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of Homestead municipal boundary. 3.2.4.4 Florida City The City of Florida City supplies water through a chlorination water treatment facility, with a capacity of 4 MGD. The water treatment plant is located at 461 NW 6 November 2014 Page 3-12 f Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities Avenue, adjacent to the City's Loren Roberts Park. 3.2.5 Finished Water Storage 3.2.5.1 Hialeah Preston Subarea The finished water storage facilities for the Hialeah -Preston subarea consist of both "in -plant" and remote storage facilities. The storage facilities are summarized in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 Hialeah -Preston Finished Water Storage Facilities Location Description Capacity (MG) Hialeah WTP Reservoir — Ground Storage 3.0 Hialeah WTP Clearwell 1.7 John E. Preston WTP Ground Storage Tank No. 1 9.0 John E. Preston WTP Ground Storage Tank No. 2 14.0 John E. Preston WTP Clearwell 1.1 N.W. 201h Street Ground Storage Tank 7.5 N.W. 36th Street Ground Storage Tank 5.0 N.W. 67th Street Ground Storage Tank 8.2 N.W. 30th Street Ground Storage Tank 2.5 N. E. 79th Street Elevated Storage Tank 2.0 Carol City Ground Storage Tank 2.0 Total Storage 56.0 Source: MDWASD Water Facilities Master Plan, 2003 and MDWASD 3.2.5.2 Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea The water storage facilities of the Alexander Orr, Jr. subarea consist of a 39 -MG ground storage tank located at the WTP site and a 1.6 -MG plant clear well. 3.2.5.3 South Dade Subarea The South Dade Subarea currently has no significant storage facilities. Therefore, the system is very vulnerable to emergency situations. MDWASD commenced design of the new South Miami Heights WTP in the South Dade subarea. As part of the projects, a 5 MG reservoir was constructed in 2012, which is currently operating as a re -pump station, until the WTP is completed. 3.2.5.4 Other Water Suppliers The City of North Miami has two storage tanks that hold treated water prior to being pumped into the distribution system. The total combined storage capacity of the two tanks is 2.25 million gallons, or 17 percent of the current average daily demand. These storage tanks provide storage of treated water to service a portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of North Miami municipal boundary. November 2014 Page 3- 13 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities The City of North Miami Beach stores the treated water in two above -ground storage tanks at the Norwood-Oeffler WTP prior to being pumped into the City's water transmission and distribution system. The storage capacities of the tanks are 4.2 and 2.0 million gallons. The City also uses a 2 -million gallon remote tank bringing the total storage capacity in the City's water -supply system to 8.2 million gallons. These storage tanks provide storage of treated water to service a portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of North Miami Beach municipal boundary. The City of Homestead stores the finished water in three elevated storage tanks. After treatment, water from five of the six wells is stored in an elevated water storage tank at either Harris Field (0.5 MG), Wittkop Park (0.5 MG), or the Homestead Motorsports Complex (1.0 MG). Water from Well No. 5 at Harris Field is pumped directly into the system after treatment on an as -needed basis. The combined capacity of the storage tanks is 2 MG. These storage tanks provide storage of treated water to service a portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of Homestead municipal boundary. Florida City has one storage tank that holds treated water prior to distribution within its service area. The tank's storage capacity is 0.5 million gallons. 3.3 Water Distribution Facilities The MDWASD water distribution system is currently supplied by three regional treatment plants ,five (5) smaller treatment plants located in the southern portion of Miami- Dade County, and the Hialeah RO WTP. The distribution systems serving these treatment plants are comprised of loops and are interconnected, as shown on Figure 3-2. 3.3.1 Hialeah -Preston Subarea Finished water from the Hialeah and John E. Preston WTPs is pumped through a system of dedicated low-pressure pipelines to remote storage tanks and pumping facilities. This system provides water service to the southeastern part of the Hialeah - Preston subarea. The low pressure system starts at the Hialeah WTP with a 42 -inch diameter main heading due east along N.W. 62nd Street, and 36 -inch and 42 -inch diameter mains running southeast along Okeechobee Road then parallel to the Miami River. The main on N.W. 62nd Street connects to the N.W. 67th Street pumping station, which pumps the water to the south through a 30 -inch diameter main running along N.W. 10th Ave. The 30 -inch diameter main continues south and connects into the N.W. 36th Street pumping station. This main continues further south and connects into the golf ground pump station. The 36 -inch and 42 -inch diameter mains combine into a 54 -inch diameter main at N.W. 42nd Avenue. They split again into a 36 -inch and a 42 -inch diameter main at N.W. 32nd Avenue. These mains connect to the 30th Avenue pump station. The 30tt, Avenue pump station feeds two 36 -inch diameter mains that connect to the 20f Street pumping station to complete the loop. The pipe loop is made predominantly of concrete and cast iron pipes that were installed in the early 1930s. Some segments of this loop November 2014 Page 3-14 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities having been in service for more than 60 years. Replacement of these pipes are scheduled in the MDWASD maintenance program. The remaining part of this subarea is served by a high pressure system. Water is pumped into the system by five high service in -plant pumps with a total capacity of 34.1 mgd at 167 feet total dynamic head (TDH). The high pressure system delivers water service to Hialeah, Miami Springs, and a high pressure main corulected to the City of Miami. The northern section of the subarea is supplied by one major piping loop. The loop begins at the plant with a 72 -inch diameter main heading north along West 2nd Avenue, next it turns west at West 20th Street, and then it turns North along West 4th Avenue to NW 191St Street. At this location, it turns east until it reaches N.E. 18th Avenue. It then turns south and connects into a 54 -inch diameter main that connects to the N.W. 67tH Street pumping station. The southwestern portion of the subarea is supplied by a 36 -inch diameter main that connects to the 54 -inch diameter main heading out of the John E. Preston WTP at West 25th Street, The main heads west on N. W. 74th Street then turns south on N.W. 107th Avenue. It eventually interconnects with the Alexander Orr, Jr. subarea piping network on S.W. 56th Street around S.W. 117th Avenue. 3.3.2 Alexander Orr, Jr. Subarea The distribution system of the Alexander Orr, Jr. subarea is comprised of two major piping loops. The first major loop traverses the south and west portion of the subarea. The loop starts at the WTP with a 60 -inch diameter main heading west on S.W. 64th Street and a 48 -inch diameter main that runs south along S.W. 87th Avenue (Galloway Road) until S.W. 216th Street. The 48 -inch diameter main then heads west along S.W. 216th Street to a tee connection at S.W. 127th Avenue. One branch of the tee runs north on S.W. 127th Avenue to S.W. 184th Street and then turns west to 137th Avenue. The 48 -inch diameter main travels north on 137th Avenue to S.W. 152nd Street, where it connects into a 24 -inch diameter main running east -west on 152nd Street and a 36 -inch diameter main that continues north on 137th Avenue to S.W. 120th Street. There, the 36 -inch diameter main turns west, then runs north along Hammocks Boulevard to S.W. 88th Street where it reduces to a 24 -inch diameter main that runs north along S.W. 152nd Avenue to 72nd Street. The 24 -inch diameter main then runs east -west on S.W. 72nd Street. At S.W. 147th Avenue, it connects with a 36 - inch diameter main that runs north to S.W. 56th Street (Miller Road), where it connects with a 42 -inch diameter main that runs east on Miller Road. This 42 -inch diameter main enlarges to a 48 -inch diameter main that eventually connects to the 60 -inch diameter main at the intersection of Miller Road and S.W. 117th Avenue to complete the loop. A 36 -inch diameter main branches off of the 60 -inch diameter main at the intersection of Miller Road and S.W. 117th Avenue. This 36 -inch diameter main heads north along S.W. 117th Avenue and eventually interconnects the Alexander Orr, Jr. and the Hialeah -Preston subareas. The second loop starts at the WTP with two 48 -inch diameter mains. One main runs north on S.W. 87th Avenue (Galloway Avenue) to S.W. 40th Street (Bird Road) and then turns east. The main continues east along Bird Road, reduces to a 42 -inch overn er 2014 Page 3- 15 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities diameter main at N.W. 57th Avenue, then connects through a 30 -inch diameter pipe connection with the second 48 -inch diameter main at Bird Road and S.W. 37th Avenue (Douglas Road). The second 48 -inch diameter main travels along Highway 874 to S.W. 56th Street, where it turns east then northeast between S.W. 67th Avenue and S.W. 62ndAvenue to S.W. 48th Street. The main runs east on S.W. 48th Street then northeast through several changes in direction, where it connects to the other 48 -inch diameter main at Bird Road and S.W. 37th Avenue. The main then travels north along South Dixie Highway and eventually interconnects with the Hialeah -Preston Service Area piping network through a 36 -inch diameter pipe that runs along S.W. 2nd Avenue. 3.3.3 South Dade Subarea The South Dade water distribution system consists of small water mains with diameters ranging from 16 inches to 4 inches. The distribution system is centered around each individual WTP. Each has its own sets of water main loops within the distinct service areas. The Leisure City, Elevated Tank, and Naranja WTPs, however, are so well interconnected that they can be generally considered as one distribution area. More than 63 percent of the South Dade subarea is served by these three plants. The distribution system of these three plants form one major loop that is bounded on the north by S.W. 248th Street, on the south by S.W. 304th Street, on the east by S.W. 117th Avenue, and on the west by S.W. 172nd Avenue. The Everglades Labor Camp WTP serves a small area that is bounded on the north by S.W. 376th Street, on the south by S.W. 384th Street, on the east by S.W. 192nd Avenue, and on the west by S.W. 194th Path. This distribution system consists of one 12 -inch - diameter loop around the service area interconnected with several 8 -inch diameter distribution mains. The Everglades Labor Camp and the Newton WTP distribution system are interconnected via an 8 -inch diameter main that runs east along S.W. 376th Street then heads north on S.W.187th Avenue, where it connects with a 12 -inch diameter main at S.W. 360Th Street. The 8 -inch diameter main continues north on S.W. 187th Avenue until S.W. 352nd Street, where it connects into a small distribution loop that terminates with a 16 -inch diameter stub -out. November 2014 Page 3-16 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities The Newton WTP distribution system consists of a single 12 -inch diameter water main that runs east and west on S.W. 336th Street. The eastbound main then branches north and south along S.W. 152nd Avenue. The southbound branch then turns east on S.W. 344th Street and ultimately connects to the FP&L Turkey Point generating plant. The northbound branch continues along S.W. 152nd Avenue, where it connects to the Leisure City WTP distribution system at S.W. 304th Street. A 6 -inch diameter main running south from SW 288th Street on S.W. 137th Avenue then east on S.W. 328th Street connects to an 8 -inch diameter main that runs south on 117th Street. This 8 -inch diameter main connects to the 12 -inch diameter main to FP&L Turkey Point generating plant. This main ultimately completes the interconnection of the Newton WTP with the Leisure City, Elevated Tank, and Naranja WTPs' distribution areas. The westbound branch of the 12 -inch diameter main turns south on S.W. 162nd Avenue then heads south and west on Palm Drive. The main then continues south on S.W. 167th Avenue then west on S.W. 360th Street until it connects to the Everglades Labor Camp WTP 8 -inch diameter main that runs north on SW 187th Avenue. The South Dade distribution system is interconnected with the Alexander Orr distribution system in the vicinity of SW 127th Avenue. MDWASD commenced the construction and operation of the South Miami Heights WTP and associated wellfields in the South Dade Subarea. Of the five exsisting WTPs and wellfields in the South Dade area, only Everglades and Newton WTPs and wellfields will remain on a stand-by service when the SMHWTP comes on line by 2018. MDWASD will be constructing a water main to interconnect with the Everglades and Newton Systems to provide water and meet additional future demands. The SMHWTP will connect to the existing distribution systems of the South Dade Plants to be taken out of service by 2018, when SMHWTP comes online. 3.3.4 Other Water Distribution Facilities 3.3.4.1 City of North Miami The City of North Miami`s distribution system consists of two 16 -inch and one 12 -inch diameter ductile iron pipes. The two 16 -inch diameter pipes mostly service the areas east of the WTP. One of the 16 -inch pipes eventually connects to a 20 -inch pipe and then to two 12 -inch pipes. The 20 -inch and one of the two 12 -inch pipes connects o a large 30 -inch transmission main at different points. This 30 -inch pipe serves as the main transmission line on the far -east side of the City. The other 16 -inch main reduces to a 12 -inch pipe. The 12 -inch transmission main leaving the WTP travels west, then south, and expands into the distribution system. The City also maintains seven supply interconnections with MDWASD and a emergency interconnections with the City of North Miami Beach and City of Opa-Locka. This distribution system provides treated water to service a portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of North Miami municipal boundary. 3.3.4.2 City of North Miami Beach The City of North Miami Beach distribution system provides treated water to service a portion of unincorporated Miami -Dade County in addition to within the City of November 9 T4 Page 3-17 Water Supply Facilities Worts Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities North Miami Beach municipal boundary from the WTP. The City has eleven high service pumps that deliver finished water to the distribution system at approximately 60 to 80 psi and have a combined capacity of 45 mgd with largest one pump out of service. The City's distribution system is fed by 18 -inch, 24 - inch, and 36 -inch diameter transmission mains. 3.3.4.3 City of Homestead The City's water distribution system is comprised of an interconnected string of mains ranging from 2 -inches to 24 -inches in diameter, mostly of ductile iron pipe. The water from the storage tanks flows into the mains, with a pressure of 45 to 60 psi. On July 9, 2010, the City of Homestead entered into a 20 -year water wholesale agreement with MDWASD to purchase up to 3 MGD of water to meet the demands of its retail customers. The interconnection between the City and MDWASD occurs at SW 137th Avenue and SW 288th Street. 3.3.4.4 Florida City Florida City's water distribution system is comprised of an interconnected string of mains ranging from 2 -inches to 16 -inches in diameter, mostly of ductile iron pipe. The City's distribution system provides service within its municipal boundaries.. 3.4 Summary As shown within this section, the MDWASD water supply and treatment systems have sufficient installed capacity to produce more potable water than is currently required. The supply capacity and treatment capacity are 724.44 MGD and 517.19 MGD respectively. Table 3-4 summarizes this information. Table 3-5 summarizes other suppliers facilities capacities. The capacities of these water supply and treatment systems have been coordinated with future demands and allocations. Sections 4 and 5 of this Work Plan address future demands and required water supply facilities. November 2014 Page 3-18 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities Table 3-4 MDWASD Facilities Capacities Facility Installed Capacity (mgd) Hialeah -Preston Water Treatment Plants 60 + 165 = 225 Hialeah -Preston Well fields Preston 53.28 Hialeah 12.54 Miami S rin s 79.30 NorthwestR 149.35 Medley Wellfield (b) 48.96 Hialeah RO Water Treatment Plant 10 Hialeah RO Wellfield Floridan Aquifer) Existing Hialeah RO 12.00 Future Hialeah RO (2015) 8.00 Alexander Orr Water Treatment Plant 248 Alexander Orr Well fields Orr Plant 74.40 Snapper Creek 40.00 Southwest 161.20 West 32.40 South Dade Water Treatment Plants 7 14.19 South Dade Wellfields Elevated Tank 4.32 Everglades Labor Camp 5.04 Leisure City 4.18 Naran'a 1.15 Newton 4.32 Future South Miami Heights Water Treatment Plant (2018) 20.00 Future South Miami Heights Wellfields Fortner Plant (Biscayne Aquifer) 4,00 Roberta Hunter Park (Biscayne Aquifer) 6.00 South Miami Heights RO (Floridan Aquifer) 24.00 Existing WASD Wellfield Total 682.44 Existing WASD Water Treatment Plant Tota 497.19 Future WASD Wellfield Tata 724.44 Future WASD Water Treatment Plant Tota 517.19 (a) Northwest well -field capacity at 150 mgd when pumps operate at low speed. ovem er 2014 Page 3-19 M Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Existing Water Supply Facilities (b) Wells in this wellfield had been abandoned. They have been restored with the purpose of using them only during an emergency. Source: MDWASD Water Use PerndtNo. 13-00017-W, revised July 2012, aaxd regtwsted revision June 2014. Table 3-5 Other Suppliers' Facilities Capacities Facility Installed Capacity (mgd) City of North Miami Norman H. Winsom Water Treatment Plant 9.30 City's well fields 8 wells 14.96 City of North Miami Beach Norwood-Oeffler Water Treatment Plant 32.00 City of North Miami Beach Wellfields Biscayne Aquifer Wellfields 27.90 Floridan Aquifer Wellfields 12.07 City of North Miami Beach Wellfields 39.97 City of Homestead Wittkop Park - Harris Field Water Treatment 11.2+5.7=16.9 City of Homestead Wellfields Wittkop Park 11.23 Harris Field 5.76 City of Homestead Wellfields 16.99 Florida Cit Florida CiLy Water Treatment Plant 4 Florida City Wellfields 4 Source: City of North Miami Beach SFWMD Water Use Permit Staff Report (August 2007) acid Water Use Permit No. Re -issue 13-00060-W, Draft Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Cihy of North Miarni, March 2008), Information provided by discussions With staff for the City of Hoinesteod and Florida City November 2014 Page 3- 20 M Section Population and Water Demand Projections This section presents historical and projected population projections from Year 2010 through Year 2033 for MDWASD's service area. Population data were obtained from the Miami -Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), Planning Division, based on the 2010 Census and derived from Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ), On June 20, 2014, MDWASD submitted an application for modification and extension of the 20 -year Water Use Permit (WUP) No. 13-00017-W. The modification and extension to the current WUP are a result of revised population projections based on the 2010 Census and the continued successful implementation of the County's Water Conservation Plan. The requested modification to the WUP included new population data, revised water demand projections and alternative water supply projects to support water demands through the year 2033. MDWASD's Reuse projects were listed but they are not required to address water supply. The revised population projections for the year 2030 are consistent or slightly lower, than the projections in the District's Lower East Coast Water Supply Update, dated October 2013. 4.1 Historical Population Historical populations served by the MDWASD system are shown in Table 4-1 in one year increments from Year 2010 to Year 2013. The population in MDWASD's service area grew approximately 2.8% between Year 2010 and year 2013. Table 4-1 also provides a summary of historical population within Miami -Dade County. The MDWASD system served approximately 86% of the County total population in 2013. Table 4-1 Historical Population Served by MDWASD YEAR TOTAL MDWASD TOTAL COUNTY 2010 2,160,138 2,496,435 2011 2,181,073 2,523,474 2012 2,202,008 2,550,513 2013 2,222,944 2,577,552 Source: Miami -Dade County RER, Planning Division, 2010 Census TAZ data 4.2 Population Projections Population projections for MDWASD's service area in five year increments from Year 2014 to 2033 are shown in Table 4-2. Overall, the population served by MDWASD is expected to increase approximately 17.78 % from Year 2014 to Year 2033. November 2014 Page 4-1 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Population and Water Demand Projections Table 4-2 Population Projections to be Served by MDWASD Year Total MDWASD Total* County 2014 2,243,879 2,604,590 2015 2,266,092 2,631,629 2020 2,370,769 2,766,823 2025 2,475,446 2,902,018 2030 2,580,123 3,037,212 2031 2,601,058 3,064,251 2032 2,621,994 3,091,289 2033 2,642,929 3,118, 32$ Sources. *Miami -Dade County RER, Planning Division, 2010 Census TAZ Data Upon completion of the New South Miami Heights Water Treatment Plant by 2018, the South -Dade subservice area boundary will be shifted northward such that portions of the population currently within the Alexander -Orr subarea will be within the South Dade subarea. Figure 4-1 illustrates the boundary shift. The boundary shift will cause a general redistribution of service between the Alexander -Orr and South Dade areas, but will not have other effects on the population expected to be served by MDWASD. In 2033, MDWASD will serve potable water to approximately 85% of the total County population. 4.3 Historical Water Use Historic water use figures reflect water provided by the Hialeah -Preston, Alexander - Orr, Everglades, Leisure City, Newton, Elevated Tank, and Naranja WTPs and associated wellfields. These water use figures provide the basis for forecasting future water demands for MDWASD's service area. Table 4-3, referred to as Table F in previous submittals to the SFWMD, provides the historical raw and finished water use for Year 2004 through Year 2013. Information shown in Table 4-3 includes per capital annual average and maximum month water use. 4.4 Water Demand Projections The water demand projections presented herein are based on an initial system -wide finished water daily per capita use rate of 137.2 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The per capita use was determined by taking a 3 -year average from 2011 to 2013, The initial per capita rate has declined due to water use reductions resulting from water conservation and reuse irrigation water projects. Table 4-4, referred to as Table G in previous submittals to the SFWMD, provides the projected raw and finished water use for Year 2014 through Year 2033. Table 4-4 also provides projected raw water pumpage from the Biscayne and Floridan Aquifers in five-year increments to indicate how the sources of water will be used to meet future demand. November 2014 Page 4- 2 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Population and Water Demand Projections Figure 4-1: MDWASD Water Sub -Service Area 04;,J�� t NorthMiami l @each. .y- VGWY �a�' '$ North MiarnjF 0 W HlaleahlPres6ottiDlstric!'Wawr Summa �„ ` +. M m raw � � � 4ZI1 1195 sak exr F id ME 78 r � Alexander Orr Disinat W4'ater. Subarea � t r k a �I x l4� ij7 `f,/ i fiF � Homestead. 0 wr.rar, o Homestead _ ��..�.� e', SuuM 13IWct WsW Subarea Fiorida-CityJf II countyyasluz �... ww R Plan , November 2014 Page 4- 3 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Population and Water Demand Projections TABLE 4-3 (September 2014) Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) Past Water Use (2004-20013) 1 2 3 1 4 5 1 6 7 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 12 13 FINISHED WATER HISTORICAL USE RAW WATER HISTORICAL USE N Ratio Year Population Served * Per Capita Usage cd Total Annual Use (MG) Average Month Use (MG) Max Month Use (MG) Ratio Max: Aver. Month Per Capita Usage cd Total Annual Use (MG) Average Month Use (MG) Max Month Use (MG) Ratio Max Aver. Month Finished:Raw (Total Annual Use) TOTAL MDWASD WATER SYSTEM SERVICE AREA ** 2004 2,090,099 162.5 124,301 10,358 10,861.1 1.05 165.6 126,685 10,557 11,063 1.05 1.019 2005 2,101,772 161.8 124,098 10,342 10,734.8 1.04 165.1 126,670 10,556 11,031 1.04 1.021 2006 2,113,445 161.6 124,677 10,390 10,988.6 1.06 164.7 127,019 10,585 11,170 1.06 1.019 2007 2,125,118 150.3 116,602 9,717 10,485.4 1.08 151.6 117,585 9,799 10,648 1.09 1.008 2008 2,136,791 138.1 108,029 9,002 9,583.0 1.06 149.4 116,820 9,735 10,508 1.08 1.081 2009 2,148,464 142.3 111,627 9,302 9,662.7 1.04 151.2 118,575 9,881 10,550 1.07 1.062 2010 2,160,138 141.4 111,453 9,288 9,700.0 1.04 151.0 119,056 9,921 10,346 1.04 1.068 2011 2,181,073 140.2 111,585 9,299 9,597.6 1.03 1492 118,768 9,897 10,273 1.04 1.064 2012 2,202,008 134.8 108,626 9,052 9,693.9 1.07 142.5 114,807 9,567 10,223 1.07 1.057 2013 2,222,944 136.5 110,388 9,199 9,483.7 1.03 144.6 117,623 9,802 10,252 1.05 1.066 3 -year Average (2011- 2013 - 137.2 - - - 1.04 145.4 - - - 1.05 1.062 * Source of Population Information: Miami -Dade County RER Planning Division. Historic Population 2001 to 2009 adjusted (downward) based on, and 2010 to 2013 represents the 2010 TAZ population projections by the MDC RER Planning Division, based on 2010 Census. ** For 2004 - 2007 from MDWASD Raw & Finished Water Historical Data, For 2008 - 2013 from MDWASD reports to SI~ WMD of Water Treatment Plant Influent & Effluent Flow Meter Flows (a) Raw -to -finished water ratio is 1.06. MDWASD is improving its raw water metering/ accounting system. November 2014 Page 4- 4 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Population and Water Demand Projections TABLE 4-4 (September 2014) MDWASD PROJECTED FINISHED WATER DEMANDS 1 2 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 8 9 PROJECTIONS (2013) FOR MDWASD SERVICE AREA AADD Reuse/ Adjusted Adjusted CITY OF Finished Finished Water Reclaimed Finished Finished HOMESTEAD Year Po (a! p' Water Water Conservation(c) Water (d1 Water Water Finished Use Use{6f (MGD) (MGD) Demand�e Use Water Demand (gpcd) (MGD) Credit Credit � (gpcd) (MGD) (MGD) System- ide 2014 2,243,879 137.2 307.19 1.36 0.00 306.43 136.56 2.50 2015 2,266,092 137.2 310.84 2.04 0.00 308.80 136.27 3.00 2020 2,370,769 137.2 325.20 5.44 0.00 319.76 134.88 3.00 2025 2,475,446 137.2 339.56 8.84 0.00 330.72 133.60 3.00 2030 2,580,123 137.2 353.92 9.55 0.00 344.37 133.47 3.00 2031 2,601,058 137.2 356.79 9.55 0.00 347.24 133.50 3.00 2032 2,621,994 137.2 359.66 9.55 0.00 350.11 133.53 3.00 2033 1 2,642,929 1 137.2 1 362.53 1 9.55 1 0.00 1 352.98 133.56 3.00 Footnotes (a) Population Served represents the TAZ population projections based on 2010 Census Data provided by the MDC RER Planning Division. (b) Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) Finished Water Projections between 2014 and 2033 assume 137.2 gpcd (a decrease from 145.4 gpcd total water system demand prior to application of credits (e.g. conservation). (c) MDWASD has implemented a 20 -year water use efficiency plan and is experiencing reductions in per capita water consumption. Water Conservation projections were revised based on the 2010 Annual Water Conservation Plan Conserve Florida Report (March 2011). Real losses in non - revenue water (e.g. unaccounted -for -water) are assumed to remain at less than 10%. The conservation amounts experienced through 2010 (6.54 MGD) were deducted from the 20 -year conservation amount in the Conserve Florida Report and the remaining conservation amounts were distributed for the balance of the 20 -year period (2011-2027). (d) Not Used (e) Adjusted after taking credit in finished water demand projections for reductions in finished water use associated with water conservation. November 2014 Page 4- 5 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Population and Water Demand Projections 4.5 Water Conservation and Reuse 4.5.1 MDWASD 4.5.1.1 Water Conservation The per capita usages contained in Table 4-4 are adjusted taking into consideration MDWASD water conservation. MDWASD is implementing a 20 -year water conservation plan and is implementing ways for reducing non -revenue water. The MDWASD 20 -year Water Use Efficiency Goal Based Plait (Plan) was approved by the SFWMD in May 2007. The Water Conservation projections included in Table 4-4 were revised based on the 2010 Annual Water Conservation Plan Conseme Florida Report (March 2011). Included in the 20 -year Plan is the Water Conservation Best Management Practices (BMP) Planning Spreadsheet prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in 2007. Table 5: Countywide BMP Implementation Schedule, Costs, and Savings Projections from The Water UseEfficiency 5 -Year Plan is located in Appendix E. Currently, MDWASD is implementing all BMPs included in the Plan. Additionally, Miami -Dade County has enacted water use efficiency -legislation including permanent landscape irrigation restrictions, landscape ordinances requiring Florida Friendly landscaping in new construction, in right of ways, and the installation of high efficiency plumbing fixtures in new construction (see Appendix D) and some reuse within: the three wastewater treatment plant sites or in their vicinities. Water conservation activities are funded annually through the operations and maintenance budget and are therefore not included in capital budgets. Values contained within Table 4-4 reflect projections as of June 2014. Water conservation projections do not reflect water demand reductions presented by the "Unaccounted Water Loss Reduction. Plan (February 2007)" prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. The potential additional reduction in water demands as a result of real non -revenue water loss is estimated at 14.25 mgd over the next ten years. Water Conservation is in accordance with SFWMD Water Use Permit No. Re - Issue 13-017017-W, Limiting Condition Nos. 45 and 49 and Exhibit 27. For more information about our Water Conservation Program please go to littt)://www.miamidade.gov/coi-iservation/home.asp 4.5.1.2 Water Reuse On June 28, 2013, MDWASD submitted to the Secretary of FDEP the Ocean Outfall Legislation Compliance Plan. A total of 117.5 mgd of reuse will be implemented, out of that 27.6 mgd of reclaimed water will be used to recharge the Floridan Aquifer. The Floridan Aquifer recharge will be applied on equal capacities at the existing Central and South District Wastewater Treatment Plants, and a proposed West District Wastewater Treatment November 2014 Page 4- 6 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Population and Water Demand Projections Plant (9.2 mgd each), and up to 90 mgd of reuse water will be provided to FPL for Turkey Points Units 5,6 and 7 cooling. The reuse projects and completion dates are listed in Exhibit 14 of the County's 20 -year water use permit modification request, included in Appendix F. The County's projected finished water demands are now markedly lower than anticipated when the first 20 -year water use permit application was submitted. This demand reduction has eliminated the anticipated supply shortages which were the basis for an ambitious schedule of several costly alternative water supply projects. As such, reuse to address water supply is no longer required or needed As noted in Exhibit 14 in Appendix F, MDWASD is currently implementing a total of 16.49 mgd of reuse at each of the Wastewater Treatment Plants. The reclaimed water is used for industrial and public and non-public irrigation. 4.5.2 Other Water Suppliers 4.5.21 City of North Miami The City of North Miami has developed a water conservation plan to help reduce the demand for potable water and lower its consumption on a per capita basis. The conservation plan includes the adoption of Florida friendly landscaping methods, the implementation of a water conservation public education program, the implementation of a leak detection program, water loss prevention programs, and the exploration of the utilization of reuse water for irrigation and non -potable water uses. The City is also implementing an incentives program, and encouraging the development of "green buildings". They will also continue to enforce the wellfield protection ordinance which limits the allowable land uses within the wellfield's cone of influence, and will continue to monitor water quality levels in the drainage basins to maintain a minimum level of service standards. Currently, all the City's wastewater is treated by MDWASD, and therefore the City does not have a water reuse and reclamation program. 4.5.2.2 City of North Miami Beach The City of North Miami Beach has seen major successes in ways of alerting and educating residents on water and environmental conservation. In 2005, the City created a Water Conservation Program that applies conservation methods to reduce water demand and to lower the per capita consumption of potable water. The program includes collective efforts to increase the overall water use efficiency and to limit water losses to 10 percent or less. They have also initiated a water conservation educational and outreach program. Another aspect of the conservation program is the continuation and installation of water efficient landscape, plumbing and irrigation ordinances, as well as a water shortage and emergency ordinance. In addition, they have begun the use of alternative water sources, mainly the Floridan aquifer. Other methods for water conservation taking November 2014 Page 4- 7 Water Supply Facilities Worts Plan Population and Water Demand Projections place at the City include meter replacements and a showerhead exchange program. Also, the North Miami Beach Water fund established the Foundation for Water and Environmental Education which is a not-for-profit organization with funds and programs managed by its own directors and established to maintain and aid water resource management in the City of North Miami Beach community. 45.2.3 City of Homestead The City of Homestead has developed a water conservation plan to reduce potable water consumption. The plan includes a permanent irrigation ordinance which establishes irrigation restrictions prohibiting landscape irrigation between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM., a Florida Friendly ordinance that promotes use of drought landscape methods, a high efficiency plumbing fixture ordinance that establishes water conservation standards for plumbing fixtures installed in new construction, and a leak detection program. In addition, the City has a residential and commercial meter replacement program where all meters will be replaced within the next 5 years. The City will adopt the Automatic Meter Reading technology which allows the reading of water consumption remotely which will allow accurate and true monthly readings. Also, the City is implementing a rain sensor device ordinance that requires all irrigation systems equipped with automatic controls to have a rain sensor switch which turns off the system when more than 0.5 inches of rain has fallen. A water conservation education program is also taking place. The City has also implemented a reclaimed water system, where most of the wastewater from the City's sewer service area is treated at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The wastewater from the City's WWTP receives treatment (including ultra -violet radiation to eliminate the possible formation of disinfectionby- products) and is reused to recharge the surficial aquifer. 100% of the City's WWTP output [approximately 6 MGD (4.730 MGD, average)] is currently recharging the aquifer via two primary and four secondary rapid infiltration trenches. 4.5.2.4 Florida City Florida City is currently implementing a water main replacement program, where they are abandoning all existing 2, 4 and 6 -inch diameter mains and installing new 8 and 12 -inch diameter DIP water mains. They are also following the SFWMD restrictions for irrigation water use that are currently in place. 4.6 Summary In summary, the historically based MDWASD service area projected water demands as adjusted for water conservation and reuse are presented in Table 4-5 as "adjusted" finished water demand and per capita water use. The resulting November 2014 page 4- 8 Water Supply f=acilities Work Plan Population and Water Demand Projections anticipated finished water demands in 5 -year increments to 2030, and from 2031-2033 is as follows: Table 4-5 MDWASD Service Area Incremental Water Demands Year Populational Adjusted Finished Water (mgd) Adjusted Per Capita Water Use (gped) System -Wide 2014 2,243,879 306.43 136.56 2015 2,266,092 308.80 137.27 2020 2,370,769 319.76 134.88 2025 2,475,446 330.72 133.60 2030 2,580,123 344.37 133.47 2031 2,601,058 347.24 133.50 2032 2,621,994 350.11 133.53 2033 2,642,929 352.98 133.56 November 2014 Page 4- 9 Section 5 Planned Water Supply Facilities This section details the water supply facilities that are planned in order to meet MDWASD's water demands through 2033. The County's projected finished water demands are now markedly lower than anticipated when the first 20 -year water use permit application was submitted to South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in 2007. This demand reduction has eliminated the anticipated supply shortages which were the basis for an ambitious schedule of several costly alternative water supply projects which are no longer required or needed. Reuse projects to address water supply have been eliminated. The decrease in water demands is a result of successful implementation of the County's Water Conservation Plan and new population projections based on the 2010 Census. For ease of reference, the project start and finish dates have been provided below the title of the following subsections. '--e tea i- -.pe-�'- - Appendix B. The ado ted FY 2014-2015 Capital Plan for the two alternative water supply pro'ects is --rr - included in Appendix B. 5.1 Alternative Water Supply Projects The following proposed alternative water supply (AWS) projects are to meet MDWASD's water demands through 2033, which encompasses the proposed modification to the 20 -year Consumptive Use Permit period. AWS projects have been identified to meet water demands in the MDWASD service area and are presented in Table 5-1, Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1. The plan described herein demonstrates that the proposed projects, by their location, volume of water produced, and timing of implementation, will be sufficient to meet the water demand increases. These projects will undergo further refinement and development over the next few months. The flow (Q MGD) shown in parentheses below represents the corresponding amount of finished water annual average daily demand (AADD) provided by the projects in terms of million gallons per day (MGD). These AWS projects and AADD assume that all current wholesalers will remain on the MDWASD system through 2033. Table 5-1: MDWASD) Proposed Alternative Water Supply Projects From Alternative Water Supply Project Development Submitted to SFWMD June 2014 Year Annual Average Finished Water Quantity in MGD and Source Hialeah Floridan Aquifer RO WTP-Phase 1-a, 2013 7'S 10 MGD & 6 Floridan Aquifer supply wells AWS 2015 2.5 Hialeah Floridan Aquifer RO WTP-Phase 1-b, 4 AWS Floridan Aquifer supply wells 2018 12.45 South Miami Heights WTP Phase 1(RO portion) AWS 2030 5.0 South Miami Heights WTP Phase 2(RO portion) AWS Total 27.45 anuar 2015 Page 5-1 71AM TABLE 5-2 (September 2014) MDWASD FINISHED WATER DEMAND BY SOURCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 0.00 293.05 301.43 7.50 0.00 7.50 308.93 2015 ADJUSTED FINSHED WATER AADD (K=) 2.04 PROJEC IICM (M13) FOR IVIDWASD SERVICEAREA 308.80 136.27 3.00 4.30 4.10 0.00 293.40 301.80 10.00 0.00 10.00 311.80 2020 2,370,769 Biscayne Aquifer 5.44 Floridan Aquifer 319.76 134.88 3.00 0.00 4.10 2.55 297.76 300.31 10.00 CITY OF South �(9) Soutl9 Macri es 2,475,446 137.2 SOLM 8.84 0.00 330.72 133.60 Frrshed AnDD Ver Reus> 1 laedairred Adjusted Finished Adjured FIORIESTE/+D 12.45 iiTts Alexander- Tafal FNafeah M� Total Total 0.00 344.37 133.47 (a) 111t3ter Flashed (�) Carservauan {d) VI�€er Finished Finished Elev�ed Everglades (�1) Orr ElSccWne � wigh� Floridan All Sources Year Population LL9e (6} 1lhhter Use (MM) VIt32r (a) V1t36er Use Vlhter Tarr/ L.a - C- IVierr6rxie Lure r (I) (� r 350.11 133.53 3.00 (9pom (MM) Cruet (� ) oenaxl (9F� Derrund LeisueCV (h) Saftenm) Softening (� WfP RD 0.00 352.98 133.56 3.00 0.00 4.10 1 2.55 Credit (MCS) 1 10.00 (tom) Naraaija r'1ein�Of1 wrP('m) G) ► (� irp System}111ifde 2014 2,243,879 137.2 307.79 1.36 0-00 306.43 136.56 2.50 4.30 4.08 0.00 293.05 301.43 7.50 0.00 7.50 308.93 2015 2,266,092 137.2 310.84 2.04 0.00 308.80 136.27 3.00 4.30 4.10 0.00 293.40 301.80 10.00 0.00 10.00 311.80 2020 2,370,769 137.2 325.20 5.44 0.00 319.76 134.88 3.00 0.00 4.10 2.55 297.76 300.31 10.00 12.45 22.45 322.76 2025 2,475,446 137.2 339.56 8.84 0.00 330.72 133.60 3.00 0.00 4.10 2.55 308.72 311.27 10.00 12.45 22.45 333.72 2030 2,580,123 137.2 353.92 9.55 0.00 344.37 133.47 3.00 0.00 4.10 2.55 322.37 324.92 10.00 12.45 22.45 347.37 2031 2,601, 058 137.2 356.79 9.55 0.00 347.24 133.50 3.00 0.00 4.10 2.55 320.24 322.79 10.00 17.45 27.45 350.24 2032 2,621, 994 137.2 359.66 9.55 0.00 350.11 133.53 3.00 0.00 4.10 1 2.55 323.11 325.66 1 10.00 17.45 27.45 353.11 2033 2,642,929 137.2 362.53 9.55 0.00 352.98 133.56 3.00 0.00 4.10 1 2.55 325.98 328.53 1 10.00 17.45 27.45 355.98 See Footnotes on page 5-3 November 2014 v - - - -�J-P =_---- - - - - _ - - -�Page 5- 2 Footnotes (a) Population Served represents most recent represents the 2010TAZ population projections by the MDC Planning Department. (b) Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) Finished Water Projections between 2014 and 2035 assume 137.2 gpcd (a decrease from 145.4 gpcd) total water system demand prior to application of credits (e.g. conservation). (c) WASD has implemented a 20 -year water use efficiency plan and is experiencing reductions in per capita water consumption. Water Conservation projections were revised based on the 2010 Annual Water Conservation Plan Conserve Florida Report (March 2011). Real losses in non -revenue water (e.g. unaccounted -for -water) are assumed to remain at less than 10%. The conservation amounts experienced through 2010 (6.54 MGD) were deducted from the 20 -year conservation amount in the Conserve Florida Report and the remaining conservation amounts were distributed for the balance of the 20 -year period (2011-2027). (d) Not Used (TBD). (e) Adjusted after taking credit in finished water demand projections for reductions in finished water use associated with water conservation. (f) The Modified Base condition raw water use (349.5 mgd) represents values agreed to by SFWMD and MDWASD and demonstrated by modeling to not cause a net increase in water from the regional canal system. Biscayne Aquifer base condition raw water use allocation of 349.5 mgd (South Dade at 7.1 mgd, North and South at 342.4 mgd) equates to 342.8 mgd of finished water annual average daily demand (AADD). (g) South Dade (Raw: Finished) Ratio = 1.0 : 1.0 (h) Becomes stand-by once SMH WTP starts up. This stand-by capacity is not used in the total raw and finished water amounts. (i) Assumes withdrawals from Elevated Tank, Leisure City, Naranja, Caribbean Park, Former Plant, and Roberta Hunter Park are consolidated. Biscayne Aquifer supplied Membrane Softening (Raw: Finished) Ratio = 1.17 : 1.00 (85% Recovery). (j) Hialeah -Preston I Alexander -Orr (Raw : Finished) Ratio = 1.060 : 1.00 (Lime Softening) (k) The values are based on initial cycle testing of the ASR well facilities and the projected seasonal operations of the ASR well facilities at full design capacities with the storing of Biscayne aquifer water during the wet weather months of June through October and the recovery of the stored Biscayne aquifer water during the dry weather months of December through April, assuming an ultimate storage loss of 1.31 %. (1) Floridan Aquifer supplied RO WTP (Raw: Finished) Ratio = 1.333 : 1.00 (75% recovery) (m) At an ultimate 20 rrxjd plant operating capacity, the raw water withdrawal would be 3.00 MGD from the Biscayne and 23.27 MGD from the Floridan in accordance with the Wellfield Operation Plan. In order to maintain operational flexibility and protect the nanofiltration membranes (Biscayne supply), MDWASD is requesting that the WTP be allowed to operate with up to a constant supply of 3.0 MGD from the Biscayne aquifer and the rest, to meet demand, be provided from the Floridan aquifer. The full use of the small Biscayne aquifer allocation at SMH supplemented by Floridan aquifer water will allow a blended finished water product that is expected to be lower in sodium and chloride, which will be beneficial to customers on low sodium diets, and more will require less chemical addition for product water stabilization. (n) An additional 0.82 MGD of Raw Water AADD has been included in year 2033 for Hialeah -Preston f Alexander Orr Lime Softening to maintain the total Biscayne aquifer Modified Base condition raw water use at 349.5 mgd and to provide needed operational flexibility in withdrawals of Floridan aquifer water. November 2014 Page 5- 3 c c 4201 410 440 300 380 370 380 350 340 330' 320 314 300 29G 2BO MDWASCD Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Projects (September 2014) - Avaiarile Wator Supply - - - - Rrolr_-Cede Fmrshed Vater Annual Average Daily Omand (I AD©) HiStoncal Finished Water HADD Elcscayne Aquifer Modified Ease Condition WaterUse Raw >Alater =349.5 MGD) +' 370.8 (Fmished Water= 342 8 MGD,1 365.8 3587, 2 352-8 350.3 r y r r 342$ rrrrr r� rr rr r r rr r r + r � + r r r r r r r r r r � � r r r a ~ 343.5 Year AWS Prgecls I'Me 1 Hialea Floridan Aquifer R 0. +NTP Phase i s (Capacity 7 5 MGM. Operatconel 12-31113) Year represents actual and 2 Hialeah Floridan Agtirfer R Fi W T P P iese lb (2 5 h1GD a0dition Gapacity 10.Q MGD Aye ilabje 1231'15) projected flaws and capac�lie_; 3. South Miami Heights Biscavnea bodan Aquifer 0. W.T.P Phase 1 4'Caoacity 15 MGD ma). day. 13 MG[) aver Ober_ Qe3l- 18) at yearencling on Dpcembcrr 4 South Miam.o Heights Additional Fl©ndan Aquifer R-0. W T P Phase 2 cCapacity 20 MGD max day 18 MGD aver Oper *3110) 31 Gaeh year November 2014 Page 5- 4 Ma Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Planned Water Supply Facilities 5.1.1 Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.O. W.T.P (10 MGD) A new upper Floridan Aquifer Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment plant was constructed in 2013, and is located at 4250 W.114f Terrace in the City of Hialeah. The WTP was constructed pursuant to a Joint Participation Agreement between the City of Hialeah and the County which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on July 24, 2007 and called for the design, construction, and operation of a water treatment plant constructed in the annexation area and supplied by the brackish Floridan aquifer to produce initially 10 mgd with the capacity to expand to 17.5 mgd. Approval from the Florida Department of Health to produce and distribute water was received in November 2013. The WTP utilizes the Floridan Aquifer as the alternative water supply using the RO treatment to remove the salt. The initial operational phase of the Plant is 7.5 mgd, increasing to 10 mgd by the end of 2015 when construction of additional wells is expected to be completed. 5.1.1.1 Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.O. W.T.P. Phase 1-a (7.5 MGD) Completed 2013 Phase 1-a of the RO WTP included a 10 mgd plant and an initial six (6) Floridan Aquifer supply wells. The phase 1-a cost was about $95 million. 5.1.1.2 Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.O. W.T.P. Phase 1-b (2.5 MGD) Start 2014 Finish 2015 Phase 1-b of the RO WTP will consist of the construction of four (4) Floridan Aquifer supply wells for a maximum treatment capacity of 10 mgd. The Phase 1-b cost is estimated at approximately $5 million. 5.1.2 South Miami. Heights W.T.P. and Wellfield (20 MGD)- 17.45MGD Floridan Aquifer RO and 2.55 MGD Biscayne Aquifer Start 2014 Finish 2018 Design of the South Miami Heights Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and Wellfield commenced in 2014. The WTP will be located at 18800 SW 208 Street in Miami. The RO WTP and associated facilities will have a capacity to produce 20 mgd (max day) finished water using a combination of 17.45 mgd from the Floridan Aquifer and 2.55 mgd from the Biscayne Aquifer. Phase 1 will have a maximum capacity of 15 mgd to be operational by December 31, 2018, and Phase 2 will a maximum capacity of 20 mgd, operational by December 31, 2030. A total of five (5) Biscayne Aquifer wells and seven (7) Floridan Aquifer wells are planned to be constructed. Upon completion of the WTP, the Elevated Tank, Leisure City, and Naranja WTPs will be abandoned and their associated allocations will be transferred to the SMHs November 2014 Page 5- 5 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Planned Water Supply Facilities WTP. Everglades Labor Camp and Newton W TPs will remain on stand-by service. 5.2 Miscellaneous Projects 5.2.1 Water Conservation/Non-Revenue Potential Water Loss Reduction Program {Up to 19,62 MGD} Start 2006 Finish 2027 These projects serve to reduce the demand for water through demand management, They include, but are not limited to, various water conservation projects currently being implemented by MDWASD. The County's Water Use Efficiency Five -Year Plan was approved by the Board and has been expanded to cover the next 20 years with a projected reduction in demand of 19.62 MGD over that time period. Examples of ongoing conservation projects include the bathroom and kitchen retrofits program, Miami -Dade green lodging and restaurant program, , rebates for high efficiency toilets, and landscaping irrigation evaluations for residential, commercial and governmental uses. Similarly, the Non -Revenue Real Water Loss Program identified potential reductions in water demand of as much as 14.25 MGD by 2030 through demand management activities. 5.3 20 -Year Work Plan and Capital Improvement Plan As mentioned in the previous sections, the latest lower population projections based on the 2010 Census results and historically lower per capita daily finish water use have reduced the projected finish water demands which have eliminated the need for other alternative water supply projects by several years. The Alternative Water Supply projects to address water demands through 2033 include the Hialeah RQ and South Miami Heights WTP. The projects for the 20 -Year Work Plan have been included in the County's adopted FY 2014-2015 Budget An update to the Coun ,T s Capital Improvement Element to reflect the adopted FY 2014-2015 Budget will be processed in 2015. A copy of the County's adopted FY 2014-2015 Bud��t T is contained within Appendix 4)B and summarized in Table 5- 3 for the next 5 years (2044 2:044 2015-2020 . re January 2015 Pages -6 MIAM D Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Planned Water Supply Facilities Table 5-3 MDWASD Water/Alternative Water Supply QE Projects Source: MDWASD Adopted P" 290-42 ` 01 2014-2015 budget, (a) Millions of Dollars 5.4 Other Water Suppliers Future Plans 5,4.1 City of North Miami The City of North Miami's plans for a two-phase expansion of the Winson WTP have been put on hold. The plans entailed a Phase I, to be concluded by 2010, to add an additional 8,5 MGD capacity from a Reverse Osmosis (RO) system. Phase II to add additional membrane treatment to the RO facility, which would create an additional 4.0 MGD capacity. The proposed improvements would total an increase of 12.5 MGD to the capacity of the WTP. The City also identified that the Floridan aquifer would be the only water resource alternative for the increase in demand. Therefore, the City planned to construct an additional ten Floridan wells to supply the RO Facility. The City planned to add a raw water transmission main from the wells to the WTP. On hold is also the third expansion plan for the addition of a 5 MG storage tank, to be located on a vacant parcel owned by the City's new Biscayne Landing development. The City may decide to forgo with the construction of the tank and utilize the parcel for another smaller RO Treatment facility or a reuse facility. These water supply system improvements planned by the City of North Miami will provide water supply for those portions of unincorporated Miami -Dade County which are currently served by the City of North Miami, The City is currently designing upgrades to the existing facility to maximize its efficiencies. January 2015 page 5- 7 MIAMI ==I Expenditure(a) Project Name Six yew 20124/ 20135/ 20146/ 20157/ 2016W 2017V 20135 20146 20157 20168 201=79 201820 Totals Water Facilities South Miami Heights 4.90 30.44 36.48 5.73 15.73 0.00 93.28 W.T.P. & Wellfield 4 549 Hialeah Floridan. A uifer 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R.O,W.T.P, Phase 1S(10.0 � �" 4� 6� 4 Source: MDWASD Adopted P" 290-42 ` 01 2014-2015 budget, (a) Millions of Dollars 5.4 Other Water Suppliers Future Plans 5,4.1 City of North Miami The City of North Miami's plans for a two-phase expansion of the Winson WTP have been put on hold. The plans entailed a Phase I, to be concluded by 2010, to add an additional 8,5 MGD capacity from a Reverse Osmosis (RO) system. Phase II to add additional membrane treatment to the RO facility, which would create an additional 4.0 MGD capacity. The proposed improvements would total an increase of 12.5 MGD to the capacity of the WTP. The City also identified that the Floridan aquifer would be the only water resource alternative for the increase in demand. Therefore, the City planned to construct an additional ten Floridan wells to supply the RO Facility. The City planned to add a raw water transmission main from the wells to the WTP. On hold is also the third expansion plan for the addition of a 5 MG storage tank, to be located on a vacant parcel owned by the City's new Biscayne Landing development. The City may decide to forgo with the construction of the tank and utilize the parcel for another smaller RO Treatment facility or a reuse facility. These water supply system improvements planned by the City of North Miami will provide water supply for those portions of unincorporated Miami -Dade County which are currently served by the City of North Miami, The City is currently designing upgrades to the existing facility to maximize its efficiencies. January 2015 page 5- 7 MIAMI ==I Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Planned Water Supply Facilities 5.4.2 City of North Miami Beach The City of North Miami Beach plans to increase the capacity of the its WTP to 35 MGD by 2020 and 38 (MGD) by 2025. These water supply system improvements planned by the City of North Miami Beach will provide water supply for those portions of unincorporated and incorporated Miami -Dade County which are currently served by the City of North Miami Beach. 5.4.3 City of Homestead The City of Homestead is currently in the process of analyzing the different ways of improving or expanding their systems to increase capacity as the population within its municipal boundary and in parts of unincorporated Miami -Dade County where it provides water increases. The two major alternatives are either upgrading the existing well pumping capacity or installing additional wells. However, the City has not yet agreed on any type of improvements, and therefore no additional information can be provided at this time. 5.4.4 Florida City Due to the fact that the SFWMD is currently adjusting any further withdrawals from the Biscayne aquifer, the City plans to increase its Water Treatment Plant capacity by installing additional wells and withdrawing water from the Floridan aquifer, which will require membrane filtration treatment and chlorination prior to distribution. The timeline for this expansion is not yet known. 5,5 Conclusion In conclusion, and as Table 5-2 shows, MDWASD has prepared a work plan which demonstrates that the Department (e.g. public) facilities are available to meet the projected growth demands (which reflect credits for conservation). The current permit and the limiting conditions are located in Appendix H, and the permit modification request is located in Appendix I. November 2014 Page 5- 8 Section 6 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Pian This section details MDWASD evaluation and planning for sea level rise and climate change over the planning horizon in this document. The primary concern to MDWASD water supply is salt water intrusion into the freshwater Biscayne aquifer, the primary source of drinking water in Miami -Dade County. Results of evaluation and data analysis completed to date indicate that within the next thirty years MDWASD will be able to operate its wellfields and water treatment facilities as designed, as groundwater modeling indicates even with a high level of projected sea level rise our wellfields will not be impacted by salt water intrusion. Further modeling is currently underway to extend the planning scenarios fifty years out, and will include climate change such as increases and decreases in annual precipitation, and extreme weather events, 6.1 Introduction Southeast Florida is one of the most vulnerable regions to the impacts of climate change and sea level rise as a result of our flat topography, porous limestone geology, and dense coastal development. Climate change and sea level rise are expected to present significant challenges relating to water resource planning, management and infrastructure for the counties located in south Florida, including Broward, Miami -Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach Counties. These counties have agreed to partner in regionally -coordinated climate mitigation and adaptation strategies as part of the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and have adopted a Regional Climate Action Plan which highlights "Water Supply, Management, and Infrastructure" as a primary focal area. (http.//southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/). Investigations and evaluations conducted at the national, regional, and local levels have reinforced the need to plan for the predicted impacts of more frequent and severe drought, increases in tidal and storm -related flooding, and the loss of coastal wellfield capacity due to saltwater intrusion. In the absence of proactive planning, these impacts will present liabilities for coastal and inland communities with implications for urban water supplies, water and wastewater infrastructure, and both regional and local drainage/flood control systems. Investments in water supply planning and infrastructure that account for these predicted trends will improve the resilience of our communities, provide public health benefits, and reduce the potential for economic losses. Miami -Dade County along with Broward, Monroe, Palm Beach Counties, local governments and water utilities in the southeast Florida region have begun to formalize the integration water supply and climate change considerations as part of November 2014 Page 6-1 t' Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan coordinated planning efforts, including updates to local government and water utility 10 year Water Supply Facility Work Plan and enhancements to local government's Comprehensive Plans. Key considerations for communities within the four County Compact planning area areas include: l) sea level rise, 2) saltwater intrusion, 3) extreme weather, and 4) infrastructure investments to support diversification and sustainability of water supply sources, and adaptive stormwater and wastewater systems. Sea level rise produces varied challenges with the respect to water resources sustainability, water management, and water/ wastewater facilities and infrastructure. Impacts include salt water intrusion into coastal wellfields, infiltration of groundwater with chloride levels into wastewater collection systems, impairing normal operations and maintenance as well as challenges for beneficial use of reclaimed water as an alternative water supply. Water management systems are also at risk with systems constrained by rising groundwater and canal gate tailwater elevations, which reduce soil storage and discharge capacity, with increased potential for both inland and coastal flooding. 6.2 Miami -Dade County Sea Level Rise and Climate Change Recent Government Action As part of the Miami -Dade County Evaluation and Appraisal Report adopted in 2011, climate change was identified as one of the priorities to address in the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). Miami -Dade has incorporated climate change considerations and language in several of the Elements of the CDMP update which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in October, 2013. The Miami -Dade Sea Level Rise Task Force was created by Resolution R-599-13 on July 2, 2013 to review the relevant data and prior studies, assessments, reports, and evaluations of the potential impact of sea level rise on vital public services and facilities, real estate, water and other ecological resources, water front property, and infrastructure (http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/boards-sea-level-rise.asp). Their recommendations included in the June 2014 Final Report Recommendation 4: While recognizing the recent efforts to address flood protection and saltwater intrusion by the South Florida Water Management District and the Miami -Dade Countj, the Sea Level Rise Task Force recommends that Miami Dade Coicnhj work jointly zvith the District and the SE Climate Compact partners to conduct a compreltensive said y and develop adaptation strategies to address potential flood damage reduction and saltwater intrusion associated zvit}t sea level rise. Tltis strategy should expeditiously address rising sea levels, a time frame for implementation, and a potential funding mechanism, November 2014 Page 6- 2 "'ate Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan Miami -Dade Board of County Commissioners adopted in September an ordinance relating to the rules of procedures of the Board of County Conunissioners amending Section 2-1 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida, to require that in all agenda items related to planning, design, and construction of county infrastructure a statement be included that the impact of sea level rise has been considered (File 141211 http:/ /www.miamidade.gov/ govaction/matter.asp?matter=141211&file=true&ye arFolder=Y2014). 6.3 Saltwater Intrusion Along the coast of southeast Florida, and several miles inland, groundwater supplies and potable wells are vulnerable to saltwater contamination. The Biscayne Aquifer, which serves as the regions primary water supply, is a shallow, surficial aquifer characterized by limestone karst geology which is highly porous and transmissive. Salt water intrusion is defined by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) as chloride concentrations exceed drinking water standards of 250 mg/l. The SFWMD has identified "Utilities at Risk" for salt water intrusion, which include utilities with wellfields near the saltwater/freshwater interface that do not have an inland wellfield, have not developed adequate alternative sources of water, and have limited ability to meet user needs through interconnects with other utilities; and "Utilities of Concern', which include utilities having wellfields near the saltwater/ freshwater interface, the ability to shift pumpages to an inland wellfield, or an alternative source that is not impacted by the drought (SFWMD, 2007). Miami -Dade WASD wellfields included as "Utility at Risk" are South Miami -Dade Wellfields ( Newton, Elevated Tank, Naranja, Leisure City, Roberta Hunter- Caribbean Park). MDWASD Utilities of Concern include the North and Central Miami -Dade Wellfields (Hialeah -Preston and Alexander Orr) (Figure 1). November 2014 Page 6- 3 MIRJ Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan Figure 6-1. Utilities and Risk and Utilities of Concern, Miami -Dade County (SFWMD, 2007). 1b•A i' 114Y. 10"', 1. Paw n.s, A M.w., V.3':I L.:. SrlHR1 MM1. 1MI4 ,`ZY,PIYIIF• lli{!i ,i.�ll CwM1 �.MI •mwrb Lemli D.M P� d 1ti--q — f�hwq.•lanlil PIQXCIiN• --- Map[ Nc,a _ g ApwgxtrPAhr I(mlaw n(."all 'A61pr kllrurrnn I fr<' 6.3.1 Salt Intrusion Monitoring Network Saltwater intrusion in Miami -Dade County is monitored through a joint effort of the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD), Miami -Dade Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). A network of small diameter wells have been drilled to the base of the aquifer to serve as monitor wells to identify the location of the saltwater November 2014 Page 6- 4 "'Aa Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan intrusion front. The salt front is identified as the location, at the base of the aquifer, of the 1,000 milligrams/per liter (mg/ L) isochlor, or line of equal chloride concentration of 1,000 mg/L). Sampling of the monitor wells is done by the USGS, under a co-operative Joint Funding Agreement (JFA) contract with Miami -Dade County for wells currently included in the salt front monitoring program (JFA #14GGESMC0000109). Additional wells are sampled quarterly or yearly basis depending on well location, but every year the sampling schedule includes a county -wide sampling event conducted at the height of the dry season to coincide with the time when inland movement of the saltwater front would be at its peak. The data derived from that sampling is used by the USGS to identify any significant movement of the salt front, and to map the location of the salt front if a significant movement is evident. MDWASD reports the data to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) quarterly, as part of the WUP #13-00017-W requirements, and is required as part of Limiting Condition 37 of the 20 -Year WUP (SFWMD, 2007; Appendix H) to submit an annual report summarizing the data collected and recommendations for adjustments to the salt front monitoring network as a result of data analysis. 6.3.2 Salt Intrusion Front Delineation Miami -Dade WASD entered into a JFA with the USGS in 2007 (JFA #08EOFL208004) to delineate the current extent of saltwater intrusion in the Biscayne aquifer, to characterize how the extent has changed since the last mapping effort, to improve salinity monitoring in the Biscayne aquifer and to identify the sources of the saltwater to better understand the actions required to prevent or mitigate saltwater intrusion. As part of this effort eleven new monitoring wells have been installed in areas where there was insufficient information to identify the location of the front, and data from geophysical tools and techniques were incorporated into the analysis. To improve accessibility of salinity monitoring information to the public, the USGS cooperative water conditions website was improved and a new website created. "Saline Intrusion Monitoring, Miami -Dade County, Florida," serves data collected during this study, as well as data from the active salinity monitoring network, and provides the interpreted maps of the inland extent of saltwater intrusion(http.Ilzozvzu.envirobase.tisgs.gov/FLIMS/SaltFront/viezver.litm, U.S. Geological Survey, 2011g). This website allows the USGS to deliver timely hydrologic data, analyses, and decision -support tools concerning saltwater intrusion. As a result of the JFA, an updated salt front map was published in 2011 (Figure 2) and the final report summarizing the study and recommendations and conclusions published in 2014 (Prins, et. al. 2014). November 2n14 Page 6- 5 Water Supply Facilities Worts Plan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan Figure 6-2. Salt Water Intrusion extent, Miami -Dade County, FL. (USGS 2011) MIAMI -RADE SALT WATER INTRUSION LINE November 2014 Page 6- 6 Wafer Supply Facilities Work Plan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan 6.4 Urban Miami -Dade County Surface Water/Groundwater Model Miami -Dade County entered into a Joint Funding Agreement (JFA 08EOFL20817) with the USGS in February 2008 to develop an integrated surface/ groundwater numerical flow model, with one of the objectives of the project to evaluate if sea level rise will cause salt water intrusion into coastal wellfields. The numerical model is designed among other uses to evaluate if the current surface -water structure control operational criteria effectively control saltwater intrusion with projected population increase and sea level rise. MDWASD and the USGS use this integrated surface-water/groundwater model to evaluate how the position of the freshwater/ saltwater interface will change with increased well field pumpage, increased sea level, and a combination of increased well field pumpage and increase sea level. The model was developed and calibrated a coupled surface-water/groundwater model of the urban areas of Miami -Dade County, Florida. The model is designed to simulate surface -water stage and discharge in the managed canal system and dynamic canal leakage to the Biscayne aquifer as well as seepage to the canal from the aquifer. The model was developed using USGS MODFLOW-NWT with the SWR1 Process and the SWI2 Package to simulate the surface -water system and seawater intrusion, respectively (Hughes et. al., 2013). Automated parameter estimation software (PEST) and highly -parameterized inversion techniques were used to calibrate the model to observed surface -water stage, surface -water discharge, net surface -water sub -basin canal discharge, and groundwater level data from 1997 through 2004 by modifying hydraulic conductivity, specific storage coefficients, specific yield, evapotranspiration parameters, canal roughness coefficients (Manning's n values), and canal leakance coefficients (Walsh and Hughes, 2014). MDWASD and the USGS used the modified guidance developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE, 2011) and a planning scenario of 9 to 24 inches additional rise by 2060, consistent with projections presented in the 2014 NCA, and formally adopted by the partner counties in the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact (Figure 3) for the modeling effort. November 2014 Page b- 7 MI33 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan Figure 6-3: Unified Southeast Florida Sea Level Rise Projection for Regional Planning Purposes 36 30 24 18 12 .4 Unified Sea Level Rise Projection 9.7,I I�xlsce p 1990 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 IF .Annual Seo I k. ' LVn r �n lr,r u4 k'by'N.m Rolh f:is t rr,pr�l',.i 5oulheasI Rar da Ri-giorral Chm ilp Change Compor I The USES has completed the preliminary model and initial scenarios regarding sea level rise, and results are pending publication (USES, verbal communication). The model simulation period is from 1/1/1996 to 12/31/2010, with daily surface -water and groundwater timesteps. The model was calibrated using highly -parameterized inversion methods, with an 8 year calibration period (1997-2004) and a 6 year verification period (2005-2010). To represent future conditions, 30 -year scenario simulation periods representing conditions from 2011 through 2040 were run. The thirty year scenario period was chosen as being scientifically defensible at this point in time with available sea level rise and climate change data available. Four scenarios have been completed to date, and will be included in the pending publication: • Base scenario ■ Daily 2010 well field withdraws repeated for 30 year daily ■ meteorological data set (recycled twice) ■ 2008 land use ■ Predicted Virginia Key tidal stage with current linear rate of SEA LEVEL RISE -0.5 ft over 30 years November 2014 Page 6- 8 M-0 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Climate Change and Sea Leve! Rise Plan ■ Everglades Depth Estimation Network (EDEN) data set (recycled twice) ■ Historical structure operations - effective gate openings • Scenario I ■ Base scenario Increased WASD well field withdrawals - increased rates provided by WASD (WUP 2012 allocations) • Scenario 2 ■ Base scenario ■ High sea -level rise rate (NRC III rate -1.23 ft increase over 30 years) added to predicted ■ Virginia Key tidal stage • Blend EDEN data and increased sea level where needed • Scenario 3 ■ Scenario 2 ■ Increased WASD well field withdrawals at permitted 2025 allocations Therefore, Scenario 3 represents the high-level rate of sea level rise and the permitted wellfield withdrawals allocated in the SFWMD 20 -Year WUP. Results of Scenario 3 indicate minimal change in the salt front (Figure 4), As a result of the USGS Salt Front JFA, and the on-going salt front monitoring, and the groundwater flow modeling project, Miami -Dade WASD weilfields are not considered at risk for salt water intrusion within the next ten years. November 2014 Page 6- 9 MIAM Water Supply Facilities Work Pian Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan Figure 6-4. Scenario 3 Salt Water ffitrusion Results. (Walsh and Hughes, 2014). G A • j" M 1yi.iy� o 1b LKf / U ry bb ucl IFes' 'r.""�y VMS — �ar'IM 1 pM�bb►1 layw 7 pa~ tayw 3 parrbm November 2014 Page 6-10 Mho Wafer Supply Facilities Work Plan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan 6.5 Extreme Weather Events As extreme events increase in frequency and severity, MDWASD will consider impacts and risks associated with drought, water shortages and reduced groundwater tables, all of which can hasten saltwater intrusion and exacerbate water supply impacts. Conversely, more intense and rapid rainfall will cause flooding, increased runoff, impacts to the natural system and provide less recharge potential. Integrated water resources management strategies will help to mitigate for these impacts, particularly those projects that can serve to provide additional storage of stormwater runoff, long term storage, and redistribution of excess rainfall during dry periods and drought. Regional surface water reservoirs and belowground aquifer storage and recovery systems are potentially viable alternative water supply projects and climate adaptation strategies. Increases in groundwater elevations, in both direct and indirect response to sea level will challenge the function of drainage systems and is expected contribute to exacerbate flooding, for even mild storm events. Conditions will be more severe with extreme rainfall events can increase damage to lowlying utility infrastructure and contribute to prolonged surface water flooding. Planning for the combined influences of storm events, high tides and sea level rise on drainage system functions and other public infrastructure is a critical need as is the assessment of viable water supplies and impacts to the natural systems from prolonged droughts. MDWASD has entered into a JFA in 2014 (JFA 14GGESMC0000110) with the USGS to continue the modeling effort, and will develop additional future scenarios with County Departments, local governments, regional agencies for further climate change and sea level rise assessment. These scenarios will include additional years simulation, changes in recharge as a result of climate change, land use changes, and revised sea level rise projections. Future model scenarios to be developed with the USGS include simulating extreme weather events superimposed on future conditions as simulated in model runs. 6.6 Infrastructure Assessment Effective water treatment plant operations require proper control of flooding from both stormwater (riverine) and tidal sources. Comprehensive engineering analysis considers both short-term and long-term effects of climate change. Short-term effects, such as current increased sea levels and higher estimates of tidal boundary conditions, will be incorporated into the system design and operations as necessary. Potential longer-term climatic changes are typically addressed incrementally as needed through systems master planning, to provide the appropriate level of protection for the given time period, including: November 2014 Page 6-11 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan o Greater levels and rates of sea level rise, o Higher spring tides (exceptionally high astronomical tides that occur around the new and full moon when the planets align to exert maximum effect on the tides), o Higher tidal boundary effects and backflow, o Increased levels of tidal surge and wind and wave effects from tropical storms and hurricanes, and o Potential changes in design rainfall depths and intensities. MDWASD requires capital improvement projects to include an assessment of climate change and sea level rise. Background information on the site stormwater and tidal conditions is required for site specific projects, and assessment includes projections of potential increases in sea levels, potential ranges of effects on the WTP stormwater management system, and site grading considerations and access for proper operations. The Miami -Dade County hydrologic and hydraulic model XP-SWMM is used to develop peak stage and flood inundation maps. XPSWMM uses a node -link architecture to dynamically route rainfall -runoff through pipe networks and open channels. A variety of data can be analyzed (example FDEP and NOAA tidal data, canal stage data, tidal stillwater data) to adequately assess MDWASD operational sites' vulnerability to continued sea level rise and to provide for potential adaptation options (CDM Smith, 2013). November 2014 Page 6-12 Water Supply Facilities Work Flan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Flan References CDM Smith, 2013. Technical Memorandum Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department PSA No. 01CDAM003 - Task Authorization No. 12 South Miami Heights (SA/1H) Water Treatment Plant (iiVTP) Program Climate Change Adaptation Review It ttp f/7vzvzv.ertvitc7base. ti sgs.goz,IFLIMS/SaltFroii t/vieaver.litiat h www.miamidade. ov ovaction matter.as ?matter=1412.11&file=true& e arFolder=Y2014 Hughes, J.D., Langevin, C.D., Chartier, K.L., and White, J.T., 2012, Documentation of the Surface -Water Routing (SMI) Process for modeling surface -water flow with the U. S. Geological Survey Modular Ground -Water Model (MODFLOW-2005): U.S. Geological. Survey Techniques and Methods, book 6, chap. A40 (Version 1.0), 113 p. Miami -Dade County, July 1, 2014. Miami -Dade Sea Level Rise Task Force Report and Recommendations(http//zvzvw.mianiidade.gov/pIanninglboards-sea-level-rise.asp) Prinos, S.T., Wacker, M.A., Cunningham, K.J., and Fitterman, D.V., 2014, Origins and delineation of saltwater intrusion in the Biscayne aquifer and changes in the distribution of saltwater in Miami -Dade County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5025,101 p., http.11dx.doi.oro O.3133/sir2D145025. South Florida Water Management District, 2007. Utilities of Concern in the Lower East Coast Region and Lake Okeechobee Service Area. Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, http://soutlteastf loridaclimuteco iiipact.org/ U.S. Geological Survey, 2007 Joint Funding Agreement 08EOFL208004 Assessment of seawater encroachment and seawater encroachment monitoring network improvements in Miami -Dade Counhj, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, 2008. Joint Funding Agreement 08EOFL208017 An integrated model of surface and groundwater flow for evaluating the effects of competing water demands in Miami -Dade County. November 2014 Page 6-13 Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan U.S. Geological Survey, 2013. Joint Funding Agreement 14GGESMC0000109 Investigations of Water Resources. U.S. Geological Survey, 2014. Joint Funding Agreement 14GGESMC0000110 Aquifer hydrogeologic framework, modeling tools and evaluating sea -level rise, Miami -Dade County, USACE Engineering Circular 1165-2-212: Sea -Level Change Consideration for Civil Works Programs USACE, 2011. Walsh, V, and J. Hughes. 2014. Urban Miami -Dade County Surface-Water/Groundwater Model — Application for Sea -Level Rise Evaluation. 23rd Annual Southwest Florida Water Resources Conference, Fort Myers; FL. January 31, 2014 November 2014 Page 6-14 MIF APPENDIX A Wellfield Data Tables Application Number: 110511-6 Well ID 217731 ]Name R07 Hialeah Map Designator Hialeah 7 RO FLUWID Number R010 Hialeah Well Field Hialeah. RO VVTP ExistinglProposed E Well Diameter(Inches) 17 Total Depth(feet) 1490 Cased Depth(feet) 1080 Facility Elev. (ft NGVD) Hialeah RO WTP Screened Interval P From P To 17 Pumped Or Flowing P Pump Type Turbine Pump Int Elev. 1490 Feet (NGVD) 1490 Feet (BLS) 1080 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. 257400 257401 257402 257403 257404 R08 Hialeah R09 Hialeah R010 Hialeah R011 Hialeah R012 Hialeah Hialeah 8 RO Hialeah 9 RO Hialeah 10 RO Hialeah 11 RO Hialeah 12 RO Hialeah RO WTP Hialeah RO WTD HlaEeah RO WTP Hialeah RO WTP Hialeah RO WTP P P P P P 17 17 17 17 17 1490 1490 1450 1490 1490 1080 1080 1080 1x80 1080 P P P P P Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Page 2 Pump Capacity(GPM) 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 Year Drilled 2011 2011 20 T,, 2011 2011 2011 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 867085 866240 865035 867410 867175 864485 f"j"1 Feet North 581265 584315 583230 574$35 578665 582690 Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Use Status Standby Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Q Monitor Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Aquifer Page 2 Application Number: 110611-6 Well ID 257405 Name R013 Hialeah Map Designator Hialeah 13 RO FLUWID Number 2 NWWF Well Field Hialeah RO WTP Existing/Proposed P Well Diameter(lnohes) 17 Total Depth(feet) 1490 Cased Depth(feet) 1080 Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) Northwest S,creened Interval E From E To 17 Pumped Or Flowing P Pump Type Turbine Pump Int Elev. 8G Feet (NGVD) 80 TABLE -A Description Of Wells. 257406 28291 28292 28293 28294 R014 Hialeah 1 NWWF 2 NWWF 3 NWWF 4 NWWF Hialeah 14 RO 1 NWWF 2 NWWF 3 NWWF 4 NWWP Hialeah RC WTP Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest P E F E F 17 48 48 48 48 1490 8G 80 80 80 1080 46 46 46 46 0 0 0 0 847805 0 0 0 0 P P P P P Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Page 3 Feet (BLS) 40 40 4D 40 Pump Capacity(GPM) 1400 1400 10420 10420 10420 10420 Year Drilled 2011 2011 1980 1980 1980 1980 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER RRVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 863250 862450 847729 847805 84T757 847747 M Feet North 581590 580860 543166 543988 544714 545498 X Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter 07 Use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply 0 Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 3 Page 4 TABLE - A Description Of Wells_ Application Number: 110511-6 well 10 28295 28296 28297 28288 28299 28300 Name 5 NWWF 6 NWWF 7 NWWF 8 NWWF 9 NWWF 10 NWWF Map Designator 5 NWWF 6 NWWF 7 NVVWF 8 NWWF 9 NVVWF 10 NWWF FLUWID Number Well Field Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Existing/Proposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 48 48 48 48 48 40 Total Depth(feet) 80 8c 80 80 80 100 Cased Depth(feet) 46 46 46 46 46 57 Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 0 0 fl TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumped OrFlowing P P P P P P Pump Type Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Pump Int_ Elev. Feet (N GVD) Feet(BLS) 40 4G 40 40 40 40 Pump Capacity(GPM) 10416.67 10420 10420 90420 10420 10420 Year Trilled 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 847757 847705 8476685 947664 849022 848971 M Feet North 546203 546981 547728 548464 548516 549252 �` Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter z Use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Z Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply 0 Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Ln Aquifer Page 4 Page 5 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Application Number: 110511-6 Well ID 28301 28302 28303 28304 28305 217680 Name 11 NWWF 12 NWWF 13 NWWF 14 NWWF 15 NWWF 1 Medley Map Designator 11 NWWF 12 NWWF 13 NWWF 14 NVVWF 15 NWWF Medley- 1 FLUWID Number Well Field Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Medley Existing[Proposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 48 48 40 40 40 42 Total Depth(feet) 80 80 100 100 100 68 Cased Depth(feet) 46 46 57 57 57 60 Facility Elev. (ft NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 0 0 To 0 0 0 0 0 Pumped 4r Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Pump Int Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (SLS) 40 40 40 40 40 Pump Capaclty(GPM) 10420 10420 10420 10420 10420 0000 Year Drilled 1980 198D 1980 1980 1980 1975 Planar Location Source REVIEWER RE%/iEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 848960 848921P 848877 848877 848867 881370 M Feet North 550030 550777 551492 552260 553017 548300 X Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meier Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter 0- ;-: Use status Primary F.Imary Primary Primary Primary Standby Z Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Q Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer 0-1 Aquifer Page 5 Page 6 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Application Number. 110511-6 Well ID 217681 217684 217,386 28261 28262 28263 Name 2 Medley 5 Medley 6 Medley 1 MS Lower 2 MS Lower 3 MS Lower Map Designator Medley - 2 Medley - 5 Medley - 6 1 MS Lower 2 MS Lower 3 MS Lower FLUWID Number Well Field Medley Medley Medley Miarni Springs Lower Miami Springs Lower Miami Springs Lower ExistinglProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 42 42 42 14 14 14 Total Depth(feet) 68 66 68 115 115 115 Cased Depth(feet) 54 60 54 so 80 i30 Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 TO 4 0 0 Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Turbine Turbine Turbine Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (131-3) 0 0 Pump Capacity(GPM) 8500 8500 10000 3800 2500 2500 Year Drilled 1975 1975 1975 1924 1924 1924 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 881370 884830 880820 890660 889990 889800 M Feet North 548300 547620 548070 539170 538745 539400 Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meier Flow Meter Flow Meter 3 Use Status Standby Standby Standby Primary Primary Primary z water use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Monitor Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer " Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 6 Page 7 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Application plumber: 110511-8 Well In 28264 28265 28288 28265 28267 28269 Name 4 MS Lower 5 MS Lower 6 MS Lower 7 MS Lower 8 MS Lower 9 MS Upper Map Designator 4 MS Lower 5 MS Lower 6 MS Lower 7 MS Lower 8 MS Lower 9 MS Upper FLUWID Number Well Field Miami Springs Lower Miami Springs Lower Miami Springs Lower Miami Springs Lower Miami Springs Lower Miami Springs Upper ExistinglProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 14 14 30 14 14 14 Total Depth(feet) 115 115 115 115 115 115 Cased Depth(feet) 80 80 80 80 80 80 Facility Elev. (ft NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 0 0 0 To 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Centrifugal Centrifugal' Centrifugal Centriflrgal Centrifugal Centrifugal Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (BLS) 0 0 0 0 0 Pump Capacity(GPM) 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 Year Drilled 1924 1924 1924 1924 1924 1949 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWFR Feet East 890450 888955 888105 887545 888575 884630 M Feet North 539785 539515 539145 538585 538565 544870 Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Unspecified Flow Meter E� ;z- Use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary 7F Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply 0 Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 7 TABLE - A Descri tion 4f Wells. Application Number_ 110511-6 Page 8 We11ID 28280 28271 28272 28273 28274 28275 Name 10 MS Upper 14 MS Upper 15 NIS Upper 16 MS Upper 17 MS Upper 18 MS Upper Map Designator 10 MS Upper 14 MS Upper 15 MS Upper 16 MS Upper 17 MS Upper 18 NIS Upper FLUWiD Number Well Field Miami Springs Upper Miami Springs Upper Miami Springs Upper Miami Springs Upper Miami Springs Upper Miami Springs Upper ExistinglProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(lnches) 14 30 14 14 14 14 Total Depth(feet) 115 115 115 115 115 115 Cased Depth(feet) 80 80 8G 80 80 80 Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 G 0 0 Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Pump Int Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (BLS) 0 0 0 0 0 Pump Capacity(GPM) 2500 4170 2500 2500 2500 2500 Year Drilled 1954 1936 1936 1936 1936 1945 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East M960 889520 888430 887776 868460 886890 M Feet Horth 544210 544190 544440 544475 543550 544430 >< ACCOURtIng Method Flow Meter Flow Meter now Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter USe Status Primary Primary Standby Standby Primary Standby e--1- Z water use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Q Biscayne Aquifer Monitor Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 8 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Application Number: 110511-6 Well ID 28276 28277 28278 28279 28270 28281 Name 19 MS Upper 2G MS Upper 21 MS Upper 22 MS tipper 23 MS Upper 1 Preston Map Designator 19 MS Upper 20 MS Upper 21 MS Upper 22 MS Upper 23 MS Upper 1 Preston FLUWID Number G 0 To 0 0 WeiI Field Miami Springs Upper Miami Springs Upper Miami Springs Upper Miami Springs Upper Miami Springs Upper Preston EzistinglProposed 1= E E E E E wen Diameter(inches) 14 14 14 i4 14 42 Total Depth(feet) 115 115 115 115 115 107 Cased Depth(feet) 80 80 80 80 80 66 Page 9 Facility Elev. (ft NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 0 G 0 To 0 0 0 0 G 0 Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Turbine Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (OLS) 0 0 0 0 0 40 Pump Capacity(GPM) 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 70GO Year Drilled 1945 1945 1945 1945 1949 1966 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVtEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 886105 887684 886890 886110 885590 890540 M Feet North 544425 54349"3 543510 543510 545090 544500 X Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flaw Meter Flow Meter Use Status Standby Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Z Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply © Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Siscayre Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer U1 Aquifer Page 9 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Application Number: 110511-6 Well ID 28282 28253 28284 28285 28286 28287 Name 2 Preston 3 Preston 4 Preston 5 Preston 6 Preston 7 Preston Map. Designator 2 Preston 3 Preston 4 Preston 5 Preston 6 Preston 7 Preston FLUWID Number P P Pump Type Turbine Turbine Well Field Preston Preston Preston Preston Preston Proston Existing/Proposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 42 42 42 42 42 42 Total Depth(feet) 107 107 107 107 107 107 Cased Depth(feet) 66 66 66 66 56 69 Facility Elev, (ft. NGVD) Year Drilled 1966 1966 1966 1966 Screened Interval 1972 Planar Location Page 10 From 0 0 0 0 0 0 To 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumped or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Pump Int Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet(BLS) 40 40 40 40 40 40 Pump Capacity(GP€Nl). 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 Year Drilled 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1972 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 890510 890430 891080 89102° 891000 890100 M Feet North 545010 544680 544650 545190 545680 544270 Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Z Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Q Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 10 Page 11 TABLE -A Description Of Wells. Application Number: 110511-6 Well 1D 28288 28269 26290 26330 26331 26332 Name 11 Hialeah 12 Hialeah 13 Hialeah 1 Orr 2 Orr 3 Orr Map Designator 11 Hialeah 12 Hialeah 13 Hialeah ORR t ORR 2 ORR 3 FLUWID Number Well FieJd Hialeah Hialeah Hialeah Alexander Orr Alexander Orr AJexander Orr ExistinglProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Irsches) 14 14 14 16 18 16 Total Depth(feet) 115 115 115 100 100 100 Cased Depth(feet) 80 80 80 40 40 40 Facility Elev. (fL NGVD) Screened interval From 0 0 0 0 4 0 To 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumped Or Flawing P P P P P P Pump Type Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Turbine Turbine Turbine Pump Int. Elegy. Feet (NGVD) Feet (SLS) Pump Capacity(GPM) 2500 2500 2500 4170 4170 4170 Year Drilled 1936 1936 1936 1949 1949 1949 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 891050 890830 890650 375100 875110 875000 M Feet North 543550 544140 543790 499520 499640 499430 Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Z Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Q Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Monitor Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 11 Application Number_ 110511-6 Well ID 26304 Name 4 Orr Map Designator ORR 4 FLUWID Number 7 Orr Well Field Alexander Orr ExistinglProposed E Well Diameter(Inches) 16 Total Depth(feet) 100 Cased Depth (feet) 40 Facility Elev. (ft NGVD) Alexander Orr Screened Interval E From 0 To 0 Pumped Or Flouring P Pump Type Turbine Pump Int. Elev. 100 Feet (NGVD) 100 Feet(BLS) 40 TABLE - A Description Of Wells_ 26306 - 26309 26310 26311 26312 5 Orr 6 Orr 7 Orr 8 Orr 9 Orr ORR 5 ORR 6 ORR 7 ORR 8 ORR 9 Alexander Orr Alexander Orr Alexander Orr Alexander Orr Alexander Orr E E E E E 16 16 16 16 24 100 100 100 100 100 40 40 40 40 50 fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P P P P P Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Page 12 Pump Capacity(GPM) 4170 4170 4770 4170 7500 7$00 Year Drilled 1949 1952 1952 1952 1952 1964 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 874830 874670 874500 874340 874160 874000 M Feet North 499250 499070 498880 498690 498510 498310 X Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter 07 Use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary e^F Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Q Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Ul Aquifer Page 12 01 Aquifer Page 13 Application dumber: 11.0511-6 TABLE -A Description Of Wells. Well ID 26313 26314 25315 26319 27172 27173 Name 10 Orr 11 SW 12 SW 13 SW 14 SW 15 SW Map Designator ORR 10 Southwest 11 Southwest 12 Southwest 13 Southwest 14 Southwest 15 FLUWID Number Well Field Alexander Orr Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest ExistinglProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 24 20 20 20 20 20 Total Depth (feet) 100 100 100 103 100 100 Cased Depth(feet) 50 40 40 40 40 40 Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 0 0 0 TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet(BLS) Pump Capacity(GPM) 7500 4900 4900 4900 4900 4900 Year Drilled 1964 1953 1953 1953 1953 1953 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER. REV;EWER REVIEWER Feet East 873830 856559 856380 855180 855960 855740 M Feet North 498110 496044 495440 495215 494980 494750 X Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flaw Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter & Use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Z Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply O Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer 01 Aquifer Page 13 Application Number: 11051'i-6 Well ID 27174 Name 16 SW Map Designator Southwest 16 FLUWID Number 19 SW Well Field Southwest Existing/Proposed E Well Diarneter(Inches) 20 Totat Depth(feet) 100 Cased Depth(feet) 40 Facility Elev. (ff_ NGVD) Snapper Creek Screened Interval E From 0 To 0 Pumped Or Flowing P Pump Type Turbine Pump Int. Elev. 100 Feet (NGVD) 100 Feet (BLS) 35 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. 27175 27176 27177 27178 27179 17 SW 18 SW 19 SW 20 SW 21 SC Southwest 17 Southwest 18 Southwest 19 Southwest 20 SNPR CRK 21 Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Snapper Creek E E c F E 24 24 24 24 24 100 100 100 100 108 35 35 35 35 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P P P P P Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Page 14 Pump Capacity(GPM) 4900 4900 4900 4900 4900 8300 Year Drilled 1953 1959 1959 1959 1959 1976 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 855470 855280 655080 855850 854640 867480 M Feet North 494440 494280 494050 49381D 493590 496570 X Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter ZY Use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 14 Page 15 Application Number_ 110511-6 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Well ED 27180 27181 27182 27183 27184 27185 Name 22 SC 23 SC 24 SC 25 SW 26 SW 27 SW Map Designator SNPR CRK22 SNPR CRK 23 SNPR CRK24 Southwest 25 Southwest 26 Southwest 27 FLUWID Number Well Field Snapper Creek Snapper Creek Snapper Creek Southwest Southwest Southwest ExistingfProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 24 24 24 24 24 24 Total Depth(feet) 108 108 108 104 104 104 Cased Depth(feet) 50 50 50 54 54 54 Facility Elev, (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 0 0 0 To 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (BLS) Pump Capacity(GPM) 8300 8300 8300 6940 6940 6940 Year Drilled 1976 1976 1976 1982 1962 1982 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REV]EWrR REVIRVItER Migrate REV4EWER Feet East 866830 866640 866310 854400 854160 853920 M Feet North 496920 4.96560 496750 493320 493060 492810 x` Accounting Method Unspecified Unspecfjel Flaw Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary ry- z Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supp y Public Water Supply Public Water Supply O Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifar Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 15 Page 16 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Application Number: 110511-6 Well ID 27186 27187 27188 27189 27192 27191 Flame 28 SW 29W 30W 31 W 32 SW 33 SW Map Designator Southwest 28 West Wellfield 29 West Wellfield 30 West Wei [field 31 SW 32 SW 33 FLUWID Number Well Field Southwest West West West Southwest Southwest Existing/Proposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 24 24 24 24 48 48 Total Depth(feet) 104 70 70 70 88 88 Cased Depth(teet) 54 35 35 35 33 33 Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 0 0 0 To 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumped Or Flawing P P P P P P Pump Type Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet(BLS) fl Pump Capacity(GPM) 6940 6945 3470 6945 7500 7500 Year Drilled 1982 1997 1997 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 853830 830235 830220 830210 855470 855970 rn Feet North 492801 496590 497150 497700 495900 494350 Accounting Method Flow ]deter Flow Pieter Flaw Neter Flow ]Deter Flow Meter Unspecified Use Status Primary Primary Primary Standby Standby Standby Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Biscayne Aquifer Monitor Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer ' Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 16 Page 17 Application plumber: 110511-6 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Well ID 27190 27193 27195 27194 27196 27197 Name 34 SW ASRIBlending tW ASRIBlending 2W ASR/Blending 3W ASR{81ending 4SW ASRIBlending 5SW Map Designator Southwest 34 ASR 1W ASR 2W ASR 3W ASR 4SW ASR-5SW FLUWID Number Well Field Southwest Alexander Orr WTP Alexander Orr WTP Alexander Orr WTP Alexander Orr WTP Alexander Orr WTP ExistingtProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 48 30 30 30 30 30 Total Depth(feet) 88 1300 1250 1210 1200 1200 Cased Depth(feet) 33 850 845 835 765 760 Facility Elegy. (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 0 0 0 To 0 0 0 0 0. 0 Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Turbine Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified Pump Int Elegy. Feet (NGVD) Feet (BLS) Pump Capacity(GPM) 7500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 Year Drilled 1997 1996 1997 1997 1997 1998 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 854350 830190 830100 830160 855386 854880 m Feet North 493690 496430 496700 497424 495050 4943247 Accounting Method Flew Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter ROW Meter Use Status Standby Primary Primary Primary Standby Standby r--1^ Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Pubfic Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Biscayne Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan. Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Aquifer Page 17 Page 18 Application Number. 110311-6 TABU - A Description Of Wells. well 10 23826 128172 128166 128168 23821 23822 Name ET FT EVRGL1 EVRGL2 EVRGL3 LC Map Designator ELEVATED TANK 1 ELEVATED TANK 2 EVERGLADES 1 EVERGLADES 2 EVERGLAI]ES 3 LEISURE CITY 2 FLUWID Number Well Field Elevated Tanks Elevated Tanks Everglades Labor Everglades Labor Everglades Labor Leisure City Camp Camp Camp Existing/Proposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 12 16 18 18 18 6 Tatal Depth(feet) 40 50 55 55 50 30 Cased Depth(feet) 35 40 45 42 40 25 Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 To 0 0 0 Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (BLS) 37 37 38 38 38 22 Pump Capaedy(GPM) 1600 1500 1500 1500 500 400 Year Drilled 1.982 1996 2000 2001 2000 1953 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 847490 847500 818850 818880 818905 841830 M Feet North 423470 423360 394500 394500 394500 422680 Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter use status Primary Standby Primary Standby Primary Primary water use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Mater Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Monitor Monitor Water Shortage Biscayne Aquifer Monitor Monitor Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Monitoring Facility Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Page 18 Page 19 Application Number: 110511-6 TABLE -A Description Of Wells. Well ID 23823 23824 23825 27411 27407 27408 Name LC 3 LC 4 LC 5 NJ 1 NWTN 1 NW1'N 2 Map Designator LEISURE CITY 3 LEISURE CITY 4 LEISURE CITY 5 NARANJA 1 NEWTON 1 NEWTON 2 FLUWID Number Well Field Leisure City Leisure City Leisure City Naranja Lakes Newton Newton ExistingiProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 12 12 12 12 18 1s Total Depth(feet) 35 35 40 40 65 66 Cased Depth (feet) 30 30 35 35 50 53 Facility Elev, (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From 0 0 0 0 0 0 To 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Turbine Pump int. Elev_ Feet (NGVD) Feet (BLS) 27 -27 27 32 45 43 Pump Capacity(GPM) 1200 800 1600 B00 1500 1500 Year Drilled 1957 1966 1971 1975 2000 2001 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER RE4'IEWER Feet East 841825 841770 841740 845240 838720 539675 Feet North 4227,6 422730 422725 430800 408020 408020 Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Fiow Meier Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter rw- Use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Z Water use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Suppty Public Water Supply Q Monitor Monitor Mcnitcr Monitor Water Shortage Monitor " Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Monitoring Facility Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 19 Application Number: 110511-6 Well ID 128173 128178 Name FP RHP1 Map Designator Former Plant 1 Roberta Hunter 1 FLUWID Number TABLE -A Description Of Wells. 128179 128180 128181 261790 RHP 2 RMP 3 RHP 4 SMH-F1 Roberta Hunter 2 Roberta Hunter Roberta Hunter4 SMH-FA1 Page 20 Well Field South Miami Heights South Miami Heights South Miami Heights South Miami Heights South Miami Heights South Miami Heights Exist!ng[Proposed P P P P P P Well Diameter(Inches) 24 24 24 24 24 24 Total Depth(feet) 50 72 50 72 72 1200 Cased Depth(feet) 45 45 45 45 45 1100 Facility Elev. (ft NGVD) Screened Interval From To Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Submersible Submersible Submersible Submersible Submersible Submersible Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet(Bl-S) Pump Caparity(GPM) 2800 1400 1400 1400 1400 2430 Year Drilled 2012 Planar Location Source REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 860980 860208 860255 860256 860255 860300 m Feet North 458580 456482 455755 455142 454065 455490 Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Use Status Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary •-wr- Water Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply 0 Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Aquifer Page 20 Page 21 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Application Dumber_ 110511-6 Well 3D 261791 261792 261793 261794 261795 262633 Name SMH-F2 3MH-F3 SMH-F4 Sh1H-F5 SMH-F6 SMH-F7 Map Designator SMH-FA2 SMH-FA3 SMH-FA4 SMH-FA5 SMH-FA6 SMH-FA7 FLUWID Number Well Field South Miami Heights South Miami Heights South Miami Heights South Miami Heights South Miami Heights South Miami Heights Existing/Proposed P P P P P P Well Diameter(inches) 24 24 24 24 24 24 Total Depth(feet) 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 Cased Depth(feet) 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 Facility E[ev. (fL NGVD) Screened Interval From To Pumped Or Flowing P P P P P P Pump Type Submersible Submersible Submersible Submersible Submersible Submersible Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (BUS) Pump Capacity(GPM) 2430 0 2430 2430 2430 2430 Year Drilled 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Planar Location Source REVIEW) -R REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER Feet East 860315 860315 860350 860785 661435 860256 rn Feet North 454555 453205 452090 451310 453545 457056 Accounting Method Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Flow Meter Use Status Primary Monitor Primary Primary Primary Primary r+ Z Wager Use Type Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply Public Nater Supply Public Water Supply Public Water Supply 4 Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Aquifer Page 21 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Application Number: 110591-6 Page 22 Well ID 262635 217858 217859 217860 217861 257879 Name SMH-F8 AO -SN AO -8C SC -1N SC -6N SW -2W Map Designator SMH-FA8 SW -2W FLUWID Number Well Field South Miami Heights Existing/Proposed P E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 24 Total Depth(feet) 1200 60 60 60 60 60 Cased Depth(feet) 1100 55 55 55 55 6D Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From To Pumped Or Flowing P Pump Type Submersible None None None None Unspecified Primp Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (BLS) Pump Capacity(GPM) 2430 0 0 0 0 0 Year Drilled Planar Location Source Feet East 860256 871936 875599 866517 867733 852444 M Feet North 458125 497928 503302 498288 494945 496094 X Accounting Method Flow Meter None none None None None Use Status Primary Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Z Water Use Type Public Water Supply Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor 0 Upper Floridan Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 22 Application Number: 910511-6 Well ID 217863 Name SW-TVV Map Designator 48 FLUWID Number 88 Well Field So ExistinglProposed E Well Diameter(Inches) 55 Total Depth(feet) 60 Cased Depth(feet) 55 Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) None Screened Interval None From None To Pumped Or Flowing Pump Type None Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Use Status Feet(BLS) Monitor Pump Capacity(GPM) 0 Year Drilled Monitor Planar Location Source TABLE - A Description Of Wells, 217869 217870 217881 217878 217877 WWF -21S VVWF-755 NW -3A NW -6F NW -8D E E E E 833267 48 55 88 60 So 43 50 83 55 55 None None None None None 0 ce 0 0 0 Q Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer 01 Aquifer Page 23 Feet East 852849 830122 833267 841714 850785 855531 M Feet North 4.9T131 496604 496314 562395 543261 548212 XAccounting Method Norte None None None None None C37 Use Status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor r -i: Z Water Use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Q Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer 01 Aquifer Page 23 Application Number: 110511-6 Well ID 217882 Name NW -19C Map Designator Description Of Wells. FLUWID Number 0 Well Field 137231 257689 ExistingtProposed E Well Diameter(Innhes) F-45 F-279 Total Depth(feet) 50 Cased Depth(feet) 45 Facility Elev. (ft NGVD) G-432 Screened Interval E E From E To 84.9 117 Pumped or Flowing 99.5 Pump Type None Pump Int. Elev. 97.5 Feet (NGVD) Feet East Feet (BLS) 848B91 None None Unspecified unspecified Unspecified TABLE -A 0 0 0 Description Of Wells. 0 0 217879 137231 257689 257888 257887 WARD -IC F-45 F-279 G-354 G432 F-45 F-279 G-354 G-432 E E E E E 40 84.9 117 90.2 99.5 35 113.5 89.2 97.5 None None Unspecified unspecified Unspecified Page 24 Pump Capacity(Gpm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year Drilled Planar Location Source REVIEWER Feet East 863277 848B91 918017 923283 896054 891645 M Feet North 548736 553433 544328 565633 586467 506889 x Accounting Method None None None None None None is Use Status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor ri- Z water Use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor 0 Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Water Shortage Monitoring Facility Biscayne A[iuifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 24 M Aquifer Page 25 Application Number. 110511-6 TABLE -A Description Of Wells_ Well ID 257886 217851 257878 257885 137249 137251 Name G-548 G-551 G-553 G-571 G-894 G-896 Map Designator G-548 G-553 G-571 G-894 G-896 FLUWID Number Well Field ExistinglProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 2 2 Total Depth(feet) 97.3 84 91 94.5 76 74 Cased Depth(feet) 91.4 71 79 94.5 74.5 60 Facility Elev. ft NGVD) Screened Interval From To Pumped Or Flowing Pump Type Unspecified None Unspecified Unspecified None None Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet(BLS) Pump Capacity(GPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year Drilled Planar Lottation Source D{GITIZfr"iJ DIGITIZED Feet East 894029 855096 874041 893396 924897 892989 M Feet North 539211 494095 479217 537785 569308 492088 k Accounting Method None None None None None None 3 07 Use Status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor r-}- z Water Use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor 0 Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer M Aquifer Page 25 Application Number: M511-6 Well 1D 257884 Mame G-901 Map Designator G-901 FLUWID Number 39 Well Field Year Drilled ExistinglProposed E Well Diameter(Inches) "total Depth(feet) 96 Cased Depth(feet) 94.8 Facility. Elev. (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From To Source Pumped Or Flouring Pump Type. Unspeciffied Pump Int, Elev. DIGITIZED Feet (NGVD) Feet East Feet (BLS) 883435 257883 G-939 G-939 E 60 57 Unspecified TABLE - A Description Of Wells. 217716 217853 G-10098 G -1074B G-10098 257882 137233 G-1179 G-1980 G-1179 G-1180 E E E E 0 0 9 100 39 80 67 Year Drilled 17 None None Unspecified None Page 26 Pump Capac4(GPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year Drilled Planar Location Source REVIEWER DIGITIZED Feet East 889410 883435 887950 824844 855447 854786 M Feet North 497387 466158 491810 498493 422815 423747 x Accounting Method None None None None None None Use Status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor e—a- Z Water Use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Shortager Monitoring Facility Ln Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 26 Application Number: 110511-6 Well ID 137235 Name G-1351 Map Designator G-1351 FLUWID Number G-3074 Well Field G-3224 Existing[Proposed 1~ Well Diameter(Inches) 2 Total Depth(feet) 103 Cased Depth(feet) 100 Facility Elev. (fL NGVD) E Screened Interval 496866 From 2 To 104 Pumped Or Flowing 40 Pump Type None Pump int Elev. None Feet (NGVD) 82 Feet (BLS) Pump Capacity(GPM) 0 Year Drilled Planar Location Use Status TABLE -A Description Of Wells. 137237 257880 217654 137240 217715 G-1354 G-1488 G-3074 G-3162 G-3224 G-1354 G-1488 865535 G-3224 E E E E E 2 496866 433858.484 2 X 104 20 40 92 95.5 91 None 40 82 93.5 None Unspecified None None None G L1 A G 0 Page 27 Source REM F=WER DIGITIZED DIGITlZ—t-0 REMSEWEIR Feet East 896137 897579 865535 857302,951 916450 M Feet North 535114 537142 496866 433858.484 560230 X Accounting Method None None None None None None Use Status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Mnnitar z Water Use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor - - Water Shortage Monitoring Facility Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer C" Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Page 27 • :,tom TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Aquifer Page 28 Application Number: 110511-6 Well ID 137241 137242 217872 217873 257881 217713 Name G-3229 G-3250 G-3253 G -3259A G-33130 G -3313E Map Designator G-3229 G-3250 G-33130 G -3313E FLUWID Number Well Field ExistinglProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 2 Total Depth(feet) 85 116 34.5 80 110 114. Cased Depth(feet) 106 18 107 32 Facility Elev. (fk. NGVD) Screened interval From TO Pumped Or Flowing Pump Type None None None None Unspecified None Pump Int. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (BLS) Pump Capacity(GPM) 6 6 0 0 0 0 Year -Drilled Planar Location Source 01GITIZE0 DIGITIZED PEVIEWF-R Feet East 897343 889597 848470 853204 886586 866590 M Feet North 515333 544468 548281 548219 476178 476160 Accounting Method None None None None None None 5 use status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor r1• water use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor O Biscayne Aqui er Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 28 Application Number;. 110511-6 Well tD 217864 Name G-3551 Map Designator 19,9 FLUWID Number 19 Well Field 18 ExistinglProposed E Well Diameter(Inches) 14.1 Total Depth(feet) 18.3 Cased Depth(feet) 13.3 FaciNty Elev. (ft. NGVD) None Screened Interval None From None To Pumped Or Flowing Pump Type None Pump Int Elev: Feet (NGVD) Use Status Feet (BLS) Monitor Pump Capacity(GPM) 0 Year Drilled Monitor Planar Location Water Use Type Source Monitor TABLE - A Description Of Wells. 217865 297866 217855 G-3553 G-3554 G-3555 217867 217856 G-3556 G-3563 E E E E E 19,9 20 19 19.1 18 14.9 15 14 14.1 13 None None Nane None None 0 0 0 0 0 Q1 Aquifer Page 29 Feet East 822180 829849 833159 834977 830406 872346 M Feet North 496766 496216 496238 492107 498278 5072b7 Accounting Method None None None None None None Cr Use Status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Z Water Use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor 0 Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Q1 Aquifer Page 29 Application Humber: 110511-6 Well ID 217857 Name G-3565 Map Designator TABLE -A FLUWID Number 842339 Well Field Description Of Wells. ExistingtProposed E Well Diameter(Inches) 529396 Total Depth(feet) 19 Cased Depth(feet) 14 Facility Elev. (fL NGVD) 217944 Screened Interval G-3577 G-3676 From G3761 To E E Pumped Or Flowing E Pump Type None Pump Int. Elev. a Feet (NGVD) 8 33 Feet (13LS) 16.3 Pump Capacity(GPM) 0 Year Drilled Monitor Planar Location Water Use Type Source Monitor None None None None None 0 a 0 0 0 Feet East 852082 841565 820631 TABLE -A 842356 842339 r('I Description Of Wells. 498927 596563 497721 529396 548457 548452 217874 217868 217875 217880 217944 G-3567 G-3577 G-3676 G-3760 G3761 E E E E E a 18.7 8 33 72.7 16.3 13.7 0 23 70.7 Monitor None None None None None 0 a 0 0 0 Aquifer Page 30 Feet East 852082 841565 820631 845381 842356 842339 r('I Feet North 498927 596563 497721 529396 548457 548452 Accounting Method None None None None None None i� Use Status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor ri- Z Water Use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Water Table Aquifer Aquifer Page 30 Application Number: 110511-6 Well ID 217876 Name G-3818 Map Designator G-38$5 FLUWID Number G-3887 Well Field 0-3897 Existing/Proposed E Well Diameter(Inches) G-3888 Total Depth(feet) 20 Cased Depth(feet) 15 Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) E Screened Interval From To 91 Pumped Or Flowing 134 Pump Type None Pump Int Elev. 101 Feet (NGVD) 143.5 Feet (BLS) 863870 TABLE - A Description Of Wells. 257890 257891 257892 257893 217383 G-38$5 G-3886 G-3887 G-3888 0-3897 G-3885 G-3888 G-3887 G-3888 S4W+lF-1(Boystown Pin E E E E E 6 91 109 134 149 22.5 86 101 130 143.5 22.5 Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified None Page 31 Pump Capacity(GPM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year Drilled 2009 Planar Location Source APPLICANT Feet East 836580 863870 876430 &88022 903085 847536 Feet North 549140 441922 457549 481537 519784 483700 X Accounting Method None None None None None None Use Status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor water Use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 31 TABLE - A Descri tion Of Wells. Application Number; 11054'1-6 Page 32 well 10 217884 217885 217887 217886 257894 257895 Name G-3898 G-3899 G-3900 G-3901 G-3946 G-3947 Map Designator WWF-iSW SME: -t Newton 4 Ever 1 G-3946 13-3947 FLUWID Number Well Field ExistingfProposed E E E E E E Well Diameter(Inches) 6 5 6 6 Total Depth{feet} 22.8 20.5 22 22.3 99 230 Cased Depth(feet) 22.8 20-5 22 22.9 910 200 Facility Elev. (ft. NGVD) Screened Interval From To Pumped Or Flowing Pump Type None None None None Unspecified Unspecified Pump Ins. Elev. Feet (NGVD) Feet (31-S) Pump Capacity(GPM) 0 t] 0 0 0 0 Year Drilled 2009 2009 2009 2009 Planar Location source APPLICANT APPLICANT APPLICANT APPLICANT Feet East 828900 861413 838647 850586 863870 915184 Rj Feet North 495915 450646 407718 394645 441939 540997 Accounting Method None None None None None None Use Status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Water Use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Water Shortage Facility Water ShortageMonitoring Monitoring Facility Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Aquifer Page 32 Application Number: 110511-6 Weil ID 257896 Name G-3948 Map Designator G-3948 FLUWID Number 1350 Well Field 1490 ExistinglProposed E Well Diarneter(Inches) 1010 Total Depth(feet) 279 Cased Depth(feet) F Facility Elev. (ft NGVD) None Screened Interval Use Status From Monitor To Pumped Or Flowing Pump Type Unspecified Pump Int. Elev. Water Use Type Feet (NGVD) Monitor Feet (BLS) © Pump Capacity(GPM) 0 Year Drilled Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Planar Location Source 257897 G-3949 G-3949 E TABLE - A Description Of Wells. 217829 217830 FA -3N NDWWTP FA -5 SDVVWTP NDWV+ITP FA -3N SDWWTP FA -5 E 1510 1410 F Unspecified None 0 0 217831 217832 ASR MW -1 CAIEST) ASR MWA (SW) ASR MW -1 SWWF MW -1 E E E 1890 1396 1200 1790 1350 1110 1490 855 845 1588 1010 900 F F None None None 0 0 0 01 Aquifer Page 33 Feet East 926769 930332 m Feet North 577670 591728 X Accounting Method None None None None None None Use Status Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Water Use Type Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor © Biscayne Aquifer Biscayne Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer 01 Aquifer Page 33 rM Application Dumber; 110511-6 Well 10 217833 Name CHI SDVVWTP Map Designator Central Hospital FLUWID Number Well Field €xistinglProposed E Well Diameter(Inches) Total Depth(feet) 1500 Cased Depth(faet) 1440 Facility Elev. (fL NGVD) Screened interval From 1400 To 1100 Pumped OrFlowing F Pump Type None Pump Int Eley Feet (NGVD) Feet (BLS) Pump Capacity(GPM) 0 Year Drilled Planar Location Source Feet East Feet North Accounting Method None Use Status Monitor Water Use Type Monitor Upper Floridan Aquifer Aquifer TABLE - A Description Of Wells. Page 34 TABLE A Description of Wells Well Name or Number 1 2 3 4 10 11 Map Designation PW -1 PW -2 PW -3 PW -4 PW -10 PW -11 Existing or Proposed Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Date of Proposed Construction N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Date Installed if Existing 617109 315112 2124112 4105112 10/15/12 6125112 Diameter (in) 17 16 16 16 16 16 Total Depth (ft) 1,490 1,452 1,497 1,467 1,480 1,482 Cased Depth (ft) 1,082 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,080 1,080 Screened Interval (ft) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Pumped or Flowing Flowing Flowing Flowing Flowing Flowing Flowing Pump Type (see Instructions) SUBMER SIBLE SUBMER SIBLE SUBMER SIBLE SUBMER SIBLE SUBMER SIBLE SUBMER SIBLE Pump Intake Depth (ft bls) 160 160 160 160 160 160 Pump or Flow Capacity (GPM) 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 Working Valve if Artesian (yes, no or not applicable) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Status (see Instructions) PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY Purpose (see Instructions) Public Supply Public Supply Public Supply Public Supply Public Supply Public Supply Elevation of the Wellhead (ft NGVD - see Instructions) 10 10 10 10 10 10 Water Use Accounting Method (see Instructions) FLOWME TER FLOWME TER FLOWME TER FLOWME TER FLOWME TER FLOWME TER Date Last Calibrated (ATTACH calibration report) NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA Planar Coordinates (if known - see instructions) n [�17/522/40T17/52/40 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Section l Township 1 Range 17/52/40 17/52/40 17/52/40 17/52/40 Form 0645-G60 (08103) e rnNs n Pws �PW9 i.. -- f — �Pw12 _. W13 7 i P(tIZ W-1 +PW11 Iw- T J I i I\ ! PW2 PW3 PW4 Pw 1d.. I RqT _ � I 0 Completed Production Wells Fol Proposed Production Wells Feet Injection Wells and Dual Zone Monitor Well 0 2,500 5,000 Canal [� Lake MajorRoads Schlumberger WATER SERVICES Figurel City of Hialeah Existing and Proposed Well Location Map MD'WASD FY 2014-2020 Capital B Y -et And Multi -Year Capital Plan M IAM I -DARE MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT ADOPTED FY 2014-2020 CAPITAL BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 Prepared by Capital Planning and Coordination Section •�` MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT MIAMMADE 2014-2020 CAPITAL BUDGET AND MULTI -PEAR CAPITAL PLAN r Projection by Project Sub -project by Year - Water Version 4 As of. 9/30/2013 Current Expenditures Remaining. Bond/Fund As or Bond/Fund , PROJECTIONS Proj Sub-Proj Sub-Proj Description Allocation 9/30/2013 Allocation .2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 20I8-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 Future Total 1075 101546 WATER TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS TO COMPLY 532,824,088 13,200.855 519,623,203 300,000 1,000,000 7,500,000 20.000,000 176,682,053 180,710,573 133,430,577 0 tl 0 0 519,623,203 WITH SURFACG WAT[:R TREATMENT AND D1SU3PECTANT/DISINFEC7ION BY PRODUCT RL-GTSLATIONS 101891 NEW NV/GTF 1E611 SERVICE PUMP STATION 43,250,000 0 43,250,000 0 0 1,500,000 10.000.000 15.000,000 14,500,000 2,250,000 0 0 0 0 43,250,000 TOTAL -1075 585,954,088 13,200,885 572,753,203 300,000 1.3001000 12,200,000 33,300,000 194.762,053 195,210573 135,680.577 0 0 4 0 572,753,203 1077 101364 SOUTH MIAMI HEIGHTS WTP AND WF - NSW WATER 75,456,139 5,389,891 70.066,248 200,000 1500,000 20,000,000 26.913,097 5,727,131 15,726,020 0 0 C 0 0 70.066,248 TREATMENT PLANT 101365 SOUTH MIAMI HEIGHTS WTP AND WF -NEW WELLFIELD 20,878,052 2,836,758 15,041,304 100,000 1,500,000 7.500,000 8.941,305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,041,305 101575 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT SOl]TH MLIJ U 4.700,000 1,493,567 2,706.433 123.356 500,000 1,460,764 622,313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.706,433 MMI-rr5 WTP 101778 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED 16 INCH 4,500,000 1,477,596 3,022,404 144,249 I,400,000 1,478,155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 3,022,404 WATERMAIN I02020 SOUTH MIAMI HEIGHTS FA MEMBRANES WTP 42,000.000 0 42,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,000,000 0 0 0 42,000,000 102021 SOUTH MIAMI HEIGHTS -FA WELLS AND PIPING 21,600,000 0 21,600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,600,000 0 0 0 2I.600,000 TOTAL -1077 169,134,201 11,697,812 157,436,389 567.605 4,900,000 30,438,919 36,476,71$ 5,737,131 15,726420 0 63,600,400 0 0 0 157,436,390 I075 101368 711LEMETERING SYSTEM -WATER 17,297,263 21650,110 14,647,153 2,214,885 1,133,067 2,433,OC,7 2,433,067 2,433,067 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 14,647,153 Prepared by Capital Planning and Coordination Section Page 9 of 10 `T NEL"U-DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT G ;. MID 2014-2020 CAPITAL BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN Projection by Project Sub -project by Year - Water Version 4 As of: 9/30/2013 Current Expenditures Remaining Bond/Fund As of Bond/Fund 1 PR07ECTIONS Praj Sub-Praj Sub -Prof Description Allocation 9/30/2013 Allocation 112013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 Future Total TOTAL =1078 17,297,263 2,650,110 14„647,153 274,865 1,133,067 2,433,067 2,433,067 2,433,067 2,00,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 14,647,153 1080 101679 IIIALEAH FLORIDAN AQUIFER R.O. W.T.P. PHASE 1 (10 45,608,637 44,756,907 651,730 851,730 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 551,730 MGD) - COB IN 1065.101956 101737 IlIALR&H FLORIDAN AQUIFER R.C. W.T.F. PHASE 2 (5 12,816,075 0 12,616,075 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 12,516,D75 0 0 0 12,816,075 MGD) 101738 HIALEAH FLORIDAN AQUIFER R,O, W.T,P, PFL4SE 3 (2.5 6,099,000 0 6,099.000 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 6,099,000 0 0 0 6,099,600 MGD) TOTAL -1080 64,523,712 44,756,907 19,766,805 851,730 0 D 0 0 0 0 18.9]5,075 0 0 0 19,766,805 n81 101966 INSTALLATION OF 12-INCII DIWM ON EAST DRIVE 687,042 602,944 84,098 50.400 34.098 0 0 0 0 U 0 U 0 0 84,098 FROM NW 36 ST. TO LA13ARON DIL TOTAL • 1031 687,042 602,944 84,098 50,000 34,098 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84,098 1082 10I969 WATER- PIPES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 83,608,444 29,122,567 54,485,877 10,775,476 8,000,000 14,906,409 6,201,688 5,547,736 4,974,I70 4,180,396 0 0 0 0 54,465,877 TOTAL -1.082 83,608,444 29,122,567 54,485,877 70,775,476 8,000,000 14,906,409 6,201,688 5,547,738 4,874,370 4,180,396 D 0 D 0 54,485,677 TOTAL -Water 4,067,616,612 410,769,1I7 3,656,848,495 83,880,760 119,010,688 214,146,880 255,797,526 418,171,885 403,102,D53 305,885,696 1,852r7D,268 2,583,540 2,000,000 0 3,656,648,496 Prepared by Capital Planning and Coordination Section Page 10 of 16 APPENDIX C Water Supply for Municipalities Appendix C Water Supply for Municipalities Service Area: Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department's (MDWASD) 20 -year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (WSFWP) identifies alternative water supply projects, conservation and capital improvement projects necessary to meet the projected water demands within the Department's service area. The MDWASD's service area includes the area within. Miami -Dade County's Urban Development Boundary (U DB), excluding North Miami Beach, Homestead , Florida City and approximately 65% of North Miami's service area, The water demands for the areas within the Urban Expansion are considered for the planning horizon between 2015-2033. The City of North Miami Beach stopped purchasing water from MDWASD in 2008, and has a 30 -year wholesale agreement with MDWASD to purchase water on an as needed basis. The City of North Miarni's Water Treatment Plant (WTP) supplies approximately 65% of the City's service area and purchases approximately 35% of its total water needs from MDWASD. Florida City and Homestead supply their customer's from their respective Water Treatment Plants. In 2010, the City of Homestead entered into a 20 -year water use agreement with MDWASD to purchase up to 3 MGD to meet the demands of its retail water customers. Retail and Wholesale Customers: MDWASD supplies water to a total of fifteen wholesale customers, 15 municipal retail customers and areas of unincorporated Miami -Dade County. The other utilities such as North Miami Beach, North Miami, Homestead and Florida City also supply other local governments within Miami -Dade County as well as unincorporated areas. Exhibit C-1 shows the breakdown of the water suppliers and the local governments they serve. Population and Water Demand: Exhibits C-2 through C-4 include the per capita consumption and municipal and service area population projections for all municipalities within Miami -Dade County through 2035. Exhibit C-5 contains the population projections for other utilities supplying water to areas in Miami - Dade County, and Exhibit C -b includes the unincorporated population served. The Population data was obtained from the Miami -Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), Planning Division, based on the 2010 Ceii.sus and derived from Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ). The water demand projections for wholesale and retail municipal customers are included in Exhibits C-7 and C -S. These water demand projections were computed utilizing the Municipal per capita value that applies to each municipality. Water Conservation: Currently, MDWASD is implementing all Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the 20 -year Water Use Efficiency Plan, which was approved by the South Florida Water Appendix C Water Supply for Municipalities Management District in May 2007. The Plan identifies a total of approximately 20 mgd of water saved through the year 2027.Through 2013, a total of 11.2 mgd have been saved. In addition, all of MDWASD's wholesale customers are required to submit a Water Conservation Plan to the Department's Water Use Efficiency Section as :mandated by County Ordinance 06-177, Section 32-83.1 of the Miami -Dade County Code. The Plan shall identify BMPs based on population characteristics and type of service for each municipal service area. The implementation of all BMPs uz MDWASD's service area has resulted in a reduction uz per capita usage as identified in Section 4, Table 4-4 of the WSFWP. h1 addition, Miand-Dade County has enacted water use efficiency -legislation including permanent landscape irrigation, restrictions, landscape ordinances requiring Florida Friendly landscaping in new construction, in right of ways, and the installation of high efficiency plumb>zzg fixtures in new construction and some reuse within the three wastewater treatment plant sites or in their vicinities. Water conservation activities are funded arulr.rally through the operations and maintenance budget and are therefore not included in capital budgets. 2014 Page 2 6 Exhibit C-1 Water Suppliers for Local Governments Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (WASD) Wholesale Customers Municipality °/) Population Served by WASD Bal Harbour 100% Bay Harbour Island 100% Hialeah 100% Hialeah Gardens 100% Homestead 3 MGD Max Indian Creek 100% Medley 100% Miami Beach 100% North Bay Village 100% North Miamit2) 25% North Miami Beach{3) as needed only Opa Locka 100% Surfside 100% Virginia Gardens 1007. West Miauu 100% Other Utilities - North Miami Beach (NMB) Municipality 'A Population Served by NMB Aventura(l) 32% Golden Beach 100% Mian -ti Gardens(s) 41% Sunny Isles 100% North Miaani Beach 100% Unincorporated See Exhibit C-6 Other Utilities - Homestead 0/0 Population Municipality Served by Homestead Homestead 96% Unincorporated See Exhibit C-6 Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (WASD) Detail Municipal Customers Municipality '%a Population Served by WASD Aventura(l) 68% Coral Gables 100% Cutley Bay 100% Doral 100% El Portal 100% Key Biscayne 100% Miami 100% Miami Lakes 100% Miami Shore5(4) 97% Miami Springs 100% Palmetto Bay 100% Pinecrest 100% South Miami 100% Sweetwater 100% Miami Gardens 57% Unincorporated See Exhibit C-6 Other Utilities - North Miami (NM) Municipality `%0 Population Served by NM North Miami') 75% Biscayne Park 100% Miami Shores (4) 3°% Unincorporated See Exhibit C-6 Other Utilities -Florida City Municipality 0% Population Served by Fl City Florida City 100% Note: ([) Aventura is supplied by MDWASD, North Miami Beach, and City of Opa Locka (3% of population) (2) 25% of North Miami's demand is supplied by MDWASD. Sixty-five (75%) is supplied by North Miami (3) North Miami Beach is supplied on an as needed basis only by MDWASD (n) Miami Shores is supplied by MDWASD and North Miami (5) Miami Gardens is supplied by MDWASD, North Miami Beach, and Opa Locka. Opa Locka is a wholesale customer of MDWASD «i 4% of Homestead's population is within WASD's service area Exhibit C-2 Municipal Per Capita - Water Supplied by Miami - Dade Water and Sewer Department Retail Municipal Customer 2012 Consumption Per Capita (GPD) Aventura* 147.3 Coral Gables 151.19 Cutler Bay 73.82 Doral 126.82 El Portal 114.37 Key Biscayne 173.11 Miami 92.05 Miami Gardens* 63.32 Miami Lakes 96.96 Miami Shores* 2768.97 Miami Springs 95.96 Palmetto Bay 93.45 Pinecres t 90.27 South Miami 117.57 Sweetwater 36.52 Note: * Represents the per capita for the area supplied by MDWASD Wholesale Customer 2012 Wholesale Per Capita Consumption (GPD)_ Bal Harbour 482.52 Bay Harbor Islands 149.38 Hialeah 109.02 Hialeah Gardens 68.50 Indian Creek Village 3809.80 Medley 864.21 Miami Beach 245.99 North Bay Village 148.11 North Miami* 54.65 Opa-Locka 126.82 Surfside 148.04 Virginia Gardens 131.15 West Miami 126.50 Note: * Represents the per capita for the area supplied by MDWASD Exhibit C-3 MDWASD Wholesale Customers Population Projections 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2033 2035 Service Area Munic'ipalily Bal Harbor Bal HarborWASP 2684.65 2722,44 291135 3100.27 3289.18 3402.53 3478.09 North Miami Water By NMB Ulllity Homestead Florida City Total 2,686 2,722 2.911 3,100 3,209 3,403 3,478 Service Area Municipality Bay Harbor Islands Bay HarborWASD 5743.47 5772.33 5916,67 6061.00 6205.33 6291.93 6349.67 Islands North Miami Water By .NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 6,743 5,772 6,917 6,081 6;206 6,202 6,560 Service Area Municipality Hialeah Hialeah WASD 227901.94 228770,67 23311436 237458.04 24180173 244407.94 246145.41 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 227,902 228,771 233,114 287,468 241,902 Z44,408 246,146 Unincorporated within Hialeah's Service Area WASD 2918.70 2956.17 3143.54 3330.91 3518.28 3630.70 3705.65 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 2,919 2,966 3,144 3,331 3,618 3,657 3,706. Total Hialeah Service Area Pop, 230,021 231,727 236,258 240,789 246,320 248,039 249,861 Total Hialeah Muni. Pop_227,902 228,771 233,114 237,458 241,602 244,468 248,146 Service Area Municipality Hialeah Gardens Hialeah Gardens WASD 23878.09 23998.83 24602,51 25206.20 25909,88 26172.09 26413.57 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 23,878 23,999 24,603 26;206 25,810 28,172 26,414 Service Area Municipality Indian Creek Village Indian CreekWASD 89,41 90.33 94.67 99.00 103.33 105.93 107.67 Village North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 89 90 95 89 103 106 100 Service Area Municipality Medley Medley WASD 2252.69 2619.96 4456.31 6292.66 8129,02 9230.83 9965,37 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 2,253 2,820 4,466 6;293 8,129 9,231 9,965 Municipality Medley -WASD Service Area WASD 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 Total Medley Muni. Pop. 2,263 2,621 4,467 6,293 8,130 9,231 9,988 Total Medley Service Area Pop. 2,263 2,621 4,457 6,293 8,130 9,231 9,986 Service Area Municipality Miami Beach Miami Beach WASD 91988.04 92955-22 97791.13 102627.03 107462.93 11036447 112298.83 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 91,980 92,965 97,791 102,627 107,463 110,384 112,299 Service Area North Bay Municipality North Bay Village Village WASD 7346.99 7403.94 768833 7973,52 8258.30 8429.17 8543.09 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 7,347 7,404 7,688 7,974 8,258 8,429 8,643 Exhibit C-3 MDWASD Wholesale Customers Population Projections 2014 2015 2020 2026 2030 2033 2036 Service Area Munici slily Opa Locka Opa Locka WASD 15184.75 15259.26 15631.80 1600434 16376.88 16600.40 16749.42 Water By North Miami utility Homestead Florida City Total 15,185 15,269 16,632 16,004 16,377 16,600 16,749 Muneipality Opa Locka - WASD Service Area WASD 104.82 105.55 109.20 112,85 116.50 118.69 120.15 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 106 106 109 113 117 lie 120 Miami Gardens within Opa Locka Service Area WASD 2907.31 2928.80 3036.24 3143.68 3251.11 3315.58 3356.55 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 2,907 2,929 3,035 3,144 3,251 3,316 3,369 Unincorporated within Opa Locka Service Area WASD 1029.68 1032.73 1047.99 1063.26 107652 1087.68 1093.78 North Miami Water By NMB Wilily Homestead Ftorlda City Total 1,030 1;033 1,048 1,063 1,079 1,008 1,094 Total Opa Locka Mani. Pop 15,290 15,366 15,741 16,117 16,493 16,719 16,870 Total Opa Locka Service Area Pop 19,122 19,221 19,716 20,211 20,707 21,004 21,202 Service Area Municipality Surfside SurfsideWASD 5835.73 5865.89 6019.18 6172,46 6325.75 6417.73 6479,04 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 5,835 6,896 6,019 6,172 9,326 6,418 6,479 Service Area Municipality Virginia Gardens Virginia Gardens WASD 1967.44 1979.80 2041.60 2103.41 2165.21 2207,30 2227.02 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 1,967 1,990 2,042 2,103 2,165 2,202 2,227 Service Area Municipality West Miami West Miami WASD 6505.75 6746.71 7451.49 8156.28 8861.07 9283,94 9565.86 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 6,606 6,747 7,461 8,166 0,961 9,284 9,566 Exhibit C-4 MDWASD Retail Municipal Customers Population Projections 2014 2020 2025 2030 2033 2035 Municipality Coral Gables WASD 474384774 48991.205 50285.1447 51579.0843 52355.4481 52873.024 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 47,438 48,991 50,285 61,579 62,366 52,873 Municipality Cutler Ba WASD 41226,0714 42258.93 43119.6456 43980.3611 44496,7904 44841.0766 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida Cit Total 41,228 42,259 43,120 43,980 44,497 44,841 Municipality Doral WASD 48782.98 55001.78 60184.12 65366.46 68475.86 70548.80 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Outside UDB 17.15 17.15 17.15 17.15 17.15 17.15 Total 48,800 66,010 60,201 65,384 68,493 70,566 Municipality EI Portal WASD 1969.01 2042.12 2103.05 2163.98 2200.53 2224.91 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida Cit Total 1,969 2,042 2;103 2,164 2,201 2,2266 Municipality Key Biscayne WASD 12394.81 12558.85 12695.56 12832.27 12914.29 12968,98 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida Cit Total 12,395 12,569 12,698 12,832 12,914 12,969 Municipality Miami WASD 435290.473 490455.805 536426.915 582398.024 609980.69 628369.134 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida Cit Total 436,290 490,466 636,427 682,398 609,981 628,369 Municipality Miami Lakes WASD 28724.32 29807.73 30710.57 31613.41 3215512 32516.25 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 1 28,724 29,808 1 30,711 1 31,613 32,165 32,516 Exhibit C -E4 MDWASD Retail Municipal. Customers Population Projections 2014 2020 2025 2030 2033 2035 Municipality Miami Shores WASD 11907.42 12095.37 12252.00 12408,63 12502.61 12565,26 NM WASD 367.60 371,00 373,84 376.68 378.38 379,52 Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 12,275 12,466 12,626 12,785 12,881 12,945 Municipality Miami Springs WASD 14233.92 14472,90 14672.05 14871.20 14990.69 15070,35 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 14,2341 14,473 14,672 14,871 14,991 15,070 Municipality Palmetto Bay WASD 24236.24 24847.54 25356,95 25866.36 26172.01 26375.78 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 24,236 24,848 25,357 26,866 26,172 26,376 Municipality Pinecresl WASD 17768.65 17971.21 18140,00 18308.80 18410.07 18477.59 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida Cif Total 17,769 17,971 16,140 18,309 18,410 18,478 Municipality South Miami WASD 11681.55 12357.94 12921.51. 13485.27 13823.47 14048.93 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 11,682 12,358 12,922 13,485 13,823 14,049 Municipality Sweetwater WASD 18892.77 19645.22 20272.27 20899.32 21275.55 21526.37 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 18,893 1.9,646 20,272 20,898 21,276 21,526 Municipality Aventura WASD 24516.30 25360,82 26064.60 26768,37 27190,63 27472.14 North Miami Water By NMB 11286.17 11679.45 12001.18 12334.92 12531.56 12662,65 Utility Homestead Florida City Total 35,802 37,040 38,072 39,103 39,722 40,135 Exhibit C-4 MDWASD Retail Municipal Customers Population Projections 2014 2020 2025 2030 2033 2035 Municipality Biscayne Park WASD North Miami 3017.99 3039.72 3057.82 3075.93 3086.79 3094.03 Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Tota! 1 3,018 3,040 3,058 3,076 3,087 3,094 Municipality Miami Gardens WASD 64583.80 68913.39 72521.39 76129.38 78294.18 79737.37 North Miami Water By Utility NMB 46651.89 51494.48 55529.96 59565.45 6198634 63600.93 Homestead Florida City Water by Qpa Locka 2907.31 3036.24 3143,68 3251.11 3315.58 3358.55 'total 114,143 123,444 131,195 138,946 143,596 146,6917 Municipality Golden Beach WASD North Miami Water By NMB 950.27 986.88 1011.39 1047.90 1066.21 1078.42 Utility Homestead Florida City Total 960 987 1,017 1,048 1,066 1,078 Municipality Sunny Isles Beach WASD North Miami Water By NMB 21695.83 23245.431 24536.76 25828.09 26602.88 2711942 Utility Homestead Florida City Total 21,696 23,245 24,637 1 26,828 1 26,603 27,119 Exhibit C-5 Exhibit C-5 Other Utilities Population Projections Miami Beach Exhibit C-5 Exhibit C-5 Other Utilities Papulation Projections North Miami Water By NMB 39242.69 39466.13 40583.28 41700.14 42817.G0 43487.904311176 U1 Illy Homestead Florida City Total 39,243 39,466 40,583 41,700 42,816 43,488 _ 4'',936 North Miami Water By NMB 11286.17 11351.71 11679.45 12007.18 12334.92 12531.56 12G62.65 Utility Homestead Florida City Total 11,286 11,352 11,679 12,007 12,335 12,532 17!iG3 unicipalily Golden Beach WASD WASD North Miami North Miami Water By Watar By NMB 950.27 956.37 986.88 101739 1047.90 1066.21 1078.42 Utility Homestead Florida City Florida City Total Total 960 966 987 1,017 1,048 1,066 1,078 North Miami Water By NMB 46651.89 47458,99 51494.48 55529.96 59565.45 61986.74 63600.93 Utility Homestead Florida City Total 48 862 47,468 61,494 65,630 59,666 61,987 63,601 Munidpa8ly Sunny Isles Beach WASD North Miami Water By NMB 21695.83 21954.10 23245.43 24536,76 25828.09 26602.68 27119.42 Utility Hamestead Florida City Total 21,696 21,964 23,246 24,637 26,828 26,603 27,119 Unincor orated within NMB Service Area WASP North Miami Water By NMB 47090.83 47260.14 48106.70 48953.25 49799.81 50307.74 5064636 Utility Homestead Florida City Total 47,091 47,260 48,107 48,953 49,800 50,308 50,646 Total NMB Municipal Population 39,243 39,466 40,503 41,700 42,816 43,480 43,935 Total NMB Service Area Pop, 166,918 168,447 17G,096 163,745 191,394 196,983 199,043 Exhibit C-6 Unincorporated Population Served Note: {1] Population served outside the UDB Include correctional facilities, Biscayne National Park, Miccosukee Resort and Gaming, and Everglades Labor Camp 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2033 2035 Municipaiit Unincorporated - WASO Service Area WASD 1,031,91122 1,039,493.75 1,077,366.40 1,115,239:05 1,153,111.70 1,175,835.29 1,190,984.35 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 1,031,919 1,039,494 1,077,366 1,115,239 1,163,112 1,175,636 1,190,964 Unincorporated within Hialeah's Service Area WASD 2,918.70 2,956.17 3,L43.54 3,330.91 3,518.28 3,630.70 3,705.65 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 2,919 2,956 3,144 3,331 3,518 3,631 3,706 Municlpall Unincorporated - Homeslead Service Area WASD North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead 5,150,39 5,233.24 5,647.50 6,061.76 6,47G.02 6,724.57 6,890.28 Florida City 7ota1 5,160 5,233 5,648 6,082 6,476 6,725 6,890 Unincorporated within NM Service Area NM by WASD 7,667.74 7,725.56 8,014.68 8,30181 8,592.93 8,766.40 8,882.05 North Miami 22,868.76 22,969.46 23,472.96 23,976.46 24,479.96 24,782.06 24,983.46 Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 30,536 30,696 31,488 32,280 93,073 33,548 33,866 Unincorporated wllhin NMB Service Area WASD North Miami Water By NMB 47,090.83 47,260.14 48;106.70 48,953.25 49,799.81 1 50,307.74 50,646.36 Utility Homestead Florida City Total 47,091 47,260 48,107 48,953 49,800 56,308 50,040 Unincorporated within Opa Locke Service Area WASP 1,029.68 1,032.73 1,047.99 1,063.26 1,018.52 1,087.68 1,093.78 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 1,030 1,033 1,048 1,063 1,079 1,088 1,094 Unincorporaled outside UOB WASD 25,699.06 26,314.00 29,388.70 32,463.41 35,538.12 37,382.94 38,612.62 North Miami Water By NMB Utility Homestead Florida City Total 25,899 26,314 29,389 1 32,463 35,556 37,303 38,613 Total Unincorporated Population within MDWASD service area 1,031,919 1,039,494 1,077,366 1,115,239 1,153,112 1,175,635 1,190,x84 Total unincorporated Population sevlcad by others 112,425 1 113,491 1 118,822 124,153 129,484 132,682 134,814 Total Unincorporated Miami Dade Area Pop. 1,144,344 1,152,985 1,196,188 1,239,392 1,282,595 1,308,517 1,325,799 Note: {1] Population served outside the UDB Include correctional facilities, Biscayne National Park, Miccosukee Resort and Gaming, and Everglades Labor Camp Exhibit C-7 Wholesale Water Demand Projections Wholesale CLl5tOnler ProjectionPopulation fear Baseline Wholesale Per Capita Consumption (GPD) Projected Wholesale Consumption (GPD) Projected Wholesale Consumption (MGD) Bal Harbour 2014 2,529.07 482.52 1,220,318.54 1.22 Bal Harbour 2020 2,791.67 482.52 1,347,027.60 1.35 Bal Harbour 2025 3,010.50 482.52 1,452,618.48 1.45 Bal Harbour 2030 3,229.33 482.52 1,558,209.36 1.56 Bal Harbour 2033 3,360.63 482.52 1,621,563.89 1.62 Bal Harbour 2035 3,448.17 482.52 1,663,800.24 1.66 Bay Harbor Islands 2014 5,743.47 149.38 857,939.07 0.86 Bay Harbor Islands 2015 5,772.33 149.38 862,251.08 0.86 Bay Harbor Islands 2020 5,916.67 149.38 883,811.09 0,88 Bay Harbor Islands 2025 6,061.00 149.38 905,371.10 0.91 Bay Harbor Islands 2030 6,205.33 149.38 926,931.11 0.93 Bay Harbor Islands 2033 6,291.93 149.38 939,867.12 0.94 Bay Harbor Islands 2035 6,349.67 149.38 948,491.12 0.95 Hialeah 2014 231,021.00 109.02 25,184,942.51 25.18 Hialeah 2020 236,412.00 109.02 25,772,646.77 25.77 Hialeah 2025 240,904.50 109.02 26,262,400.32 26.26 Hialeah 2030 245,397.00 109.02 26,752,153.87 26.75 Hialeah 2033 248,092,50 109.02 27,046,005,99 27.05 Hialeah 2035 249,889.50 109.02 27,241,907.41 27.24 Hialeah Gardens 2014 23,877,93 68,50 1,635,719.37 1.64 Hialeah Gardens 2015 23,998,67 68,50 1,643,990,01 1.64 Hialeah Gardens 2020 24,602.33 68.50 1,685,343.22 1.69 Hialeah Gardens 2025 25,206.00 68.50 1,726,696.44 1.73 Hialeah Gardens 2030 25,809.67 68.50 1,768,049.65 1.77 Hialeah Gardens 2033 26,171.87 68.50 1,792,86158 1.79 Hialeah Gardens 2035 26,413,33 68.50 1,809,402.86 1.81 Indian Creek Village 2014 89.47 3,809.80 340,850.23 0.34 Indian Creek Village 2015 90.33 3,809.80 344,152.06 0.34 Indian Creek Village 2020 94.67 3,809.80 360,661.20 0,36 Indian Creek Village 2025 99.00 3,809,80 377,170,34 0.38 Indian Creek Village 2030 103.33 3,809.80 393,679.48 0.39 Indian Creek Village 2033 105.93 3,809.80 403,584.96 0.40 Indian Creek Village 2035 107.67 3,809.80 410,188.62 0.41 Medley 2012 1,518.53 864.21 1,312,328.77 1.31 Medley 2013 1,885.80 864.21 1,629,723.59 1.63 Medley 2014 2,253.07 864.21 1,947,118.40 1.95 Medley 2015 21620.33 864.21 2,264,513.22 2.26 Medley 2016 2,987.60 864.21 2,581,908.04 2.58 Medley 2017 3,354.87 864.21 2,899,302.86 2.90 Medley 2018 3,722.13 864.21 3,216,697.68 3.22 Medley 2019 4,089.40 864.21 3,534,092.50 3.53 Medley 2020 4,456.67 864.21 3,851,487.32 3.85 Medley 2021 4,823.93 864.21 4,168,882.13 4.17 Medley 2022 5,191 864.208 4,486,276.95 4.49 Medley 2023 5,558 864.208 4,803,671.77 4.80 Medley 2024 5,926 864.208 5,121,066.59 5.12 Medley 2025 6,293 864.208 5,438,461.41 5.44 Medley 2026 6,660 864.208 5,755,856.23 5.76 Medley 2027 7,028 864.208 6,073,251.05 6.07 Medley 2028 7,395 864.208 6,390,645.86 6.39 Exhibit G7 Wholesale Water Demand Projections Wholesale Customer Projection Year Popr�Iat�ar� Baseline Wholesale Per Capita Consumption (GPD) Projected Wholesale Consumption (GPD) Projected Wholesale Consumption (MGD) Medley 2029 7,762 864.208 6,708,040.68 6.71 Medley 2030 8,129 864.208 7,025,435.50 7.03 Medley 2031 8,497 864,208 7,342,830.32 7.34 Medley 2032 8,864 864.208 7,660,225.14 7.66 Medley 2033 9,231 864.208 7,977,619.96 7.98 Medley 2034 9,598 864.208 8,295,014.78 8.30 Medley 2035 9,966 864.208 8,612,409.59 8.61 Medley 2036 10,333 864.208 8,929,804.41 8.93 Medley 2037 10,700 864.208 9,247,199.23 9.25 Medley 2038 11,067 864,208 9,564,594.05 9.56 Medley 2039 11,435 864.208 9,881,988.87 9.88 Medley 2040 11,802 864.208 10,199,383.69 10.20 Miami Beach 2014 90,254 245,991 22201794.66 22.20 Miami Beach 2015 91,288 245.991 22456116.65 22.46 Miami Beach 2020 96,458 245.991 23727726 59 23.73 Miami Beach 2025 101,627 245.991 24999336.54 25.00 Miami Beach 2030 106,796 245.991 26270946.48 26.27 Miami Beach 2033 109,898 245.991 27033912.45 27.03 Miami Beach 2035 111,966 245.991 27542556.42 27.54 Miami Beach 2028 104,728.60 245.99 25,762,302.50 25.76 Miami Beach 2029 105,762.47 245.99 26,016,624.49 26.02 Miami Beach 2030 106,796.33 245.99 26,270,946.48 26.27 Miami Beach 2033 109,897.93 245.99 27,033,912.45 27.03 Miami Beach 2035 111,965.67 245,99 27,542,556.42 27.54 North Bay Village 2014 7,346.87 148.11 1,088,106.96 1.09 North Bay Village 2015 7,403.83 148.11 1,096,544.00 1.10 North Bay Village 2020 7,688.67 148.11 1,138,729.22 1.14 North Bay Village 2025 7,973.50 148.11 1,180,914.43 1.18 North Bay Village 2030 8,258.33 148.11 1,223,099.64 1.22 North Bay Village 2033 8,429.23 148.11 1,248,410.77 1.25 North Bay Village 2035 8,543.17 148.11 1,265,284.86 1.27 North Miami 2014 68,966.73 54.65 3,768,802.66 3.77 North Miami 2015 69,007.17 54.65 3,771,012.20 3.77 North Miami 2020 69,209.33 54.65 3,782,059.94 3.78 North Miami 2025 69,411.50 54.65 3,793,107.68 3.79 North Miami 2030 69,613.67 54.65 3,804,155.41 3.80 North Miami 2033 69,734.97 54.65 3,810,784,05 3.81 North Miami 2035 69,815.83 54.65 3,815,20315 3,82 Opa-Lock2 2014 19,122.13 126.82 2,425,119.34 2.43 O a -Locke 2015 19,221.17 126.82 2,437,679.00 2.44 O a-Locka 2020 19,716.33 126.82 2,500,477.35 2.50 O a -Locks 2025 20,211.50 126.82 2,563,275.69 2.56 Opa-Locks 2030 20,706.67 126.82 2,626,074.03 2.63 Opa-Locka 2033 21,003.77 126.82 2,663,753.03 2.66 Opa-Locks 2035 21,201.83 126.82 2,688,872.37 2.69 Surfside 2014 5,835.53 148.04 863,864.14 0.86 Surfside 2015 5,866.17 148.04 868,398.95 0.87 Surfside 2020 6,019.33 148.04 891,073.01 0.89 Surfside 2025 6,172.50 148.04 913,747.06 0.91 Surfside 2030 6,325.67 148.04 936,421.11 0.94 Exhibit C-7 Wholesale Water Demand Projections Wholesale Customer Projection Year Population Baseline Wholesale Per Capita Consumption (GPD) Projected Wholesale Consumption (GPD) Projected Wholesale Consumption (MGD) Surfside 2033 6,417.57 148.04 950,025.54 0.95 Surfside 2035 6,478.83 148.04 959,095.16 0.96 Virginia Gardens 2014 1,967.47 131.15 258,038,36 0.26 Virginia Gardens 2015 1,979.83 131.15 259,660,28 0.26 Virginia Gardens 2020 2,041.67 131.15 267,769.88 0.27 Virginia Gardens 2025 2,163.50 131.15 275,879,49 0.28 Virginia Gardens 2030 2,165.33 131,15 283,989.09 0.28 Virginia Gardens 2033 2,202.43 131.15 288,854.85 0.29 Virginia Gardens 2035 2,227.17 131.15 292,098.69 0.29 West Miami 2014 6,605.87 126.50 835,665.57 0.84 West Miami 2015 6,746.83 126.50 853,498.35 0.85 West Miami 2020 7,451.67 126.50 942,662.27 0.94 West Miami 2025 8,156.50 126.50 1,031,826.18 1.03 West Miami 2030 8,861.33 126.50 1,120,990.10 1.12 West Miami 2035 9,566,17 26.50 1,210,154,02 .21 Exhibit C-8 Retail Municipal Customers Water Demand Projections Municipality lProjectiolTotal n Year Population Consumption Per Capita (GPD) Consump with Gans (GPD) Projected Consump with Cons (MGD) Aventura 2014 27472 147.3 4037836.32 4.0378 Aventura 2015 27629 147.3 4058119.49 4,0581 Aventura 2020 28415 147.3 4160202,41 4.1602 Aventura 2025 29200 147.3 4262643.74 4.2626 Aventura 2030 29986 147.3 4375964.09 4.376 Aventura 2033 30457 147.3 4445387.48 4.4454 Aventura 2035 30771 147.3 4491669.74 4.4917 Coral Gables 2014 47438 151.19 7103590.04 7,1036 Coral Gables 2015 47697 151.19 7120523.75 7.1205 Coral Gables 2020 48991 151.19 7210371.99 7.2104 Coral Gables 2025 50285 151.19 7303003,47 7.303 Coral Gables 2030 51579 151.19 7480114.79 7.4801 Coral Gables 2033 52355 151.19 7597495.22 7.5975 Coral Gables 2035 52873 151.19 7675748.84 7.6757 Cutler Bay 2014 41226 73.82 2982203.42 2.9822 Cutler Bay 2015 41398 73.82 2975094.5 2.9751 Cutler Bay 2020 42259 73,82 2944175,32 2.9442 Cutler Bay 2025 43120 73.82 2915741.54 2.9157 Cutler Bay 2030 43980 73,82 2962747.35 2.9627 Cutler Bay 2033 44497 73.82 3000875.21 3.0009 Cutler Bay 2035 44841 73.82 3026293.78 3.0263 Doral 2014 48800 126,82 6124942.42 6.1249 Doral 2015 49836 126.82 6235726.6 6.2357 Doral 2020 55019 126.82 6794468.44 6.7945 Doral 2025 60201 126.82 7355800.75 7.3558 Doral 2030 65383 126.82 7995761.71 7,9958 Doral 2033 68493 126.82 8390082.18 6.3901 Doral 2035 70566 126,82 8652962.5 8.653 El Portal 2014 1969 114.37 221807.04 0.2218 El Portal 2015 1981 114.37 222107.96 0.2221 El Portal 2020 2042 114.37 223867,98 0.2239 EI Portal 2025 2103 114.37 225765.26 0,2258 El Portal 2030 2164 11437 231828.62 0.2318 EI Portal 2033 2201 114.37 2360147 0.236 EI Portal 2035 2225 114.37 238805.42 0.2388 Key Biscayne 2014 12394 173 11 2137041.36 2.137 Key Biscayne 2015 12422 173 11 2138982.96 2.139 Key Biscayne 2020 12559 173.11 2149343.55 2.1493 Key Biscayne 2025 12696 173.11 2160054.77 2.1601 Key Biscayne 2030 12832 173.11 2181408.99 2.1814 Key Biscayne 2033 12914 173.11 2195621.65 2.1956 Key Biscayne 2035 12969 173.11 2205096.76 2,2051 Miami 2014 435291 92.05 39725190.51 39.7252 Miami 2015 444485 92.05 40460551.82 40.4606 Miami 2020 490456 92.05 44163249.14 44.1632 Miami 2025 536427 92.05 47879858.53 47.8799 Miami 2030 582398 92.05 52018740.79 52.0187 Miami 2033 609981 92.05 54557621.79 54.5576 Exhibit C-8 Retail Municipal Customers Water Demand Projections Miami 2035 628369 92.05 56260209.12 56.2502 Miami Gardens 2014 64584 63.32 4021380.18 4.0214 Miami Gardens 2015 65305 63,.32 4045036.74 4.045 Miami Gardens 2020 68913 63.32 4168461.89 4.1685 Miami Gardens 2025 72521 63.32 4294650.21 4.2947 Miami Gardens 2030 76129 63.32 4504709.09 4.5047 Miami Gardens 2033 78294 63.32 4641777.91 4.6418 Miami Gardens 2035 79737 63.32 4733157.13 4.7332 Miami Lakes 2014 28724 96.96 2748681.14 2.7487 Miami Lakes 2015 28905 96.96 2754373.4 2.7544 Miami Lakes 2020 29808 96,96 2785592.29 2.7856 Miami Lakes 2025 30711 96.96 2818292.95 2.8183 Miami Lakes 2030 31613 96,96 2895969.74 2.896 Miami Lakes 2033 32155 96.96 2948492.6 2.9485 Miami Lakes 2035 32516 96.96 2983507.84 2.9835 Miami Shores 2014 367 2768.97 1002367.56 1.0024 Miami Shores 2015 368 2768.97 999204.15 0.9992 Miami Shores 2020 371 2768.97 984491.62 0.9845 Miami Shores 2025 374 2768.97 970372.6 0.9704 Miami Shores 2030 376 2768.97 974268.19 0.9743 Miami Shores 2033 378 2768.97 978975.43 0.979 Miami Shores 2035 379 2768.97 982113.59 0.9821 Miami Springs 2014 14234 95.96 1347427.64 1,3474 Miami Springs 2015 14274 95.96 1345266.89 1.3453 Miami Springs 2020 14473 95.96 1335858.8 1.3359 Miami Springs 2025 14672 95.96 1327200.63 1.3272 Miami Springs 2030 14871 95.96 1341304.97 1.3413 Miami Springs 2033 14990 95.96 1352762.08 1.3528 Miami Springs 2035 15070 95.96 1360400.15 1.3604 Palmetto Bay 2014 24236 93.45 2230610.5 2.2306 Palmetto Bay 2015 24338 93.45 2228966.79 2.229 Palmetto Bay 2020 24848 93.45 2223353.76 2.2234 Palmetto Bay 2025 25357 93.45 2219140,76 2.2191 Palmetto Bay 2030 25866 93.45 2257422.91 2.2574 Palmetto Bay 2033 26172 93.45 2285982.6 2.286 Palmetto Bay 2035 26376 93.45 2305022.39 2,305 Pinecrest 2014 17769 90.27 1584482.74 1.5845 Pinecrest 2015 17803 90.27 1581186.17 1.5812 Pinecrest 2020 17971 90.27 1566183.46 1.5662 Pinecrest 2025 18140 90,27 1551976.06 1.552 Pinecrest 2030 18309 90.27 1561908.89 1,5619 Pinecrest 2033 18410 90.27 1571044.33 1.571 Pinecrest 2035 18477 90.27 1577134.63 1,5771 South Miami 2014 11682 117.57 1357826.27 1.3578 South Miami 2015 11795 117,57 1366018.84 1,366 South Miami 2020 12358 117.57 1408162.92 1.4082 South Miami 2025 12922 117.57 145094174 1.4509 South Miami 2030 13486 117.57 1512986.64 1.513 South Miami 2033 13824 117.57 1552748.1 1.5527 South Miami 2035 14049 117.57 1579255.75 1.5793 Sweetwater 2014 18893 36.52 676093.95 0.6761 Exhibit C-8 Retail Municipal Customers Water Demand Projections Sweetwater 2015 19018 36.52 676197.25 0.6762 Sweetwater 2020 19645 36.52 677758.36 0.6778 Sweetwater 2025 20272 36.52 679880.78 0.6799 Sweetwater 2030 20899 36.52 699040.79 0.699 Sweetwater 2033 21275 36.52 712776.15 0.7128 Sweetwater 2035 21526 36.52 721936.39 0.7219 APPENDIX D Water Use Efficiency z MEMORANDUM Agenda Item No. 7 (D) (Second Reading 9-2-08) TO: Honorable Chairman Bruno A. Barreiro DATE: May 20, 2008 and Members, Board of County Commissioners . FROM: R. A. Cuevas, Jr. SUBJECT:. Ordinance, relating to County Attorney Water Use Efficiency Standards The accompanying ordinance was prepared and placed on the agenda at the request of Prime Sponsor Commissioner Natacha $eijas. AACuas,Jr. County Attorney RAC/bw MIAM NDiAa M-emorandum Date: September 2, 2008 To: Honorable Chairman Bruno A. Barreiro and Me oard of County Commissioners George From: Coun ger Subject: Ordinance relating to Water Efficiency Standards The ordinance relating to water'efficiency standards will not have a fiscal impact to Miarni-Dade County. -there will be an impact to the public for Nigh Efficiency Appliances, which currently have a higher initial cost, Susanne M�Torriente Chief Assistant County Manager rsa5tna MEMORANDUM (Revised) TO: Honorable Chairman Bruno A. BarreiroDATE: September 2, 20138 and. Members, Board of County Commissioners FROM: R. A. C evas, Jr. SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. . 7(D) County Attorney Please note any items checked. "4 -Day Rule" ("3 -Day Rule" for committees) applicable if raised 6 weeks required between first reading and public hearing 4 weeks notification to municipal officials required prior to public hearing Decreases revenues or increases expenditures without balancing budget Budget required Statement of fiscal impact required Bid waiver requiring County Manager's written recommendation Ordinance creating a new board requires. detailed County Manager's report for public hearing Housekeeping item (no policy decision required) No committee review 3 Approved — Mayor Agenda Item No. 7(D) Veto 9-2-08 Override ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER USE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS; AMENDING SECTIONS 8-31, 32-84, AND 8A-381 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; CHANGING EFFECTIVE DATES TO JANUARY 1, 2009 AND CLARIFYING STANDARDS FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES, FIXTURE FITTINGS AND APPLIANCES, PROVIDING SEVERABILITY; INCLUSION IN CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. Section 8-31 of the Code of Miami -Dade County is hereby amended to read as follows: 1 See. 8-31. Local Technical Amendments to Florida Building Code (A) The County hereby adopts the following local technical amendments to Chapter 6 (Plumbing) of the Florida Building Code. 604.4 Maximum flow and water consumption. The maximum water consumption flow rates and quantities for all plumbing fixtures, fixture fittings and appliances shall be in accordance with. Table 604.4. Effective [[july 1, 2004]] >>January 1. 2009,« permit applications for new residential and commercial structures shall include high efficiency plumbing fixtures, fixture fittings and appliances as provided in Table 604.4. Such high efficiency plumbing fixtures, fixture fittings and appliances shall comply with the specifications >>in Table 604.4 or have received the<< [[ef]] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense >>Label.<< [[ Americanno „ ori, 4s ( Nh17) !� 'del d S fi t 1] �. 4l N,s. V1,1�1L��] '�Ll1L-LL`�TLCLLI�+LIIINJ ZL11Ll Cl���. J 1 Words Stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed« constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. 11 Agenda Item No. 7(D) Page No. 2 Exceptions: PLUMBING FIXTURE MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OR FIXTURE FITTING e Lavatory, private. [L" ] » 1-,5<<gpm at 60 psi Lavatoipublic, (metering) 0.25 gallon per metering cycle Lavatory, public 0.5 gpm at 60 psi (other than metering Shower head' 1.5 gin of 80 psi Sink faucet [[4,41] >>1.5« gpm at 60 psi Urinal Waterless or 0.5 gallon per flushing cycle Water closet 1.28 gallons per flushing cycle Dishwasher (residential) 6.5 gallons per cycle or less (Energy Star/Water Sense Certified)'; Dishwasher (commercial less than 1.2 gallons per rack for fill and dump machines and less than 0.9 gallons per rack for all other types of machines Under the counter machines 1.0 gallon or less per rack for high- temperature machines and 1.7 gallons per rack for low-temperature machines Washing machine Water factor of 8 or lower (Energy Star/Water Sense Certified For SI: 1 gallon = 3.785 L, l gallon per minute = 3.785 Um 1 pound per square inch = 6.895 kPa. a. A hand-held shower spray is a shower head, b. Consumption tolerances shall be determined from referenced standards. c. Water factor in gallons per cycle per cubic foot. Agenda Item No. 7(D) Page No. 3 (B) The County hereby adopts the following local technical amendments to Chapter 29 (Residential) of the Florida Building Code. P2903.2 Maximum flow and water consumption. The maximum water consumption flow rates and quantities for all plumbing fixtures, fixture fittings and appliances shall be in accordance with Table P2903.2a. Effective [[haly >>JanuM 1 2009,« permit applications for new residential structures shall include high efficiency plumbing fixtures, fixture fittings and appliances as provided in Table P2903.2a. Such high efficiency plumbing fixtures, fixture fittings and appliances shall comply with the specifications >>in Table P2903.2a or have received the«of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterScnse >>Label.<< [[Pregmm er the Uni f •]] TABLE P2903.2a MAXIMUM FLOW RATES AND CONSUMPTION FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES, FIXTURE FITTINGS AND APPLIANCES PLUMBING FIXTURE OR FIXTURE FITTING PLUMBING FIXTURE OR FIXTURE PITTING MAXIMUM FLOW RATE b Lavatory faucet [[1 9]] »1_5«gprn at 60 psi Shower head a 1.5 gpm at 80 psi Sink faucet [[1:8]] »1_5<<gpmrn at 60 psi Water closet 1.28 gallons per flushing cycle Dishwasher (residential) 6.5 gallons per cycle or less (Energy Star/Water Sense Certified Washing Machine Water factor of 8 or lower (Energy Star/Water Sense Certified For SI: I gallon = 3.785 L, l gallon per minute = 3.785 L/m 1 pound per square inch = 6,895 kPa. a. A handheld shower spray is a showerhead. b. Consumption tolerances shall be determined from referenced standards. c. Water factor in gallons per cycle per cubic foot Agenda Item No. 7(D) Page No. 4 Section 2. Section 32-84 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 32-84. Water use efficiency standards manual The Miami -Dade Water and.. Sewer Department ("MDWASD"), in consultation with the Planning :Departm..ent and such other applicable county departments and agencies, shall publish a water use efficiency standards manual to m achieve `maximuwater savings in new residential and commercial developments in the incorporated and unincorporated areas: of': Miami -Dade County. The manual shall be initially published on [[i"l=z, 2009]] >>January 1,_ 2009« and [[shall]] »May<< be updated annually on [[July 1]] >>January 1<< following approval by the County Commission. Each applicant for water service to a new residential or commercial development in incorporated and unincorporated areas of Miami -Dade County shall include in its application every water use efficiency standard that will be incorporated into the new development. The County or applicable municipality shall review the application for compliance with the manual. In evaluating the application for compliance, the County or applicable municipality will consider the availability of products required to implement the water use efficiency standards. The developer's agreement for water service shall include the water use efficiency standards approved by the County. Section 3, Section 8A-381 of the County of Miami -Dade County, Florida is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 8A-381. Intent and application. (c) The provisions of this article shall apply to multiple unit properties utilizing water services, Effective [[July 1, 200911 >>January 1, 2009«, all permit applications for new multi -family residential developments shall be required to include a submeter for each individual dwelling unit. Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. I Agenda Item No. 7(D) Page No. 5 Section 5. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any Sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article" or other appropriate word. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board. PASSED AND ADOPTED: Approved by County Attorney as to form and legal sufficiency. Prepared by: Henry N. Gillman Prime Sponsor: Commissioner Natacha Seiias a This ordinance was amended by the Governmental Operations Committee to correct scrivener's errors regarding the current drought restriction in the third Whereas clause and the irrigation of new lawns for thirty days in Section (d) (ii) (7). The accompanying ordinance was prepared and placed on the agenda at the request of Prime ,Sponsor Commissioner Natacha Seijas. R. A. Cues, Jr. County Attorney RAC/cp Memorandum N'M"*E Date: April 7, 2009 To: Honorable Chairman Dennis C. Moss and Mer&p rZ Board of County Commissioners Pram: Georg ess j/$� Co y Manager Subject: Ordinance amending Section 32-8.2 of the Code relating to the permanent landscape irrigation restrictions The ordinance relating to permanent landscape inigation restrictions is not expected to have a fiscal impact to Miami -Dade County. The permanent landscape irrigation restrictions are a continuation of the watering restriction imposed by the South Florida Water Management District for more than two years. In the long term, it is expected that water conservation measures such as this are more cost effective in meeting our future water demands in lieu of constructing and operating new water supply facilities. Alex Munoz Assistant Coun Manager RsO2149 G! MEMORANDUM (Revised) TO: Honorable Chairman Dennis C. Moss DATE: April 7, 2009 and Members, Board of County Commissioners FROM: R. A. eva , SUBJECT:. Agenda Item No, 7 (B) County Atto y Please note any items checked. "4 -Day Rule" ("3 -Day Rule" for committees) applicable if raised ✓ 6 weeks requiredbetween first reading and public hearing ✓ 4 weeks notification to municipal officials required prior to public hearing Decreases revenues or increases expenditures without balancing budget Budget required Statement of fiscal impact required Bid waiver requiring County Mayor's written recommendation Ordinance creating a new board requires detailed County Manager's report for public hearing. Housekeeping item (no policy decision required) No committee review 3 Approved Mayor Veto Override ORDINANCE NO. Agenda Item No, 7 ( B ) 4-7-09 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 32-8.2 OF THE CODE. OF MIAMI -DADS COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PERMANENT LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION RESTRICTIONS; PROVIDING MANDATORY YEAR-ROUND LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CONSERVATION MEASURES; AMENDING CHAPTER 8CC OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO CODE ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE >>WHEREAS—the South Florida Water Management District "District" has statutory authority to declare a water shortage when insufficient ground or surface water is available to meet the needs of the users or when conditions are such as to require temporary reduction in total use within an area to protect water resources from serious harm, and' WHEREAS, the District previously issued a declaration of water shortage condition for MiaTni-Dade County based on the region's ongoing drought and the water level of Lake Okeechobee which is operationally controlled by the District; and WHEREAS, the District invoked Modified Phase II drought restrictions which limited landscape irrigation to two days per week in Miami -Dade County; and WHEREAS to'protect the water resources in Miami -Dade County, this Board previously enacted Section 32-8.2 of the Code of Miami -Dade County which permanently Words stricken through and/or [fdouble bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or »double arrowed« constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. OR01I569 ' + Agenda Item No. 7 ( B ) Page 2 prohibits landscape irrigation daily between 9:00 am. and 5:00 pm except as otherwise provided; and WHEREAS due to fluctuating weather conditions. and ehan ing water levels of lake Okeechobee it is anticipated the District will .im me and lift restrictions periodically in order to property manage flood and drought conditions in theregion,• and WHEREAS this Board finds that it is in the. best interest of the people. of Miami -Dade County to have a consistent and permanent landscape irrigation policy,_and WHEREAS this Board finds that a ear -round uniform policy for landscape irri ation will effectively protect the water resources of . Miami -Dade County and help ensure the availabilit of potable water to meet the Cour 's projected demand for water, NOW, THE << BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. Section 32-8.2 of the Code of Miami. -Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows; See. 32-8.2. Permanent landscape irrigation restrictions. (a) Intent and purpose. To protect the water resources of Miami -Dade County, Florida from the harmful effects of over utilization[[by ;,,.,,1,i4.ioag]]>>. increase water use efficiency and prevcnt and curtail wasteful water use ractices by providingmandator ear -round« landscape irrigation >>conservation measures« [[ids—ef high evapomden;]] and prohibiting the operation of irrigation systems [[epemW]] in a manner causing water to be wasted. (b) Definitions, In Construing the provisions of this section, the following definitions shall apply: »M Address shall mean the "house number (a numeric or alphanumeric designation) that, top -ether with the Agenda Item No. 7 (B) Page 3 street name describes the physical location of a s ccific property. This includes "rural route" numbers but excludes post office box numbers. If a lot number in a mobile Dome park or siunilar communijy is used by the U.S. Postal Service to determine a delivery location the lot number shall be the property's address. If a lot number in a mobile home park or similar residential communit is not used by the U.S, Postal Service (e.g. the park manager sorts incoming mail delivered to the community's address), then the communi 's main address shall be the property's address, If a property has no address it sball be considered "even -numbered". Athletic plav area shall mean all golf course fairways, tees, roughs and greens and other athletic play surfaces, including, football, baseball, soccer, polo, tennis and lawn bowling fields rodeo equestrian and livestock arenas. Even Numbered Address means an address ending in the numbers 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, or rights-of-way or other locations with no address or the letters A -M. Existing Landscape_ shall_ mean any Iandscapi� where a eriod of 90 days has Ia sed from the date of purchase.<< [[(4-)]]»L5)«Irrigation shall mean the application of water by means other than natural precipitation. [[(2�]]»L6)«Irrigation systems shall mean equipment and devices which deliver water to the [Gants]] »landscape« being irrigated including, but not limited to, pumping stations, controls, main and submain pipelines, lateral pipelines, emitters, valves, fittings and safety devices. [[(3-)]]»M«Landscape shall mean all residential, commercial, institutional, industrial or governmental areas which are ornamentally planted including, but not limited to, turf, groluid covers, flowers, shrubs, trees, sand, mulch, hedges and similar plant materials>> lawns, sod, grass and such other flora, not intended for resale, which are situated in Iocations including, but 1 Agenda Item No. 7(B) Page 4 not limited. to residential landscapes, recreation areas, cemeteries, public, commercial, and. industrial `'establ shnientspublic medians and rights -of way except athletic play areas and public gardens as defined herein. } LOW Volurne Hand Watering' shall mean the watering of landsca e b '. one erson with one hose Pitted. with a gelf-canceling or ''automatic shutoff nozzle. - plant propagation. Overheadirrigation and Hood irrigation are not included. G Landscape Irri ation shall mean the outside watering of 'shrubbery, ` trees, lawns, sod, grass, ound coversplants, vines ornamental gardgnL and such other flora not intended for resale, which are pianted and are 'situated = in such diverse locations as residential'landwc pes, recreation areas, cemeteries public commercial, and industrial establishments, public medians, and rimhts-of-way exce t athletic plgy areas and public gardens as defined herein. 11 Micro -Irrigation shall mean the application of small quantities of water on or below the soil surface as drops or tiny streams of spray through emitters or applicators placed along a water delivery line. Micro-inigaiion includes a number of methods or techniques such as bubbler, drip, trickle, mist or mir,rospray, and subsurface irrigation. 12 New Landscaping shall mean. any landscapiin where the period of time from the date of purchase is nine 90days or less, Agenda Item No. 7 (B) Page 5 13 Odd Numbered Address shall mean an address ending in the numbers 1 3 5 7 9 or the letters N- Z. Public Gardens shall mean botanical Rardens and zoological parks and any plarined outdoor space where landscaping is cared for and exhibited and the facility is oven to the public at least six months during. a twelve month period. 15 Reclaimed Water shall mean wastewater as defined in Mule 62-40.210, F.A.C. 1L6� User shall mean any person, individual firm association organization, partnership, business trust co oration com an agent, employee or other legal entity whether natural or artificial, the United States of America and the State and all political subdivisions, regions, districts, municipalities, and public agencies thereof, which directly or indirectly takes water from the water resource, including users of private or public utility systems, individual wells or pumps, Wasteful and Unnecessary shall mean allowing water to be dispersed without anyipractical purpose to the water use; for example, excessive landscape irrigation, leaving an unattended hose on a driveway_ with water flowing, allowing water to be dispersed in a goso sly inefficient mariner, regardless of the type of water use; for example, allowing landscape irrigation water to unnecessarily fall onto pavement sidewalks and other impervious surfaces; allowing water flow throuizh a broken or malfunctioning water delivery or landscape irrigation system.<< [[(4)]]» 18 «Water resource shall mean water on or beneath the surface of the ground including, but not limited to, natural or artificial watercourses, lakes, ponds, or diffused surface water, and water percolating, standing, or flowing beneath the surface of the ground. 0 Agenda Item No. 7 (B) Page.6 n N N (c) Application of section The provisions of this section shall apply to all [[per]]»users of« any water resource within Miami -Dade County, whether from publicly or privately owned water utility systems, private wells, or private connections with surface water bodies. >>The provisions of this section shall not an -Ply to athletic play areas and piLblic ardens as defined herein and users under water use nerrnits issued pursuant to Chanter 40E-2 and 40E-20,„„F,A.C.<< (d) Permanent landscape irrigation restrictions: (i) [[ , > insfitiational, govefmoata11 i or t ours of -0-0-0-�T Z7L „ hours 5M p,m. daily,]»It shall be the duty of each user to keep informed as to the landscape -irrigation conservation measures resented within this section which affect each particular water Use.<< (ii) >>The following requirements shall apply to all users unless specified otherwise herein: fl Irrigation..... of _existing._landscapinglandsc4ping shall comply with the following:« [R]]»(g)«lt shall be unlawful for any [[perm]] >>user« to irrigate or to cause; let, permit, allow or suffer the irrigation of any residential, commercial, institutional, ' governmental or industrial landscape areas between the hours of [[°;" gid per.]] >>1 0:00 am and 4:00 pm daily except as otherwise provided herein.<< ■1 Agenda Item No. 7 (B) Page 7 »O«It shall be unlawful for any [[person]]»user« to operate or cause, let, permit, allow or suffer the operation of any irrigation system or device in a >>wasteful and unnecessary« manner [[eaug waler to be wasted]] including, but not limited to, watering paved areas, sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots. »O Even addresses, installations with irrigation systems that irrigate both even and odd addresses within the same zones including multi-famil units and homeowners' associations, and rights-of-way or other locations with no address, as defined in this section shall only conduct necessary landscaping irrigation on Thq[Eday or—Sunday or both Thursday and Sunday. Odd addresses as defined in this section shall only conduct necessary landscape irrigation on Wednesday or Saturday or both Wednesday and Saturday. Users irrigating new Iandscaping shall comply with the foIlowin Irrigation of new landscaping shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and -4:00 p.m daily, except as otherwise provided herein. M On the day_the new landscaping is installed, the new landscaping may be irrigated once without regard to the normally allowable watering days and tunes. Irrigation of the soil immediately prior to the installation of the new landscaping is also M Agenda Item No; 7 (B) Page 8 allowable without regard to the normalallowable watering dM and times u Irri ation :of new landscqping. which has been :purchased for ninety (90) days ;or' .less may be conducted on M day except Friday. The date of purchase of new landscaping may be demonstrated with a dated receipt or invoice. U Irrigation of new landscaping is limited to areas containing the new landscaping only. Aa entire zone of an irrigation system shall-. only be utilized for landscape irrigation under this paragraph if the zone in question is for an area that contains at least 50% new landscaping. If a zone contains .less than 50% new landscaping, or if the new landscaping is in an_area _that will not typically be irrigated by an irrigation system, only the individual new plantings are. eligible for additional irrigation under this paragraph. Targeted watering may be accomplished by low volume hand watering, or any appropriate method which isolates and waters only the new landscaping. Landscape irrigation systems may be operated during restricted days and times for cleaning, maintenance,_ and repairVjUoses with an attendant on site in the area being tested. Landscape irrigation systems ma routinely be operated for such purposes more than once per week, and the run time for any one test should not exceed 10 minutes per zone. Agenda Item No, 7 (B) Page 9 Landscape, irrigation for the purpose of watering -in fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, fun icides and herbicides where such watering -in is recoinmended by the manufacturer, or by federal state or local law, orb Florida Green Industries Best Management Practices for Protection of Florida Water Resources Manual shall be allowed under the following conditions: LQ Such watering -in shall be limited to one application unless the need for more than one application is stated in the directions for application specified by the manufacturer, and Lb� Such watering -in shall be accomplished during normally allowable watering days and times set forth in paragraphs (d)(ii)(1)(c) and (d)(ii)(1)(d) unless a professional licensed applicator has posted a temporary sign containing the date of application and the date(s) of needed watering -in activity. { Any landscMing mqy be irrigated usiniz low voles-ne irrigation, micro -irrigation, low- volume hand watering methods including but not limited to the use of a hose with a self -canceling or clo_sing_nozzle, rain barrels, cisterns, or other similar rain -harvesting devices without regard to the watering days or times allowed pursuant to this section, Any landscaping may be irrigated with reclaimed water in accordance with federal, State and local water reuse qualily standards, or the use of saltwater without regard to the watering days or times allowed pursuant to this section. Irrigation of new lawns and landscaping shall be allowed between 11:00 am, and 12:01 p.m. daily for a period of thirty -(3J0 I1; Agenda Item No, 7'(B ) Page 10 days or until the lawn or landscaping i es consider __. .. _ d established, whichever period is 13 I SWAN e i Y 1 Y Y Y G Y Y � 13 Agenda Item No. 7 (B) Page I I >>Le) Enforcement ent. Every police officer or sheriff having jurisdiction in the area governed by this section shall in connection with all other duties imposed by law, diligently enforce the provisions of tl-is section. Officers may rovide violators with no more than one I written warning. This section shall also be enforceable in accordance with the provisions of Cha.pter 8CC of this code. The County may take any appropriate le al action including but not limited to emergeneynrohibitory and mandatory injunctive action to enforce the provisions of this section. (0 Penalties. Violations of any provision of this section shall be subject to the following penalties: First violation: Seventy-five 75.00 fine. Second and subsequent violations:_ Fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) and/or imprisonment in the County jail not to exceed sixty (60) dam Each da in violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense.<< Section 2. Chapter 8CC of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: See. SCC -10. Schedule of civil penalties. Code Section Descriplion of Violation Civil Penalty »32-8.2 Violation of —.0-0 << Permanent Landscape Irrigation Restrictions 14 Agenda Item No. 7 (B) Page 12 Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 4. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the Provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida, The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such 'intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board. PASSED AND ADOPTED: Approved by County Attorney as to form and legal sufficiency; Prepared by: Henry N. Gillman Prime Sponsor: Commissioner Natasha Scijas Date - To: From: Subject: OFFICIAL FILE COPY CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (Second Reading 12-05-0.6) September .26, 2006 Memorandum �om .,�E Honorable Chairman Joe A. Martinez and Members, Agenda Item N°• 7 (�) *Geourgess ty Commissioners Ordinance Creatingr 32-63.9 of the Miami -Dade County Code OA06-177 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approve and adopt.the attached ordinance creating Sections 32-83.1 of the Miami -Dade County Code. This new section will require for publicly owned water distribution systems served by the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) to prepare water conservation plans and submit same to the County. BACKGROUND The Water Use Efficiency Five -Year Plan adopted by the Board through Resolution R-468-06 includes requirements for water conservation planning, implementation and reporting -by wholesale customers (Section 4.2.9). MDWASD has existing contracts with the fifteen (15) wholesale customers; these contracts contain language relating to water conservation, most particularly in drought situations. The essence of the agreement is that if there is a shortage in the supply of water, wholesale customers will curtail their usage to the same extent as MDWASD. At this time there are no specific conservation requirements beyond the drought scenario. MDWASD is presently developing a twenty-year water conservation plan as a requirement of the Interim Consumptive Use Authorization and Agreement with the South Florida Water Management District (SFVVMD). In order to accurately determine the water demand projections and propose water demand reduction goals it is necessary to account for all water produced by MDWASD. In order to accomplish this task it is necessary to have the wholesale customers develop plans similar to the one developed for MDWASD's retail service area. The 20 -year plan presently under development by MDWASD utilizes the Department of Environmental Protection web -based Conserve Florida Guide. The wholesale customers would be required to use this tool in the development of their plans to allow MDWASD to consolidate the plans of the wholesale customers and combine them with the 20 -year plan, This practice will also facilitate the annual reporting to the Board and the SFWMD. MDWASD will provide assistance to the wholesalers in the development of their water conservation plans and in the use of the Conserve Florida Guide. The adoption of this ordinance will provide a strategic advancement in water conservation effectiveness to MDWASD. Historicaily, utilities with wholesale customers have typically been ultimately responsible for the implementation of water conservation measures and best management practices, and general demand management that are required by consumptive use permits. Yet, there has been no authority to require their wholesale customers to help them meet.demand,management goals. Assistant County Manager MINAWN Membran dom Date; December 5, 2006 Honorable Chairm Joe A. Martinez °' and Members, ounty Commissioners From: George M. Bu County Manager 'Subject: Ordinance Creating Section 32-83.1 of the Miami -Dade County Code. The ordinance creating Section 32-83.9 of the Miami -Dade County Code requires publicly owned water distribution systems served by the Vlami-Dade Water and Sewer Department to prepare water conservation plans and to submit the plans to Mlan l -Dade County. The ordinance will not have a 'tlscaf Impact to Mlaml-Dade County. However, wholesale customers may incur. expenses developing the plans. Assislant County Manager Rsa020e MEMORANDUM (Revised) TO: Honorable Chairman ,Toe A. Martinez ' - - DATE: December 5, 2005 and Members, Board of County'Commissioners V r FROM: ay A eenbe g SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 7 (D) County Attorney Please note. any items checked.. "4 -Day Rule" C13 -Day Rule" for committees) applicable if raised G weeks required betweph first reading and public hearing _ 4 weeks notification to municipal officials requh-ed prior to public bearing Decreases revenues or increases expenditures without balancing budget Budget required Statement of fiscal impact required Bad waiver requiring County Manager's written recommendation " Ordinance creating a new board requires detailed County Manager's report for public hearing Housekeeping item (no policy decision required) No committee review 3 Approved _ Mayor Agenda Item No 7 (D) Veto 12-05-06 Override -i ORDINANCE NO. 06-1.77 ORDINANCE CREATING SECTION 32-83.1 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICLY' OWNED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS TO PREPARE WATER CONSERVATION PLANS AND SUBMIT SAME TO THE COUNTY; PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE, AND REMEDY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1, Section 3283.1 -of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida, is hereby created to read as follows' >>32-83.1 Water Conservation Plans A} Submission of Water Conservation Plan Every publicly owned or operated water distribution system supplied potable water, in whole or in part, by Miami -Dade County, shall submit -a 1 submitted shall consider a twenty year horizon. In the event a publicly owned or Operated water distribution system fails to provide its water ' I Words Stricken through andlo.r [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or »double arrowed« constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. Agenda Item No, i 0 ) Page No. 2 conservation plan by the close pf the fiscal ear the CounV shall determine and establish the conservation measures to beimplemented^bv said system and the amount of water supplied to such system by the County which could be conserved via implementation of such measures, and such system shall be bound bV such determination and the publicly owned or operated water distribution system shall be subject to the provisions in subsection (B). 13 Enforcement, rocedure, remedies Where the County has, pursuant to Subsection (A), established the conservation measures and the amount of water supplied to a water distribution system which -could be conserved through the implementation of such measures the owner or operator of such system shall be required to pay additional fees, in accordance with the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department's schedule of rates, fees and charges, as amended, for continued use of the water which could be conserved throe h implementation of the specified conservation measures. The Miami Dade Water and Sewer Department shall develop a water conservation plan for the water distribution system documenting the proposed measures, best management practices and projected water savings, << Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 3. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any Sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article" or other appropriate word. D#06-177 Agenda'Item No. VD) Page No. 3 Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and " if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board. PASSED AND ADOPTED: December 5, 2006 Approved by County Attorney as to form and legal sufficiency. Prepared by: David M. Murray M IAM lI3IAADE Memorandum Date: May -5, 2049 To: Honorable Chairman Dennis C. Moss Agenda Item No. 7(G) and Members, Board of County Commissioners From: George M. Burgeg�r�' County ManagerdeiM1_�,, v Subject: Ordinance Creng Chapter 118B(.4 the Code of Miami -Dade County, the Miami - Dade County Right -of -Way Landscape Ordinance. This Substitute Item #2 differs from the original item as follows: It exempts from the ordinance zoned or dedicated rights-of-wav adjacent to land being used for_bonafide agricultural activities. Revises the mulching criteria in order to reflect Florida Friendly landscapes. Substitute No. 2 differs from Substitute No. 1 in that it complies with the new rule_ change regarding substitutes and alternates as orovided in Ordinance #09-13 adopted on March 3, 2009. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopt the attached ordinance creating the Miami -Dade County Right -of -Way Landscape Ordinance, This ordinance is being created to supplement outdoor water conservation measures in accordance with the Miami -Dade Water Use Efficiency Plan adopted pursuant to Resolution No. R-468-06, Sco awe This ordinance is of countywide impact. Fiscal Impact/Funding Impact/FundingSource rhe proposed ordinance creates no fiscal impact on Miami -Dade County. Track Record/Monitor Not applicable, Background On April 25, 2006 the Board adopted Resolution R-468-06 which approves the Miami -Dade Water Use Efficiency Plan. (Plan) as a part of a larger effort to improve the management of traditional water supplies while improving the efficiency of the County's current water use. The Plan outlines the County's water efficiency measures and best management practices. The South Florida Water Management District (District) approved the Plan as a condition of the County's 20 -Year Water Use Permit issued on November 15, 2007. During the first year of the Plan, WASD kicked -off its conservation efforts by implementing a series of efficiency projects. It is calculated that the total water use savings from these projects will yield a savings of 20 million gallons a day through 2026, including indoor and outdoor water use. Honorable Chairman Dennis C. Moss and Members, Board of County Commissioners Page 2 In addition to the implementation of the Plan; an Advisory Committee was established in 2007 at the request of the Government Operations and Environment Committee Chair with the goal of developing countywide guidelines that address water conservation issues and alternative water supplies to assist the County in meeting the conditions of the 20 -Year Water Use Permit. The Advisory Committee is comprised of several county agencies including the departments of Building, Environmental Resources Management, Fire Rescue, Paris & Recreation, Planning & Zoning, Public Works, and Water and Sewer; the Building Code Compliance Office and the General Services Administration. In addition to County staff, the Advisory Committee includes representation from stakeholder groups such as the American Society of Landscape Architects, South Florida Builders Association, Sierra Club, Latin Builders Association, Tropical Audubon Society, Association of Cuban Engineers, South Florida Regional Planning Council, Farm Bureau, South Florida Water Management District and the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce. On June 5, 2007, the Advisory Committee summarized its findings and presented them to the BCC. These findings included specific recommendations for indoor and outdoor water conservation measures such as the use of high efficiency plumbing fixtures and the use of Florida Friendly landscape principles and irrigation soil moisture sensors. With regards to landscape irrigation, the Advisory Committee's findings were consistent with the "Landscape Irrigation & Florida -Friendly Design Standards" issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in December 2006. On February 5, 2008 the BCC adopted Ordinance No. 08-14 establishing indoor water conservation measures, The adopted measures call for the installation of efficient water fixtures, appliances and other water saving measures and equipment in new developments. In order to meet the water conservation goals provided in the Plan, the County must also address outdoor water conservation measures, The proposed Right -of -Way Landscape Ordinance assists the County in meeting the outdoor water conservation goals specified in the Plan for the duration of the County's 20 - Year Water Use Permit, In the development of the proposed ordinance the staff of the Department of Planning and Zoning has been working closely with the membership of the Advisory Committee to address outdoor water conservation issues and alternative water supplies for the development community as well as with the members of the Community Image Advisory Board and its Tree and Landscape Projects Sub -Committees. Consultation with other municipalities was also facilitated through these committees. The proposed ordinance seeks to address outdoor water conservation measures in connection with rights -of -ways in both unincorporated Miami -Dade and in municipalities, It creates a Right -of -Way Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 186) that mirrors the existing Landscape Ordinance contained in Chapter 18A of the Code, including the proposed concurrent amendments to the same. Presently rights -of -ways are not specifically regulated for water conservation measures. Interlocal agreements with the municipalities will be subsequently executed in order to implement the proposed ordinance. Section 1 of this ordinance establishes Chapter 18B as the Miami -Dade County Right -of - Way Landscape Ordinance and provides applicability, definitions; purpose and intent of the Honorable Chairman Dennis C. Moss and Members, Board of County Commissioners Page 3 same. It also provides the minimum standards for irrigation, plant material and mulch. More specifically this section; • Establishes the irrigation sub -section in order to address the design, operation and maintenance of effective irrigation systems. Efforts are made to minimize free water flow conditions and to maximize the uniformity of the system by considering the emitters type, the head spacing, the sprinkler patterns and the water pressure. The section also requires the use of rain switches such as soil moisture sensors. • Requires that fifty (50) percent of the plant material to be low maintenance and drought tolerant. Canopy trees are preferred where conditions are appropriate. • Requires that eighty (80) percent of the trees and shrubs provided be listed in the Landscape Manual, the Street Tree Master Plan or the University of Florida's Low Maintenance Landscape Plants for South Florida list. • Requires mulches to be applied and maintained in accordance with Florida Friendly Landscaping. This ordinance is complementary to the Miami -Dade Landscape Ordinance and its proposed update. Alex Munoz Assistant County M nager 3 MEMORANDUM (Revised) TO: Honorable Chairman Dennis C. Moss DATE: May. 5., 2009 and Members, Board of County Commissioners FROM: R. A. eva SUBJECT.: Agenda Item No: 7 (G ) County Attar y Please note any -items checked. "4 -Day Rule" ("3 -Day Rule" for committees) applicable if raised V 6 weeks required between first reading and public hearing 4 weeks notification to municipal officials required prior to public gearing Decreases revenues or increases expenditures without balancing budget Budget required Statement of fiscal impact required Bid waiver requiring County Mayor's written recommendation Ordinance creating.a new board requires detailed County Manager's report for public hearing Housekeeping item. (no policy decision required) No committee review Approved Mayor Aqenda Item No. 7(G) Veto 5-5--09 Override ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER 18B OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA ("CODE"), MIAMI- DADE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, CREATING SECTIONS 1813-1 THROUGH 18B-4; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. Chapter 18B of the Code of Miami -Dade County is hereby created as follows: CHAPTER 18B MIAMI-DADE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Sec. 188-1. Snort title and applicability. (A) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Miami -Dade County Right -of -Way Landscape Ordinance". (B) Applicability. This chapter shall be a minimum standard and shall apply to all public rights-of-way both in the incorporated and unincorporated areas >,excUt for zoned or dedicated rights-of-way adjacent to lands bei used for bonafide agricultural activities as defined in Chapter 18A Of this Code<<. Enforcement in the unincorporated area shall be by the County and in the incorporated areas by the municipalities; provided, any municipality may establish and enforce more stringent regulations as such municipality may deem necessary. In the event the provisions hereof are not enforced within any municipality, the County shall enforce same. Sec. 186-2. Purpose and intent. It is the intent of this chapter to establish minimum landscape standards for public rights-of-way in incorporated and unincorporated Miami -Dade County that enhance, improve and maintain the quality of the landscape, and to: 5Y Agenda Item No. 7 (G) Page No. 2 (A) Promote [ apa=andfl Florida Friendly, principles through the use of drought -tolerant landscape species, grouping.of plant material by water requirements, the use of irrigation systems that conserve the use of potable and nonpotable water supplies and restrictions on the amount of lawn areas. (B) Use landscape material, specifically street trees, to visually define the hierarchy of roadways, and to provide shade and a visual edge along roadways. (C) Prevent the destruction of the community's existing tree canopy and promote its expansion. (D) Provide for the preservation of existing natural forest communities and specimen sized trees in conformance with Section 2449, as may be amended from time to time; re-establish native habitat where appropriate, and encourage the appropriate use of native plant material in the landscape. (F) Promote the use of trees and shrubs for energy conservation by encouraging cooling through the provision of shade and the channeiing of breezes, thereby helping to offset global warming and local heat island effects through the added absorption of carbon dioxide and reduction of heat islands. (F) Contribute to the processes of air movement, air purification, oxygen regeneration, ground water recharge, and retention of stormwater runoff, as well as aiding in the abatement of noise, glare, heat, air pollution and dust generated by major roadways and intense use areas. (G) Reduce the negative impacts of exotic pest plant species and prohibit the use of noxious exotic plants which invade native plant communities. (H) Promote the use of trees to protect and buffer the effects of high winds on structures. (1) Promote the concept of planting the right tree or plant in the right place to avoid problems such as clogged sewers, cracked sidewalk and power services interruptions. See. 18113-3. Definitions. The definitions contained in Chapters 18A, Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida, shall apply to this chapter. 1 Agenda Item No.7 (G) Page No. 3 Sec. 988-4. Minimum standards, (A) Irrigation. (1) All newly -planted and relocated plant material shall be watered by temporary or permanent irrigation systems until such time as they are established and subsequently on as needed basis to prevent stress and die off in compliance with existing water use restrictions. (2) Irrigation systems shall be prohibited within native plant communities and natural forest communities, except for temporary systems needed to establish newly planted material. Temporary irrigation systems shall be disconnected immediately after establishment of plant communities. (3) Irrigation systems shall be designed, operated and maintained to: (a) Meet the needs of the plants in the landscape. (b) Conserve water by allowing differential operation schedules based on hydrozone. (c) Consider soil, slope and other site characteristics in order to minimize water waste, including overspray or overflow on to impervious surfaces and other non -vegetated areas, and off- site runoff, (d) Minimize free flow conditions in case of damage or other mechanical failure. (e) Use low trajectory spray heads, and/or low volume water distributing or application devices. (f) Maximize uniformity, considering factors such as: (1) Emitters types, (2) Head spacing, (3) Sprinkler pattern, and (4) Water pressure at the emitter. (g) Use the lowest quality water feasible (graywater shall be used where approved systems are available). (h) Rain switches or other devices, such as soil moisture sensors, shall be used with automatic controls. (i) Operate only during hours and on days permitted under Chapter 32 of this Code. (j} Where feasible, drip irrigation or micro -sprinklers shall be used. Agenda Item No. 7 (G) Page No. 4 (4) During dry periods, irrigation application rates of between one (1) and one and one-half (1 112) inches per week are recommended for turf areas. (B) Plant Material and Mulch. (1) At least fifty (50) percent of the plant material shall be low maintenance and drought tolerant. Canopy trees are preferred where conditions are appropriate. (2) Eighty (80) percent of the plant material shall be listed in the Miami -Dade Landscape Manual, the Miami -Dade Street Tree Master Plan and/or the University of Florida's Low -Maintenance Landscape Plants for South Florida list. (3) Right-of-way landscaping shall include the use of native plant species in order to re-establish an aesthetic regional quality and take advantage of the unique diversity and adaptability of native species to the environmental conditions of South Florida. (4) Where feasible, the re-establishment of native habitats shall be incorporated into the landscaping. (5) Existing specimen trees, native vegetation (including canopy, understory, and ground cover) and Natural Forest Communities shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible and all requirements of Section 24-49 of the Code of Miami -Dade County. (6) In order to conserve water, reduce maintenance, and promote plant health, plant species shall be selected and installed based on their water needs, growth rate and size, and resource inputs. Plants with similar water needs shall be grouped in hydrazones, Adequate growth area (including rooting space), based on natural mature shape and size shall be provided for all plant materials, (7) Trees and shrubs shall be planted in the energy conservation zone where feasible, in order to reduce energy consumption by shading buildings and other structures and shah be used to reduce heat island effects by shading paved surfaces. (8) Street trees shall be used to shade roadways and provide visual order. Where feasible, selected species shall be used to establish a road hierarchy by defining different road types. (9) Prohibited trees shall be removed. (10) Special attention shall be given to the use of appropriate species located under, or adjacent to overhead power lines, and near. native plant communities and near underground utility lines. Adequate growth area shall be provided for all plant materials. 9 Agenda Item No. 7 (G) Page No. 5 (11) Landscaping shall be designed in such a way as to provide safe and unobstructed views at intersections of roadways, driveways, recreational paths and sidewalks in accordance with Section 33- 11 of the Code of Miami -Dade County and in compliance with federal and state standards. (12) Historic landscapes and landscape features designated by local, State or federal governments shall be preserved, [[ ayer �_n.nlor nr..-i-.rnr+rl nLl #re.�n.nn,-I e.l-.r3 L..n , >>(13) Mulches shall ba ap- lied and maintained in accordance wit t_he_most recent edition of the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods -Hands titled "A Guide to Florida Friendly Landscaping" by the University of Florida Instit te of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UFIiEAS, and available online at httn:l/www.floridavards.ora/landscape/FYN-Handbook.ndf.« [[#}]] »CL5)« Cypress mulch shall not be used because its harvest degrades cypress wetlands. Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 3, It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made part of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word. it Agenda Item No. 7 (G) Page No. 6 Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board. PASSED AND ADOPTED: Approved by County Attorney as to form and legal sufficiency; Prepared by; C If - Craig H. Coller 10 Memorandum - MISE Date: May 5, 2009 To: Honorable Chairman Dennis C. Moss Agenda Item No. 7(F) and Members, Board of County Commissioners From: George M. Buyv'�� County MT.r'� Subject: Ordinance Revising Chapter 18A of the Code of Miami -Dade County, the Landscape Ordinance. This Substitute Item #2 differs from the original item as follows: • Replaces references to "Xerisca e" landscapes with "Florida Friendly" landscapes as promoted by the State. • Updates the definition of "native" plants. • Kees the native plants re uirement to 30% as provided in the current code. Original item increased the native requirement to 50%. • Requires that 50% of the plant material be low maintenance and drought tolerant. • Revises the definition of mulch and the pertinent criteria in order to reflect Florida Friendly landscapes. • Substitute No. 2 differs from Substitute No. 1 in that it complies with the new rule change regarding substitutes and alternates as provided in Ordinance #09-13 adopted on March 3, 2009. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopt the attached ordinance revising the Miami -Dade County Landscape Ordinance to supplement outdoor water conservation measures in accordance with the Miami -Dade Water Use Efficiency Plan adopted pursuant to Resolution No. R-468-06. Scope This ordinance is of countywide impact. Fiscal Impact/Funding Source The proposed ordinance creates no fiscal impact on Miami -Dade County. Track Record/Monitor Not applicable. Background On April 25, 2006 the Board adopted Resolution R-468-06 which approves the Miami -Dade Water Use Efficiency Plan (Plan) as a part of a larger effort to improve the management of traditional water supplies while improving the efficiency of the County's current water use. The Plan outlines the County's water efficiency measures and best management practices. Honorable Chairman Dennis C. Moss and Members, Board of County Commissioners Page 2 The South Florida Water Management District (District) approved the Plan as a condition of the County's 20 -Year Water Use Permit issued on November 15, 2007:; During the first year of the Plan, WASD kicked -off its conservation efforts by implementing a series of efficiency projects. 'It is calculated that the total water use savings from these projects will yield a savings of 20 million gallons a day through 2026, including indoor and outdoor water use. In addition to the implementation of the Plan, an Advisory Committee was established in 2007 at the request of the Government Operations and Environment Committee Chair with the goal of developing countywide guidelines that address water; conservation issues and alternative water supplies to assist the County in meeting the conditions of the 20 -Year Water Use Permit. The Advisory Committee is comprised of several county departments including. DERM, GSA, Building; Park and Recreation, Planning and Zoning, Building Compliance, Fire, Public Works, and Water and Sewer. In addition to County staff, the Advisory. Committee includes representation from stakeholder groups such as the American Society of Landscape Architects, South Florida Builders Association, Sierra Glub, Latin Builders Association, Tropical Audubon Society, Association of Cuban Engineers., South Florida Regional Planning Council, Farm Bureau, South Florida Water Management District and the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce. On June 5, 2007, the Advisory Committee summarized its findings and presented them to the BCC. These findings included specific recommendations for indoor and outdoor water conservation measures such as the use of high efficiency plumbing fixtures and the use of Florida Friendly landscape principles and irrigation soil moisture sensors. With regards to landscape irrigation, the Advisory Committee's findings were consistent with the "Landscape Irrigation & Florida -Friendly Design Standards" issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in December 2006. On February 5, 2008 the BCG adopted Ordinance No. 08-14 establishing indoor water conservation measures, The adopted measures call for the installation of efficient water fixtures, appliances and other water saving measures and equipment in new developments. In order to meet the water conservation goals provided in the Plan, the County must also address outdoor water conservation measures. The proposed revisions to the attached Landscape Ordinance assist the County in meeting the outdoor water conservation goals specified in the Plan for the duration of the County's 20 -Year Water Use Permit, In the development of the proposed revisions to the ordinance, the staff of the Department of Planning and Zoning has been working closely with the membership of the Advisory Committee to address outdoor water conservation issues and alternative water supplies for the development community as well as with the members of the Community Image Advisory Board and its Tree and Landscape Projects Sub - Committees. Consultation with other municipalities was also facilitated through these committees. The proposed ordinance seeks to address outdoor water conservation measures by amending the countywide Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 18A) in order to revise the required plant material, and update the outdoor irrigation language and criteria. Honorable Chairman Dennis C. Moss and Members, Board of County Commissioners Page 3 Section 1 of this ordinance revises the Purpose and Intent section of Chapter 18A in order to add by reference the Florida Friendly landscaping principles. Section 2 of this ordinance revises the Definitions in order to provide additional definitions including definitions for Florida Friendly and the State's Florida Yards & Neighborhood Program. A definition of the County's newly adopted Street Tree Master Plan is also added to this section. Section 3 of this ordinance revises the Plans Required section in order to include the location of rain switches and soil moisture sensors on the required pians, Section 4 of this ordinance amends the Minimum Standards section in order to revise the irrigation, trees, shrubs, mulching and plant quality criteria. More specifically this section: • Updates and rearranges the irrigation sub -section in order to address the design, operation and maintenance of effective irrigation systems. Efforts are made to minimize free water flow conditions and to maximize the uniformity of the system by considering the emitters type, the head spacing, the sprinkler patterns and the water pressure. The section also requires the use of rain switches such as soil moisture sensors. • Requires that thirty (30) percent of the required plant material shall be native species. No more than 30% of the required shall be palms. • Requires that fifty (50) percent instead of the required plant material shall be low maintenance and drought tolerant. • Requires that eighty (80) percent of the plant material required listed in the Landscape Manual, the Street Tree Master Plan or the University of Florida's Low Maintenance Landscape Plants for South Florida list. • Requires mulches to be applied and maintained in accordance with Florida Friendly Landscaping, Section 5 of this ordinance revises the Landscape Plan Review Criteria section in order to provide reference to Florida Friendly landscaping. This ordinance will be complemented by an ordinance establishing minimum landscaping and irrigation criteria for public rights-of-way. Alex Munoz Assistant County MEMORANDUM (Revised) TO: Honorable Chairman Dermis C. Moss DATE: May 5, 2009 and Members, Board of County Commissioners FROM: R. A. eva , SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. VF) County Attor y Please note any items checked. 114 -Day Ruler' ("3 -Day Rude" for committees) applicable if raised tz weeks required between first reading and public hearing 4 weeks notification to municipal officials required prior to public hearing Decreases revenues or increases expenditures without balancing budget Budget required Statement of fiscal impact required Bid waiver requiring County Mayor's written recommendation Ordinance creating a new board requires detailed County Manager's report for public hearing Housekeeping item (no policy decision required) No committee review Approved Mayor Veto Override ORDINANCE NO. Agenda. Item No. 7W 5-5-p9 ORDINANCE REVISING CHAPTER 18A OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA ("CODE"), MIAMI-DADE COUNTY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, AMENDING SECTIONS 18A-2 THROUGH 18A-4 AND SECTIONS 18A -E THROUGH 1BA-7, PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. Section 18A-2 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida is hereby amended as follows', Sec. 18A-2. Purpose and intent. It is the intent of this chapter to establish minimum landscape standards for Incorporated and Unincorporated Miami -Dade County that enhance, improve and maintain the quality of the landscape, and to, (A) Promote [[ J] >>Florida Friendly landsca in << principles through the use of drought -tolerant j[landssape}] >>dant« species, grouping of plant material by water requirements, the use of irrigation systems that conserve the use of potable and nonpotable water supplies and restrictions on the amount of lawn areas. F orlda Friendly landscape principles also promote olantina the 'Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. S Agenda Item No. 7(F) Page 2 _richt plant in theJghtplace and appropriate fe ili atio an mulchi .<< Section 2. Section 18A-3 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 18Aµ3. Definitions. The definitions contained in Chapters 24 and 33, Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida, shall apply to this chapter except as otherwise changed herein: [[{A}]] Accessways: The maximum width of an accessway through the perimeter landscaped. strip to an off-street parking or other vehicular use area shall be determined according to the Public Works Manual, Part I, Standard Details. No more than one (1) two- way accessway shall be permitted or any street frontage up to one hundred (100) lineal feet or no more than two (2) one-way accessways shall be permitted for any street frontage up to one hundred (100) lineal feet, such standards to be applicable to any property under one (1) ownership. Where such ownership involves over one hundred (100) feet of street frontage, one (1) additional two-way or two (2) additional one-way drives may be permitted for each additional one hundred (100).feet. of frontage or major fraction thereof. The balance of such street frontage not involved with access ways shall be landscaped in accordance with the provisions of this.chapter. >>A1VS1 A30n Standards, Industrv-developed standards of practice for tree care Acronym far American National Standards Institute,« [[fB)]] Automatic irrigation system: An 'irrigation system with a programmable controller or timing mechanism. [[(G)]] Bonafide agricultural activities:. Land used for the growing of food crops, nurseries for the growing of landscape material, the raising of livestock, horse farms, and other good faith agricultural uses, except any portion 'of the property not eligible for agricultural exemption. [[{B?]] Buffer, perimeter landscape: An area of land which is set aside along the perimeter of a parcel of land in which landscaping is required to provide an aesthetic transition between different land 1 Agenda Item No. 7(F) Page 3 uses and to eliminate or reduce tate adverse environmental impact, and incompatible land use impacts. [[kE41] Caliper; For trees under four (4) inches in diameter, the trunk diameter measured at a height of six (6) inches above natural grade. For trees four (4) inches and greater in diameter, the trunk diameter measured at twelve (12) inches above natural grade. [[(€)]] Clearance pruning: Pruning required to avoid damage or danger related to structures, power distribution and property, as defined in the current ANSI A300 Standards. [[(G)]] Colonnade: A roof or building structure, extending over the sidewalk, open to the street and sidewalk, except for supporting columns or piers. [[(H)]] Common open space: Area required as open space under Chapter 33 or municipal codes for various zoning districts. [[]] Controlled plant species: Those plant species listed in the Landscape Manual which tend to become nuisances because of their ability to invade proximal native plant communities or native habitats, but which, if located and cultivated properly may be useful or functional as elements of landscape design, Diameter at breast height (DBH): Diameter of a tree's trunk measured at a height four and one-half (4.5) feet above natural grade. In the case of multiple -trunk trees, the DBH shall mean the sum of each trunk's diameter measured at a height of four and one- half (4.5) feet above natural grade. [[j]] Differential operation schedule: A method of scheduling an irrigation system to apply different quantities of water, and/or apply water at different frequencies as appropriate, for different hydrazones. [[{I=)l] Dissimilar land- uses: Proximate or directly associated land uses which are contradictory, incongruous, or discordant such as higher intensity residential, commercial or industrial uses located adjacent to lower intensity uses. .Drip line: An imaginary vertical line extending from the outermost horizontal circumference of a tree's branches to the ground. [[(N)]] Duplex dwelling: A residence building designed for, or used as the separate homes or residences of two (2) separate and distinct families, but having the appearance of a single family dwelling house. Each individual unit in the duplex shall comply with the definition for a one -family dwelling. >>Emitters: devices which are used to control the discharge of irrigation water from lateral i es.=< [[{q]] Existing development: [f /hies ing development chn�F]] >>Shall<< mean a site with structures that were legally approved through the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy or a certificate of completion as of the effective date of this chapter, Energy conservation zone: A zone located no more than twenty- two (22) feet from a structure in a one hundred eighty (180) degree band from due east of the northeast point of the structure, to due south, to due west of the northwest point of the structure. »E vironmentally Endangered Lands: lands that contain natura forest, wetland or native plant communities, rare -and endangered LM Agenda Item No. 7(F) Page 4 !ants and animas endemic species, an er d species habota a diversity of species, outstanding geo-loaic--or'other natural features or land wh' h functions as ral and sus afiin component—of-an existir. a cosystem « [[{Q�]] Facultative: Plants with a similar likelihood of occurring in both wetlands and uplands, which are not recognized indicators of either wetland or upland conditions. »Florida Friendly Landsca in ;practices, materials or actions developed by the Florida Yards & Neighborhood Program that help to _preserve Florida's natural ^resources and _ protect the environment. Florida Yards & Neighborhood Program: Is a partnership of the University, of Florida/ Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Environmental Protection, the National Estuary Program, the Florida Sea Grant College Program and other agencies, managed locally by the Miami -Dade Cooperative Extension Division of the Consumer Services D_epartment,« [[(}]] Forbs: Herbaceous plants other than grasses. CC{l] Geologic feature: A natural rock or mineral formation. >>Graywater<<: That portion of domestic sewage emanating from residential showers, >>residential baths,« residential bathroom washbasins, or residential clothes washing machines. [[(k)]] Ground cover: A dense, extensive growth of low -growing plants, other than turfgrass, normally reaching an average maximum height of not more than twenty-four (24) inches at maturity. [[(V)]] Hatrack: To flat -cut the top of a tree, severing the leader or leaders, or the removal of any branch three (3) inches or greater in diameter at any point other than the branch collar. Hazard pruning: The removal of dead, diseased, decayed, or obviously weak branches two (2) inches in diameter or greater. [[tX}]] Heat island: An unnaturally high temperature >>microclimate<< resulting from radiation from unshaded impervious surfaces, [[(-Y)]] Hedge: A landscape barrier consisting of a continuous, dense planting of shrubs, not necessarily of the same species. Herbaceous plant: A plant having little or no woody tissue. [[YEA)]] Hydromulch: A sprayed application of seed, mulch and water. [[(]] Hydrozone: A., zone in which plant material with similar water needs are grouped together. [ �]j Included bark: Bark that is >>embedded in a crotch between a branch and trunk or between co -dominant stems<< [[pushed inside a -developing watch]], causing a weakened structure. [[DD)]] Irrigation detail: A graphic representation depicting the materials to be used and dimensions to be met in the installation of the irrigation system. [[(&P]] Irrigation plan: A plan drawn at the same scale as the landscape plan, indicating location and specification of irrigation system components and other relevant information as required by this chapter. IS Agenda Item No. 7(F) Page 5 [[(P�]] Irrigation system: A system of pipes or other conduits designed to transport and distribute water to keep plants. in a healthy and vigorous condition. [[�Ggll Landscape feature: Trellis, arbor, fountain, pond, garden sculpture, garden lighting, decking, patio, decorative paving, gazebo»l<< and other similar elements, C[11 Landscape material: Plants such as grass, ground cover, forbs, shrubs, vines, hedges, trees and non -living material such as rocks, pebbles, sand, mulch, or pervious decorative paving materials. [[(a -I-)]] Landscape plan: A plan indicating all landscape areas, stormwater retention/detention areas, areas which qualify to be excluded from maximum permitted lawn area, existing vegetation to be retained, proposed plant material, landscape legend, landscape features, planting specifications, and details, and all other relevant information in compliance with this chapter. [[(tel}]] Lawn area: An area planted with lawn grasses. [[(]] Manual irrigation system: An irrigation system in which control valves and switches are manually operated rather than operated by automatic controls. [[(Lt.-)]] Mixed use: A mixture of land uses such as provided in Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), Planned Area Development (PAD), and Planned Development (PD). [[(MM}]] Moisture and rain sensor switches: Devices which have the ability to switch off an automatic irrigation controller after receiving a predetermined amount of rainfall or moisture content in the soil. Mulch: ]1 >?Ma erials<< customarily used in landscape design to retard erosion, weed infestation, and retain moisture and for use in planting areas, [[(QQ4]] Multifamily residential development: Any residential development other than attached or detached single family or duplex. [[(P'I)]] Multiple single family developments: Attached and detached single family developments that are planned as a total project and not as a single family unit on a single lot. Native habitat: An area enhanced or landscaped with an appropriate mix of native tree, shrub and groundcover species that resembles a native plant community or natural forest community in structure and composition or is naturally occurring. [[(ZR)]] Native plant species: Plant species with a geographic distribution indigenous to all or part of Miami -Dade County. Plants which are described as being native to Miami -Dade County in botanical manuals such as, but not limited to, "A Flora of Tropical Florida" by Long and Lakela [[ " ]], are native plant species within the meaning of this definition. Plant species which have been introduced into Miami -Dade County by man are not native plant species. I[(96)11 Native plant community.` A natural association of plants dominated by one (1) or more prominent native plant species, or a characteristic physical attribute. [[{=l=T}]] Natural ff Jj '>Forest . Community<<: All assemblages of vegetation designated as Natural Forest Agenda Item No. 7(F) Page 6 Communities on the Miami -Dade :County Natural Forest Community Maps and approved by the Board of :..County Commissioners, pursuant to Resolution No. R-1764-8.4 avid further defined in Section 24-[[3]]7>6<C of the Miami -..Dade County Code. Net lot area: For the purpose of this chapter,''net lot. area shall be the area within lot boundaries of all lands comprising the site. Net lot area shall not include any portion of : the abutting 'dedicated streets, alleys, waterways, canals,lakes or any other such dedications. [[]] One family dwelling: A private residence building used or intended to be used as a home or residence in which all living rooms are accessible to each other from within the building and in which the use and management of all sleeping quarters, all appliances for sanitation, cooking, ventilating, heating or lighting are designated for the use of one (1) family only. [[4�A"]] Overhead irrigation system: A high pressure, high volume irrigation system. [[(X -X)]] Planting detail: A graphic representation of the plant installation depicting the materials to be used and dimensions to be met in the placement of plants and other landscape materials. [[{Y -Y)]] Prohibited plant species: Those plant species listed in the »Miami -Dade« Landscape Manual which are demonstrably detrimental to native plants, native wildlife, ecosystems, or human health, safety, and welfare. [[(Z --Z)]] Shrub: A self-supporting woody perennial plant normally growing to a height of twenty-four (24) inches or greater, characterized by multiple stems and branches continuous from the base. [[rn�]] Site plan: A comprehensive plan drawn to scale indicating appropriate site elevations, roadways, and location of all relevant site improvements including structures, parking, other paved areas, ingress and egress drives, landscaped open space and signage. [[(l3N)]j Specimen tree: A tree with any individual trunk which has a DBH of eighteen (18) inches or greater, but not including the following: (1) All trees listed in Section 24-[[60]]»49«(4)(f); (2) Non-native fruit trees that are cultivated or grown for the specific purpose of producing edible fruit, including, but not limited to, mangos, avocados, or species of citrus; (3) Non-native species of the genus Ficus, and (4) All multitrunk trees in the palm family, except [[Accelerrl aphe]]7>Acoelorrhaphe<< wrighffl >>and Phoenix reclinata<c which have a minimum overall height of fifteen (15) feet. [[(GGG )]] Spray head: An irrigation device which applies water to the soil or plant surface by fixed spray or mist nozzles. >>Syrinkler Head., a sprinkler head that provides above around or overhead irri ation.<< [[PDP)]] Stabilized lawn area: An area of ground underlain with structural support in the form of grass pavers or stabilized soil prepared to withstand the load of intended vehicular use, such as automobiles, fire trucks and garbage trucks. I C) Agenda Item No. 7(F) Page 7 [[(EE—E4]l Stormwater retention/detention area: An area designed, built and used for temporary storage of stormwater. For purposes of this chapter, these areas are intended to be permanently exempt from wetland regulations. >>Street Tree Master Plan: A greenprint for Miami -Dade CountV as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on March 6 2007 as may be amended from time to time.<< [[(F--F--F—)]] Tree abuse. Tree abuse shall include: (1) Damage inflicted upon any part of a tree, including the root system, by machinery, construction equipment, cambium layer penetration, storage of materials, soil compaction, excavation, chemical application or spillage, or change to the natural grade. (2) Hatracking. (3) Girdling or bark removal of more than one-third (113) of the tree diameter. (4) Tears and splitting of Iib ends or peeling and stripping of bark resulting from improper pruning techniques not in accordance with the current ANSI A300 Standards. [[()]] Tree canopy 1f�1j: The aerial extent of the branches and foliage of a tree »as defined by the drip line<< [[4]] Temporary irrigation systems: A system including surface distribution elements (hose, pipe, etc.) which may be easily removed when landscape is established. [[01}]] Understory: The complex of woody, fibrous, [[arid]] herbaceous >>and graminoid<< plant species that are typically associated with a natural forest community, native plant community, or native habitat. Vegetation required to be preserved by lave: Portions of a site, including but not limited to specimen trees, natural forest communities and native vegetation which are clearly delineated on site plans, plats, or recorded restrictions, or in some other legally binding manner that are to be protected from any tree or understory removal or effective destruction and maintained without any development. [[3]] Vegetation survey: A drawing provided at the same scale as the landscape plan which includes relevant information as required by this chapter, Vehicular use area: A hard surface area designed or used for off- street parking and/or an area used for loading, circulation, access, storage, including fire trucks, garbage trucks, or display of motor vehicles, [[4AW�]] Vine: A plant with a flexible stem which normally requires support to reach mature form. Section 3. Section 18A-4 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida is hereby amended as follows: Sec. IBA -4. Plans required. Agenda Item No. 7(F) Page 8 (D) Irrigation plans. An irrigation plan shall be submitted if a sprinkler system is required by Chapter. 33, or as required in the individual municipalities or where an irrigation system' is to be provided regardless of code requirements. VVhere . a landscape plan is required, an irrigation pian shall be submitted concurrently. (1) For a new one -family or duplex dwelling the irrigation. plan may be indicated on a plot plan or a separate drawing prepared by the owner or the owner's agent indicating area(s) to be irrigated, location and specifications of lines and heads and pump specifications, (2) All other development other than those provided in a subsection (1) above shall; (a) Be drawn on a base plan at the same scale as landscape plan(s). (b) Delineate landscape areas, major landscape features, and hydrozones. (c) Delineate existing and proposed structures, parking areas or other vehicular use areas, access aisles, sidewalks, driveways, the location of utilities and easements, and similar features, (d) Include water source, design operating pressure and flow rate per zone, total volume required for typical depths of application, and application rate. (e) Include locations of pipes, controllers, valves, sprinklers, back flow prevention devices», rain switches or soil moisture sensors,« and electrical supply. (f) Irrigation details. Section 4. Section 18A-6 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida is hereby amended as follows; Sec. 18A-6. Minimum standards. The following standards shall be considered minimum requirements unless otherwise indicated: /2- Agenda Item No. 7(F) Page 9 (B) Irrigation. (1) All newly -planted and relocated plant material shall be watered by temporary or permanent irrigation systems until such time as they are established »and subsequently on as needed basis to prevent stress and die off in compliance with existing water use restrictions<<. (2) Irrigation shall be prohibited within native plant .communities and natural forest communities, except for temporary systems needed to establish newly planted material. Temporary irrigation systems shall be disconnected immediately after establishment of plant communities, [[4_{lamrgafien-`ry-&.�nm�rrrr�naTi-ba designed fnil_c+onseRe—water by'a i� " €iffeF ntinrulrv� ra+len SGhe lulen based--er}`hydro (4 rri �en shall he designed Gpera ted, andmalritainerl to not ov--'I,I-6�H I GR t9 iRAP8FVi9US SH Ges.. (5) Lew tra a trtry spray heads, linnkinn rl ry ar-r.�v �nlan� r7 irrino4inn_ a�G�i e-u-sed--O�+efhea�„g�,�R,�-sys#er�rs--shell only be permitted in itinn afirte arvrinUlti irnl antis eit, ae a S, ()_,_ gray water_s Taal-bvnused-crhere nra� ap fpirv W+ed systems are mea � � - Bu +rag dry penappliGatien-rat s-af­b&Mee , an.,r n (1) and arse -end ane half (1 inGhes per week are-resemmended f„r areas. (aIC}LlT4s Vr—r'C7-Tra-/GTI sOTIAV-Y?k shol ho �G r 11mi i all}�irTf l"i tiA \ / ci+atomc er�� �ir.perl an�ith at ttnm e.a--evrsrl--crcrcvr i �t�ti$-# (9) lFfigatiOn SYSt aMS ei--be4m,Eid to epe;ate-only rhuriRq hears and on days pepmit-te"R er-Gh 'ter 32 of the / Ae- If irrin n4ian system is not provided a hale hib_sha4-be-pfGv4ded y F i �'sev{3r�it'. 11. --(dent of anal Innrdsoape nreaJf_j] »(3), Irrigation systems shall be designed, operated and maintained to: a) Meet the needs of all the plants in the landscape. b) Conserve water by allowing differential operation schedules based on hydrazone. (c) Consider soil, slope and other site characteristics in order to minimize water waste, including oversAray or overflow on to impervious surfaces and other non -vegetated areasand off-site runoff. (d) Minimize free flow conditions in case of dama4e or other mechanical failure, �3 Agenda Item No. 7(F) Page 10 e Use low tra'ecto spray heads and/or low volume water distributing or application devices. Maximize uniformity, considering factors such as. (1) Emitters types, (2) Head Spacing, (3) Sprinkler pattern, and (4) Water pressure at the emitter. Use the lowest guality.water feasible (c graywater shall be used whereapproved systems are available). (h) Rain switches or other devices,, such as soil moisture sensors, shall be used with automatic controls. Operate only during hours and on days permitted under Chapter 32 of the Code of Miami -Dade County. (9) Where feasible, drip irrigation or micro -sprinklers shall be used. (4) During dry periods, irrigation application rates of between one 1) and one and one-half (1 1/2) inches per week are recommended for turf areas. (5) If an irrigation system is not provided, a hose bib shall be provided within seventy-five (75) feet of any landscape area.<< (C) Trees. (1) Tree size. All trees, except street trees [jand -trees located beneath pewer Mes)], shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet high and have a minimum caliper of two (2) inches at time of planting except that thirty (30) percent of the tree requirement may be met by native species with a minimum height of eight (3) feet and a minimum caliper of one and one-half (1 1/2) inches at time of planting. )] >>Of the required trees at least: a) Thirty (30) percent shall be native species• an bl Fifty (50) percent shall „below maintenance and „r� ht tom. levant: d T Ic No more than thirty (30) percent shall be palms.<< / q Agenda Item No, 7(F) Page 11 >>(12) Eighty 80percent of the trees shall be listed in the Miami -Dade Landscape Manual the Miami -Dade Street Tree Master Plan and/or the University of Florida's Low -Maintenance Landscape Plants for South Florida list.<< [[t]J >>L13 « In order to prevent adverse environmental impacts to [[only existing _C.-. al �..Im�{}b existing native plant communities, [[., �,�,��—,-��,,,-,-,�,.�,,& �€�]] >> bbaae palms (Sabal palmetto) that are harvested from the wild shall not be used to satisfy minimum landscaping requirements.<< [[shall be used to satisfy rniniMUM +r e ar:d plant requirements, exGep #1 .fl >>Only existingC bb Rdmm<< [[ 66 ]] which are rescued from government approved donor sites, transplanted within the site, or commercially grown from seed shall be counted towards the minimum tree and native plant requirements. [[43)]] >>LU4 << When trees are planted within the right-of-way, the owners of land adjacent to the areas where street trees are planted must maintain those areas including the trees, plants and sod, using pruning methods specified in this Code, A covenant executed by those owners is required, or a special taxing district must be created to maintain these areas, Where the State, County or municipality determines that the planting of trees and other landscape material is not appropriate in the public right-of-way, they may require that said trees and landscape material be placed on private property. [[{ 4}]] »tom« Consideration shall be given to the selection of trees, plants and planting site to avoid serious problems such as clogged sewers, cracked sidewalks, and power service interruptions. [[{1 }]] » << Municipalities shall meet all the above requirements in the corresponding zoning districts or land use categories of the particular municipality. (D) Shrubs. (1) All shrubs shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height when measured immediately after planting. Shrubs shall be provided at ratio of ten (10) per required tree. [[Thirty ( G)1] [[ [[p #J, ]] »Of the provided shrubs at least. a) Thirty (30) percent shall be native species. and (b) Fifty (50) percent shall be low maintenance and drouoht tolerant: and (c) Eighty (80) percent shall be listed in the Miami -Dade Landscape Manual the Miami -Dade Street Tree Master _Plan and/or the University of Florida's Low -Maintenance Landscape Plants for South Florida list.<< (Z) When used as a visual screen, buffer, or hedge, shrubs shall be planted at a maximum average spacing of thirty (30) inches on center or if planted at a minimum height of thirty-six (38) inches, shall 6 Agenda Item No, 7(F) Page 12 have a maximum average spacing of forty-eight (48) inches on center and shall be maintained so as to form a continuous, unbroken and solid visual screen within one (1) yearafter time of planting, Shrubs used as a buffer, visual screen, or hedge need not be of the same species. (G) Mulch. (1) [[Weed fru'ree--mu'c`tGh]] [[ ]] »Mulches« shall be applied and maintained in [[ nei npornooas ria apooK t t eo ..A Ljuiae to t-kondat-rienaiv Landscaping" by the University of Florida,.: institute of FQD_d_aLdd Agricultural Scie ces OF I AS and avails I I` a at http://www.flQridavard$.ora/landscape[FYN-HandLwk,.pdf. « [[ (3�]] »Q« Cypress mulch shall not be used because its harvest degrades cypress wetlands. Section 5. Section 18A-7 of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 18A-7. Landscape plan review criteria. In the unincorporated area all landscape plans shall be reviewed by the Department of Planning and Zoning, and where existing trees or [[mal ]] >>Natural Forest Communities or..Environmentally Endangered Lands<< are involved,. the Department of Environmental Resources Management. In the case of a municipality, landscape plans shall be approved by the department(s) or board(s) as deemed appropriate within the municipality, Landscape plans shall be reviewed in accordance with the following goals and objectives and the guidelines and illustrations provided in the Landscape Manual >>as well as the Guide to Florida -Friendly Landscaping am<<: (A) Landscape design shall enhance architectural features[(;]]»;,<< relate structure design to the site[[,]]»1« visually screen dissimilar uses and unsightly views[[;]]»,« reduce noise>>,_glare and heat gain« [[tapaets]] from >>paved areas;« major roadways and incompatible uses[[;]]»,<< strengthen important vistas and reinforce neighboring site design and architecture. r� Agenda Item No. 7(F) Page 13 (B) Existing specimen trees, native vegetation (including canopy, understory, and ground cover) and Natural Forest Communities shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible and all requirements of Section 24-[[CiGjj>>49<< of the Code >>of Miami -Dade County shall be met. Preserved Natural Forest Community areas shall be deducted from the total area used to calculate minimum landscaping requirements. Native vegetation in these Natural Forest Community areas shall not be used to satisfy minimum landscape requirements{, (C) In order to conserve water, reduce maintenance, and promote plant health, plant species shall be selected and installed based on their water needs, growth rate and size, and resource inputs. Plants with similar water needs shall be grouped in hydrazones. Adequate growth area >>, including rooting space«, based on natural mature shape and size shall be provided for all plant materials. Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 7. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and made a part of the Code of Miami -Dade County, Florida. The section of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article" or other appropriate word. Section 8. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board, PASSED AND ADOPTED: Approved by County Attorney as to form and legal sufficiency: Prepared by: Craig H. Coffer APPENDIX E Table 5: Countywide BMP Implementation Schedule, Costs, and Savings Projections Table 5: Countywide BMP Implementation Schedule, Costs, :and Savings Projections WSH-Wntw Ssvrngs Hwcv° 6FD=gWNns"d y TG - rhausend galans Malcolm Pimie. Inc. VDWA5D 20 -Year Plan for Redd and Nmolesalc Customers-2-2-D7.x 2007 2011 2016 Savings Rate 111107 Camino 2011 Cumula- 2016 c -m , (gallons p8 New Water rt,ne wsser New wmer ti-wamr xaw water ti-W.rr Cosy meas. Na. 01 Mees. Cumumllv0 2007 cum. Cos[Is SnNngs 8-ngY Rile Na.01 Meal. cumuladve 21111 C. - C. - IS Saldngs $Whgs Rue No.mf Meat. C. W- 2016 Cute casts Is ssWngs 3mNngs Rase SPAP Cafe o Sector .-.M7 erd.) 1n 2007 Nu of Meas. Cost to nate) ISPO) (GPO) In 1011 Nm of Mens. Cost to data] IGFDI IDRD1 Ut $015 xe, e[M- Gast to dmq (GPD) (GPDI SF 5260 203 300 300 578.000 578,007 89.900 65.900 �! 1500 578,000 SnD,000 65.900 349.500 300 3.000 578000 SMC 000 69.900 669.400 lvatcr-ElSciem �"mCOx ark LaMscaPeA Imgetron {mgn5mn E.k t -Flus NRCaWsy- EwlwWrsar�E Rmn^xnser0 Ryn Bangr Re1r6rtlw�lh0ut D4n'gn,N S Dic '5.000 20 M 5160200 515OMD Zoo wo 700.000 20 100 5160.200 5901.870 700000 3.500000 6. 100 So S601,re30 G 3,x0003 Re7<ofit Rmbatml" a4.es1 MF .9th Ftigh-E5oienry Cnmmen-seas CnmmeM Clothes lxasherm„ Rebate b- area Clwrte4 5300 4B 56 W stS OW 515,0]0 2,400 2103 3D 250 515,000 575.000 .app 12.000 50 800 SIS,OW 5150.000 2.am 2-- :000 VJasnen Relmfil lneWdas 5F -Elderly 3250 64 1,500 IOW 57'50.000 5250007 w,033 64.D00 1.000 5.@70 529DOW 51,250,009 66000 320.000 1,030 10,000 $250000 32.500.DDO 64,000 640.000 High ElTi.-y s -rhead and C..,1' - Toilet (MET) 0'-d MF S3 611 0 0 $0 so D 0 2 xO B.Soo 8o 56 160,000 544.000 0 11,000 so so 0 7Da.000 ReLof"VRebale aentan)' MmOs� ° Rebsum 5F Win 29 750 750 547500 S97.six 21.750 21,750 3,750 597,SW Sea7,'500 21,750 108,750 050 7,SN SR -1 wo 5M.= 21.750 217,500 (mum! ordy)' Starwe"nead hoe C.." rbls• SF 51.60 35 1.600 7.690 32560 52560 56.000 SURD 0600 8.000 52560 512600 se, 000 290.000 1,60] 16.110.] 52,S50 525.0.08 55,000 560,000 _�han<ja No- Calagaries MF 31.60 S 1:COD 1600 52,560 52560 56,0010 55.000 1,600 BOOP 52560 512,800 95000 29p,Om 1.800 1800:7 52560 525 56003 560,003 R: salt xi! Ne Categnriea SF 5238 12 1,600 I wo 53308 I S1.Pda 19^100 a- 1000 8000 s3.908 419000 19-'100 96.000 1:70' IS OW 53.808 538,080 19 7 192883 Gm Away w Caegmiss MP 5238 ._ 1,600 t G]o s3.�08 9,1908 19 0 19,280 + 8.000 53,BPC+ $19.0-9 19.2110 96.000 1.ew 16 MD 53.BM 338.090 IS= 192000 Leant Delec]"gn ass R -w0 NR 5=.710 1.000 25 25 511a}W 5118,510 25.000 25M 25 125 51-8,_00 S` --2.5x 25.005 125 DDO z TC 5118.5.0 51.185,000 25.000 30.400 N-1.C-dy-d Pod19- Lmme ual and Insutulnnal Wa[eruse E-1,.em and - 6valua„eN R -k Counly- ImFlemenlasmn wined NR 51,500 1,300 .i 535.'110 :35�7D '3.000 3:..000 r0 '.� 516.000 599?40 15.000 93.900 10 112 516.000 5179.203 i5,0.0 168.CIX1 PimmluaLue euldelasm Hole! Progrem` NR 5667 1617 12 12 $8,000 58 UDC 19,101 19,404 12 6D 56.900 5101100 19,3104 97.020 12 120 58,030 550,600 E 19,404 194,040 For 97]31,001 9770.000 9.016.000 Y,OaF,Wa n�•� ss,Tm,mOo 1,s3g00a d,W;eF4 Y5b6,f1aa Y6,T16,WQ ]9l,Oco T.M.0CG PW- 2067 2031 m1B Sa .I for 8F I 58]2000 5432.000 231.000 2313100 3511,000 S2,160.0a0 231,000 $309,0110 $ub.unl for xF I 50'.000 573.000 %x.000 78.,000 322,000 5107000 2]1,000 032,000 523,000 321+,010 I 73,000 +,410010 Sub+oml for 5322.000 i12y,000 7]0,000 TIMM 5]03.600 Si .500.000 760090 O.b1b,009 5141000 52346,000 00000 4.11],000 NR 1 WSH-Wntw Ssvrngs Hwcv° 6FD=gWNns"d y TG - rhausend galans Malcolm Pimie. Inc. VDWA5D 20 -Year Plan for Redd and Nmolesalc Customers-2-2-D7.x Table S: Counrivide SNIP Implementation Schedule, Costs. and Savin?s Projeerion5 Y/SH= Water Sanr9¢HPreon GPD = ga+.l- wr aty TG a rltPuaint 044.95 maim1m Plrrile, Inc- MDUVASC 20-VDor Plan fGr Regal and WhOlusale Customers-2-2-07.at5 2021 2026 Savings Rate wale. SSVInuS lgagon5. 3021 Cumula- ;O2b Cumula- psmss the 20 -You C051f pe Naw Wvrer 11va IN-, New Warvr 11ve Worar WSH ICumulatw Tord a of 9MP5 meas. ) No.vt Mean. Cumulative 2o21 Cum. Costa l5 53Angs Savings Rare N-IMen. C-rwlve 2016 Com, G9t6lS{5 Savings SaWngs Rare .-Ong, (Loom a RMP. BMP cm . Sector mea519re' rda In20Z1 Na.. ar Maas. Cost ry Eahl (GPM) IGPnI in 2026 Ne. of Meu. Coat [o dal4l IGPO] IGPO] 2=07-3e26y WGI 2007203.1 SF 5:611 u.. 200 a, 507 578.00 S1170,Om as 9X INaSOO 307 6.000 579,000 S1,9SO,Om 6990. 1399. DfA 53:18 5000 waur-ENovN wwxaPea Laru.tsraee an0 I rnguion EvaSgrieren plus NR Caum - valuamrv: anb Reba Rat, sertaor Renuh Iva1hPM Y 4vm, l_ 59,019 35.. = 100m 5501,007 0 3.".x70. ®0 4 107 s0 $01.0m 0 3.Sm, Do:ermat S- r3mn Sof. ne Revl+ gaol 4 arresj Hg1Flrvaenry M6 with MPQ.1e M.hn tea 5300 48 50 750 315.Om 5715900 2400 36.Om 50 1p0o 515 Cx s2w= 2,400 46.000 134 1.000 'Rebala washer; aOroea GOm ,N. �n"rs R -£-(aldol- SF-616er17 52c 54 1,000 15,000 5250,000 53,750,000 59000 960,mo 1.OW 20,000 5250,01 SS, 0.Mo 69,000 5.269,m0 4.475 20 000 wan Efr-nc ahvwerllvab and CaumT- 7.4e11KET! v oaten): Owrat MF So 64 0 tl,Om SO 59 0 704,03D O 11,000 50 Se 0 704,Om 4,255 11,090 Retro{,VRehale Heuun ° Rebate {roller anlYl SF 5130 r ,w 11,4250 597,900 $1 A62,Sm 21,750 336,250 'S[ 15,Om 547,500 51.9sc= 21,360 435,om 1,667 15,Dm srewerhaPe Na Gotega+w4 SF 51.60 35 1.600 24 OW 52560 338.490 56.0[9 649,009 1500 32,000 52560 551300 56;000 1120,Om a 292 32000 Ewan,, ISP Categories NF 51.60 35 1Em 24000 52500 538 A06 56,000 me= 1667 3~000 5:,$60 551,000 55.Om 1,122.000 4;20 32900 Retm6l Kfl NC Cate2ar�e5 5F 52.36 12 .Sm 24.pm 53, we SZ7.1-10 19.200 266.000 1,600 32000 33,605 $75.150 1.17-1 32=00 Give Away Na Gategar9rs MF 523¢ 1 - 1600 79000 S2 saii 557.170 19,200 M.m0 i,6fR'7 72000 53.808 S76.1ED 19200 354,000 1472 32000 Leak perecmn ant Repair of NR 54,74C' 1.767 ;; 375 5116.500 51,777,5m 25.000 375.000 25 500 51?8500 52,37MOm 25,000 SmAm 191b 500 Inbtrstnal. CPu y- Fan[nlea Cw --I ra6[Worg1 W-uPa water Eraltur1. ant Ev61ua1�oN RnmSt Caunty- Imptemcnlalion NR 51,5 00 1,5m 10 162 576,000 S259=15,007 .43 .000 30 212 5160 00 533.317 15 COD 713Am 1231 212 FGm,nlitnlive SWI1utgeP Hotel Prvgnmr NR 5667 11617 12 160 S5.m9 5128.001 19404 2910'0 12 240 58,000 S160,001 19,4N 399.p39 1.197 240 PW 7cW 5654.0=0 $5,757,13 SObr000 8740,10 SS55,U1 s13.335,W3 355,000 41,453,01 16;000 15.,062 021 2026 SUG4otal lar 5432,000 SS,4T9,000 231,000 3,663,000 6443.91 5.,6]5,000 £111306 4.fi1T,000 15.10 105,000 SF Sub .131 for 522,000 5321,000 711.wo %a65,10 $22.01 3435.01.5,900 3736,000 11,000 761600 MF 3oast for sic,000 52955 G1 60,ppA 4a1Q.OW 5143.31 53AT1,10 1.000 4,TOT,10 25,000 1_652 R NR Y/SH= Water Sanr9¢HPreon GPD = ga+.l- wr aty TG a rltPuaint 044.95 maim1m Plrrile, Inc- MDUVASC 20-VDor Plan fGr Regal and WhOlusale Customers-2-2-07.at5 APPENDIX F Proposed Reuse Projects Reuse Projects EXHIBIT 14 August 2014 Reclaimed water generated from Quantity of and amount to Reclaimed Reclaimed water used Anticipated Project be treated Wastewater Applied for Completion 1 _ North District WWTP 4.44 MGD 2.94 MGD Industrial & Existing (Permitted) 4.44 MGD 1.5 MGD Public Access 2. Central District WWTP 7.84 MGD Industrial Use Only Existing (Previous Permitted Limit) 7.84 MGD 3. South District WWTP 4.17 MGD Industrial & Non -Public Existing (Previous Permitted Access Irrigation Limit) 4.17 MGI] TOTAL EXISTING PROJECTS (PERMITTED) = 16.49 MGC? 4. South District WWTP 9.2 MGD Floridan aquifer recharge. Dec 31, 2025 9.2 MGD The scope of these Projects is part of the Ocean Outfall legislation 5. Central District WWTP 9.2 MGD Dec 31, 2025 9.2 MGD implementation plan submitted to the Secretary of FDEP on 6. West District Water 9.2 MGD Dec 31, 2025 Reclamation Plant June 28, 2013. 9.2 MGD 7. South District WWTP 90 MGD TPoint Units 5 & 6 Dec 31, 2022 90 MGD cooling Dec 31, 2023 TP Unit 7 cooling TOTAL NEW PROJECTS = 117.5 MGI] Dec 31, 2025 EXHIBIT 14 August 2014 APPENDIX G List of Large and Small Public Water Systems Appendix G List of Large and Small Public Water Supply Systems Capacity PWS ID Mailing Name MallingStreet City 'Lip (GPD) 4130048 LAS MERCEDES ENTERPRISE INC. 15730 SW 232 STREET MIAW 33170 8000 4130053 OLD CUTLER BAIT AND TACKLE. 20264 OLD CUTLER ROAD MIAMI 33189 28000 4130077 BAL HARBOUR VILLAGE 655 96TH STBAL HARBOUR 331.54. 0 4130089 BAY HARBOR ISLANDS TOWN OF 9565 BAY HARBOR TERRACE BAY HARBOR ISLANDS 33154 0 4130112 BENSON LIGHTING 12955 SW 87 AVE MIAMI 33176 3600 4130159 BROOKS (J R) & SON 18400•SOSW 256 STREET HOMESTEAD 33031 80000 4130255 FLORIDA CITY 461 NW 6 AVENUE FLORIDA CITY 33034 4000000 4130320 CAMP OWAISSA BAUER 17001 SW 264 STREET HOMESTEAD 33031 183000 4130322 RFOLAND MIDDLE SCHOOL 16001 SW 248 ST HOMESTEAD 33031 144000 4130445 TROPiCALRES EARCH & EDUCATION CENTER 18905 SW 280 STREET HOMESTEAD 330.31 82180 4130496 FRANKSHER BUILDING 9300 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY MIAMI 33156 64000 4130588 REDLANDS MOBILE HOME PARK 17360 S.W. 2.32 STREET MIAMI 33170 100000 4130604 HIALEAH CITY OF 3700 W 4TH AVC HIALEAH 33012 0 4130645 HOMESTEAD CITY OF 505 NW 9 ST. EMERGENCY; 305.247-4116 HOMESTEAD 33030 19200000 4130662 INDIAN CREEK VILLAGE 50 INDIAN CREEK DRIVE MIAMI BEACH 33154 0 4130721 MIAMI EVERGLADES CAMPGROUND 20675 SW 162AVENUE MIAMI 33170 122000 4130793 DELUXE MOTEL 28475 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY HOMESTEAD 33.033 46000 4130811 TROPICAL PRODUCE 19855 SW ,272 STREET HOMESTEAD 33031 36000 4130833 JONES' TRAILER PARK 14601 NW 185TH STREET 1111 MIAMI 33016 100000 4130871 MDWASA - MAIN SYSTEM 3071 SW 38 AVENUE MIAMI 33146 442740000 413OB91 ROBERTS AIR 28701 SW 219 AVENUE HOMESTEAD 33030 28000 4130893 DADE HOMESTEAD GAA - ADMIN, 28700SW 217TH AVENUE HOMESTEAD 33030 3200 4130894 DADE HOMESTEAD GAA SKYDIVE 28700 SW 217 AVENUE HOMESTEAD 33030 6400 4130897 DADE LANDSCAPE NURSERY 50 SW 32 ROAD MIAMI 33129 86000 4130900 HOMESTEAD EXECUTIVE JET CENTER 2B700 SW 217 AVENUE HOMESTEAD 33030 3200 4130901 MIAMI BEACH CITY OF 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DR. MIAMI BEACH 33139 0 4130933 MONKEYJUNGtE 14805 SW 216 ST MIAMI .33170 122000 4130934 KINGSWOOD MONTESSORI ACADEMY INC. 20130 SW 904 ST HOMESTEAD 33030 9600 4130951 LAST CHANCE LOUNGE. 35800 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY FLORIDA CITY 33034 5000 4130970 NORTH BAY VILLAGE CITY OF 1666 KENNEDY DRIVE NORTH BAY VILLAGE 33141 0 4130977 NORTH MIAMI CITY OF 12100 NW 11 AVE (PLANT) NORTH MIAMI 33161 9300000 4131001 OPA LOCKA CITY OF 1021 BURLINGTON ST OPA LOCKA 33054 0 4131185 LAMISION HOSTEL AND LODGE 22540S.W� 177 AVENUE MIAMI 33170 36000 4131192 REOLAND GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB 24451 SW 177 AVENUE HOMESTEAD 3303D 19200 4131202 MDWASA/REX UTILITIES P.O. BOX 316 MIAMI 33133 12030000 4131206 REX UTILITIES INC/REDAVO 15225 SW HARDING LANE HOMESTEAD 33033 0 4131217 CEMEX CEMENT MILL 1200 NW 137 AVENUE MIAMI 33166 720000 4131250 AMERICA'S BEST INN 264805 DIXIE HIGHWAY HOMESTEAD 33032 3200 413134.7. SILVER PALM MOBILE HOMES 17350 SW 232 STREET MIAMI 33170 122000 4131313 SILVER PALMS METHODIST CHURCH 15855 SOUTHWEST 248 STREET HOMESTEAD 33031 36000 4131403 AMERICANA VILLAGE 19800 SW 180 AVE. 11602 MIAMI 33187 500000 4131424 SURFSIDE TOWN OF 9293 HARDING AVE SURFSIDE 33154 0 4131474 MEDLEY WATER DEPARTMENT 7777 NW 72 AVE MEDLEY 33166 0 4131531 VIRGINIA GARDENS VILLAGE Of 6498 NW 38 TERRACE VIRGINIA GARDENS 33166 0 4131558 WEST MIAMI CITY OF 9015W 62ND AVE WEST MIAMI 33144 0 4131618 NORTH MIAMI BEACH 19150 NW 8 AVENUE NORTH MIAMI BEACH 33169 32000000 4131631 HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE 31 CES/DEMW WATER PLANT HOMESTEAD 33039 0 4131958 SUN RI SE COMMUNITY 27.300 S.W. 162AVENUE MIAMI 33170 150000 4131961 RED LAND FRUIT AND SPICE PARK 24801 SW 187TH AVENUE MIAMI 33031 46000 4131962 CASTELLOW HAMMOCK PARK 22301 SW 162 AVE MIAMI 33170 17000 4134228 CHEVRON 24800 24800 SW 177 AVE. HOMESTEAD 33031 5000 4134234 CEMEX MATERIALS - SWEETWATER 1200 N.W. 137TH AVENUE MIAMI 33165 5000 4134239 STOP N SHOP FOOD AND DELI 247915W 177 AVENUE MIAMI 33030 9600 4134300 REDLAND CHRISTIAN ACADEMY 17700 SW 280 ST HOMESTEAD 33031 10000 4134301 IGLESIA BUEN SAMARITANO 25795 SW 137 AVE MIAMI 33032 12000 4134328 DIAMOND R. FERTILIZER 18375 SW 260 ST HOMESTEAD 33031 1000 4134334 COSTA NURSERY II 18201 SW 216 ST MIAMI 33170 1000 4134338 BENITO JUAREZ PARK 19825 SW 376 STREET HOMESTEAD 33034 1700 4134357 FKAA J. ROBERT OEAN W.T.P. 19201 SW 354 ST FLORIDA CITY 33034 29800000 4134358 DADE JUVENILE RESIUENTIAL CENTER 18500 SW 424 ST FLORIDA CITY 33034 35000 4134363 HOMESTEAD JEHOVAH'S WITNESS 18505 SW 288 STREET HOMESTEAD 33030 8000 Appendix G List of Large and Small Public Water Supply Systems Capacity PWS ID Mailing Name Mailing Street City ZIP (GPD) 4134365 HIALEAH GARDENS 13601 NW 107 AVE HIALEAH GARDENS 33018 0 4134368 EVERGLADES PK -PINE ISLAND 40000 SR 9336 HOMESTEAD 33034 40000U 4134369 EVERGLADES PK-HEADQTRS 40000 SR 9336 HOMESTEAD 33034 100000 4134370 EVERGLADES PK -HIDDEN LK PO BOX 279 HOMESTEAD 33030 10000 4134371 EVERGLADES PK -DAN BEARD 40000S,R, 9336 HOMESTEAD 33034 4000 4134372 EVERGLADES PK -LONG PINE KEY 40000 SR 9336 HOMESTEAD 33034 10800 4134373 EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK BILL ROBERTSON 40000S.R, 9336 HOMESTEAD 33034 20000 4134374 EVERGLADES PK -ROYAL PALM 4000nS.R.9336 HOMESTFAD 33034 21600 4134375 EVERGLADES SHARK VALLEY 40000 SR 9336 HOMESTEAD 33034 500D 4134379 BERNECKER'S NURSERY 16900 SW 7.16 STREET MIAMI 33170 5000 4134382 BUTLER'S NURSERY 158705W 216STREET MIAMI 33170 5000 4134384 CAU LEY SQUARE I 22400 OLD DIXIE HWY MIAMI 33170 10000 4134385 UNITARIAN UNIVERSAL CONGR'N OF MIAMI 77015W 76 AVE MIAMI 33143 5000 4134387 COCONUT PALM TRADING POST 24814 SW 177 AVENUE HOMESTEAD 33031 64000 4134388 COFFEY'S MARKET 20090 SW 177 AVENUE MIAMI 33187 5000 4134393 COOPCRTOWN 22700 SW 8 ST MIAMI 33144 $000 4134394 COSTA NURSERY 222.90 SW 167 AVENUE MIAMI 33170 5000 4131402 GREENLEAF NURSERY 19355 SW 304 STREET HOMESTEAD 33030 5000 4134417 REDLAND SPORTS BAR AND GRILL 17701 SW 232 STREET GOULDS 33170 200 4134420 SAFARI RESTAURANT 26700 SW 8 ST MIAMI 33194 5000 4134430 TOM THUMB 11122 7.3200 SW 177 AVENUE MIAMI 33170 MIAMI 33170 33410 SOW 4134431 REDLAND EXXON 14695 SW 216 STREET MIAMI 33177 5000 4134434 COMMUNITY ASPHALT 14005N,W.186STREET HIALEAH 33018 5000 4134439 CEMEX-F.E.C, OFFICE 13292 NW 119 AVENUE HIALEAH 33178 3000 4134440 LAS DELICIAS 16585 SW 177 AVE MIAMI 33187 3000 4134442 REDLAND COMMUNITY CHURCH 146015W 248 ST, MIAMI 33032 3000 4134443 COMCASTREDIANDS 20800 SW 167 AVE. MIAMI 33187 3000 4134448 PALMS PROFESSIONAL CENTER 18430 S. DIXIE HWY MIAMI 33157 3000 4134451 FARM CHEOIT 24700 SW 177 AVENUE HOMESTEAD FL 33090 33030 2720 4134453 CEMEX-F,E,C, SHOP 12155 NW 136 STREET HIALEAH 33178 16000 4134459 CIRCLE D FARMS 32700 SW 217 AVENUE HOMESTEAD 33034 3000 4134462 REDLANDS GROCERY 26400 SW 187 AVENUE HOMESTEAD 33031 3000 4134464 SUNRISE ADULT GROUP HOME (15140) 15190 SW 277STRCET HOMESTEAD 33031 3000 4134465 SUNRISE ADULT SERVICES (298001 29800 OLD DIXIE HWY HOMESTEAD 33030 3000 4134468 U -HAUL RENTAL & SERVICES 16500 SO, DIXIE HIGHWAY MIAMI 33157 3000 4134498 CREATIVE YEARS 15GOD SW 232 STREET MIAMI 33170 2000 4134499 OUR LADY OF MERCY CEMETERY ADM. 11411 NW 25 STREET DURAL 33172 2000 4134502 CHRISTIAN FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER 27550 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY HOMESTEAD 33031 9600 4134506 CHRIST FELLOWSHIP 163905W248STREET HOMESTEAD .13031 2000 4134512 DE LEON BROMELIADS 13745 S.W. 216TFI ST. MIAMI 33170 5000 4134513 MIAMI INTLARPORT P.O. BOX 592075 MIAMI 33159 O 4134SIG TOM THUMB 127 18400SW 177 AVENUE MIAMI 33187 HIALEAH 33010 24000 4134520 RANCHO GASPAR 16480 NW 117 AVENUE MIAMI 33018 9600 4134522 1ST BAPTIST CHURCH OF HOMESTEAD 7.9050 KROME AVE, MAIL; POBOX 9D0429 HOMESTEAD 33030 6500 4134523 WOMEN'S CLUB OF HOMFSTF.AD 17905 SW 292 STREET HOMESTEAD 33030 33110 4134524 KROME AVENUE CHURCH 22755 SW 177 AVENUE MIAMI 33170 7200 4134525 RINKER HYDRO -CONDUIT 13100 NW 118TH AVENUE MIAMI 33178 1400 4134527 CFMF.X EMPLOYEES 12150 NW 136 ST MIAMI 33178 3750 4134528 FRUTICU8A OF MIAMI INC. 16751 KROME AVENUE MIAMI 33187 3200 4134531 TOM THUMB 131 24790 SW 177 AVE HOMESTEAD 33031 10000 4134532 SUNOCO KROME AVE 26400 SW 177 AVE HOMESTEAD 33031 5000 4134533 GATOR PARK 24050 SW 8 STREET MIAMI 33193 3000 4134537 MANNHEIMER FOUNDATION 20255 SW 360 STREET HOMESTEAD 33034 2800 4134538 DIAMOND SOUTH 29000 SOUTH DIXIE HWY HOMESTEAD 33033 120 4134539 GRANDMA'S U -PICK 18001 SW 177 AVE MIAMI 33187 1000 4134540 CHEVRON 232 2315D SW 7.77 AVE MIAMI 33170 5400 4134542 REDLAND PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER 19130 SW 177 AVENUE MIAMI 33381 3200 4134543 SCHNEBLY WINERY 30205 SW 217 AVENUE HOMESTEAD 33030 30000 4134546 MY LITTLE ANGELS DAYCARE 294OU OLD DIXIE HWY HOMESTEAD 33033 30000 4134547 GLASER FARMS 19100 SW 137 AVENUE MIAMI 33177 43000 4134548 JMW FARMS LLC. 15585 SW 177 AVENUE MIAMI 33170 43000 Appendix G List of Large and Small Public Water Supply Systems Capacity PWS ID Mailing Name Mailing Street City Zip (GPD) 4134549 ROBERT IS HERE 19200 SW 344 STREET FLORIDA CITY 33034 1000 4134551 TROPICAL VILLAGE FARM (W€NTERGREEN NURj 22601 SW 177 AVE MIAMI 33170 1000 4134553 UNITED MIAMI ORCHIDS 24000 SW 162 AVENUE HOMESTEAD 33031 1200 4134554 FARMER'S MARKET SAN GERMAN 17800 SW 100 ST MIAMI 33196 5000 4134556 GATOR GRILL 36600 SW 192 AVENUE HOMCSTEAD 33031 4500 4134557 OUR LADY OF MERCY MAUSOLEUM 11411 NW 25 STREET DORAL 33172 1000 4134558 OUR LADY OF MERCY CHAPEL 11411 NW 25 STREET DORAL 33172 1000 4134560 CAU LEY SQUARE II 2240D SW SOUTH DIXIE HWY MIAMI 33170 10fl00 4134561 SAM & PHILLY'S U -PICK AND MARKET 16790 SW 177 AVENUE MIAMI 33187 7200 4134562 COSTA FARMS 21800 SW 162AVENUE MIAMI 33170 10000 4134563 VALUE PAWN AND JEWELRY 18494 SOUTH DIXIE HWY MIAMI 13157 1000 4134564 GUS`RANCH 17480 SW 232 STREET MIAMI 33170 1000 APPENDIX H MDWASD 20 -Year Water Use Permit, July 16, 2012 Modification SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 194 WATER USE PERMIT NO. RE -ISSUE 13-04017-W NON -ASSIGNABLE PORN f0i i! A,v0i/09 Date Issued: July 16, 2012 Expiration Date: December 16, 2030 Authorizing: THE INCREASED USE OF GROUND WATER FROM THE UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER AND BISCAYNE AQUIFER FOR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY FOR COUNTY WIDE, SYSTEM SERVING 2,787,451 PERSONS IN THE. YEAR 2030 WITH AN AVERAGE PER CAPITA USE RATE OF 147 GALLONS PER DAY AND A MAXIMUM MONTHLY TO AVERAGE MONTHLY PUMPING RATIO 1.06 WITH AN ANNUAL ALLOCATION OF 149,906.00 MILLION GALLONS. Located In: Miaml-Dade County, S-rr53SIR39E (SEE ATTACHED FOR ADDITIONAL SECTIONS, TOWNSHIPS S-IT53SIR40E AND RANGES) Issued To: MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT (MIAMi-)ADE CONSOLIDATED PWS) P 0 BOX 330316, MIAMI, FL 33233-0316 This Is to notify you of the District's agency action concerning Permit Application No. 110511.6, dated May 3, 2011. This action is taken pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 373, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), Rule 40E-1.603 and Chapter 40E-2, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C,), Based on the information provided, District rules have been adhered to and a Water Use Permit is in effect for this project subject to: 1. Not receiving a filed request for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57 and Section 120.569, or request a judicial review pursuant Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. 2. The attached 52 Limiting Conditions, 3. The attached 37 exhibits. Permittee agrees to hold and save the South Florida Water Management District and its successors harmless from any and all damages, claims or liabilities which may arise by reason of the construction, maintenance or use of activities authorized by Phis permit. Said application, Including all plan and specifications attached thereto, is by reference made a part hereof,Upon written notice to permittee, this permit may be temporarily modified, or restricted under a Declaration of Water Shortage or a Declaration of Emergency due to Water Shortage in accordance with provisions of Chapter 373, Fla. Statutes, and applicable rules and regulations of the South Florida Water Management District. This Permit may be permanently or temporarily revoked, in whole or in part, for the violation of the conditions of the permit or for the violation of any provision of the Water Resources Act and regulations thereunder. This Permit does not convey to the permittee any property rights nor any privileges other than those specified herein, nor relieve the permittee from complying with any law, regulation, or requirement affecting the rights of other bodies or agencies. Should you object to these conditions, please refer to the attached "Notice of Rights" which addresses the procedures to be followed If you desire a public hearing or other review of the proposed agency action, Should you wish to object to the proposed agency action or file a petition or request, please provide written objections, petitions, requests and/or waivers to: Elizabeth Veguilla, Deputy Clerk, MSC2440 South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Please contact this office if you have any questions concerning this matter. If we do not hear from you in accordance with the "Notice of Rights", we will assume that you concur with the District's action. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the Staff Report, Conditions and Notice of Rights have been mailed to the Permiltee (and the persons listed on the attached staff report distribution list) no later than 5:00 p.m, on this 17th day of July, 2012, in accordance with Section 120.60(3), Florida Stat to and a copy has been filed and acknowledged with the Deputy District Clerk. ByLI DEPUTY CLERK SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Attachments PAGE 1 OF 9 PERMIT N0; 13-00017-W PAGE 2 OF 9 LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. This permit shall expire on December 16, 2030. 2. Application for a permit modification may be made at any time. 3. Water use classification: Public water supply Aquifer storage and Recovery 4. Source classification is: Ground Water from: Biscayne Aquifer Upper Floridan Aquifer 5. Annual allocation shall not exceed 149906 MG, Maximum monthly allocation shall not exceed 13117 MG. The following limitations to the average annual withdrawals from specific sources are applicable through December 31, 2021: Biscayne aquifer: 127,568 MG Floridan aquifer: 17,031 MG The following limitations to the average annual withdrawals from specific sources are applicable from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2026: Biscayne aquifer: 135,233 MG Floridan aquifer: 17,031 MG Reuse offset: 7,665 MG (21 MGD SWWF recharge) The following limitations to the average annual withdrawals from specific sources are applicable from January 1, 2027 through December 31,2030: Biscayne aquifer: 141,073 MG Floridan aquifer: 17,049 MG Reuse offset; 13,505 MG (37 MGD SWWF recharge) The allocations are further constrained by the wellfield operational plan described in Limiting Condition 27. Reuse offsets are required for withdrawals above 109.4 MGD at the SWWF. The offset reuse volumes do not include other reuse projects outlined in Limiting Condition 39, which are in addition to the wellfield recharge project. 6. Pursuant to Rule 40E-1.6105, F.A.C., Notification of Transfer of Interest in Real Properly, within 30 days of any transfer of interest or control of the real property at which any permitted facility, system, consumptive use, or activity is located, the permittee must notify the District, in writing, of the transfer giving the name and address of the new owner or person in control and providing a copy of the instrument effectuating the transfer, as set forth in Rule 40E-1.6107, F,A,C. Pursuant to Rule 40E-1.6107 (4), until transfer is approved by the District, the permittee shall be liable for compliance with the permit. The permittee transferring the permit shall remain liable for all actions that are required as well as all PERMIT NO: 13-00017-W PAGE 3 OF 9 violations of the permit which occurred prior to the transfer of the. permit. Failure to comply with this or any other condition of this permit constitutes a:violation and pursuant to Rule 40E-1.609, Suspension, Revocation and Modification of Permits, the District may suspend or revoke the permit. This Permit is issued to: Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department 3071 Sw 38th Ave Miami, FL 33146 Attn: Utility Director 7. Withdrawal Facilities: Ground Water - Proposed: 3 - 24" X 72'X 1400 GPM Wells Cased To 45 Feet 1 - 24" X 50'X 1400 GPM Well Cased To 45 Feet 7 -- 24" X 1200'X 2430 GPM Wells Cased To 1100 Feet 1 - 24" X 50'X 2800 GPM Well Cased To 45 Feet 7 - 17" X 1490'X 1400 GPM Wells Cased To 1080 Feet Ground Water - Existing: 20 - 14" X 115'X 2500 GPM Wells Cased To 80 Feet 4 - 24" X 100'X 4900 GPM Wells Cased To 35 Feel 2 - 24" X 100'X 7500 GPM Wells Cased To 50 Feet 1 - 24" X 70'X 3470 GPM Well Cased To 35 Feet 1 - 18" X 65'X 1500 GPM Well Cased To 50 Feel 1 - 12" X 35'X 800 GPM Wei! Cased To 30 Feel 1 - 18" X 55'X 1500 GPM Welt Cased To 42 Feet 6 - 42" X 107'X 7000 GPM Wells Cased To 66 Feet 1 - 18" X 55'X 1500 GPM Well Cased To 45 f=eel 1 - 42" X 68'X 8500 GPM Well Cased To 60 Feet 2 - 24" X 70'X 6945 GPM Wells Cased To 35 Feet 1 - 16" X 50'X 1600 GPM Well Cased To 40 Feet 4 - 24" X 108'X 8300 GPM Wells Cased To 50 Feet 2 - 12" X 40'X 1600 GPM Welts Cased To 35 Feet 1 - 16" X 100'X 7500 GPM Well Cased To 40 Feet 3 - 48" X 88'X 7500 GPM Wells Cased To 33 Feet 6 - 17" X 1490'X 1400 GPM Wells Cased To 1080 Feet 1 - 48" X 80'X 10416.67 GPM Well Cased To 46 Feet 1 - 30" X 1200'X 3500 GPM Well Cased To 760 Feet 1 - 30" X 1250'X 3500 GPM Well Cased To 845 Feet 1 - 30" X 1210'X 3500 GPM Well Cased To 835 Feet 4 - 24" X 104'X 6940 GPM Wells Cased To 54 Feet 6 - 20" X 100'X 4900 GPM Wells Cased To 40 Feet 1 - 18" X 50'X 500 GPM Well Cased To 40 Feet 1 - 12" X 40'X 800 GPM Well Cased To 35 Feet 1 - 18" X 66'X 1500 GPM Well Cased To 53 Feel 1 - 42" X 107'X 7000 GPM Well Cased To 69 Feet 1 - 42" X 68'X 10000 GPM Well Cased To 60 Feet 1 - 42" X 68'X 8500 GPM Well Cased To 54 Feet PERMIT NO: 13-00017-W PAGE 4 OF 9 7 - 16" X 1 00' X 4170 GPM Wells Cased To 40 Feet 1 - 42" X 68'X 10000 GPM Well Cased To 54 Feet 1 - 14" X 115'X 3800 GPM Well Cased To 80 Feet 1 - 30" X 1300'X 3500 GPM Well Cased To 850 Feel 1 - 17" X 1490'X 1400 GPM Well Cased To 1150 Feet 1 - 6" X 30'X 400 GPM Well Cased To 25 Feet 1 - 30" X 1200'X 3500 GPM Well Cased To 765 Feet 4 40" X 1 00' X 10420 GPM Wells Cased To 57 Feel 1 - 30" X 115'X 4170 GPM Well Cased To 80 Feet 1 - 30" X 11 5' X 2500 GPM Well Cased To 80 Feet 1 - 12" X 35'X 1200 GPM Well Cased To 30 Feet 10 - 48" X 80'X 10420 GPM Wells Cased To 46 Feet 8. Permittee shall mitigate interference with existing legal uses that was caused in whole or in part by the permittee's withdrawals, consistent with the approved mitigation plan. As necessary to offset the interference, mitigation will include pumpage reduction, replacement of the impacted individual's equipment, relocation of wells, change in withdrawal source, or other means. Interference to an existing legal use is defined as an impact that occurs under hydrologic conditions equal to or less severe than a 1 in 10 year drought event that results in the: (1) Inability to withdraw water consistent with provisions of the permit, such as when remedial structural or operational actions not materially authorized by existing permits must be taken to address the interference; or (2) Change in the quality of water pursuant to primary State Drinking Water Standards to the extent that the water can no longer be used for its authorized purpose, or such change is Imminent. 9. Permittee shall mitigate harm to existing off-site land uses caused by the permittee's withdrawals, as determined through reference to the conditions for permit issuance. When harm occurs, or is imminent, the District will require the permittee to modify withdrawal rates or mitigate the harm. Harm caused by withdrawals, as determined through reference to the conditions for permit issuance, includes: (1) Significant reduction in water levels on the property to the extent that the designed function of the water body and related surface water management improvements are damaged, not including aesthetic values, The designed function of a water body is identified in the original permit or other governmental authorization issued for the construction of the water body. in cases where a permit was not required, the designed function shall be determined based on the purpose for the original construction of the water body (e.g. fill for construction, mining, drainage canal, etc.) (2) Damage to agriculture, including damage resulting from reduction in soil moisture resulting from consumptive use; or (3) Land collapse or subsidence caused by reduction in water levels associated with consumptive use. 10. Permittee shall mitigate harm to the natural resources caused by the permittee's withdrawals, as determined through reference to the conditions for permit issuance. When harm occurs, or is imminent, the District will require the permittee to modify withdrawal rates or mitigate the harm. Harm, as determined through reference to the conditions for permit issuance includes: (1) Reduction in ground or surface water levels that results in harmful lateral movement of the fresh water/salt water interface, (2) Reduction in water levels that harm the hydroperiod of wetlands, PERMIT NO: 13-00017-W PAGE 5 OF 9 (3) Significant reduction In water levels or hydroperiod In a naturally .occurring waterbody such as a lake or pond, (4) Harmful movement of contaminants in violation of state water quality standards, or (5) Harm to the natural system including damage to habitat for rare or endangered species. 11. if any condition of the permit is violated, the permit shall be subject to review and possible modification, enforcement action, or revocation. 12. Authorized representatives of the [district shall be permitted to enter, inspect, and observe the permitted system to determine compliance with special conditions. 13. The Permittee is advised that this permit does not relieve any person from the requirement to obtain all necessary federal, state, local and special district authorizations. 14, The permit does not convey any property right to the Permittee, nor any rights and privileges other than those specified in the Permit and Chapter 40E-2, Florida Administrative Code. 15. Permittee shall submit all data as required by the Implementation schedule for each of the limiting conditions to: SFWMD, Regulatory Support Division, MSC 9611, P.O, Box 24680, West Palm Reach, FL 33416-4660, 16. In the event of a declared water shortage, water withdrawal reductions will be ordered by the District in accordance with the Water Shortage flan, Chapter 40E-21, F.A.C. The Permittee is advised that during a water shortage, pumpage reports shall be submitted as required by Chapter 40E-21, F.A,C. 17. Prior to the use of any proposed water withdrawal facility authorized under this permit, unless otherwise specified, the Permittee shall equip each facility with a District -approved operating water use accounting system and submit a report of calibration to the District, pursuant to Section 4. 1, Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications. In addition, the Permittee shall submit a report of recalibration for the water use accounting system for each water withdrawal facility (existing and proposed) authorized under this permit every five years from each previous calibration, continuing at five-year increments. 18, Monthly withdrawals for each withdrawal facility shall be submitted to the District quarterly. The water accounting method and means of calibration shall be stated on each report. The permittee shall report injectiontwithdrawals from the ASR wells in the following manner: Biscayne aquifer water Injected Biscayne aquifer water recovered Floridan aquifer withdrawal 19. The Permittee shall provide annual status reports to the District that summarize the ASR cycle testing activities. The first report shall be submitted by: March 15, 2013 20. The Permittee shall notify the District within 30 days of any change in service area boundary. If the Permittee will not PERMIT NO: 13-00017-W PAGE 6 OF 9 serve a new demand within the service area for which the annual allocation was calculated, the annual allocation may then be subject to modification and reduction. 21, The Permittee shall submit to the District an updated Well Description Table (Table A) within one month of completion of the proposed wells identifying the actual total and cased depths, pump manufacturer and model numbers, pump types, intake depths and type of meters. 22. Permittee shall secure a well construction permit prior to construction, repair, or abandonment of all wells, as described in Chapters 40E-3 and 40E-30, Florida Administrative Code. 23. Every ten years from the date of permit issuance, the permittee shall submit a water use compliance report for review and approval by District Staff, which addresses the following: 1. The results of a water conservation audit that documents the efficiency of water use on the project site using data produced from an onsite evaluation conducted. In the event that the audit indicates additional water conservation is appropriate or the per capita use rate authorized in the permit is exceeded, the permittee shall propose and implement specific actions to reduce the water use to acceptable levels within timeframes proposed by the permittee and approved by the District, 2, A comparison of the permitted allocation and the allocation that would apply to the project based on current District allocation rules and updated population and per capita use rates. In the event the permit allocation is greater than the allocation provided for under District rule, the permittee shall apply for a letter modification to reduce the allocation consistent with District rules and the updated population and par capita use rates to the extent they are considered by the District to be indicative of long term trends in the population and per capita use rates over the permit duration. In the event that the permit allocation is less than allowable under District rule, the permittee shall apply for a modification of the permit to increase the allocation if the permittee intends to utilize an additional allocation, or modify its operation to comply with the existing conditions of the permit. 3. Summary of the current and previous nine years progress reports for implementation of the Alternative Water Supply Plan and any modifications necessary to continue to meet the Plan requirements and conditions for issuance. 4. Information demonstrating that the conditions for issuance of the permit are being complied with, pursuant to Limiting Condition # 51 and Section 373,236, F.S. 5. Updates or amendments to the County's reuse plan. 24. In order to promote use of alternative water supplies, pumpage from Floridan aquifer wells and from those Biscayne aquifer wells whose use is offset by reclaimed water will be conducted on a priority basis, referred to as a "first on, last off' priority. Changes to wellfield operations must be approved via modification; of the approved Wellfield Operation Plan by District staff prior to implementation. 25. The permittee shall operate surface water control structure known as the Mid -canal structure and bridge in accordance with the approved operational plan included in Exhibit 22. In addition, whenever this structure is opened for the purpose of raising water in the Wellfield Protection Canal down stream of the structure, the upstream structure that delivers water from the L-30 canal shall be opened in a manner to deliver equal volumes to those passed through the Mid -canal structure and bridge. The permittee shall submit operation and flow data logs regarding both structures to the District quarterly, 26. The Perrnittee is authorized to exercise the emergency wells at the Medley Wollfield for a total of two hours per month as needed for bacterial clearance and pump maintenance. Operation of the emergency wells at the Medley Wellfield for more than this amount shall require prior approval from SFWMD. Pumpage data shall be collected and report in accordance with Limiting Condition 18, PERMIT NO; 13-00017-W PAGE 7 OF 9 27, Permittee shall implement the wellfield operating plan described in District staff report prepared in support of recommendation for permit issuance. See Exhibit 10 28. No more than 15 MGD shall be withdrawn from the West Biscayne aquifer Wellfield on any given day, 29. No more than 25,550 MGY shall be withdrawn during ,any 12.:month consecutive period from the combined Hialeah, Preston and Miami Springs Biscayne aquifer wellfields 30. No more than 7,993 MGY shall be withdrawn during.ariy.12 month consecutive period from the Snapper Creek Wellfield unless reclaimed water recharge is implemented in locations and amounts necessaryto offset The impact of the increase to Everglades water bodies per limiting conditions 39 and 41. 31. No more than 39,931 MGY shall be withdrawn during any 12 month consecutive period from the. Southwest Biscayne aquifer Wellfield unless reclaimed water recharge is implemented in locations and amounts necessary to offset the impact of the increase to Everglades water bodies per limiting conditions 39 and 41, 32. No more than 67,999 MGY shall be withdrawn during any 12 month consecutive period from the combined West, Southwest Snapper Creek and Alexander Orr Biscayne aquifer'wellflelds unless reclaimed water recharge is Implemented in locations and amounts necessary to offset the impact of the increase to Everglades water bodies per limiting conditions 39 and 41. 33. No more than 1,095 MGY shall be withdrawn during any 12 month consecutive period from the South Miami Heights Wellfield. 34. No more than 1,752 MGY shall be withdrawn during any 12 month consecutive period from the combined Everglades Labor Camp and Newton welifields. 35. No more than 1,571 MGY shall be withdrawn during any 12 month consecutive period from the combined Elevated Tank, Leisure City and Naranja wetlfields. 36. The Permittee shall continue to submit monitoring data in accordance with the approved water level monitoring program for this project. The existing monitoring program is described in Exhibits 30 and 328. 37. The Permittee shall continue to submit monitoring data in accordance with the approved saline water intrusion monitoring program for this project. See exhibits 28A and 32B for a list of monitor wells and and required sampling schedule. The permittee shall submit annual Monitoring Program summary reports. The annual report will summarize the status of the project to update the salt front and install new monitor wells. 38. Within six months of permit issuance, an executed large user water agreement with the City of Hialeah shall be submitted to the District. In the event that the final agreement is for volumes less than those used in the formulation of the allocations in this permit, the allocations shall be reduced through a letter modification. 39. The permittee shall implement a minimum of 170 MGD of reuse projects as set forth In Projects 1-6 of Exhibit 14 on or before the deadlines provided therein. The exact volume of reclaimed water applied will depend on the trealement losses resulting from the process that are implemented. In the event any of these projects do not require or allow as much reuse as anticipated, the County shall identify and implement other reuse projects that will provide provide beneficial reuse of water by the deadlines set forth in Exhibit 14. Any changes to Exhibit 14 must be reviewed and approved by the District in consultation with the FDEP in accordance with Parts I & 11 of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and District rules governing consumptive uses of water in Chapter 4017-2, F.A.C., and FDEP rules governing the treatment and use of reclaimed water in Chapter 62-610, F.A.C. 40. The permittee will develop alternative water supplies in accordance with the schedules described in Exhibit 13, PERMIT- NO: 13-00017-W PAGE 8 OF 0 The permittee will provide annual updates of the status of all alternative water supply projects (per the timeframes contained in Limiting Condition 50). 'The status report shall include work completed to dale, expenditures and any anticipated changes in the timelines. 41. In the event [hat a milestone specified in the alternative water supply schedule and plan contained in Exhibit 13 is going to be missed, the permittee shall notify the Executive Director of the District in writing explaining the nature of the delay, actions taken to bring the project back on schedule and an assessment of the impact the delay would have on the rates of withdrawals from the E=verglades water bodies and associated canals as defined in SFWMD consumptive use permitting rules. The District will evaluate the situation and take actions as appropriate which could include: a.) granting an extension of time to complete the project (if the delay is minor and doesn't affect the Everglades Waterbodies or otherwise violates permit conditions), b.) take enforcement actions including consent orders and penafties, c.) modify allocations contained in this permit from the Biscayne aquifer including capping withdrawal rates until the alternative water supply project(s) are completed (in cases where the delay would result in violations of permit conditions) or d,) working with the Department of Community Affairs to limit increase demands for water until the alternative water supply project is completed. 42. The Permittee shall provide the District with annual updates by March 15th each year describing the activities associated with the implementation of their approved reuse feasibility plan including the following information: (1) the status of distribution system construction, including location and capacity of a) existing reuse lines b) proposed reuse lines to be constructed in the next five years; (2) a summary of uncommitted supplies for the next five years; (3) the status of reuse plan implementation including status of pilot projects, plan design construction, volume of reuse available, volume of wastewater disposed of; and (4) the status/copies of any ordinances related to reuse (5) any proposed changes to the reuse plan set forth in Exhibit 14. The first annual update is due March 15, 2013, 43. Reuse Project numbers 5 and 6 in Exhibit 14 for wellfield recharge, which must be in place and operating prior to any additional withdrawals from the wellfield over the base condition water use as identified in Exhibit 10. 44. July 1, 2013, the Permittee shall submit a report for District review and approval identifying the location, treatment, timing and volume for Reuse Projects 5 & 6 on Exhibit 14 which provide groundwater recharge for the Southwest Wellfield. The report shall demonstrate that the proposed recharge sites and operations shall at a minimum prevent increased withdrawals from the C-4, C-2 and eastward groundwater seepage from Everglades National Park over the base condition water use and is otherwise a beneficia) reuse of water per Chapter 62-610, F.A.C. 45, For Reuse Project number 4 of Exhibit 14 for rehydration of Biscayne Coastal Wetlands, in consultation with the District, the FDEP and Biscayne Bay National Park, upon completion of the pilot testing program, the parties shall agree on the water quality treatment required and the feasibility, as defined in Section 3.2.3.2 of the Basis of Review for Water Use, of this project on or before January 15, 1014. Extension of this deadline may be issued in writing by the District upon demonstration of good cause such as events beyond the control of the permittee or after consideration of the results/data collected, the District determines that additional testing is necessary. In determining the water quality needed, the parties will consider State and Federal water quality discharge standards, the volume and timing of water to be delivered to Biscayne Bay and the location of delivery. In the event the parties do not reach agreement on the feasibility by January 15, 2014, the Permittee shall begin development of an alternate reuse project from the South District wastewater facility and shall provide the District with a proposal for an alternate project including a conceptual design and schedule for implementation on or before December 15, 2014. 46. The permittee may request temporary authorization from the District to capture and store stormwater via withdrawals from the permitted Biscayne aquifer production wells, for storage within the Floridan aquifer system consistent with their FDEP Issued Underground Injection Control permits.The District will consider the availability of stormwater that is not otherwise needed for environmental protection or enhancement and is in noway bound to authorize such requests. All such requests shall be made in writing to the Director of Water Use regulation. 47. Permittee shall maintain an accurate flow meter at the intake of the water treatment plant for the purpose of measuring daily inflow of water. PERM€T NO: 13-00017-W PAGE 9 OF 9 Permittee shall maintain a calibrated flow meter(s) at the intake (raw water) and discharge (treated water) points within the Hialeah/Preston, Alexander Orr, and proposed Hialeah RO and South Miami Heights water treatment plants for the purpose of measuring treatment losses and shall submit monthly data quarterly as required pursuant to limited Condition 18. 48. The Water Conservation Plan required by Section 2.6.1 of the Basis of Review for Water Use permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, must be implemented in accordance with the approved implementation schedule. The Water Conservation Plan is contained in Exhibit 18. The permittee shall submit an annual report covering water conservation activities during the prior calendar year by March 15 of each year describing water conservation activities for the year including expenditures, projects undertaken and estimated water savings. 49. Permittee shall determine unaccounted-for distribution system losses on a quarterly basis and report the Findings on an annual basis. The losses shall be determined for the entire system and for each of the water treatment plants (comparing water pumped from the wells compared to the volume into and out of the treatment plant), utilizing the most recent, approved water accounting and International Water Association 1 American Water Works Association (IWAIAWWA) water audit methodologies. The permittee shall verify the IWAIAWWA water audit methods to be used with the District for the subsequent year in each annual report. The annual report shall cover activities during the prior calendar year and be submitted on April 15 of each year. In addition to the unaccounted-for loss data, the report shall include the status of the activities (actions and expenditures along with the associated water savings) completed during the year to implement the approved water loss reduction plan (Exhibit 17). In the event that the water losses, as defined by the AWWA method (Exhibit 16B), exceed 10 percent, the permittee shall include in the annual report a description of additional actions which will be implemented the following year(s) to reduce the losses to less than ten percent. If the District concludes that the progress towards achieving losses of less than 10 percent as identified In the unaccounted for losses plan is inconsistent with the plan schedule, the Permittee shall be required to revise the plan, to be approved by the District. 50. All annual reports required in these limiting conditions shall address activities that occurred during a calendar year and shall be submitted to Water Use Compliance on or before April 15th of the following year. 51. If it is determined that the conditions for permit issuance are no longer met for the 20 year permit duration, the permittee shall obtain a modification of the Permit from the District as necessary to come into compliance with the conditions for permit issuance. Such conditions for permit issuance include minimum flows and levels, water reservations, and other conditions ensuring the use does not cause water resource harm and is consistent with the objectives of the District, including implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 52. The permittoe shall operate the West Welffleld in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Governor of the State of Florida, Miami Dade County and the District Incorporated in Exhibit 35. Permit No. 13-00017-W Application No. 110511-6 Miami -Dade County S-/T53S/R41 E S-/T54S/R39E S-IT54S/R40E S-/T54S/R41 E S-/T54S/R42 E S-/T55S/R39E S-/T55S/R40E S-/T56S/R38E S-/T56S/R39E S-/T57S/R38 E S-/T57S/R39E S-/TT57S/R40E NOTICE OF RIGHTS As required by Sections 120.569(1), and 120,60(3), Fla, Stat,, following is notice of the opportunities which may be available for administrative hearing or judicial review when the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency, Please note that this Notice of Rights is not Intended to provide legal advice. Not all the legal proceedings detailed below may be an applicable or appropriate remedy, You may wish to consult an attorney regarding your legal rights. RIGHT TO REQUEST ADMINISTRATIVE HEARiN+G A person whose substantial interests are or may be affected by the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD or District) action has the right to request an administrative hearing on that action pursuant to Sections 120,569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. Persons seeking a hearing on a District decision which does or may determine their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing with the District Clerk within 21 days of receipt of written notice of the decision, unless one of the following shorter time periods apply; 1) within 14 days of the notice of consolidated intent to grant or deny concurrently reviewed applications for environmental resource permits and use of sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Section 373.427, Fla, Stat.; or 2) within 14 days of service of an Administrative Order pursuant to Subsection 373.119(1), Fla. Stat. "Receipt of written notice of agency decision" means receipt of either written notice through mail, or electronic mail, or posting that the District has or Intends to take final agency action, or publication of notice that the District has or intends to take final agency action. Any person who receives written notice of a SFWMD decision and falls to file a written request for hearing within the timeframe described above waives the right to request a hearing on that decision. Filing Instructions The Petition must be riled with the Office of the District Clerk of the SFWMD, Filings with the District Clerk may be made by mail, hand -delivery or facsimile, Filings by e-mail will not be accepted. Any person wishing to receive a clerked copy with the date and time stamped must provide an additional copy. A petition for administrative hearing Is deemed filed upon receipt during normal business hours by the District Clerk at SFWMD headquarters in West Palm Beach, Florida, Any document received by the office of the SFWMD Clerk after 5;00 p.m. shall be filed as of 8;00 a.m. on the next regular business day. Additional filing instructions are as follows: Filings by mail must be addressed to the Office of the SFWMD Clerk, P,O, Sox 24680, West Palm Beach, Florida 33416. Filings by hand -delivery must be delivered to the Office of the SFWMD Clerk, Delivery of a petition to the SFWMD's security desk does not constitute filing, To ensure proper filing, it will be necessary to request the SFWMD's security officer to contact the Clerk's office. An employee of the SFWMD's Clerk's office will receive and file the petition, Filings by facsimile must be transmitted to the SFWMD Clerk's Office at (561) 682-6010. Pursuant to Subsections 28.106.104(7), (8) and (9), Fla. Admin. Code, a party who files a document by facsimile represents that the original physically signed document will be retained by that party for the duration of that proceeding and of any subsequent appeal or subsequent proceeding in that cause. Any party who elects to file any document by facsimile shall be responsible for any delay, disruption, or interruption of the electronic signals and accepts the full risk that the document may not be properly filed with the clerk as a result. The filing date for a document filed by facsimile shall be the date the SFWMD Clerk receives the complete document. Rev. 0710112009 Initiation of an Administrative Hearing Pursuant to Rules 28-106.201 and 28-106.301, Fla. Admin. Code, initiation of an administrative hearing shall be made by written petition to the SFWMD in legible form and on 8 and 112 by 11 inch white paper. All petitions shall contain: I. Identification of the action being contested, including the permit number, application number, District file number or any other SFWMD identification number, if known. 2. The name, address and telephone number of the petitioner and petitioner's representative, if any. 3. An explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interests will be affected by the agency determination. 4. A statement of when and how the petitioner received notice of the SFWMD's decision, S. A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate. 6. A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the SFWMD's proposed action, 7. A statement of the specific rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the SFWMD's proposed action, 8. If disputed issues of material fact exist, the statement must also include an explanation of how the alleged facts relate to the specific rules or statutes, 9. A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action the petitioner wishes the SFWMD to take with respect to the SFWMD's proposed action. A person may file a request for an extension of time for filing a petition, The SFWMD may, for good cause, grant the request, Requests for extension of time must be filed with the SFWMD prior to the deadline for filing a petition for hearing. Such requests for extension shall contain a certificate that the moving party has consulted with all other parties concerning the extension and that the SFWMD and any other parties agree to or oppose the extension. A timely request for extension of time shall toll the running of the time period for filing a petition until the request is acted upon, If the District takes action with substantially different impacts on water resources from the notice of intended agency decision, the persons who may be substantially affected shall have an additional point of entry pursuant to Rule 28-106111, Fla. Admin. Code, unless otherwise provided by law. Mediation The procedures for pursuing mediation are set forth in Section 120.573, Fla, Stat., and Rules 28-106.111 and 28-106.401-.405, Fla, Admin. Code. The SFWMD Is not proposing mediation for this agency action under Section 120.573, Fla. Stat., at this time. RICHT TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW Pursuant to Sections 120.60(3) and 120.68, Fla. Stat,, a party who is adversely affected by final SFWMD action may seek judicial review of the SFWMD's final decision by filing a notice of appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appeliate Procedure 9,110 in the Fourth District Court of Appeal or in the appellate district where a party resides and filing a second copy of the notice with the SFWMD Clerk within 30 days of rendering of the final SFWMD action. Rev 07101/2009 APPENDIX I MDWASD June 2014 Modification request to the 20 -year Water Use Permit MIAMFC�14DE 1.3WAUU Carlos A. Gimenez, Mayor June 20, 2014 Ms. Maria C. Clemente, P.E. Bureau Chief, Water Use South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Email mclement@§fwmd.gov, Mlami-Dade Water and Sewer Department P.O, Box 330316 •3071 SW 38th Avenue Miami, Florida 33233-0396 T 305-665-7471 miamidade.gov Certified Mail 7001 0360 0001 6783 7652 Electronic Correspondence CCN: 58468 File Nos. 8DC.19.2 Subject: Application for Modification and Extension of Water Use Permit No. 13-00017-W Dear Ms. Clemente: In accordance with limiting condition 2 and 41 of the subject water use permit, enclosed is a completed application form and check number 00551601 in the amount of $12,500.00 for processing the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications and extension to the current permit are a result of revised population projections based on the 2010 Census and the continued successful implementation of our County's Water Conservation Plan, The County's projected finished water demands are now markedly lower than anticipated when the first 20 -year water use permit application was submitted, and this demand reduction has eliminated the anticipated supply shortages which were the basis for an ambitious schedule of several costly near-term alternative water supply projects that are longer required or needed. The revised projections for the year 2030 are consistent or slightly lower, than the projections in the District's Lower East Coast Water Supply Update, dated October 2013. Please contact me at 786-552-8571, or Ms, Bertha Goldenberg, P.E. at 786-552-8120 if there are any questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Juan Carlos Arte g Deputy Director Enclosures: Check Number 00551601 in the Amount of $12,500,00 Completed Water Use Permit Application Form 0645-W01 ec: John A. Lockwood, P.G. ilackwo(alsfwmd,gov �I L14063SFVVMD-WUP-Mod WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (RC -1 A, RC -1 W, RC -1 G) For all water uses EXCEPT dewatering for mining or construction General and Specific Authority, Chapter 373, State Statutes, 40E-20 Florida Administrative Code and Basis of Review, Vol III, South Florida Water Management District.www.s/`wmd.qov1ePertn A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of Owner, Responsible Entity, etc. Name: Juan Carlos Arteaga, AIA Project Name: Modification and Extension of Permit 13-00017-W Address: P.O. Box 330316 City: Miami County: Miami -Dade State: FL ZIP: 33233-0316 Phone: 786-552-8571 Cell Phone: Fax: E-mail: JCARTEAGA{cDmiamidade.gov 2. Proof of Ownership is required, in the form of a Deed, tax certificate, lease, or Articles of Incorporation ATTACH Proof of Ownership to this Form — Previously Submitted 3. Name of Engineer, Contractor or Other, Name: Bertha M. Goldenberg Firm: Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department Address: P.O. Box 330316 City: Miami County: Miami -Dade State: FL ZIP: 33233-0316 Phone: 786-552-8120 Cell Phone: 305-903-9807 Fax: 786-552-8640 E-mail: BMG@miamidade.gov 4. If the above person(s) filling out this form will sign this Application on behalf of the owner, a letter of authorization signed by the owner, stating they are acting on behalf of the owner, must be submitted, ATTACH Letter of Authorization to this form — Not Applicable 5. Is this a New Permit IModificationlExpi red Permit No.: 13-00017-W 6. Amount of water applied for., 386.07 million gallons per day (24.63 MGD less than 410.70 MGD in permit) 7. Has a Surface Water Management Permit or Environmental Resource Permit from the District been issued for this Project? SWM I ERP Permit No.: or has a Surface Water Management Permit or Environmental Resource Permit from the District been applied for? SWM I ERP Application No.: 8. A fee of $12,500 is required to process this Application. See Chapter 40E-1.607, F.A. C. for fee schedule. ATTACH Application fee to this Form — Check Number 00551601 in the Amount of $12,500.00 9. Please Identify any District Staff rnemberyou have discussed this Application with: Mr. John A. Lockwood, P.G. , Lead Hydrogeologist B. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY — Previously Submitted 1. General Location of the Property/Project— Previously Submitted County: Sections Township (s) City: Range (s) (or Land Grant Name) 2. It will be necessary to submit two drawings to be used as exhibits for this Permit. a. Location Map, (8112 x 11), showing location of the project in relation to major roads, b. Site Map, (8112 x 11) locating project in relation to adjacent streets, canals and water bodies, and showing property boundaries, buildings, on-site lakes/ponds and the location of pumps and wells. ATTACH Location Map and Site Map to this Form — Previously Submitted (Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4) lncorpoe•aled by reference in pen-ag)-aph 40E-2.101(l)(a), P-A.C. Form 0645-W01 (1012012) PERMIT APPLICATION FOR WATER USE C. WATER SOURCE and WATER USE TYPE Please indicate the source of water. ATTACH X Groundwater from an underground aquifer: Table A for Wells to this form Aquifer Name (if known): Biscayne and Floridan Aquifers Previously Submitted (Exhibit 5) Surface water: Onsite Lake/Pond Onsite Ditch/Canal Adjacent Lake/Open Water, Name: _Adjacent Canal, Name: Type of water use (Please check at least one) — Agricultural Irrigation Landscape Irrigation X Public Water Supply Industrial/Commercial ATTACH Table B for Pumps to this Form Not Applicable Golf Course Irrigation Aquaculture X Aquifer Storage/Recovery (ASR) — Other (Please describe): D, IRRIGATION WATER USE - Not Applicable 1. Is this permit for irrigation? Landscape: Golf: Agriculture: Crop type: What is the Total Project Acreage: Irrigated Acreage: ATTACH Table D for Crop Information to this Form - Not Applicable 2. Applications for golf or landscape irrigation in excess of 500, 000 gallons per day require a water conservation plan as explained in Section 2,3,1 of the Basis of Review. ATTACH, If needed, a water conservation plan for golf or landscape irrigation - Not Applicable E. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WATER USE 1. Is this permit for Public Water Supply? Yes Maximum gallons per month needed: 13,117 MG Average gallons per day: 386.07MGD (End of 2033) Permit Duration requested: 19 Years - Requested 386,07MGD (2033) is less than 410,7 MGD (2030) 2. A map of the service area for the utility, (8112 x 11) showing boundaries of service, water treatment plants, storage facilities, the location of all production and monitor wells is required. ATTACH Location 'Map and Service Area Map to this Form - Previously Submitted 3. For public water supplies using more than 100, 000 gallons per day, applicants must meet criteria and identify the demand for each uselcomponent including number, type and size of service connections; past pumpage, projected population data, future expected pumpage, water treatment method and losses and other specific data as identified in Section 2.1 and 2.6 of the Basis of Review. Tables F (past water use), Table G (projected water use) and Table I (treatment method and losses) must be submitted. ATTACH water supply demand computations and Tables F, G and I to this Form - Attached are updated forms Tables F (Exhibit 7) and G (Exhibit 8a and 8b) 4. For public water supplies using more than 100,000 gallons per day, other necessary information requirements may include if applicable; explanations of per -capita greater than 200 GPD, water supply system interconnections, water received from or distributed to other entities, and aquifer storage and recovery. Please submit Tables H (for per capita use greater than 200 GPD), Table J (ASR), Table K (interconnections), and Table E (water received from or distributed to other entities) if necessary. ATTACH, if needed, Tables H, J, K and E to this Form – Updated Table E (Exhibit 11) attached, Table H (Not Applicable), Table J (Not Applicable, pending ASR cycling testing), Table K (Exhibits 12A -C Previously Submitted) 5. Applications for public water supply in excess of 500,000 gallons per day require a water conservation plan as explained in Section 2.6.1 of the Basis of Review ATTACH, if needed, a water conservation plan for public water supply to this Form - Previously Submitted Tncapa•crtecl by reference in paragraph 40E-2.1OI (1)(a), F.A.C, Form 0645-W01 (1012012) PERMIT APPLICATION FOR WATER USE F. INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND OTHER WATER USES - Not Applicable I. Is this permit for Industrial/Commercial? Nature of the Business:. Maximum gallons per month needed: Average gallons per day needed: 2. lndustriallcommercial applicants using more than 100,000 gallons per day must provide information on the water balance for the operation, including all sources of water and losses of water for processes, personal/sanitary needs, treatment losses and unaccounted uses. A flow chart for the water balance should be submitted. ATTACH water balance and flow chart to this Form - Not Applicable 3. For uses other than Irrigation, Public Water Supply, Industrial or Commercial, but excluding mining/dewatering (Air conditioning, pool heating, mitigation, etc.): Describe Water Needs: Maximum gallons per month needed: Average gallons per day needed: ATTACH a written explanation and calculations used to determine the amount of water, you need - Not Applicable 4. Applications for industrial, commercial and other water uses in excess of 500, 000 gallons per day require a water conservation plan as explained in Section 2.4.1 of the Basis of Review. ATTACH, if needed, a water conservation plan for industrial, commercial or other water supply - Not Applicable G. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IF YOU ARE USING MORE THAN 100,000 GALLONS PER DAY I. The withdrawal of water must not cause harm to sensitive areas, wetlands or saline water intrusion. It may be necessary to supply modeling to address impacts of the water use. ATTACH, if needed, modeling or documentation on environmental impacts to this Form — Previously Submitted 2. All applicants withdrawing water in proximity to saline surface or ground water, or withdrawing saline water that may come in contact with fresh surface or ground water, are required to develop a saline water monitoring program as described in Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review. ATTACH, if needed, a saline water monitoring program — Previously Submitted (Exhibits 27 through 28) 3. Except for Public Water Supply, reclaimed water must be used when readily available, unless it is not environmentally, technically or economically feasible to do so, as explained in Section 3.2, 3 of the Basis of Review, ATTACH, if needed, an evaluation of the feasibility of using reclaimed water and a letter from your local utility regarding their availability of reclaimed water to this Form - Not Applicable, Public Water Supply 4. An aerial photograph of the entire project site is required. ATTACH an aerial photograph — Previously Submitted 5. Section 4.1 of the Basis of Review requires all wells and pumps be equipped with a calibrated meter or other acceptable water use accounting method. ATTACH calibration reports of the water use accounting method for each well and pump -- Previously Submitted Inco)pmrrled bV r-eference iia paragraph 40E -2.101(1)(x), 17. A. C. Form 0645-W01 (1012012) PERMIT APPLICATION FOR WATER USE H. ATTACHMENTS Please make sure you have included the following attachments with your Application: - Previously Submitted _Proof of Ownership _Letter of Authorization (where required) _Location Map _Site Map _ Table A for Wells - Previously Submitted Table B for pumps -- Not Applicable X Application Fee -Attached For Irrigation water use, also make sure you have included the following attachments.- Table ttachments: Table D for crop information — Water conservation plan (if needed) For Public Wafer Supply water use of more than 900,000 gallons per day, also make sure you have included tine following attachments: K Table F for past water use X Table G for projected water use Table H for projected water use greater than 240 gpcd (if needed) _ Water conservation plan (if needed) _ Service Area Map - Previously Submitted Table I for treatment method and losses ^_ Table J for ASR well operations (if needed) Table K for Interconnections (if needed) Table E for water received from or delivered to other entities (if needed) For Industrial water use of more than 100,000 gallons per day, also snake sure you have included the following attachments: Water balance and flow chart —Water conservation plan (if needed) For Commercial or other water use that is not irrigation, public water supply, or industrial, also make sure yore have included the following attachments: Explanation of how you determined the amount of water you need Water conservation plan (if needed) Attachments for additional special requirements Previously Submitted Saline Water Monitoring Plan - Previously Submitted Feasibility evaluation or reclaimed water use Aerial Photograph Letter from reclaimed water utility _ Modeling or documentation of impacts of water use - Previously Submitted Reports of calibration of water use accounting method for wells and pumps - Previously Submitted I. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the total project acreage listed above is owned or controlled by me and encompasses the project referenced in this permit application. In addition, I agree to provide entry to the project site for South Florida Water Management inspectors with proper Identification or documents as required by law for the purpose of making analyses of the site. Further, I agree to provide entry to the project site for such Inspectors to monitor permitted work If a permit Is granted. If I do not use the water for which this permit Is issued within two years the permit may be revoked. If this application is not complete within 240 days, it may be denied pursuant to Rule 40E-1,603, Florida Administrative Code. Juan Carlos Artea a AIA Deputy Director Print: Name of Owner or Aut}sized Agent Title Incorporaled 6y reference in paragraph 4OL-2.101(1)(a), f:fi.C. Form 0645-W01 (1012012) PERMIT APPLICATION FOR WATER USE Attachment to Application for Modification and Extension of Water Use Permit Number 13-00017-W Miami -Dade County June 2014 This application is to extend and to make modifications to the water use permit 13-00017-W consistent with the County's most recent projected finished water demands to 2035 as determined with latest lower population projections based on 2010 Census results and historically lower per capita daily finish water use. These reduced projected finish water demands has eliminated the need for several costly alternative water supply projects in their entirety and postponed the need for other alternative water supply projects by several years. The revised projections for the year 2030 are consistent or slightly lower, than the projections in the District's Lower East Coast Water Supply Update, dated October 2013. This application seeks to remove the requirements to complete any costly unnecessary alternative water supply projects from the existing permit and to reschedule the timing and completion of the alternative water supply projected that are needed. Additional revisions to the permit conditions are also sought to reflect annual reporting submittal dates, to allow District staff additional authority in the promotion of alternative water supply use and providing additional water for aquifer recharge and subsequent recovery, and provide clarification. The following revisions to the water use permit 13-00017-W: LIMITING CONDITION 1 Revise Limiting Condition 1 to read: This permit shall expire on December 31, 2033. LIMITING CONDITION 5 Revise Limiting Condition 5 to reflect reduction in annual allocation from 149906 MG (previously projected 2030 demand) to 140916 MG (the currently projected 2033 demand). Other revisions as needed. LIMITING CONDITION 19 Revise Limiting Condition 19 to read: The Permittee shall provide annual status reports to the District that summarizes the ASR well cycle testing activities by April 15th each year until the conclusion of ASR well cycle testing. LIMITING CONDITION 24 MDWASD is requesting that Limiting Condition 24 be deleted. In accordance with the permit, MDWASD is including the use of the Floridan aquifer as an alternative water supply source in the following two locations: 1. The Hialeah Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant (WTP). At this WTP, the construction of the treatment process has been completed, but there are wells pending to be constructed, by April 2015. When all the wells are completed, the plant will be operated at the maximum flow of 10 MGD, in accordance with the operating contract. Therefore, condition 24 is not applicable. 2. The proposed South Miami Heights (SMH) WTP. This SMH program is being developed at this time. At an ultimate 20 mgd plant operating capacity, the raw water withdrawal would be 3.00 MGD from the Biscayne and 23.27 MGD from the Floridan in accordance with our Wellfield Operation Plan. In order to maintain operational flexibility and protect the nanofiltration membranes (Biscayne supply), MDWASD is requesting that the WTP be allowed to operate Permit 13-00017-W 1 of 4 June 2014 with up to a constant supply of 3.0 MGD from the Biscayne aquifer and the rest, to meet demand, be provided from the Floridan aquifer. The full use of the small Biscayne aquifer allocation at SMH supplemented by Floridan aquifer water will allow a blended finished water product that is expected to be lower in sodium and chloride, which will be beneficial to customers on low sodium diets, and more will require less chemical addition for product water stabilization. The Biscayne allocation is only 11 % of the total supply and it is less than the current allocation of 9.1 MGD for the South Dade Water System, which is a 67% reduction in pumpage from the Biscayne. LIMITING CONDITION 28 Revise Limiting Condition 28 to read: No more than 15 MGD shall be withdrawn from the West Biscayne aquifer Wellfield on any given day; except when additional withdrawals, consistent with Exhibit 35, are authorized by District staff for West Floridan aquifer recharge. LIMITING CONDITION 39 Revise Limiting Condition 39 to read: The permittee shall update the District on the status of reuse projects included in Exhibit 14 on an annual basis in accordance with Limiting Condition 42. LIMITING CONDITION 40 No revisions to limiting condition 40 required, however a revised Exhibit 13 is being submitted with changes to the alternative water supply projects and development deadlines. LIMITING CONDITION 41 No revisions to limiting condition 41 required, however a revised Exhibit 13 is being submitted with changes to the alternative water supply projects and development deadlines. LIMITING CONDITION 42 Delete the last sentence in Limiting Condition 42 and revise the first portion of Limiting Condition 42 to read: The Permittee shall provide the District with annual updates by April 15th each year... LIMITING CONDITION 43 Revise Limiting Condition 43 to read: The permittee shall update the District on the status of reuse projects included in Exhibit 14 on an annual basis in accordance with Limiting Condition 42. LIMITING CONDITION 44 Revise first sentence in Limiting Condition 44 to read: The permittee shall update the District on the status of reuse projects included in Exhibit 14 on an annual basis in accordance with Limiting Condition 42. LIMITING CONDITION 45 Revise Limiting Condition 45 to read: For rehydration of Biscayne Coastal Wetlands, in consultation with the District, the FDEP and Biscayne Bay National Park, upon completion of the pilot testing program, the parties shall agree on the water quality treatment required and the feasibility, as defined in Section 3.2.3.2 of the Basis of Review for Water Use, of this project on or before August 15, 2014. Extension of this deadline may be issued in writing by the District upon demonstration of good cause such as Permit 13-00017-W 2 of 4 June 2014 events beyond the control of the permittee or after consideration of the results/data collected, the District determines that additional testing is necessary. In determining the water quality needed, the parties will consider State and Federal water quality discharge standards, the volume and timing of water to be delivered to Biscayne Bay and the location of delivery. In the event the parties do not reach agreement on the feasibility by August 15, 2014, the Permittee shall begin development of an alternate reuse project from the South District wastewater facility and shall provide the District with a proposal for an alternate project including a conceptual design and schedule for implementation on or before July 15, 2015. LIMITING CONDITION 48 Revise the last sentence of Limiting Condition 48 to read; The permittee shall submit an annual report covering water conservation activities during the prior calendar year by April 15 of each year describing water conservation activities for the year including expenditures, projects undertaken and estimated water savings. LIMITING CONDITION 49 Revise first sentence in Limiting Condition 49 to read: Permittee shall determine unaccounted-for distribution system losses on a quarterly basis and report the findings on an annual basis (Exhibit 16A). The losses shall be determined for the entire system and for each of the water treatment plants (comparing water pumped from the wells compared to the volume into and out of the treatment plant), utilizing the most recent, approved water accounting and International Water Association 1 American Water Works Association (IWA 1 AWWA) water audit methodologies (Exhibit 16B). The permittee shall verify the most recent IWA 1 AWWA water audit methodologies to be used in each annual report. The annual report shall cover activities during the prior calendar year and be submitted on April 15 of each year. In addition to the unaccounted-for loss data, the report shall include the status of the activities (actions and expenditures along with the associated water savings) completed during the year to implement the approved water loss reduction plan (Exhibit 17). In the event that the annual unaccounted-for distribution system losses, as defined by Section 5.2.1.E of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, exceeds 10 percent, the permittee shall include in the annual report a description of additional actions which will be implemented the following year(s) to reduce the losses to less than ten percent. If the District concludes that the progress towards achieving losses of less than 10 percent as identified in the unaccounted for losses plan is inconsistent with the plan schedule, the Permittee shall be required to revise the plan, to be approved by the District. EXHIBITS 1 through 6 No revisions are proposed. EXHIBIT 7 Remove or replace original Exhibit 7 (Table F) with the revised Exhibit 7 (Table F) to reflect past water usage from 2004 to 2013 and update historical population served based on 2010 census. EXHIBIT 8 Replace the original Exhibits 8A and 8B (Table G) with updated Exhibits 8A and 813 (Table G) reflecting decreased per capita finished water usage, projected population served, decreased finished water demands, and raw water demands to 2033. Permit 13-00017-W 3 of 4 June 2014 EXHIBIT 9 Replace the original Exhibit 9 with the new Exhibit 9 depicting the historical and projected finish water demands, available supply with proposed alternative water supply ground water facilities to 2035. EXHIBIT 10 Replace the original Exhibits 10A and 10B with the attached revised Exhibits 10A and 10B to reflect the extension to 2035 and changes in the proposed the Biscayne and Floridan aquifer water supply wells. EXHIBIT 11 Replace the original Exhibit 11 with updated Exhibit 11, EXHIBIT 12 No revision is proposed. EXHIBIT 13 Replace the original Exhibit 13 with the attached revised Exhibit 13 reflecting the proposed changes to the alternative water supply projects and development deadlines. EXHIBIT 14 Replace the original Exhibit 14 with the attached revised Exhibit 14 reflecting the proposed changes to the reuse projects and deadlines. EXHIBITS 15 through 37 No revisions are proposed. Permit 13-00017-W 4 of 4 June 2014 M X Table F (.lune 2014) Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) Past Water Use (2004-2013) 1 2 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 7 8 91 10 1 11 1 12 13 FINISHED WATER HISTORICAL USE RAW WATER HISTORICAL USE (al Ratio Finished -.Raw (Total Annual Use) Year Population Served ' Per Capita Usage (gpcd) Total Annual Use (MG) Average Month Use (MG) Max Month Use (MG) Ratio Max: Aver. MonthUse Per Capita Usage (gpcd) Total Annual Use (MG) Average Month Use (MG) Max Month (MG) Ratio Max: Aver. Month TOTAL MDWASD WATER SYSTEM SERVICE AREA ,* 2004 2,090,099 162.5 124,301 10,358 10,861.1 1.05 165.6 126,685 10,557 11,063 1.05 1.019 2005 2,101,772 161.8 124,098 10,342 10,734.8 1.04 165.1 126,670 10,556 11,031 1.04 1.021 2006 2,113,445 161.6 124,677 11390 10,988.6 1,06 164,7 127,019 10,585 11,170 1.06 1.019 2007 2,125,118 150.3 116,602 9,717 10,485.4 1.08 151.6 117,585 9,799 10,648 1.09 1.008 2008 2,136,791 138.1 108,029 9,002 9,583.0 1.06 149.4 116,820 9,735 10,508 1.08 1.081 2009 2,148.464 142.3 111,627 9,302 9,662.7 1.04 151.2 118,575 9,881 10,550 1.07 1.062 2010 1 2,160,138 141.4 111,453 9,288 9,700.0 1.04 151.0 119,056 9,921 10,346 1.04 1.068 2011 2,181,073 140.2 111,585 9,299 9,597.6 1.03 149.2 118,768 9,897 10,273 1.04 1.064 2012 2,202,008 134.8 108,626 9,052 9,693.9 1.07 142.5 114,807 9,567 10,223 1.07 1.057 2013 2,222,944 135.7 110,388 9,199 9,483.7 1.03 144.6 117,623 9,802 10,252 1.05 1.066 3 -year Average (2011- 2013) _ 136.9 - - - 1.04 145.4 - - - 1.05 1.062 Source of Population Information: Miami -Dade County (MDC) Planning Department. Historic Population 2001 to 2009 adjusted (downward) based on, and 2010 to 2013 represents the 2010TAZ population projections by the MDC Planning Department, based on 2010 Census. y " For 2004 - 2007 from MDWASD Raw & Finished Water Historical Data, For 2008 - 2013 from MDWASD reports to SFWMD of Water Treatment Plant Influent & Effluent Flow Meter Flows (a) Raw -to -finished water ratio is 1.06. MDWASD is improving its raw water meteringlaccounting system. June 2014 TABLE G (June 2014) MDWASD PROJECTED RAW WATER DEMAND BY SOURCE MDWASD PROJECTED FINISHED WATER DEMAND BY SOURCE 7 2 3 a 5 6 7 6 9 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 1 25 26 1 27 1 28 1 29 Year PROJECTIONS (2013) FOR MDWASD SERVICE AREA CITY OF HOMESTEAD Finished Wate Demand (MGD) ( HADD Flnlshed Water ^SU18 Ws^ ( Cal. 19 -COL 9 -Col. 7) Biscayne Aquifer RAW WATER AADD (MGD) Year (a) Population Finished Water Use (9pcd) Biscayne Aqurfer{fl Floridan Aquifer Water Conservation (e} (MGD} credit Population (al Finished Water Use (gpcd) AppO Flnished (b) Water Use (MGD) ( Water Conservation (c) (MOD) Credit Reuse! Reclaimed {d} Water (MGD) Credit Adjusted Finished Watrr (e) Demand (MGD) Adjusted Finished Water Use ed (gP ) (g) South Dade South Miami Heights (SMH) Membrane Softening g wrP1•rn) Hldleah- Preston! Alexander- Da Soft neng 0,n) ASR k O Losses Total Hialeah 6isceyne RO Aquifer {F,n} WTP(I) South Miami Heights ;SMH] RO m vPI 1 Total Floridan Aquifer Togi All Sources Elevated is ure City) Naranjo Everglades Labor Cain) {h} Newton System Wide 2014 1 2,243,879 136.9 307.19 1_36 2()14 1 2,243,879 136.9 307.99 1.36 0.00 305-83 136.30 2.50 0.00 4.30 4.06 O.OD 310.58 0.14 319.10 10.OD 0.00 1800 329.10 2015 2,266,092 136.9 310.23 2.04 0.00 308.19 136.00 3.00 0.00 4.30 4.10 0.00 310-94 0.14 319.48 13.30 0.00 13.30 332.78 2020 2,370,769 136.9 324.56 5.44 0.00 319.12 134.61 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 3.00 310.233 0.14 313.37 13.30 23.27 36.57 349-94 2025 2,475,446 136.9 338.89 8.84 0.00 330.05 133.33 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 3.00 321.84 0.14 324.98 13-30 2327 36.57 361.55 2030 2,580,123 1369 353.22 9.55 0.00 343-67 133.20 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 3.00 336.30 0.14 339.44 13.30 23.27 36.57 376.01 2031 2,601,058 136.9 356.08 9.55 0.00 346.53 133.23 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 3.00 339.34 0.14 342.46 13.3D 23.27 36.57 379.05 2032 2,621,994 136.9 358.95 9.55 0.00 349-40 133.26 3.00 0.00 0-00 4.10 3.00 342.39 0:14 345.53 13.30 2327 35.57 382.90 2D33 2,642,929 136.9 361.82 9-55 O.OD 35227 133.29 3.00 0.00 D-00. 4.10 3.00 .346.36 0:14 349.50 13.38 23.27 36.57 386.07 MDWASD PROJECTED FINISHED WATER DEMAND BY SOURCE 7 2 7 9 5 6 7 B 9 1a t1 12 1a 19 t5 16 1T is PROJECTIONS (2013) FOR MDWASD SERVICE AREA ADJUSTED FINISHED WATER AADD (MGD) Biscayne Aquifer Floridan Aquifer Year (a) Population Finished Water Use (9pcd) AADD Finished (b) Water Use (MGD) Water Conservation (e} (MGD} credit Reused Reelairrsed (d} Water (MGD) Credit Adjusted Finished Water Qemand (.) GD (h'I ) Adjusted Finished Water Use c {gp d1 CITYOF HOMESTEAD FiniSh¢d Water Demand (MGD }Leisure South Dade{g) South Miami Heights (SMH) Membrane Softening (i,m) WTP Hialeah - PresloN Alexander- Orr l•)eni Softening {)) Total B)Stayn¢ Biscayne Aquifer (t) Hialeah RO WTP(h South eighMiamt Heights (SMH) RO (m) WTP Tolat Floridan Aquifer Total All Sources p¢vated Tanta Naranjo ja Everglades tabor Camp" Newton (h) System -Wide 2014 1 2,243,879 136.9 307.19 1_36 0.00 305-83 1 136.30 2.50 4.30 4.08 0.00 292.45 30D-83 7.50 0.00 7,50 308.33 2015 2,266,092 136.9 310.23 2.04 0.00 308.19 136.00 3.00 4-30 1 4.10 0.00 292.79 301.19 10.00 0.00 10.00 311.19 2020 2,370,769 136.9 324.56 5.44 0.00 319.12 134.61 3.00 0.00 4.10 2.55 292.12 294.67 10.00 17.45 27.45 322.12 2025 2,475,446 136.9 338.89 8.84 0.00 330.05 133.33 3.00 0.00 4.10 2.55 303.05 305.60 10.00 17.45 2745 333.05 2030 2,580,123 136.9 353.22 9-55 0.00 343.67 133.20 3.00 0-00 4.10 2.55 316.67 319.22 10.00 17.45 27.45 346.67 2031 2,601,058 136-9 356.08 9.55 0.00 346.53 133.23 3.00 0.00 4.10 2.55 319.53 322.08 10.00 17.45 27.45 349.53 2032 2,621,994 136.9 356.95 9.55 0.00 349.40 133.26 3.00 0.00 4,10 2.55 322.40 324.95 10.00 17.45 27.45 35240 2fl33 2,fi42,929 136.9 361-82 9.55 0.00 352-27 1 133.29 3.00 1 0-00 4.10 2.55 325.27 327.82 10.00 17.45 27.45 355.27 June 2014 TABLE G (June 2014) MDWASD PROJECTED RAW AND FINISH WATER DEMAND BY SOURCE Footnotes (a) Population Served represents most recent represents the 2010TAZ population projections by the MDC Planning Department. (b) Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) Finished Water Projections between 2014 and 2035 assume 136.9 gpcd (a decrease from 145.4 gpcd) total water system demand prior to application of credits (e.g. conservation)_ (c) WASD has implemented a 20 -year water use efficiency plan and is experiencing reductions in per capita water consumption. Water Conservation projections were revised based on the 2010 Annual Water Conservation Plan Conserve Florida Report (March 2011). Real losses in non -revenue water (e.g. unaccounted -for -water) are assumed to remain at less than 10%. The conservation amounts experienced through 2010 (6.54 MGD) were deducted from the 20 -year conservation amount in the Conserve Florida Report and the remaining conservation amounts were distributed for the balance of the 20 -year period (2011-2027). (d) Not Used (TBD). (e) Adjusted after taking credit in finished water demand projections for reductions in finished water use associated with water conservation. (f) The Modified Base condition raw water use (349.5 mgd) represents values agreed to by SFWIVID and MDWASD and demonstrated by modeling to not cause a net increase in water from the regional canal system. Biscayne Aquifer base condition raw water use allocation of 345.5 mgd (South Dade at 7.1 mgd, North and South at 342.4 mgd) equates to 342.8 mgd of finished water annual average daily demand (HADD). (g) South Dade (Raw: Finished) Ratio = 1.0 : 1.0 (h) Becomes stand-by once SMH WTP starts up. This stand-by capacity is not used in the total raw and finished water amounts. (1) Assumes withdrawals from Elevated Tank, Leisure City, Naranja, Caribbean Park, Former Plant, and Roberta Hunter Paris are consolidated. Biscayne Aquifer supplied Membrane Softening (Raw : Finished) Ratio = 1.17 : 1.00 (85% Recovery). 0) Hialeah -Preston 1 Alexander -Orr (Raw : Finished) Ratio = 1.062 : 1,00 (Lime Softening) (k) The values are based on initial cycle testing of the ASR well facilities and the projected seasonal operations of the ASR well faci3ities at full design capacities with the storing of Biscayne aquifer water during the wet weather months of June through October and the recovery of the stored Biscayne aquifer water during the dry weather months of December through April, assuming an ultimate storage loss of 1.31%. (1) Floridan Aquifer supplied RO WTP (Paw: Finished) Ratio = 1.333 :1.00 (75% recovery) (m) At an ultimate 20 mgd plant operating capacity, the raw water withdrawal would be 3.00 MGD from the Biscayne and 23.27 MGD from the Floridan in accordance with the Wellfield M Operation Plan. In order to maintain operational flexibility and protect the nanofiltration membranes (Biscayne supply), MDWASD is requesting that the WTP be allowed to operate with up Xto a constant supply of 3.0 MGD from the Biscayne aquifer and the rest, to meet demand, be provided from the Floridan aquifer. The full use of the small Biscayne aquifer allocation at SMH supplemented by Floridan aquifer water will allow a blended finished water product that is expected to be lower in sodium and chloride, which will be beneficial to customers on low sodium diets, and more will require less chemical addition for product water stabilization. (n) An additional 0.92 MGD of Raw Water AADD has been included in year 2033 for Hialeah -Preston / Alexander Orr Lime Softening to maintain the total Biscayne aquifer Modified Base condition raw water use at 349.5 mgd and to provide needed operational flexibility in withdrawals of Floridan aquifer water - 00 Im ater.CT W June 2014 c O ns in r<t c 420 410 400 390 380 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 290 280 MDWASD Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Projects (June 2014) Available Water Supply --- Projected Finished Water Annual Average Daily Demand (AAD D) -Historical Finished Water AADD Biscayne Aquifer Modified Base Condition Water Use 3 (Raw Water= 349.5 MGD) (Finished Water= 342.8 MGD) 370.8 358 350.3 G 352.8 rrr+rrr r r t r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r � r r rr rrr r r r r _ � r r r r r r r r 303.5 2o�c, 2p0� 2QQ( 2pOg 2oQo 2��p 2D�� 2dv22Q13 1D�a 2aNI�' '�N6 7��1 ?��� ���0`j13 161h 7�2L )q�3 Z� L� �Q26 L�2t j�24� t�1� ���� jQa^ ��32 t�35 �93� 2Q35 Year AWS Prciects: Note: 1. Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.O. W.T.P. Phase 1 a (Capacity 7.5 MGD, Operational 12131!13) Year represents actual and projected 2. Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.O, W.T.P. Phase 1 b (2.5 MGD addition, Capacity 10.0 MGD, Available 12131115) flows and capacities at year ending on 3. South Miami Heights Biscayne/Floridan Aquifer R.O. W.T.P. (Capacity 20 MGD max. day, 18 MGD average. Oper. 12131118) December 31 each year. Alternative Water Supply Projects Step Chart June 2014 MDWASD Biscayne Aquifer Wellfields Operation Plan Summary (June 2014) 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 J 9 10 1 11 12 13 Existing Wellfield Data (2014 (b) Revised Individual Welifeld ANNUAL AVERAGE Pumpage Allocation Historic Base (Pre 41112006} Condition WTPSubarea and Wellfield Design BaseCcnddion Annual 2014-2817 2018-2025 2026=2030 2031-2033 Remarks Capacity Number Annual Average verage Pumpage (mgd) or Wells Pumpage (MGD) (MGD) BG (mgd) BG (mgd) BG {mgd} So {mgd} (c} Hialeah -Preston Hialeah 12.54 3 3.1 70.0 25.550 70.00 25.550 70.00 25.550 70.00 25.550 70.00 Total not to exceed 25.500 BGY John E. Preston 53.26 7 37.2 Miami Springs 79.3 20 29.7 Medley 48.96 4 0 Northwest"" 149.35 15 88.7 96.8 35.332 96.130 35.332 86.90 35-.332 95.80 35.332 96.80 Subtotal 343.43 49 164.5 155.4 56.721 155.40 56.721 155.40 56.721 155.40 56.721 165.40 (d) Alexander Ort Alexander Orr 74.40 10 62.0 40.0 62.524 171.30 62.524 171.30 62.524 171.30 52.524 171.38 Snapper -Creek 40.00 4 20.4 21.9 Southwest 161.20 17 83,8 109.4 West 32.40 3 15.0 15.0 5.475 15,00 5.475 15.00 5475 15.80 5.475 15M Subtotal 308.00 34 181.2 196.3 67.999 186.30 67.999 166-30 57.999 186.30 67.999 186.30 (e) South Dade Elevated Tank 4.32 2 1.3 1.3 '1.570 4.30 - - - - - Drops out when SMH comes on line. Tuming off w 4.3 mgd resulled in a 25 mgd reduction in impact to regional canals, making 2.5 mgd available to SMH wetlfield. Leisure City 4.18 4 2.9 2.9 Naranjo 1.15 1 0.1 D.1 Everglades Labor Camp tel 5.04 3 0.7 2-2 1.752 4,80 1.752 4.80 1.752 4.80 1.752 4.80 Goes to standby after SMH comes online in 2018. Subject to limitation of 4.8 mgd (1.752 BGY) and system wide total npt-t0- tel Newton 4.32 2 2.1 2.6 exceed allocaa`on. Subtotal 19.01 12 7-1 7.8 2.647 7-80 7.752 4.80 7.752 4.80 1.752 4.80 South Miami Hei hrs M Former Plant e 1 NA NR 1.095 3.00 1.095 3.00 1.095 3.00 Initial 2.5 mgd transfer from shut down of 4.3 mgd at South Dade plus 0.5 mgd additional Roberta Hunter Park 6 4 NA NA Subtotal 90.00 5 D.000 0.00 1 1.095 3.00 1.095 3.00 1 1.095 3.00 M13WAS❑ System Total 680.44 100 347.0 349.5 Annual in Ell wide allocation,. not less than revised baseline Total Not•To-Exceed System Wide Pumpage (mgd) (mgd) 127.567 349.50 127.567 349.50 127.567 349.50 127.567 349.50 allocation, not the sum of individual well Pumpage allocations, and may ge more restrictil Notes: ors - Dimon uauunb. m- ivsmurt -unb per vay (a} Northwast wellrield design capacity at 110 mgd when pumps operate at low speed (b) These numbers are based an historical raw water values at the treatment plants for a 12 -month running average during the five-year period preceding 411/2006 m accordance with 8FWMD Water Avallabilily Rule (Apnl 28. 2007). Values for the individual weilfields are approximations. Xtc) Base Condition Water Use of the North System, Hialeah -Preston is 164.5 mgd. The base condition impacts of 9_t mgd for hislorical water deliveries by MDWASD to Ciry of North Miami Beach were transferred to the City with re -issuance of their permit in July 2007; revising the base condition to 1 55 4 mgd. (d) Base Condition Water Use of the Central System, Alexander Cm is 181.2 mgd. It was demonstrated through modeling that transfering 22.0 MGD from Alexander Orr WTP well field to the Southwest and an additlonel withdrawal of 1.5 MGD at Snapper W Creek and 3.6 MGD at Southwest would not cause a net increase in volume or cause a change in timing of surface and groundwater from Everglades water bodies, consistent with Sectlort 3.21.E(2) of the BOR; revising the base condition to 214.16 mgd- (e) The South Dade allocation associated with Elevated Tank. Leisure City, and Naranjo is transferred to SMH when the new WTP is planned to begin operation In 2016, Everglades Labor Camp and Newton welirields are placed in stand by service aper the SMHWTP begins planned operations in 2016, with operations limited to minimum amount required to maintain operational readiness and Florida Department of Health clearance. For Everglades tabor Camp and Newton the historical pumpage of 2.8 1 mgd was increased by 1,5 mgd at Everglades Labor Camp and 0.5 mgd at Newton to 4.8 mgd total, wnsislent wiih Section 3 2.1 E(2) of the Basis of Review for Water Use Applications within the South Florida Water Management District. Turning off Elevated Tank. Leisure City, and Naranjo at 4.3 mgd results in a 25 mgd reduction in impact m regional canals, therefore 2.5 mgd is available to transfer to SMH wellfleld, plus an additional 0.5 mgd was alloyed to account for the reduced treatment > efficiency of the proposed membrane softening plant, pursuant to Section 3.2.1 E(3)(a). (1) These proposed fevbWes are for membrane softening portion o1 SMH Wafer 7rearmenl Plant. 8/1 312 01 2 Table 4 - MDWASD Floridan Aquifer Wellfields Operation Plan Summary (June 2014) Pumpage by Wellfield 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wellfield Data individual Wellfield ANNUAL Pumpage 1 Allocation Remarks Design Number 2014-2017 2018 -2025 2026-2030 2031 -2033 WTP Subarea and Wellfield Capacity (mgd) of Wells BG (mgd) BG (mgd) BG (mgd) BG (mgd) See Footnote (a) Hialeah Ftp WTP (a) 20.00 10 4.855 13.30 4.855 13.30 4.855 13.30 4.855 13.30 h Alexander Orr WTP (Use of Floridan Aquifer Wells for ASR) (1.542) 10.08 (1.542) 10.08 (1.542) 10.08 (1.542) 10.08 Southwest Wellfield ASR 10.00 2 1.522 10.08 1.522 10.08 1.522 10.08 1.522 10.08 See Footnote (b) (2.313) 15.12 (2.313) 15.12 (2.313) 15.12 (2.313) 15.12 West Wellfield ASR 15.00 3 2.283 15.12 2.283 15.12 2.283 15.12 2.283 15.12 (c) South Miami Heights WTP (Use of Floridan Aquifer Wells for RO) South Miami Heights WTP (`) 24.00 7 0 0.00 8.494 23.27 8.494 23.27 8.494 23.27 See Footnote (c) MDWASD System Total 69.00 22 Total Not -To -Exceed Pumpage Annual Average 4.805 13.30 6.57 13.299 36-571 13.299 36.57 13.299 36.57 M [dotes X BG = Billion Gallons; MGD = Million Gallons per Day (a) New Upper Floridan Aquifer RO WTP - Finish water supply of 10.0 mgd, 7.5 mgd Phase 1a by Dec. 31, 2013, 10.0mgd Phase ib by Dec_ 31, 2015. Initial six (6) Floridan aquifer supply wells completed prior to Dec. 31, 2013; the additional four Floridan aquifer supply wells to becompleted prior to Dec. 31, 2015. _ (b) Based on 153 days of storage (indicated as negative withdrawal) and 151 days of recovery (positive withdrawal) per ASR well a year. Excludes initial Cycle and Operational Testing of the ASR Wells and ASR Facility UV Disinfection System Testing (Testing is currently underway at Southwest Wellfield ASR and is pending at �. West Wellfield ASR). O (c) New Upper Floridan Aquifer RO Treatment at South Miami Heights WTP (Finish water supply of 17.45 mgd by Dec. 31, 2018) 00 Revised June 2014 Wholesale Customer Treated Water Deliveries Water Received from Others 676 386 145 179 152 172 (1) Homestead usage of water is limited to an as needed basis. Their usage is not consistent to that of a wholesale customer. (2) The City of Miami Springs water system was purchased by WASD and beginning fiscal year 2009, was no longer a wholesale customer. WASD is now providing direct services to customers. (3) North Miami Beach constructed their own water plant and beginning fiscal year 2009, has not had the need to purchase significant amounts of water. * Volumes for North Miami Beach reflect total delivered minus water passed thru for Aventura. EXHIBIT 11 June 2014 Deliveries in Millions gallons Entity Treatment Plant per fiscal year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Bal Harbor Hialeah -Preston 447 466 455 486 430 494 Bay Harbor Hialeah -Preston 358 329 317 302 310 309 Hialeah Hialeah -Preston 8081 8110 9103 9598 9121 9429 Hialeah Gardens Hialeah -Preston 694 695 654 693 591 576 Homestead (1) Alexander Orr 0 0 0 0 40 151 Indian Creek Village Hialeah -Preston 133 140 121 133 122 120 Medley Hialeah -Preston 398 393 400 328 479 516 Miami Beach Hialeah -Preston 6848 6489 6952 8410 7918 7903 Miami Springs (2) Hialeah -Preston 771 - - - - - North Bay Village Hialeah -Preston 343 365 395 387 391 415 North Miami Hialeah -Preston 2123 1502 1175 1331 1374 1655 North Miami Beach (3) Hialeah -Preston 1013 107 100 - - - Opa-Locka Hialeah -Preston 909 845 788 887 876 876 Surfside Hialeah -Preston 327 343 328 317 312 299 Virginia Gardens Hialeah -Freston 63 100 98 91 93 95 West Miami Alexander Orr 266 290 293 275 292 236 Water Received from Others 676 386 145 179 152 172 (1) Homestead usage of water is limited to an as needed basis. Their usage is not consistent to that of a wholesale customer. (2) The City of Miami Springs water system was purchased by WASD and beginning fiscal year 2009, was no longer a wholesale customer. WASD is now providing direct services to customers. (3) North Miami Beach constructed their own water plant and beginning fiscal year 2009, has not had the need to purchase significant amounts of water. * Volumes for North Miami Beach reflect total delivered minus water passed thru for Aventura. EXHIBIT 11 June 2014 Alternative Water Supply Pro'ect Development Deadlines Tied to Increased Withdrawal Above the Base Condition Water Use Project I Milestone Average Finish Water Milestone daily flow Completion Date Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.O. WTP, Phase 1-a, 10.0 mgd WTP and initial 6 Floridan aquifer supply wells. (7.5 mgd, limited by water supply) (7.5 mgd) • Notice To Proceed Design I Permit Completed • Notice To Proceed Construction Completed • Turnover f Project Completion Completed Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.D. WTP, Phase 1-b, additional 4 Floridan aquifer supply wells. (10.0 mgd, maximum treatment capacity) (2.5 mgd) • Notice To Proceed Design 1 Permit Completed • Notice To Proceed Construction Completed • Turnover 1 Project Completion 12/3112015 South Miami Heights WTP (R.O. portion) (17.45 mgd) • Notice To Proceed Design 1 Permit Completed • Notice To Proceed Construction 12/31/2015 • Turnover 1 Project Completion 12/3112018 EXHIBIT 13 Revised June 2014 Reuse Projects EXHIBIT 14 June 2014 Reclaimed water generated from Quantity of and amount to Reclaimed Reclaimed water used Anticipated Project be treated Wastewater Applied for Completion �. North District WWTP 4.44 MGD 2.94 MGD Industrial & Existing (Permitted) 4.44 MGD 1.5 MGD Public Access 2. Central District WWTP 7.84 MGD Industrial Use Only Existing (Previous Permitted Limit) 7.84 MGD 3. South District WWTP 4.17 MGD Industrial & Non -Public Existing (Previous Permitted Access Irrigation Limit) 4.17 MGD TOTAL EXISTING PROJECTS (PERMITTED) = 16.49 MGD 4. North District WWTP 9.2 MGD Floridan aquifer recharge. Dec 31, 2025 9.2 MGD The scope of these projects is part the Ocean Outfall legislation 5. Central District WWTP 9.2 MGD Dec 31, 2025 9.2 MGD implementation plan submitted to the Secretary of FDEP on June 28, 2013, 6. West District Water 9.2 MGD Dec 31, 2025 Reclamation Plant 9.2 MGD 7. South District WWTP 90 MGD TPoint Units 5 & 6 Dec 31, 2022 90 MGD cooling Dec 31, 2023 TP Unit 7 coaling Dec 31, 2025 TOTAL NEW PROJECTS= 117.5 MGD EXHIBIT 14 June 2014 APPENDIX J MDWASD September 19, 2014 Response to Request for Information for the Water Use Permit Modification { t NO. TOI Ca dos A. GlMenrex„ Ma ym September t 9,20T4 Mr. Jonathan E, Straw, P.O. Section Leader, Water Use Bureau South Florida Water Management District P.O, Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 3341€3-4680 Email: �shasfwrnd.c�o� 11tllim at-Nka4e I' VOea, ands'ir Depr sb"0n0 0wiliL fl&klla 3-=- -(40118 .T M5-7/4lli n1knakiate-90Y Electronic Suulbrmi1W Asia ePeTmiffinq CCN'. 58724 File Nos.. 80C.'l19.2 Subject: Response to Request For Information — Advisory Comments, Miami. -Dade County Water and Sewer Department, Water Use Permit Application No. 140627..12., Permit No. 13-00017-W Dear Mr. Shaw: Attached as requested are the responses to the July 25, 20,14 request for additional information. Please contact me at 786.562-8571, or Ms, Bertha M. Goldenberg, P.E. at 786,-552-8'120 or Mr. Richard M. O'Rourke, P.E. at 786-652-8123 If there are any questions regarding the responses. Sincerely, Juan Carlos Arteaga, AIA Deputy Director Attachment ec: John A. Lockwood, P.G. jlockwo@sfwmd.,gov 'IL14'IMSIFWM1iD-kYWP �,RAIIA Response to Request for Additional Information — Advisory Comments Water Use Permit Application No. 140627-12 Water Use Permit Number 13 -W17 -W Miami -Dade County September 19, 2014 The foltovvving is the additional and revised information submitted in response to the request for additional information items and the advisory comments in the July 25, 2014 in support of the subject application: Item 1. For the requested modification to Limiting Condition 28, please provide a description of the conditions and typical operating plan when withdrawals would exceed 15 million gallons per day and how the proposed operating plan is consistent with Exhibit 35. Please be advised that any increase in withdrawals over 15 million gallons per day will require a hydrogeologic evaluation of potential impacts to sensitive environmental features (Section 2.2, 2 of the Applicants Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications (AH]): LIMITING CONDITION 28 MDWASD requests no change to Limiting Condition 28 at this time. Item 2. The requesled modification to Limiting Condition 49 proposes to change the wording in the second paragraph from "In the event that water losses, as defined by the A WWA method (Exhibit 16B), exceed 10 percent... " to "In the event that water losses, as defined by Section 5.2.1. E of the Basis of Review ... " This section of the Basis of Review (BOR) refers to maintaining an accurate flow meter at the intake of the water treatment plant, You may be aware that the District is now using the Applicant's Handbook, dated July 16, 2094. Please indicate which section of the AH you are referring to and any proposed changes to the water loss reporting resulting from the requested change. Please note that the District would prefer all public water supply entities to report losses defined by the AWWA method (Section 2.3.2. F. 2. c, of the AH). LIMITING CONDITION 49 MDWASD notes the change from the Basis of Review to the Applicant's Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications. AADWASD requests no change to the first paragraph of Limiting Condition 49. MDWASD requests that the first sentence of the second paragraph of Limiting Condition 49 be revised to read: In the event that the annual unaccounted) -for dlisthbuution system losses„ as defined by Secbe n 2.,3.2.IF.2..c„ of the Applicants Harnrlbodk for Waterr Use Permit AppllrcaTbns [AH), exceeds 10 percent„ the pernra"rttee shall) irtadud+e in the annual inepod a dlescriiiption of a&lii iornal actions which gait11 to iinrn,*rmnted the fdl,�awjng yams) to reduce to k*ses to ess ftrr term per. Panramft T3-1W11T W 1 d2 Sepk=tar 119„ 2®11 1 Hem 3. Regard the puposed changes to L*nft.CaWbn 45, tease Wowde a mom Beta 4' schedule # e_ sc hedided awffrW4 pmgmss mpods) of be ,p oposed ,pwm W the development of an alternate reuse erect in Che event the. pastas do not reach agreement on the feasahrldy of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Webands 6 Ct by August 15, 2014 (Sectors 2 2.4 of the AH -1). MDWASD received an extension of time to October 15,1014 on August 15, 2014 on Condition 45 regarding the rehydration of coastal wetlands so that MDWASD can clarify with the District on how additional wastewater reclamation and reuse that is unrelated to the withdrawals being authorized in the water use permit should best be addressed within the a consumptive water use permit. MDWASD thinks there may be some more Cost-effective options for excess stormwater reuse utilizing ASR that could be helpful overall to water management and could provide dry season rehydration to the coastal wetlands and reduce dry season stress on the Everglades by shifting some drinking water demands to ASR reserves during the dry season. LIMITING CONDITION 45 Revise Limiting Condition 45 as to be determined by subsequent discussions following MDWASD response to Item 3. ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS, REVISIONS, AND UPDATES TO EXHIBITS CORRECTED EXHIBIT 7 A corrected Exhibit 7 (Table F) is attached reflecting past water usage from 2004 to 2013 (with 2013 use correction and updated per capita use) and the update historical population served based on 2010 census. UPDATED EXHIBIT 8 An updated Exhibits 8A and 813 (Table G) Is attached reflecting a 137.2 gallons per capita day finished water usage, projected population served, decreased finished water demands, and raw water demands to the year 2033. NEW EXHIBIT 9 Attached is a new Exhibit 9 showing historical and projected finish water demands, available supply with the revised schedule to the proposed ground water facilities alternative water supply projects to the year 2035. REVISED EXHIBIT 10 Attached is a new Exhibit 10B reflecting changes in the alternative water supply projects schedule on Biscayne and Floridan aquifer water supply well operations. NEW EXHIBIT 13 Attached is a new Exhibit 13 reflecting proposed changes to the alternative water supply projects and development schedule. EXHIBIT 14 Repllace Um afigindl Exhiilblk 14 vor"alh tulle aitached r+evisedl ExiltW 14 pmposedi changes W the dev+ek9mend of wasWwatu medamalion muse projects and fib,. Penniitt 113-=171-WJ 2 c f 2 fiber 1% 20114 M Table € (September 2014) Miami=Dad@ Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) pAst Water Uae (2004.2013) 1 23 45 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 FINISHED WATER HISTORICAL USE RAW WATER HISTORICAL USE (�1 Ratio Per Capita Total Average Ratio rinlghed'f�aw Usage Annual MonthMax Month Max ;Aver, (Total Annual (gpcd) Use (MG) Use (MG) Use (MG) Month Us@) if@ar Population Served * Per Capita Usage (gped) TotalAverage Annual Use (MG) Month Use (MG) Max Month Use (MG) Ratio Max :Aver. Month TOTAL MDWASD WATER SYSTEM SERVICE AREA - 2004 1 2;494;009 162.5 124,301 10,358 10,861.1 1.05 165.6 126,685 10,557 11.063 1:05 1:019 2006 2,101,772 161.8 124,098 10,342 10,734.8 1.04 165.1 126,670 10.556 11,031 I 1,04 1.021 2006 2;113,44 161.6 124,671 10,390 10,988.6 1.06 164.7 127,019 10,585 11,170 1:06 1:019 5=007 2,126;110 150.3 116;602 9,717 10,485.4 1.08 151.6 117,585 9,799 10,64€ 1,09 1,006 2008 2,136;791 138,1 108,029 9,002 9,583.0 1.06 149.4 116,820 9,735 10,508 1.06 1:001 2049 2,148,464 142.3 111;627 9,302 9,662.7 1.04 151.2 118,575 9,881 10,550 1,07 1:062 2010 2,160,138 141A 111,453 9,288 9,700.0 1.04 151.0 119,056 9,921 10,346 1.04 1:406 2011 2.191;973 140:2 111,585 9,299 9,597.6 1.03 149.2 118,768 9,897 10,273 1.04 1:06-1 2012 2,202,008 134:8 108,626 9,052 9,693.9 1.07 142.5 114,807 9,567 10.223 1._07 1:47 2011 2,222,944 136.5 111,052 9,254 I 9,483.7 1.02 1446 117;623 9.802 10,252 1.06 1:060 "I A:Fag _ 137,2. (2011= 291 b1 - - - 1.04 145.4 - - - 1.05 1000 * ftyt@@ of papwla n IfiNt oftn: Miaml-Dade County (MDC) Planning Department_ Historic Population 2001 to 2009 adjusted (downward) based on. and 2410 to 2413 rop e,f)t(A in@ 201(TH pe>ib4 t @ri pm)@tftioN by tho MDC Planning Department, eased on 2010 Census. F@F 2004 = 2047 ffam MDWASD Raw & Finishod Water Historical Data, For 2008 - 2013 from MDWASD reports to SFWMD of Water Treatment Plant influent & Effluent f=low MQtcF F1@w§ (a) eW t2rflryieR@@ W*Of F00 ig 1IOS, MDWASD is improving its raw water meteringlaccounting system, Slwefba-F 7014 TABLE G (Baptom#er 3014) MOWASO PROJECTED RAW WATER DEMAND BY SOURCE # ? d � d C 7 ■ s 1s 20 2'1 2I i7 i� :$ "� � � � rf@�iF FRI311=44faM (2013) "R MDWAW 30t=E AREA CkTY 6F MGMFSSFAD F6ush■d nd GD) ADJUSTED FRaSKED WATMAADD (MGD) RAW WATER AAD0(MCD' Bis eAquK- FloridanABu*w B�cayneAqutfx� F10Atldit At4ulW 4si PeplNeae[#0 W&W (SEA} AADO (AKkd We (h} IV@D! Mi149f Eedneeveflenle� (Cadet Reuel Reeiuleed WaMf{d} ICr A*uged Flni■h■d Water Drnawndte} Rfia�� wrt.r u.ti (4od� AAW FkAiowd eS.M SURPLUS- (C.L,S-C.L1 -ceL ri Flerated gl■dea isi-C1w Num) Saudi Mfofnl KeWts MelnCrane -av KQI"h- PfRslellf Alw ander- Orr Lane sole■oh'g ASR Lveae■ I11 BkwY1m Agvil�r (f.r;) Hltfth RA Wrp O cowm (gMl4} wrp (! fieMl €1aR9iR 8$uAEF 755! All = �tft-ihfrA@ 214 2,24.5 274 939.2 907.78 1136 0100 306.43 135.56 250 0.00 4-3D 4.06 D.OD 310.63 0.14 319.16 40.00 0A 1460 32.9:19 2@19 *_M9,992 137.2 910,411 2:04 0.00 306.80 13627 3.00 0.00 4.30 4.10 0.00 311.00 0.14 3'19,64 13.30 0.90 13:$0 N&04 a6?11 p 916,70 127:2 326.20 9.44 0.00 319.76 134.83 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 3.00 315.63 0.14 318.77 43:30 12.60 21.2@ M&P 8 3472542 137:2 959,85 8.84 0.00 330,72 133.60 3.00 0.00 0.00 410 3.00 327.24 0.14 330.38 13.30 15,80 26.E 96@6 2NO 2 966 123 157 3€3.92 9.85 0.00 344.37 133.47 3.00 0.DO 0,00 4.10 5.00 341.71 0.14 944:85 13.30 18.80 28:20 374.72 22?1 9190110#9 157.2 1 358.19 9.86 0.00 1 347.24 133,50 3.00 0.00 0:00 4.10 3.00 1 339.45 0.14 342.59 13.30 23.87 36,07 371.18 2662 1 @§4 161$ 30,530 9166 0.00 350.11 133.53 3.00 0:00 0.00 4.10 3.00 1 342.50 0.14 345;64 1 1130. 3317 1 96,27. 961 263x7 2 § $ 937,$ 1 342:63 8,66 0.00 352.98 -133.56J 3.00 1 0.00 0.00 j 4.10 3.00 1 M:36 1 0.14 1 349,50 1 13,30j 23,27 I 50.E I AN.@7 MOWAE0 PROJECTED FINISHED WATER DEMAND BY SOURCE # 9 3 s d t r ■ ■ ,u ,1 12 1 A 1 14 1s 1 1% T3 11 43fl0,1647MNO 12043) FCR M OWA50 3MM= AREA ADJUSTED FRaSKED WATMAADD (MGD) Bis eAquK- FloridanABu*w �`23F 4si N"d WOW LES AAOO FiRlRer 6•} (M3B W1N Cohegwoef(d! r Cedt Rwe ft.W"d vftw (MO) GM0 Adlwted Fdshed Wr■ Dem"dM} () A� Fd*O*d d TYOF t Dile+�ed Maw IMGO S.M mde� Svuth W7.�41}74 ISM) Membrum Wd AkxvK%r- Orr T` g TOS �M } RC WTV Fal" AG(MOO) R y�(m! TOW Ate' BeS AES 1$eBLlUI 1� aaiua1l} Nmni LaeeCaW 2914 2,24.5 274 1374 209,79 1.36 0.00 306.43 136.E 250 4.30 4AS 0-00 293.05 301.43 7.SD 0.00 750 905.93 11619 246(3,682 1631 310:84 2,04 0.00 308.80 136.27 3.00 4.30 4-1D 0,00 293.40 301.80 10,00 0.00 1040 31'i:9B 2 6 _ 376,786 13712 925.20 8.44 0.00 319.76 134.83 3.00 0.00 .610 255 297.76 300.31 10.00 12.4$ 2146 324:79 $@29 573,44® 137-2 539:50 8.84 0.00 330.72 133.60 3.00 OM 4.10 2.65 308.72 311.27 10.00 12.46 21411 333,72 2660 INVA9 13:4 363,92 9186 0.00, 344.37 133.47 340 O.OD 4.10 255 322.37 324.92 10.00 12.46 32.49 347.37 2691 26®1-i3>3E 19%-2 366.39 9165 0.00 347.24 133,80 3.00 0.00 4.10 255 3202+4 322.76. 10.00 17.46 37,44E 350-24 mg $,9$1,§6'4 1378 3$9,86 j 41.6$ 4.00 364.'11 133.53 3.00 0.00 410 2:55 323.11 .=.fi6 . 90:00 17.46 27 48 9541:11 21199 2:652 -Ng 1372 1. 3412.53 9,65 0.00 352.38 1 133.56 3AD 0.00 410 7 55 1 325:98 $26.53 10.00 1T.4S 27#5 385.96 UpwMb& 204 TABLE 0 (September 2014) MDWASD PROJECTED FLAW AND FINiSH WATER DEMAND BY SOURCE €Aid€fl@t@g (m R00u10t10n urv@d f(5p.m§e- itE Most recent represents the 2010-1 population projections by the MDC Planning Department. (b) Mriu5l Awfggi< Zaily Dornand (HADD) Finlsned Water Projections between 2014 and 2035 assume 137.2 gpod (a decrease from 145.4 gpcd) total water system demand prier TO eppkgfl®fl 0f @f@dit§ (@:g, ontrarvation). te) WA,5D hiss' intpIrg"wMad a 20 -year water use efficiency plan and is experiencing reductions in per capita water consumption. Water Conservation projections were revised bag@d do 1,6@ 2010 Mfiuial Wat@f Ceongefvatidn plan Conserve Florida Report (March 2011). Reai losses in non -revenue water (e -g. unaccounted -foe -water) are assumed to faRiain at Iia fhen 10%: Tli@ gowrvation amounts oxporleneed through 2010 (6.54 MGD) were deducted from the 20 -year conservation amount in the Conserve Florida Report and the refraining c,@iigeF'g0n wriourltd wtim distributed for the balance of the 20 -year period (2011-2027). (d) N@I Uwd (790). (t-) AQjgio aft@f t0kinq edit in finished water demand projections for reductions in finished water use associated with water conservation, M Tho- Modid d Bre condition raw water use (349.5 mgd) represents values agreed to by SFWMD and MDWASD and demonstrated by modeling to not cause a net increase In W9t@F fwn fFt@ fgiertal �andl syswrn: Biscaym Aquifer base condition raw water use allocation of 3495 mgd (South Dade at 7.1 mgd, North and South at 342.4 Ittgd) equate2 to -d Mod 0 sifi igh" wM@r annual average dairy demand (AADD). (g) -S0O ®0d@ (Waal ° €iNsh@d) Ratio - 1;0: 1,0 (t) f@i;6f Lao- gMad4y dneA SMb W rP starts up. This stand-by capacity is not used in the total raw and finished water amounts. t1) Asmifneg w hdfwwalg ftrt Kie'vated TanK. Leisure City, Naranja, Caribbean Park, Former Plant, and Roberta Hunter Park are consolidated. Biscayne Aquifer supplied Marnbmmo §oft nin0 (Raaf ; €ilii@licad) Retie = 1,17 ; 1:00 (83% Recovery). W W�!e-eh=ft--Vfaii i Ale xw4er=Orr (Raw; Rnisnod) Ratio = 1.060: 1.00 (Lime Softening) (lE) TF@ v@k4m gm based ion initial gyve testing of the ASR well facilities and the projected seasonal operations of the ASR well facilities at full design capacities with the storing 0i bigwig aquif@r wew dung th@ wet weather months of June through October and the recovery of the stored Biscayne aquifer water during the dry weather months of Dumber t rough Agni, amufning an ultittmate storage ioss of 1.31 %. fry €10ddwi Aqu f@F %uppl cd RO WTP (Raw ; Finished) Ratio - 1.338: 1.00 (75% recovery) (fF'i) At zin gNfnq1@ 20 rngd plant operating Capacity, the raw water withdrawal would be 3.00 MGD from the Biscayne and 2327 MGD from the Floridan in accordance with the V4KI lit Op@fafion pian, In order to maintain operational flexibility and protect the nanofiltration membranes (Biscayne supply), MDWASD is requesting that the WTp be allowed to @p@fgw vAh fIp t0 0 mr*t0nt supply of 3.0 MG1) from the Biscayne aquifer and the rest, to meet demand, be provided from the Floridan aquifer. The full use of the small S!6.ayne. @i�4; F aligtglgafi at SMH gwppiemarttad by Floddan aquifer water will allow a blended finished water product that is expected io be lower in sodium and chloride, which will It h@Ftddal W. wgtaffief% afi low godibrn dlots. and more will require less chemical addition for product water stabilization. (fi) AA additiaP,ai 0.02 MOD of Raw Water AADD has been included in year 2033 for Hialeah -Preston f Alexander Orr Lime Softening to maintain the total Biscayne aqu4or Modified ® gag@ "s@liditign raw w,@I@r ug@ at U6.5 mgd and to provide needed operational flexibility in withdrawals of Floridan aquifer water. co ca W R 420 410 x;00 390 380 V0 390 360 Mo 320 310 200 250 230 MRWAS© Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Projects (September 2014) Available Wster Supply Projected Finished Water Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) Historical Finished Water AADD Biscayne Aquifer Modif a Base Condilon Water Use {Rsw Water w 3x9.5 MGD) (�inishod Wator= 342.8 MGD) 365.8 (D 370:8 3503 352.8 ! 350,3 r!!!I r r r ! ! ! ! ! r ! ! ! ! ! ! r ! ! ! 303.5 ® 110 LzO 11)dl' Year Xvvs pmjutry Notm 'l: Mligiln I"ioMan Aquifor IkO0 W.T.P. Phase 1a (Capacity 7.5 MGD, Operational 12131113) Year reprozenta actual wid 2- HiM@ah Floiidw Aquifer R,O, VV.T,P. Phase 1b (2.5 MGD addition, Capacity 10.0 MGD, Available 12131115) projected 11om and cap@eWes dt I SIagM MNrni Heighis BiscaynGlFloridan Aquifer R.O. W.T.P. Phase 1 (Capacrty 15 MGD max. day, 13 MGD aver. Oper. 1231118) year ending on Daeombct 34 4- Seam Miami boights Additional Floridan Aquifer R.O. W.T.P. Phase 2 (Capacity 20 MGD max_ day, 18 MGD aver. Oper, 12131130) aach year, Aiterriative Water Supply Projects Step Chan Septernber'014 Table 4 - MDWASD Floridan Aquifer Wellfields Operation Plan Summary (September 2014) Pumpage by Wellfield 1 2 1 3 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 $ 1 O Wellfield Data Individual Wellfield ANNUAL Pumpage/Aliocation WrP Subarea and Wellfield Desi nRen3af�� 9 Number 2014 - 2017 2018 - 2030 2031-203S Capacity BG (mgd) BG (mgd} BG (mgd) (mgd) of Wells _ t�1 See Fo�tnoto (a) Wialt§ah RO WiP 20.00 10 4.855 13.30 4.855 13.30 4.855 13,30 Akundar Orr WTP (Use of Floridan Aquifer Wells for ASR) (b) (1.542) 10.08 (1.542) 10.08 (1.542) 10.08 Southwest We11f}old ASR 10.00 2 1.522 10.08 1.522 10.08 1.522 10:08 Soo l�oottt@te (b) (2 .313) 1512 (2.313) 15.12 (2.313) 15.43 West Wellfield ASR 15.00 3 2.283 15.12 2.283 15.12 2,283 15.42 South Miami Weights WrP (Use of Floridan Aquifer Wells for RO) (c) ouff7 Mismi Meights WTP (s) 24.00 7 0 0.00 6.055 16.60 8.494 23.27 See €oetnots MOWASD Systom Total 69.00 22 fti Not=fie=Exc*ed Pumpage Annual Average 4.805 13-30 10.864 29.90 13.299 16. Notal 86 - Biiiion Gallons; MOD - Million Gallons per Day (5) Ngw Upp@f Mordan Aquifer ROWTP - Finish water supply of 10.0 mgd, 7.5 mgd Phase 1a by Dec. 31, 2013, 10.Omgd Phase lb by Dec. 31, 2015, Initial six (g) Flofid@n agijftr supply walls completed prior to Dec. 31, 2013; the additional four Floridan aquifer supply wells to becompleted prior to Dec. 31, 2015. (b� Bm@d or 153 days of storage (indicated as negative withdrawal) and 151 days of recovery (positive withdrawal) per ASR well a year, Excludes initlsl Cycle end Opef&tion`sl Gating of the ASR Wells and ASR Facility UV Disinfection System Testing (Testing is currently underway at Southwest Wellfield ASR and is Pending of _j Ww WwIfiola ASR). (g) New Upper Floridan Aquifer RO Treatment at South Miami Heights WTP (Phase 1 Finish water supply of 12.45 mgd by Dec. 31; 2018 with Phase 2 total Finith wafer §apply of 17.45 mgd by 'Dec, 31. 2030 ) W Ravi sad September 201 Aftemafive Water Supply Prauect Development Project / Milestone Average Finish Water Milestone daily flow Completion Date Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R.O. WFP, Phase 1-a, 10.0 mgd WTP and initial 6 Floridan aquifer supply wells. (7.5 mgd, limited by water supply) (7.6 mgd) • Notice To Proceed Design / Permit Completed • Notice To Proceed Construction Completed • Turnover/ Project Completion Completed Hialeah Floridan Aquifer R,O, WTP, Phase 1 -b, additional 4 Floridan aquifer supply wells. (10.0 mgd, maximum treatment capacity) (2,5 mgd) • Notice To Proceed Design 1 Permit Completed • Notice To Proceed Construction Completed • Turnover 1 Prn ect Completion 12/31/2015 South Miami Heights WTP (R.O. portion) Phase 1 (12.45 mgd) • Notice To Proceed Design / Permit Completed • Notice To Proceed Construction 12/31/2015 • Turnover 1 Project Completion 12/31/2018 South Miami Heights WTP (R.O. addition) Phase 2 (5.0 mgd) • Notice To Proceed Design 1 Permit Completed • Notice To Proceed Construction 12131/2028 • Turnover 1 Project Completion 12131/2030 EXHIBIT 13 Rem r 2014 Reuse FMecfs EXHIBIT 14 20,14 Reclaimed water generated from Quantity of and amount to Reclaimed Reclaimed water used Anticipated Project be treated Wastewater Applied for Completion 1. North District WAfrP 4.44 MGD 2.94 MGD industrial & Existing (Permitted) 4.44 MGD 1.5 MGD Public Access 2. Central District WWTP 7.84 MGD Industrial Use Only Existing (Previous Permitted Limit) 7.84 MGD 3. South District WWTP 4.17 MGI] Industrial & Non -Public Existing (Previous Permitted Access Irrigation Limit) 4.17 MGD TOTAL EXISTING PROJECTS (PERMITTED) = 16,49 MGD 4. South District WWTP 9.2 MGD Floridan aquifer recharge. Dec 31, 2025 9.2 MGD The scope of these projects is part the Ocean Outfall legislation 5, Central District WWTP 9.2 MGD Dec 31, 2025 9.2 MGD implementation plan submitted to the Secretary of FDEP on 6. West District Water 9.2 MGD pec 31, 2025 Reclamation Piant June 28, 2013. 9.2 MGD 7. South District WWTP 90 MGD TPoint Units 5 & S Dec 31, 2022 90 MGD cooling Dec 31, 2023 TP Unit 7 cooling TOTAL NEW PROJECTS = 117.5 MGD Dec 31, 2025 EXHIBIT 14 20,14 SOUTH W:r. D„ WATER MANAGEME G. rRr DISMCY- 7 Regulabon Division July 25, 2014 Juan Carlos Arteaga, AIA Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department P.O. Box 330316 Miami, FL 33233-0316 Subject: Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department Water Use Permit Application No. 140627-12, Permit No. 13-00017-W Miami -Dade County Dear Mr. Arteaga: District staff have reviewed the above -referenced application. As discussed with Bertha Goldenberg on July 24, 2014, the District is requesting the following information, in accordance with Section 40E-1.603, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to complete the application and provide reasonable assurances for permit issuance: For the requested modification to Limiting Condition 28, please provide a description of the conditions and typical operating plan when withdrawals would exceed 15 million gallons per day and how the proposed operating plan is consistent with Exhibit 35. Please be advised that any increase in withdrawals over 15 million gallons per day will require a hydrogeologic evaluation of potential impacts to sensitive environmental features (Section 2.2.2 of the Applicants Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications [AH]). 2. The requested modification to Limiting Condition 49 proposes to change the wording in the second paragraph from "In the event that water losses, as defined by the AWWA method (Exhibit 16B), exceed 10 percent..." to "in the event that water losses, as defined by Section 5.2.1.E of the Basis of Review..." This section of the Basis of Review (BOR) refers to maintaining an accurate flow meter at the intake of the water treatment plant You may be aware that the District is now using the Applicant's Handbook, dated July 16, 2014. Please indicate which section of the AH you are referring to and any proposed changes to the war loss reporting resulting from the requested change. Please note that the District would pmkr aN public water supply entices to report losses defined by the AWWA method (Section 2..3.2.F.2.c„ of the Ali). X5=W WA0QVurwt: AM cMtU&S" esru*M*""rW0 {MOMr Pq)=,VS M1RBIf W,. W %1keA,0ltW&Wkw.r'l,.M= 09") aM v {")M4= �:6NI9t1!'�iL'DIIEJBL�:[I'TAAllq�ikm8��9Cl�knlbw+u�„ll�l�e�+!®W�naku�!„�liD �n{��011j)� � (11�A611�3[I14�{4 Juan C.Ma s Amiga„ ARA MlarniPDade Cowty Water and Seger DepartmeK Apptica an No, 140627-12 July 25, 2014 Page 2 3. Regarding the proposed changes to Umifi ng Condition 45, please provide a more detailed schedule (i.e. scheduled meetings, progress reports) of the proposed process for the devellopment of an alternate reuse project in the event We parties do not reach agreement on the feasibility of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project by August 15, 2814 (Section 2.2.4 of the AH). Advisory Comment: The following comments are advisory in nature and do not require a response from the applicant to complete the application. However, satisfactory resolution of these issues is required for staff to recommend approval. District staff is concerned that Exhibit 14 shows significantly less proposed reuse water projects than Exhibit 14 in the active permit. Please consider modifying this Exhibit to include the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Rehydration Project (or Potential Alternate Reuse Project), consistent with the proposed Limiting Condition 45. Please submit responses to this letter electronically on the District's ePermitting website (www.sfwrnd.gov/epermitting) using the Additional Submittals link to expedite administrative processing of the application and to save paper. Please note that an electronic response may be submitted even if the original application was submitted via hard copy. Information regarding the District's comprehensive ePermitting program is enclosed. Alternatively, please provide one (1) original and one (1) copy of the requested information, clearly labeled with the application number, to District Headquarters. In accordance with paragraph 40E -1.603(1)(b) F,A.C., if the requested information is not received within 90 days of the date of this letter, this application may be processed for denial, if not withdrawn by the applicant. If additional time is needed, please contact one of the District staff members below with a request for an extension before the 90 day period ends. The District recommends contacting the assigned staff members to resolve the above questions and concerns prior to submitting a response. John Lockwood, Lead Hydrogeologist at 561-682-6884, or via email at ilockwo(@.sfwmd.gov is available to assist with questions. �dnathan E. Shaw, P.G. Section Leader, Water Use Bureau South FkMa Waber Mlarraga went District J'" Juan CaU5os Ad%W,, ARA MgmniF®adfe Comty VyM wr alflld Sewer Dqmbmmt AWcabmNo. 140627-12 Ju* 25, 2014 Page 3 Endbsure cc: ApplicantlOw ner Consultant Other interested parties (if any) S 0 U T H F L R I D A W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T D I S T R I C T MNPlanning Document LOWER EAST COAST WATER SUPPLY PLAN UPDATE October 10, 2013 Final Acknowledgements The South Florida Water Management District recognizes and thanks the Water Resources Advisory Commission Regional Water Supply Workshop participants for their contributions, comments, advice, information, and assistance throughout the development of this 2013 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update. Furthermore, the South Florida Water Management District expresses appreciation to all staff who contributed to the development and production of this plan update. For further information about this document, please contact: Brenda J. Mills South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Telephone: (561) 682-6536 Email: bmills@sfwmd.gov 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update I i Executive Summary The South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) strategic goal for all of its water supply plans is to ensure an adequate supply of water to protect natural systems and to meet existing and future reasonable -beneficial uses, while sustaining water resources for future generations. This document is the second update to the 2000 Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan (2000 LEC Plan) (SFWMD 2000). The first update, the 2005- 2006 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update (2005-2006 LEC Plan Update), was finalized in 2007 (SFWMD 2007). This update presents twenty-year population and water demand projections, a review of water supply issues and evaluations, and water source options; examines local and regional efforts completed since the previous update; and evaluates future water resource and proposed water supply development projects for 2010-2030. The Lower East Coast (LEC) Planning Area covers 6,100 square miles, including Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties, most of Monroe County, and eastern Hendry and Collier counties. The Everglades Agricultural Area, located in the LEC Planning Area, is a portion of the Lake Okeechobee Service Area. However, the entire Lake Okeechobee Service Area, which includes portions of Martin, Okeechobee, Glades, and Lee counties, is considered in the LEC water supply planning process because of its reliance on Lake Okeechobee. A number of factors distinguish the LEC Planning Area from others regions of the state, including population, spatial extent of natural systems, availability of fresh water, and an extensive network of canals and related water works. The LEC Planning Area boundary encompasses three of the state's five most populous counties. Extensive natural systems such as Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, Florida and Biscayne bays, the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, and Lake Worth Lagoon are found in the LEC Planning Area. It includes two national parks and four national wildlife refuges. The area typically receives abundant fresh water seasonally, with volumes exceeding human and natural system needs. Water availability also varies annually, including periodic drought. The regional water management system, the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project), is largely located in the LEC Planning Area. The C&SF Project plays a critical role in capturing wet season storm water and moving water between natural systems as well as delivering water to agricultural areas and the urbanized coastal communities. Total water demand is projected to increase by 12 percent to 1,933 million gallons per day (MGD) by 2030. Public Water Supply (PWS) remains the LEC Planning Area's single largest water use category in 2030, representing 52 percent of the planning area's total water demand. It is followed by agriculture at 34 percent. The remaining four categories, domestic (residential) self -supply, recreation and landscaping, industrial, and power generation, account for the remaining 14 percent. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update I I11 The LEC Planning Area traditionally has relied on fresh groundwater from the surficial aquifer system and surface water from Lake Okeechobee as primary water sources for urban, agricultural, and industrial uses. The Everglades provides groundwater and surface water recharge to the urban coastal communities, contributing to the water supply throughout most of this region. In 2010, fresh groundwater accounted for 94 percent of potable water produced by PWS utilities. The surficial aquifer system, including the Biscayne aquifer, provides more than 1 billion gallons a day for utilities, as well as agricultural production, landscape irrigation, and other uses. Since the last plan update, the SFWMD placed limitations on additional allocations from the freshwater sources in the region to protect the region's natural resources. As a result, use of alternative water sources has expanded. This plan update was developed in an open public forum with water supply utilities, local governments, environmental organizations, agricultural interests, and other stakeholders through the SFWMD's Water Resources Advisory Commission. The process to develop the population and water demand projections began in 2010. Multiple meetings and workshops were held with water users, local governments, utilities, agriculture and other industry representatives, environmental representatives, and agencies to solicit input, provide information about planning results, and receive comments on draft sections of the plan. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY This plan update represents a departure from the demand projections in the 2000 LEC Plan and the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update. Subsequent to approval of the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update in February 2007, the nation's economy fell into a long recession that had significant impacts on regional water supply planning, lowering population and demand forecasts. The dramatic slowdown in population growth occurred at the same time that consumption of potable water declined as measured in gallons per person per day. Likely reasons for this decrease in PWS consumption include short-term water shortage restrictions in response to droughts, long-term water conservation projects including SFWMD's year-round landscape irrigation conservation measures, and increased use of reclaimed water. Local actions, such as implementation by Broward and Miami -Dade counties of ordinances limiting landscape irrigation to two days a week, the Broward County Water Conservation Partnership, and individual utility conservation programs, have been key in lowering the water use rate. An indication of the resulting trend is the LEC Planning Area's population grew by 600,000 people between 2000 and 2010, but total potable water use declined by 87 MGD (10 percent) during the same decade. This plan's twenty-year population and PWS demand forecasts are lower than the two previous plans' projections. Projections developed for this update indicate the planning area's population will increase over 18 percent, from approximately 5.6 million residents in 2010 to slightly more than 6.6 million by 2030. In contrast, the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update projected the planning area's population to increase over 31 percent, to 7.3 million by 2025. The projected population growth varies widely between the counties: Palm Beach County IV I Executive Summary (+25 percent), Broward County (+14 percent), Miami -Dade County (+18 percent), and Monroe County (-5 percent). The projected gross water demand for 2030 for the region's PWS is 1,008 MGD, a 20 percent increase from the volume used in 2010. Because the 2010 PWS water use was lower than the historical demand of the previous decade, the projected growth is within the available capacities for most utilities. Also, many utilities have been planning for the higher population growth rates and have secured twenty-year water use permit allocations and built the necessary treatment capacity. The cumulative volume of water currently allocated for PWS slightly exceeds the total projected demand for 2030 and the majority of the PWS water providers appear to be able to meet their 2030 projected demand without additional allocation or infrastructure. A few utilities will likely face a potential deficit on an average daily or peak demand basis within the next 20 years and have proposed projects in this plan for the deficit. Utilities have diversified their water supply sources with development of alternative water supplies, including treatment and storage technologies, and water conservation programs. These alternatives include constructing brackish Floridan aquifer wells and reverse osmosis treatment plants, reclaimed water treatment and distribution facilities, and aquifer storage and recovery systems. Between 2007 and 2009, 41 MGD of potable water supply capacity was added. From 2010 to 2013, nine utilities built potable water supply projects with a capacity of 49 MGD. Approximately 14 percent of the current PWS allocation is now from an alternative water source, primarily brackish groundwater. In this plan update, 10 utilities have proposed 13 new potable water supply projects totaling 76 MGD. Based on the 2030 demand projections, two utilities each appear to need one of their proposed potable water supply projects during the planning period. The two projects total 26 MGD. Local governments, in coordination with utilities, will address the proposed projects as they revise their water supply facilities work plans, which must be submitted to the State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and reviewing agencies within 18 months of approval of this plan update. In addition to the 13 potable water supply projects, this plan update incorporates 15 nonpotable water projects proposed by utilities to meet future needs. Twelve of the nonpotable water projects are reclaimed water projects, including several to comply with the 2008 Leah G. Schad Ocean Outfall Program. Implementation of this program is expected to result in 178 MGD of additional reuse by 2025. If population growth accelerates faster than forecasted, reuse and other alternative water source projects could become more urgent for some water providers. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update I V AGRICULTURAL WATER SUPPLY Agricultural self -supply demand is projected to remain relatively stable over the planning horizon. It will continue to be the LEC Planning Area's second largest water user in 2030, accounting for 34 percent of the total water demand. Agricultural areas are projected to need supplemental irrigation water for approximately 575,897 acres in 2030 with a gross water demand of 668 MGD. The largest concentration of agricultural activity is located in the Everglades Agricultural Area and is dominated by sugarcane. The Everglades Agricultural Area, dependent on Lake Okeechobee and its connected conveyance canals for supplemental irrigation, is a fully developed, stable agricultural area where permitted acres and cropping practices are not expected to change over the next 20 years. While urban development has reduced farmlands east of the Everglades, a robust agricultural industry remains in portions of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties, which are within the LEC Service Area. Winter vegetables dominate the crops in eastern Palm Beach and Broward counties. Miami -Dade County has extensive nurseries and tropical fruit groves, in addition to vegetable crops. A modest increase of 581 acres is anticipated by 2030 for the agricultural operations in the LEC Service Area. LAKE OKEECHOBEE In the Lake Okeechobee Service Area, local conditions limit the volume of available fresh water. Specifically, Lake Okeechobee and hydraulically connected water bodies are limited sources as a result of the United States Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) implementation of the 2008 Lake Okeechobee federal regulation schedule. The schedule change is intended to operate the lake at lower levels than recent regulation schedules to reduce the risk that the lake's dike might fail, as well as impacts to the lake ecology. Studies supporting the 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule change assessed impacts on water supply performance. The analysis projected a decline in the physical level of certainty of agricultural users reliant on lake water supplies, from a 1 -in -10 year to a 1 -in -6 year drought return frequency. The new schedule also was expected to cause Lake Okeechobee to exceed its minimum flows and levels (MFL) criteria more frequently. In response, SFWMD developed a MFL recovery strategy in 2008. As one part of that strategy, SFWMD adopted regulatory criteria to limit future additional withdrawals from Lake Okeechobee and connected water bodies to protect the lake and prevent further erosion to the level of certainty for existing legal users. USACE has started the rehabilitation of the Herbert Hoover Dike. The initial step— construction of a 21.4 -mile cutoff wall component in Reach 1—is scheduled for completion in 2013, and satisfies the majority of the risk reduction goals. As part of this risk reduction approach, the 32 water control structures (culverts) operated by USACE will be replaced, removed, or abandoned by 2018. Rehabilitation to Reaches 2 and 3 is scheduled for completion by 2022. USACE has indicated it will consider revisions to the lake regulation schedule at that time. Any increase in the lake's regulation schedule as a result of the repairs VI I Executive Summary will likely be evaluated by USACE through a National Environmental Policy Act analysis of multiple objectives including flood protection, water supply, and the ecological health of the lake and downstream ecosystems. NATURAL SYSTEMS INCLUDING THE EVERGLADES The water supply needs for natural systems limit water available for allocation and are addressed through a variety of regulatory mechanisms and water resource development projects. Construction of ecosystem restoration projects is vital to the health of the region's water resources, including elements identified in MFL recovery and prevention strategies. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), a partnership between USACE and SFWMD, has long held a critical relationship with water supply planning in the LEC Planning Area and includes capital projects needed for restoration. The 2000 LEC Plan was developed on a parallel track with CERP during the 1990s and identified CERP projects to protect and restore natural systems and provide water supply for urban and agricultural communities alike. Implementation of many CERP projects has been delayed. In response, SFWMD initiated construction of CERP projects within the LEC Planning Area including the Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project, Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1, and C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project. A number of CERP components are being formulated and evaluated as part of the Central Everglades Planning Project. This effort is identifying and planning for projects on land in public ownership to allow more water to be directed south to Water Conservation Area 3, Everglades National Park, and Florida Bay, while providing for other water related needs of the region. The recommended plan will require approval by SFWMD's Governing Board and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as well as congressional authorization and appropriations. CONCLUSION This update provides an assessment of the water supply demand and available sources for the LEC Planning Area through 2030. Meeting the 1 -in -10 level of service for all water users and MFLs in the LEC Planning Area is not likely within the next five years due to the interrelationship of the federal projects outlined in the plan and current operations under the 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation schedule. Future LEC plan updates will address the progress of the water resource development projects based on project sequencing, project funding, and implementation partnerships as applicable. Until this occurs, this plan continues to rely upon the existing programs and regulations, along with the identified PWS development projects, and their correlation with water supply demands and available sources. The future water needs of the LEC Planning Area can be met with appropriate management, conservation, and implementation of projects identified in this plan. SFWMD anticipates any additional water from Lake Okeechobee resulting from operational changes or a revised regulation schedule could return the lake to MFL prevention status, enhance 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update I VII the level of certainty to existing permitted users, and support other environmental objectives. Meeting the future water needs is dependent on the following: ♦ Construction of two potable water supply development projects by PWS utilities. ♦ Utilization of the flexibility within the 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule as incremental dam safety improvements are completed; and in the longer term, completion of the seepage berm construction or equivalent repairs to the Herbert Hoover Dike for reaches 1, 2 and 3 by the USACE and implementation of a new Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule. ♦ Implementation of CERP and other projects identified in MFL prevention and recovery strategies. VIII I Executive Summary Table of Contents Acknowledgements ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................................ iii PublicWater Supply.............................................................................................................................. iv AgriculturalWater Supply..................................................................................................................... vi LakeOkeechobee.................................................................................................................................. vi Natural Systems including the Everglades............................................................................................vii Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................vii Listof Tables........................................................................................................................................xi Listof Figures.....................................................................................................................................xiii Acronymsand Abbreviations..............................................................................................................xv Chapter1: Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 CurrentUpdate....................................................................................................................................... 1 Legal Authority and Requirements......................................................................................................... 2 Goaland Objectives................................................................................................................................2 PlanningProcess.....................................................................................................................................3 PlanningArea Background..................................................................................................................... 4 Historyof Planning Efforts.................................................................................................................... 12 Progress Since the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update.................................................................................. 12 Outlookon Climate Change.................................................................................................................. 17 Water Supply Planning for the Next 20 Years...................................................................................... 18 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections................................................................................... 19 Summary of Water Use Categories...................................................................................................... 19 Population and Water Use Trends....................................................................................................... 21 Projected Demand by Water Use Category......................................................................................... 23 Demand Projections in Perspective...................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions ............................................... 39 Regulatory Protection of Water Resources.......................................................................................... 40 Overview of Water Resources by Region............................................................................................. 49 Outlookon Climate Change.................................................................................................................. 86 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects............................................................................. 91 Regional Water Resource Development Projects................................................................................ 92 Districtwide Water Resource Development Projects......................................................................... 125 Summary............................................................................................................................................. 134 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update I ix Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options..............................................................................139 Groundwater...................................................................................................................................... 140 SurfaceWater..................................................................................................................................... 149 ReclaimedWater................................................................................................................................ 152 Storage: Surface Water and Groundwater......................................................................................... 159 Seawater............................................................................................................................................. 164 WaterConservation........................................................................................................................... 165 Summary of Water Source Options.................................................................................................... 174 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Status and Projects.............................................................175 Regional and Local Planning Linkage.................................................................................................. 176 Projects Identified for This Plan Update............................................................................................. 180 Funding............................................................................................................................................... 188 Summary............................................................................................................................................. 189 Public Water Supply Utility Summaries.............................................................................................. 190 Chapter7: Future Direction............................................................................................................255 WaterSources.................................................................................................................................... 256 Environmental Restoration................................................................................................................ 263 FutureAnalysis................................................................................................................................... 264 Coordination....................................................................................................................................... 264 ClimateChange................................................................................................................................... 265 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 266 Glossary......................................................................................................................................... 267 References..................................................................................................................................... 285 X I Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1. Planning process for developing this plan update....................................................................3 Table 2. Comparison of population projections published in the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update and current projections presented in this plan update................................................................. 22 Table 3. Estimated gross (raw) water demand for an average rainfall year by water use category for 2010 and 2030......................................................................................................................... 24 Table 4. Permanent resident population projections in the LEC Planning Area for 2010 and 2030.... 26 Table 5. Gross water demand in the LEC Planning Area for 2010-2030 .............................................. 26 Table 6. Change between 2010 and 2030 in acres by area within the LEC Planning Area ................... 28 Table 7. Change between 2010 and 2030 in acres by crop type within the LEC Planning Area........... 32 Table 8. Estimated irrigated acreages and gross demand for an average water year by crop type for 2010 and 2030.a....................................................................................................................... 33 Table 9. Gross demand projected in the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update versus this plan update.......... 36 Table 10. Summary of statutory resource protection tools.................................................................... 41 Table 11. Regions within the LEC Planning Area and CERP projects within each region ........................ 92 Table 12. Implementation schedule and costs for ongoing districtwide water resource development projects. Source: Table 5A-1 in Martin (2012)...................................................................... 133 Table 13. Project status table................................................................................................................ 135 Table 14. Baseline flows and 60 percent reuse requirement for the utilities affected by the 2008 OceanOutfall statute............................................................................................................ 157 Table 15. Per capita use rates in gallons in the LEC Planning Area for PWS finished water ................. 166 Table 16. Comparison of alternative water supply development costs and water conservation costs for1,000 gallons.................................................................................................................... 167 Table 17. Proposed potable water supply development projects and capacity for 2010-2030.......... 184 Table 18. Proposed nonpotable water supply projects and capacity for 2010-2030 .......................... 184 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update I A XII I List of Tables List of Figures Figure 1. Map of the LEC Planning Area showing the counties within the planning area and its location relative to other planning areas within SFWMD boundaries.................................................... 5 Figure 2. Location of LOSA, EAA, and LECSA in relation to the LEC Planning Area boundaries ............... 6 Figure 3. Generalized hydrogeologic cross-section of South Florida....................................................... 9 Figure 4. Percentage of estimated demand of each major water use category in 2010 ....................... 20 Figure 5. BEBR twenty-year population projections for 2030 over the last six years for the LEC PlanningArea.......................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 6. A comparison of PWS finished water demand projections in past plans and the current plan update..................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 7. Percentage of projected demand of each water use category in 2030 .................................. 24 Figure 8. Main areas under cultivation within the LEC Planning Area .................................................. 30 Figure 9. Conceptual relationship among the harm, significant harm, and serious harm water resource protectionstandards...............................................................................................................40 Figure 10. MFL and water reservation water bodies. (Note: WMA— Wildlife Management Area.) ......45 Figure 11. Restricted allocation areas in the LEC Planning Area. (Note: WMA— Wildlife Management Area.)....................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 12. Major regions of the LEC Planning Area.................................................................................. 50 Figure 13. Major shifts in the Lake Okeechobee marsh vegetation community occurred over the past seven years in response to recent droughts and implementation of 2008 LORS, which strives to maintain the lake at least a foot lower than the previous operating schedule .................. 52 Figure 14. Map of the Greater Everglades region. (Note: WMA— Wildlife Management Area.)............ 54 Figure 15. Wetland conditions were similar throughout most of WCA 3A with dried and cracked peat. This photo, taken on June 6, 2011, was from an area immediately adjacent to the L-67 Canal that is nearly always inundated. (Photo by M. Nungesser, SFWMD.).................................... 56 Figure 16. Wetland conditions on June 6, 2011, in southern WCA 3A about one mile north of Tamiami Trail. Sawgrass ridges are exposed and mud is cracking. Sloughs are exposed or with a very shallow cover of water, which is unusual for southern WCA 3A. (Photo by M. Nungesser, SFWM D.).................................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 17. Prairie Fire in WCA 3B during June 2011 which burned over 107 square miles over five days. (Photo by M. Kobza, SFWMD.)................................................................................................ 57 Figure 18. Major features of the Loxahatchee River and Estuary. (Note: RM — River Mile.) ................... 58 Figure 19. Flow rate and salinity related to the MFL criterion at Lainhart Dam in the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River during Water Years 2010-2011. (Note: RM — River Mile, MF — MinimumFlow.)...................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 20. Major features of Lake Worth Lagoon.................................................................................... 61 Figure 21. Major features of Biscayne Bay............................................................................................... 65 Figure 22. Flows diverted to the BBCW Project area in 2011 and 2012 ..................................................67 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update I XIII Figure 23. Major features of Florida Bay.................................................................................................. 69 Figure 24. Map of the spatial extent and transmissivity of the Biscayne aquifer .................................... 72 Figure 25. Long-term water levels in a Biscayne aquifer well in Broward County ................................... 74 Figure 26. Water levels recorded at USGS monitoring wells during May 2011 (left panel) and May 2012 (right panel)............................................................................................................................. 75 Figure 27. Estimated position of the saltwater intrusion extent in Broward County in 2009 ................. 77 Figure 28. Utilities at risk and utilities of concern in southern Palm Beach and Broward counties in 2007 relative to the historic saltwater intrusion extent.................................................................. 79 Figure 29. Utilities at risk and utilities of concern in Miami -Dade County in 2007 relative to the historic saltwater intrusion extent....................................................................................................... 80 Figure 30. Locations of existing and potential FAS wells for PWS in the LEC Planning Area ................... 82 Figure31. FAS monitoring wells............................................................................................................... 84 Figure 32. Estimated chloride concentrations in the upper FAS within SFWMD..................................... 85 Figure 33. Projects in the Lake Okeechobee region................................................................................. 93 Figure 34. Projects in the Everglades region............................................................................................ 99 Figure 35. Key elements of the Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan ........................... 100 Figure 36. CEPP features under consideration....................................................................................... 104 Figure 37. Projects in the Biscayne Bay region...................................................................................... 109 Figure 38. Projects in the Florida Bay region......................................................................................... 114 Figure 39. Projects in the Lower East Coast Service Area(LECSA)......................................................... 118 Figure 40. Domain of the LECsR Model................................................................................................. 121 Figure 41. East Coast Floridan Model boundary.................................................................................... 132 Figure 42. Lower West Coast Floridan Aquifer Model boundary........................................................... 133 Figure 43. Location and approximate yield of SAS PWS production wells in the LEC Planning Area.... 141 Figure 44. Location and relative magnitude of agricultural allocations from the SAS ........................... 143 Figure 45. EAA, Western Basins, and surrounding areas....................................................................... 145 Figure 46. Western Basins map showing the Seminole Tribe of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida reservations........................................................................................................... 146 Figure 47. PWS withdrawals from brackish water sources in the LEC Planning Area for 2003-2011... 148 Figure 48. Location and relative magnitude of agricultural allocations utilizing surface water ............ 151 Figure 49. Annual average reclaimed water reuse in MGD in the LEC Planning Area from 1994 to 2011....................................................................................................................................... 153 Figure 50. Location of ASR systems within the LEC Planning Area ........................................................ 161 Figure 51. Linking regional water supply planning with local government comprehensive planning... 177 Figure 52. Completed and proposed potable water supply projects for 2010-2030 ............................ 181 XIV I List of Figures Acronyms and Abbreviations 2000 LEC Plan 2000 Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan 2005-2006 LEC 2005-2006 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update Plan Update 2008 LORS 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule ac -ft acre-feet AFSIRS Agricultural Field Scale Irrigation Requirements Simulation AGR Self -Supply Agricultural Self -Supply ASR aquifer storage and recovery Basis of Review Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, referred to as the Basis of Review BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research BBCW Project Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project BMP best management practice C&SF Project Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes CEPP Central Everglades Planning Project CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan cfs cubic feet per second DBHYDRO SFWMD's corporate environmental database Decomp Water Conservation Area 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheet Flow Enhancement project DPM Deco mpartmentalization Physical Model DSS Domestic Self -Supply EAA Everglades Agricultural Area ERTP Everglades Restoraton Transition Plan ET evapotranspiration F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code FAS Floridan Aquifer System FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FEB flow equalization basin FKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority FPL Florida Power & Light 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update I XV F.S. Florida Statutes FY Fiscal Year ICI Self -Supply Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Self -Supply LEC Lower East Coast LECSA Lower East Coast Service Area LECsR Lower East Coast Subregional Model LOSA Lake Okeechobee Service Area MDWASD Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department MFL minimum flows and levels MGD million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter ModWaters Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 PBCWUD Palm Beach County Water Utility Department PCUR per capita use rate PIR project implementation report PWR Self -Supply Power Generation Self -Supply PWS Public Water Supply REC Self -Supply Recreational/Landscape Self -Supply RO reverse osmosis SAS surficial aquifer system SFWMD South Florida Water Management District STA stormwater treatment area Support Document 2011-2013 Water Supply Plan Support Document USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey Water CHAMP Water Conservation Hotel and Motel Program WaterSIP Water Savings Incentive Program WCA water conservation area WTP water treatment plant WWTP wastewater treatment plant XVi I Acronyms and Abbreviations 1 Introduction The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) • ' • updates regional water supply plans to promote the availability of water to meet current and future water 6 Current Update needs while protecting South Florida's water resources. ♦ Legal Authority and This is the second five-year update of the 2000 Lower East Requirements Coast Regional Water Supply Plan (2 000 LEC Plan) (SFWMD 2000). This update builds on the information and analysis Goals and Objectives contained in the 2000 LEC Plan and the 2005-2006 Lower ♦ Planning Process East Coast Water Supply Plan Update (2005-2006 LEC Plan 6 Planning Area Background Update) (SFWMD 2007). This current update assesses the Lower East Coast (LEC) Planning Area's existing and 6 History of Planning Efforts projected water needs and water sources to meet those ♦ Progress needs from 2010 to 2030. The update also describes ♦ Climate Change proposed water supply projects, regional water resource projects and implementation strategies for Fiscal Year (FY) ♦ Planning for Next 20 Years 2010 through FY 2030. CURRENT UPDATE This update reflects the influence of significant ift fluctuations in the economy, residential and NAVIGATE 3W commercial development, and agricultural commodity markets on the projected population This plan update consists of this Planning growth and water needs of the LEC Planning Document, an Appendices volume, and Area. Chapter 2 of this update documents the the 2011-2013 Water Supply Plan population growth and water demand by each Support Document (SFWMD 2013a). water use category. Chapter 3 discusses regulatory protection of water resources and changes since the last plan update to the water resources, their availability, and issues facing the region. Chapter 4 identifies water resource development projects that are primarily the responsibility of the SFWMD. Chapter 5 evaluates the planning area's water source options. Chapter 6 describes proposed water supply development projects that are primarily the responsibility of water suppliers and water users. Chapter 7 provides future guidance and direction with emphasis on actions recommended prior to the next update. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 1 LEGAL AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS The legal authority and requirements for water supply planning are primarily found in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Chapters 163, 187, and 403, F.S. provide additional direction. In accordance with Chapters 163 and 373, F.S., regional water supply plans and local government comprehensive plans must ensure adequate potable water facilities are constructed and are concurrently available with new development. The water supply planning region identified in this plan shall be considered a Water Resource Caution Area for the purposes of section 403.064, F.S., and affected parties may challenge the designation pursuant to section 120.569, F.S. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES Subsection 373.709(1), F.S.: The governing board of each water management district shall conduct water supply planning for any water supply planning region within the district identified in the appropriate district water supply plan under Section 373.036, F.S. where it determines that existing sources of water are not adequate to supply water for all existing and future reasonable -beneficial uses and to sustain the water resources and related natural systems for the planning period. The goal for this water supply plan update is to identify sufficient water supply sources and future projects to meet existing and future reasonable -beneficial uses during a 1 -in -10 year drought condition through 2030 while sustaining water resources and related natural systems. The following objectives provide an overall framework for this planning process: Water Supply - Identify sufficient water resource and water supply development options to meet projected 2030 water demands during a 1 -in -10 year drought event. 4 Water Conservation and Alternative Source Development - Increase levels of conservation, the efficiency of water use, and the development of alternative water sources to meet projected demand. 4 Natural Systems - Protect and enhance the environment, including the Everglades and other federal, state, and locally identified natural resource areas. Linkage with Local Governments - Provide information to support local government comprehensive plans. Compatibility and Linkage with Other Efforts - Achieve compatibility and integration with the following: - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and other environmental restoration projects 2 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Modifications to operating schedules for the regional system, including Lake Okeechobee - Water use permitting process, minimum flow and level (MFL) criteria, and water reservations - Other regional and local water resource planning efforts PLANNING PROCESS The planning process for developing this update is described in Table 1. J Planning and Assessment The update process incorporated extensive public participation, including a series of public workshops, as well as coordination with local governments, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and other appropriate state and federal agencies. A review of previous planning efforts in the region and documentation of activities since the approval of the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update were key starting points of this process. Table 1. Planning process for developing this plan update. Data Collection, Analyses and Issue Identification Using the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update as a foundation, updating this plan involved collecting the latest information about population, water demand, (Chapter 2), water resources, water conservation, and land use. Analyses, such as groundwater and surface water evaluations; a review of regulatory information; mapping; wetland studies; and other related data (Chapter 3) confirmed the validity of previously identified issues and helped identify new issues. Evaluation of Water Identify Water Resources and Water Resource and Water Source Options The next phase of the planning process involved reviewing existing solutions or developing new solutions to address the identified issues. In areas where projected demand exceeds available supplies, solutions included alternative water supplies and water conservation (Chapter 5). In most cases, the 2005- 2006 LEC Plan Update had identified more projects than needed to meet the projected demand for 2025. Source options were evaluated and appropriate responsibilities were identified. Supply Development Projects In areas where water resource conditions warranted, water resource development projects were identified (Chapter 4). Water supply projects intended to meet water needs for the next 20 years were identified by utilities then compiled and evaluated by SFWMD with input from stakeholders, the public, and other agencies. The projects were also screened for permitting feasibility. With lower 2030 projections, some proposed projects may be downsized, delayed, eliminated, or substituted with different projects (Chapter 6). 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 3 Public Participation SFWMD established the Water Resources Advisory Commission to serve as an advisory body to the Governing Board. The commission is the primary forum for conducting workshops, presenting information, and receiving public input on water resource issues affecting South Florida. Commission members represent interests from all four of SFWMD's water supply planning areas. SFWMD held Water Resources Advisory Commission issue workshops on the plan update throughout the water supply planning process. Stakeholders representing a cross-section of interests in the region—agricultural, industrial, tribal, environmental, utilities, local government planning departments, and state and federal agencies—were invited to attend the workshops as well as the public. During the workshops, participants reviewed and provided comments regarding projected demand and other key plan elements compiled by SFWMD staff. In addition to issue workshops, water demand projections were also coordinated through individual meetings with local government planning departments, utilities, and agricultural industry representatives. Workshop participants also reviewed and provided input on water supply issues, the condition of regional water resources, water source options, and the draft water supply plan documents. The public's comments on draft chapters of the plan were discussed in workshops and posted on SFWMD's website. Ultimately, the plan was presented to SFWMD's Governing Board for their consideration for approval at a publicly noticed meeting. PLANNING AREA BACKGROUND The LEC Planning Area includes all of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties, most of Monroe County, and the eastern portions of Hendry and Collier counties (Figure 1). The inset in Figure 1 shows the LEC Planning Area in relation to the three other regional planning areas within SFWMD boundaries. Some Palm Beach County utilities provide water to small portions of Martin County. Martin County population demands are included with the appropriate Palm Beach County utility information. Figure 2 shows the location of the water supply service areas within the LEC Planning Area. The plan boundary encompasses the Lower East Coast Service Area (LECSA) and part of the Lake Okeechobee Service Area (LOSA). LECSA includes major metropolitan areas from West Palm Beach to Fort Lauderdale to Miami. LOSA includes portions of Palm Beach, Martin, Okeechobee, Hendry, Glades, and Lee counties that are dependent on Lake Okeechobee and connected conveyance canals for supplemental water supply. The Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), the largest portion of LOSA, falls within the plan boundaries. While not included in the water demand totals, the water supply needs of LOSA located in Martin, Okeechobee, Hendry, Glades, and Lee counties are considered in LEC Planning Area analyses. The documentation and discussions of the portion of LOSA outside of the EAA are found in the SFWMD's other regional water supply plans. Likewise, discussions of the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries are found in the Lower West Coast and Upper East Coast water supply plans, respectively. 4 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Lake Okeechobee Palm Beach Hendry Gulf of Collier Broward Mexico `+ sr i 6 y i G,oxrA roneausr 'xasr ays coasr N W+E S 0 10 20 40 Miles o f ` Monroe Miami -Dade r' Q fr/ . FIorid..a rf eay7�. l Lower East Coast Planning Area SFWMD Planning Regions County Line IT Lowe r Fan coast vreparee ay � R�ree 2.awc,a, a�aia IAM- mac:. LEC W81 Rd R,m _: '.:PQATE 20r305+3mxp Figure 1. Map of the LEC Planning Area showing the counties within the planning area and its location relative to other planning areas within SFWMD boundaries. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 5 Sr Soro !,ra nrana' �,.'U /ri leilll�IG j,. Mertrn ocean Lake _ Okeechobee . i Glades. Pahokee i { ` clewistop Belle Glade • __ __ _ West Palm Beach iLOSA He ry outhBay+ �LEGSA } i rte'' J Cris i r+� s„sin rr.:Beach } ti - ---------- } EAA WCA l Fender canal V $- ----- ii wenx 27 -_ Fort Lauderdale a Calller Broward s WCA3 p' .1 BaI ena YPP. ire {"� J Na[ � 628 _ = S .ry IViiami Gulf of Mexico IMEverglades Agricultural Area (EAA) D Lake Okeechobee I Service Area s (LOSA) a s 10 15 20 25 30 Mower East Coast Planning Miles Area Miami -Dade Monroe Biscayrrr= Bay d r. Elorde Bq” n e Lower East O Big Cypress t Coast Service National Preserve 1:= Area (LECSA) Western Basins Water -- County Lines .f Conservation !!! Area Major Roads Cl Everglades Canals ` National Park Lwrtx East Coad Prepared by : Resauroc Evaluelian Cate: srar2013 Map Doc.: LEC MP Relallons C Revi9ad2E.n1Xd Figure 2. Location of LOSA, EAA, and LECSA in relation to the LEC Planning Area boundaries. 6 Chapter 1: Introduction Because the LEC Planning Area is dependent on water from Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades—especially the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs)—for a portion of its supply, the LEC water supply planning efforts are inexorably linked with restoration efforts and management decisions concerning those unique water resources. The majority of restoration projects are part of CERP, a joint effort of SFWMD and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition to Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades, the LEC Planning Area is home to an extensive agricultural industry, large urban communities (approximately 70 percent of SFWMD's total population), and other valued ecosystems that are generally connected to Lake Okeechobee or the Everglades. The LEC Planning Area is described in detail in the 2011-2013 Water Supply Plan Support Document (Support Document) (SFWMD 2013a). Additional background information is highlighted here: ♦ World-renowned ecosystems, such as the Everglades, Lake Okeechobee, Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River are located in the LEC Planning Area. The planning area includes two national parks (Everglades and Biscayne), a federally -designated Wild and Scenic River (Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River), and four national wildlife refuges. ♦ Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties are among the state's five most populated counties. In 2010, the LEC Planning Area represented 30 percent of Florida's total population. ♦ The 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update included a large set of alternative water supply projects due to the higher population growth projections and Public Water Supply (PWS) demand -1,286 million gallons per day (MGD) in 2025—as well as the anticipated effect of proposed SFWMD rules. In 2007, water use criteria was adopted, which limited direct and indirect withdrawals from Everglades and North Palm Beach County/Loxahatchee River Watershed water bodies and their integrated conveyance systems. ♦ Neither the growth in population nor demand materialized. PWS demand decreased over the past 10 years. While, the reasons are mixed, conservation efforts by the utilities and SFWMD, water shortage restrictions, year-round irrigation conservation measures, and the economic downturn, played a role. As a result, per capita water use rates continued to decline over the past five years. ♦ The combination of reduced per capita use rates and slower than anticipated population growth reduced actual PWS demand in 2010 (842 MGD) to less than the PWS demand in 2005 (912 MGD). The combined permitted water use allocation of 1,165 MGD enables most utilities to meet most or all of their future demand without additional projects. ♦ Some PWS utilities deferred construction of alternative water supply projects. Some alternative water supply projects recommended in the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update may not be necessary until after the 2030 planning horizon. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 7 4 Within the LEC Planning Area, the portion of the EAA in Palm Beach County is ranked first in Florida and the United States in total sugarcane acres under cultivation. Palm Beach County accounted for 77 percent of the total sugarcane acreage in Florida. The county also ranked first in Florida in the value of vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes produced ($409 million). The county ranked first in Florida in combined vegetable acreage -79,792 acres— harvested for sale (USDA -MASS 2007). 6 Although only a portion of Hendry County is within the LEC Planning Area boundary, in 2007, the entire county was ranked first in the state for orange grove acreage and the value of fruits, tree nuts, and berries produced ($407.7 million) (USDA -MASS 2007). Hendry County is second in terms of sugarcane acres under cultivation in Florida behind the Palm Beach County portion of the EAA. 4 Miami -Dade County leads the state in the production of nursery and ornamental/greenhouse products. In 2007, Miami -Dade County produced $494 million in greenhouse and nursery sales. Population Projections and Water Demand Projections developed for this update estimate that the LEC Planning Area's population will increase by over 18 percent between 2010 and 2030, from approximately 5.6 million residents to almost 6.7 million. In contrast, the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update estimated a population increase over 31 percent, or 7.3 million by 2025. This update projects gross water demand for PWS in 2030 at 1,007 MGD. This demand projection is 20 percent more than the 842 MGD actually used in 2010. The change in PWS demand from 2010 to 2030 will require implementation of fewer water supply development projects by utilities than previously proposed. Most of the projected increased demand can be met with existing allocations and infrastructure. In 2010, 52 PWS utilities were in the LEC Planning Area. By 2013, only 50 PWS utilities remained. The state closed the AG Holley Hospital in 2012, which had its own PWS facility. In 2013, the Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department took over the Glades Utility Authority, which serves the cities of South Bay, Belle Glade, and Pahokee. Even at the lower demand projection, PWS is expected to remain the LEC Planning Area's largest water use category in 2030, representing at least 52 percent of the planning area's total water demand. The Agricultural (AGR) Self -Supply use category is projected to remain the second largest water use category in 2030. AGR Self -Supply water demand is estimated to increase from 655 MGD in 2010 to 664 MGD in 2030, representing at least 34 percent of the LEC Planning Area's total gross demand. The remaining 14 percent consists of Domestic Self -Supply (DSS), Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Self -Supply, Recreational/ Landscape (REC) Self -Supply, and Power Generation (PWR) Self -Supply demands. 8 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Overview of Water Resources Water for urban and agricultural uses in the LEC Planning Area comes from groundwater and surface water. Water for the natural system comes from the same sources. Determining the condition and sustainability of water needed to meet projected urban and agricultural demands (Chapter 2), as well as environmental resources, requires consideration of the area's available water sources (Chapter 3). Also, the Support Document contains extensive information related to the LEC Planning Area and its water resources. Groundwater Resources The LEC Planning Area groundwater resources are the surficial aquifer system (SAS), and the Floridan aquifer system (FAS) (Figure 3). WEST EAST Lake West Palm Okeechobee Beath Figure 3 0 100 300 500 700 900 1100 .- 0 0 1300 = 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 Generalized hydrogeologic cross-section of South Florida. Surficial Aquifer System The SAS, including the Biscayne aquifer, is shallow, predominately unconfined, and generally extends from land surface to 200 feet in depth. Rainfall and seepage from surface water bodies recharges the SAS. Surface water systems are canals, lakes, the Everglades, and other wetlands. The Biscayne aquifer is among the most productive in the world. It currently provides more than one billion gallons of water a day on average for potable and irrigation needs in the tri -county area. In 2010, fresh groundwater accounted for 94 percent of potable water produced by PWS utilities. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 9 Floridan Aquifer System The FAS is a thick, multi -layered sequence of predominantly carbonate rocks that underlies Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. While the FAS is the primary source of fresh water for much of northern and central Florida, it contains brackish water in the LEC, Lower West Coast, and Upper East Coast planning areas. Until recent years, the Floridan aquifer was not widely developed as a water source in the LEC Planning Area due, in part, to the extensive availability of fresh groundwater. The brackish portions of the FAS is more extensively developed in the Upper East Coast and Lower West Coast planning areas due to the lower productivity of the SAS in those planning areas. Surface Water Resources The LEC Planning Area's surface water resources are integrally interconnected as part of the Kissimmee -Okeechobee -Everglades ecosystem. Historically, water flowed from the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes into the Kissimmee River, which then emptied into Lake Okeechobee. Overflow from the lake would move as sheetflow across the Everglades and into Florida Bay. Today, Lake Okeechobee, the WCAs, and an extensive network of canals are the principal sources of surface water in the LEC Planning Area. Significant Freshwater Systems The Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project) links Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades with agricultural and urban areas and other major ecosystems. The C&SF Project divided the remaining Everglades south of Lake Okeechobee and north of U.S. 41 in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties into three hydrologic units known as the WCAs. Everglades National Park lies south of U.S. 41. Descriptions of the significant freshwater systems within the LEC Planning Area are as follows: ♦ Lake Okeechobee is a key component of the South Florida hydrologic system. It serves multiple purposes, including flood protection, urban, agricultural, and environmental water supply, navigation, commercial and recreational fisheries, and fish and wildlife habitat. The lake is critical for flood control during wet seasons and water supply during dry seasons. Agriculture in LOSA is the predominate user of lake water. The Okeechobee Utility Authority (in the Kissimmee Basin Planning Area) is the only remaining PWS utility using water directly from Lake Okeechobee. Since the last plan update, Clewiston (in the Lower West Coast Planning Area), South Bay, Belle Glade, and Pahokee (Figure 2) discontinued the use of Lake Okeechobee as their supply source and now use FAS water treated by reverse osmosis. ♦ WCAs are the remaining portions of the northern and central Everglades that were diked as part of the C&SF Project. The WCAs are operated and maintained for flood control, while providing water supply to the LEC Planning Area and environmental habitat. Stormwater treatment areas treat runoff from the EAA and regulatory discharges from Lake Okeechobee before water is conveyed to 10 1 Chapter 1: Introduction the WCAs. The WCAs serve as the first source of supplemental water to the coastal canals that recharge the Biscayne aquifer. WCA 1 is contained within the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. 4 Everglades National Park is the nation's second largest national park. The park is home to a wide variety of endangered species and has several international preserve -style designations. Water from the WCAs enters Everglades National Park and flows through Taylor and Shark River sloughs to Whitewater and Florida bays and the Ten Thousand Islands area. 4 C&SF Project canals move water from Lake Okeechobee and the WCAs to maintain coastal canal levels during dry times to augment water supplies. The canals are also a crucial component of the region's flood control system, discharging storm water to tide. 4 Wetlands extend across approximately 2 million acres of the LEC Planning Area (USFWS 2010b). The remnant Everglades represent the majority of the region's wetlands. In addition to the WCAs and Everglades National Park, key wetlands in the LEC Planning Area include Holey Land and Rotenberger wildlife management areas, Pennsuco Area, and Grassy Waters Preserve and other wetlands in the Loxahatchee River Watershed. The region also has extensive constructed wetlands within the EAA that serve as stormwater treatment areas. Finally, isolated wetlands can be found throughout the LEC Planning Area. Significant Coastal Ecosystems Other important ecosystems in the region include the coastal systems of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, Lake Worth Lagoon, Biscayne Bay, and Florida Bay. A brief description of each system is provided here: 4 The Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River is a federally -designated Wild and Scenic River. The Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River flows from Palm Beach County north into Martin County and bends east through Jonathan Dickinson State Park. It then flows southeast back into Palm Beach County, where it enters the central embayment area of the Loxahatchee River Estuary. It is in the LEC Planning Area because the river's watershed includes a broad area of northern Palm Beach County. Lake Worth Lagoon is an estuarine system located in eastern Palm Beach County and extends for about 22 miles adjacent to heavily urbanized areas. It is connected to the Atlantic Ocean by the Lake Worth and South Lake Worth inlets. Biscayne Bay covers approximately 428 square miles located on the southeastern coast in Miami -Dade County. The bay is an aquatic preserve and an Outstanding Florida Water. The southern half of the bay is within Biscayne National Park. This is the largest marine park in the National Park system and supports diverse flora and fauna, including many endangered species. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 11 Florida Bay lies between the Everglades and the Florida Keys. Florida Bay covers 850 square miles, of which approximately 80 percent is within Everglades National Park. HISTORY OF PLANNING EFFORTS The 2000 LEC Plan concluded timely implementation of CERP projects would meet most of the environmental needs and water supply demands of the region by 2020. When the LEC plan was updated five years later, delays to CERP projects had already significantly changed the basis of that conclusion. The 2000 LEC Plan also recommended protecting water needed for CERP projects from allocation. SFWMD developed restricted allocation area criteria for the Everglades and North Palm Beach/Loxahatchee River Watershed water bodies to protect water needed for restoration projects. Additional discussion of the criteria is below and in Chapter 3. As a result, the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update concluded that PWS would need to depend heavily on conservation and the development of alternative water sources and treatment facilities. During the development of the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update, local governments and water suppliers in the LEC Planning Area worked closely with SFWMD to identify and develop water supply projects to meet projected water demands. Many of the proposed projects were incorporated into local government comprehensive plans and water use permits. Since then, the economic downturn, slower population growth, and improved conservation significantly lowered demand projections. SFWMD also allocated fresh groundwater where appropriate local hydrologic conditions were present and regulatory requirements were met. As a result, many alternative water supply projects recommended in the last update have been postponed. PROGRESS SINCE THE 2005-2006 LEC PLAN UPDATE The 2000 LEC Plan and 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update identified several regional issues concerning water conservation, groundwater and surface water sources, regulatory criteria, and Everglades and ecosystem restoration. The Five -Year Water Resource Development Work Program, published in Volume II of the South Florida Environmental Reports (available online at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer) annually summarizes progress. At the time this update was developed, the most recent Five -Year Water Resource Development Work Program is published in Chapter 5A of the 2013 South Florida Environmental Report - Volume II (Martin 2013). Several of the items represent long-term efforts to advance the understanding of the region's water resources or develop improved tools for future planning efforts after this plan update. Additional activities and programs implemented since the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update are presented below. 12 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Water Supply Development Projects 4 SFWMD worked closely with staff from PWS utilities to modify population and demand projections and, where necessary, identify water supply development projects for this update. Chapter 6 of this update discusses existing, ongoing, and proposed water supply development projects for the LEC Planning Area. Appendix F provides summary tables of key project information. ! When funding is available, the alternative water supply projects listed in this update are eligible for cost-sharing consideration through a separate annual funding process established by SFWMD's Governing Board that is consistent with the state's statutory requirements. 4 Water supply development in the LEC Planning Area includes traditional (fresh surface water and groundwater) and alternative sources. Through the Alternative Water Supply Funding Program, SFWMD assisted permittees in the development of reclaimed water projects, water reclamation facilities, brackish water wellfields, reverse osmosis treatment facilities, and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) well systems. From FY 2007 to FY 2012, SFWMD, in cooperation with the State of Florida, provided more than $123 million in alternative water supply funding for 212 projects. Ninety of these projects were within the LEC Planning Area. ♦ Between FY 2007 and FY 2011, projects funded by the Alternative Water Supply Funding Program created 72 MGD of new water capacity in the LEC Planning Area. The water sources include 27 MGD of brackish water, 21 MGD of reclaimed water, and 23 MGD of surface water/storm water. Regulations and Operations In 2007, SFWMD adopted restricted allocation area criteria for the Everglades and North Palm Beach/Loxahatchee River Watershed water bodies. These criteria are a component of MFL recovery strategies for the Everglades and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. The criteria limit allocations that affect the protected water bodies to levels that occurred as of April 1, 2006. Additional discussion of the restricted allocation area criteria is in Chapter 3. 4 In 2008, USACE implemented 2008 LORS to address concerns about the integrity of the Herbert Hoover Dike surrounding Lake Okeechobee as well as high water impacts to the lake ecology. The dike provides flood control for developed areas around the lake. 2008 LORS (USACE 2007) is designed to regulate lake levels at a lower elevation, between 12.5 and 15.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, than previous regulation schedules. Analyses for the supplemental environmental impact statement for 2008 LORS indicated that existing legal users in LOSA would experience more frequent shortages than under the previous schedule. The analysis projected a decline in the physical level of certainty of agricultural users reliant on lake water supplies, from a 1 -in -10 year to a 1 -in -6 year drought return frequency. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 13 Analyses indicated that implementation of 2008 LORS would cause MFL criteria for Lake Okeechobee to be violated. Therefore, SFWMD changed the Lake Okeechobee MFL status from prevention to recovery. In October 2008, SFWMD adopted restricted allocation area criteria for LOSA as part of the lake's MFL recovery strategy. ♦ Shortly after implementation of 2008 LORS, SFWMD updated its Water Shortage Management Plan (Chapter 40E-21, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]) to assure equitable distribution of available water resources among all permitted water users of the lake during times of water shortage. ♦ Adaptive protocols for Lake Okeechobee operations were updated in 2010 (SFWMD 2010) in response to 2008 LORS implementation. The protocols provide guidance to staff and SFWMD's Governing Board when making recommendations to USACE about Lake Okeechobee water releases in the base flow and beneficial use bands. Adaptive protocols are designed to identify potential "win-win" or "win -neutral" situations in which one or more environmental resource may benefit from a lake release and where minimal or no adverse effect on meeting permitted agricultural and urban water supply needs or impacts on Seminole Tribe water rights are anticipated. ♦ In 2007, USACE found the Herbert Hoover Dike to be a Class I risk, the highest risk for dam failure. The implementation of the 21.4 -mile cutoff wall component in Reach 1 satisfies the majority of the risk reduction goals. This component will be complete in 2013. As part of this risk reduction approach, the 32 water control structures (culverts) operated by USACE are being replaced, removed, or abandoned with a scheduled completion in 2018. Rehabilitation of Reaches 2 and 3 is planned to be completed by 2022. ♦ 2008 LORS will be reexamined and possibly changed by USACE in connection to the completion of Reaches 1, 2, and 3. Water Conservation ♦ In September 2008, SFWMD adopted the Comprehensive Water Conservation Program to foster demand management and save water throughout SFWMD. ♦ The Districtwide Year-round Landscape Irrigation Conservation Measures Rule became effective in March 2010 (Chapter 40E-24, F.A.C.), consistent with the Comprehensive Water Conservation Program. This rule supports the long-term sustainability of SFWMD's water resources. The rule limits landscape irrigation to three days a week within the LEC Planning Area. Broward and Miami -Dade counties adopted two -day -a -week limits by local ordinance. ♦ The Water Savings Incentive Program (WaterSIP) provides up to 50-50 cost- sharing funds for noncapital cost projects, such as the purchase and installation of high efficiency indoor plumbing fixtures, outdoor irrigation retrofits, and automatic distribution system line flushing devices. Utilities, municipalities, property owner associations, and large water users may participate in the 14 1 Chapter 1: Introduction program. From FY 2005 to FY 2011, SFWMD allocated $2.35 million for LEC Planning Area WaterSIP projects. This represents an estimated potential savings of 3.9 MGD. For more information on water conservation, see Chapter 5 and Appendix D. Restoration Efforts by SFWMD ♦ The CERP Environmental Preserve at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Habitat (formerly known as the Acme Basin B Discharge Project) was completed in 2010. The project improves Everglades water quality by diverting the direct discharge of urban runoff into a stormwater treatment area before the water enters the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. ♦ Construction of the Deering Estate Flow -way Project, a component of the CERP Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project, was completed by SFWMD in 2012. The flow -way directs freshwater runoff away from existing canal discharges and redistributes it as sheetflow prior to discharge into Biscayne Bay. ♦ As of January 2013, four of 10 culverts planned for the L-31 East component of the CERP Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project were installed by SFWMD. This component reestablishes, at least in part, historical sheetflow and wetland hydroperiods downstream of the project area. ♦ The CERP C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project involves the construction of a hydrologic ridge along the eastern border of Taylor Slough. The purpose is to retain more water within the slough and increase water flow to Florida Bay. SFWMD began construction of major features in 2010, which were completed in 2012. Operational testing commenced shortly thereafter. Water Storage ♦ An L-8 Basin site was originally anticipated to provide water storage as a component of the CERP Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project (formerly known as the North Palm Beach County - Part I Project). As part of the Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan approved in 2012, the L-8 Basin site is now under construction for use as a flow equalization basin. The project will store water for consistent delivery needed to optimize performance of the Everglades stormwater treatment areas. While interim operations may provide for the delivery of dry season flows to the Loxahatchee River, a permanent replacement project feature is needed in the future. In 2013, SFWMD and Palm Beach County conceptually agreed to the acquisition of the approximately 1,800 -acre site owned by the county. USACE is continuing to develop the project implementation report for the Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project. ♦ In 2010, construction commenced on the CERP Fran Reich Preserve (formerly known as the Site 1 Impoundment) - Phase I Project by USACE. This project consists of a 1,660 -acre aboveground impoundment located in the southwestern 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 15 portion of urban Palm Beach County. A federal contract for Phase I was terminated in 2012 due to difficulties encountered during construction. USACE restarted the project in May 2013 and anticipates finishing it in 2014. Phase II will require congressional authorization. ♦ In 2012, the testing of the CERP Hillsboro ASR Pilot Project, located in western Boca Raton, was successfully completed. Preliminary results indicate that high capacity ASR is feasible in the vicinity of the Fran Reich Preserve. However, the volume of storage and recovery has not been determined. ♦ Cycle testing continues at the CERP Lake Okeechobee ASR Pilot Project, located adjacent to the Kissimmee River just north of the lake. Results at that location indicate that ASR technology is feasible near Lake Okeechobee. The final report will be available by the end of 2013. The CERP ASR Regional Study is currently conducting analyses to determine the total number of ASR wells that may be constructed adjacent to the lake, which will be completed by the end of 2014. ♦ The City of Boynton Beach constructed a second ASR well and integrated it into the city's water treatment system. This project has successfully demonstrated that potable water ASR operation is feasible in the urban area of the LEC Planning Area. Modeling and Monitoring Studies ♦ In 2005, SFWMD and the United States Geological Survey began a cooperative study to measure evapotranspiration (ET) in South Florida using the eddy covariance method. The cooperative study examined spatially extensive plant communities within Big Cypress National Preserve individually, including dwarf cypress, cypress swamps, pine uplands, wet prairies, and marsh as mapped by Duever et al. (1986). This study provided the first quantitative measurements of ET for the major natural plant communities in South Florida. The actual measured ET data from this study is being used to improve hydrologic models. As part of this same project, in 2007, the United States Geologic Survey installed five ET monitoring sites within differing vegetation communities in Big Cypress National Preserve and completed the construction of three towers. The fieldwork was completed in 2010 and the results from this study have been published in Shoemaker et al. (2011), available on the web at pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011ZS212/. ♦ SFWMD held an independent peer review of the Lower East Coast Subregional Model. The model simulates groundwater flow in the SAS in the LEC Planning Area. Five smaller groundwater models were used to develop the Lower East Coast Subregional Model following the adoption of the 2000 LEC Plan. Currently, the model is used to address site-specific issues pertaining to water use, permitting, and several CERP projects. Refinements to the model based on the peer review are expected to proceed in 2013. 16 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 4 A study of the development and application of water quality modeling components that could be applied to SFWMD's Regional Simulation Model was completed in FY 2009. As a result, a spatially distributed water quality model for phosphorus transport and cycling in wetlands was developed for application throughout SFWMD (Jawitz et al. 2008). Three new FAS well sites in Palm Beach County have been equipped with instrumentation and have been transmitting water level data to SFWMD at 15 -minute intervals. PBF-14 monitors the upper Floridan aquifer. Wells BOYRO-EXP and PBF-15, are multi -zone wells monitoring the upper and middle Floridan (BOYRO-EXP), and the upper, middle, and lower Floridan (PBF-15) aquifers. SFWMD developed a density -dependent model of the FAS that encompasses the LEC Planning Area (HydroGeoLogic, Inc. 2006), referred to as the Phase I Model. SFWMD completed the Phase II Model, which extended the Phase I Model to include the Upper East Coast Planning Area, in October 2008 (Golder Associates 2008). The model evaluates future effects of proposed use of the FAS. An independent peer review of the model was conducted in June 2011. Implementation of peer review recommendations is presently under way. The final transient, density -dependent model—now known as the East Coast Floridan Model—is scheduled for completion by the end of 2013, followed by model documentation. OUTLOOK ON CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change and its effects on hydrogeologic conditions should be considered in water supply planning. Long-term data and modeling project changes to sea levels, air temperatures, weather patterns including the frequency and intensity of rain, droughts, ET rates, and other parameters that will affect water availability. Southeastern Florida is especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change and sea level rise. The area is generally flat and low, with an average elevation of 15 feet above mean sea level. The regional economy has major investments within close proximity of the coast and about 30 percent of the population of Florida lives in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami -Dade, and Monroe counties. The 2000 LEC Plan identified saltwater intrusion as an issue for several utilities at risk. SFWMD worked with coastal utilities to develop inland freshwater sources and diversify water sources to reduce the risk of saltwater intrusion. Responses to climate change are most effective when addressed by multiple levels of government. In 2011, Florida passed the Community Planning Act, which provides for adaptation action areas to improve infrastructure resilience to flooding by extreme high tides, storm surges, and sea level rise in low lying coastal areas. At the regional level, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami -Dade, and Monroe counties signed the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact in January 2010 to coordinate climate change mitigation and adaptation activities in the region. This compact allows local and county governments to establish their agenda for climate change adaptation while providing an efficient means for 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 17 state and federal agencies to participate with technical assistance and support. In October 2012, the compact signatories published A Region Response to a Changing Climate to serve as a regional climate action plan (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact 2012a). Counties and their municipalities, numerous other governmental agencies, and subject matter experts participated in the development of this plan. Broward, Miami -Dade, and Monroe counties also developed individual county climate change action plans. SFWMD is jointly working with the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact signatories to evaluate sea level rise. See Chapter 3 for more information. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS The stronger statutory link between local governments' comprehensive plans and SFWMD's regional water supply plans, data sharing, and collaborative planning are credited with improving the water supply planning process. Moreover, SFWMD's Water Supply Planning staff closely coordinates with the water use permitting staff during the water supply planning process. Coordination also increased through implementation of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012 guidance memo. Water supply development projects included in this plan update underwent an initial screening for permitting feasibility. Updates to local governments' water supply facilities work plans, comprehensive plans, and SFWMD's next five-year update will continue to refine twenty-year demand estimates and projections. 18 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 2 Demand Estimates and Projections This chapter discusses water demand estimates and projections for the Lower East Coast (LEC) Planning Area. The development of water demand estimates and projections is a complex process and accomplished in coordination with staff from local governments, utilities, agencies, and stakeholder groups. Data collection and analysis to support the projections began in 2010. ♦ Water Use Categories ♦ Population and Water Use Trends ♦ Projected Demands ♦ Demand Projections in Perspective Previous estimates and projections for the LEC Planning Area were published in the 2005-2006 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update (2005-2006 LEC Plan Update) (SFWMD 2007). Since its publication, a national economic downturn occurred and population growth in the LEC Planning Area slowed significantly. This led to a reduced rate of increase in future urban water demand. Agriculture is considered fully developed in most areas of the LEC Planning Area. It is a very stable agricultural area where permitted acres and cropping practices are not projected to change significantly over the next twenty years. SUMMARY OF WATER USE CATEGORIES The water demand for the six water use categories established by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is calculated for a twenty-year planning horizon starting in 2010 and extending to 2030. A base year of 2010 is used for comparison in trend analyses. The percent usage for each water use category in this base year is described in Figure 4. In 2010, average annual gross water demand for all categories in the LEC Planning Area totaled 1,719 million gallons per year. By 2030, the projected average annual gross water demand is estimated to total 1,933 millions of gallons per day (MGD), an increase of 12 percent. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 19 ICI Sel PWR Self-Sunnlv 1% Figure 4. Percentage of estimated demand of each major water use category in 2010. The average annual gross water demand projections for 2010 and 2030 for the water use categories are as follows: Public Water Supply (PWS) includes water supplied by water treatment facilities for potable use (drinking quality) with projected average withdrawals equal to or greater than 100,000 gallons per day or 0.1 MGD. PWS is projected to increase by 20 percent by 2030 (842 MGD in 2010 compared to 1,007 MGD in 2030). 4 Domestic Self -Supply (DSS) includes households served by small utilities (less than 0.1 MGD) and private wells. DSS is projected to increase by 4 percent by 2030 (18 MGD in 2010 compared to 19 MGD in 2030). 4 Agricultural (AGR) Self -Supply is water used for commercial crop irrigation, nurseries, livestock watering, and aquaculture. It is the second largest use in the LEC Planning Area. AGR Self -Supply is projected to remain stable with water demand increasing slightly by 1 percent (655 MGD in 2010 compared to 664 MGD in 2030). Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Self -Supply includes self -supplied water consumed by business operations, such as mining and food processing, and institutions, such as schools, hospitals, and prisons, that have demand of 0.1 MGD or greater. ICI Self -Supply is projected to increase 28 percent by 2030 (44 MGD in 2010 compared to 57 MGD in 2030). 20 1 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections Recreational/Landscape (REC) Self -Supply is used for irrigation of golf courses, parks, cemeteries, large common areas such as homeowner associations, schools, commercial developments, and other self -supplied irrigation uses with demand of 0.1 MGD or greater. REC Self -Supply is projected to increase by 3 percent (149 MGD in 2010 compared to 153 MGD in 2030). Power Generation (PWR) Self -Supply includes water consumed by power plants for use in the production of electricity, excluding use of seawater and reclaimed water sources. PWR Self -Supply is projected to increase 185 percent by 2030 (12 MGD in 2010 compared to 33 MGD in 2030). Projections for each water use category are based on demand under average annual rainfall conditions and anticipated growth in the LEC Planning Area through 2030. As water use is impacted by weather, particularly rainfall, demands for 1 -in -10 year drought conditions are estimated and projected. Appendix A presents both net and gross demands under average rainfall year and 1 -in -10 year drought conditions through the 2030 planning horizon. Appendix A also contains additional details about the methods to estimate and project water demands for each water use category. For PWS and DSS, permanent population and, for PWS, demand by each utility are provided. For AGR Self -Supply, irrigated acreage and demand for each crop type are provided. Although not quantified in this chapter, environmental demand is addressed through resource protection criteria (Chapter 3). POPULATION AND WATER USE TRENDS Population projections form the initial and key step in developing water demand projections for PWS and DSS water use categories. Population estimates for the LEC Planning Area include the resident permanent populations of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties, most of Monroe County, and the eastern portion of Hendry County (Table 2). A portion of Collier County is in the LEC Planning Area. However, that area is part of the Big Cypress National Preserve, which does not have any permanent residents. Between 2010 and 2030, the LEC Planning Area's population is expected to increase by 18 percent with Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties attracting the greatest number of new residents. The projected population growth varies widely between the counties: Palm Beach County (+25 percent), Broward County (+14 %), Miami -Dade County (+18 percent), and Monroe County (-5 percent). Monroe County may experience a small reduction in permanent residents over the next 20 years. When aggregated, the total population is projected to increase by 1,027,862 people. This is a slower rate of growth than projected in the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update, which was a 31 percent growth rate or an estimated increase of 1,745,488 people. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 21 Table 2. Comparison of population projections published in the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update and current projections presented in this plan update. County 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update Population Projections Palm Beach 1,415,809 1,549,635 1,679,326 1,804,188 Broward 1,941,036 2,095,169 2,241,487 2,340,794 Miami -Dade 2,600,263 2,769,725 2,921,389 3,066,750 Monroe 84,100 85,800 87,200 88,600 Hendry 1,279 1,279 11279 1,279 Total LEC Planning Area 16,042,487 6,501,608 6,930,681 7,301,611 2013 LEC Plan Update Population Projections Palm Beach 1,320,134 1,402,101 1,484,067 1,566,034 1,648,000 Broward 1,748,066 1,809,881 1,871,696 1,933,510 1,995,325 Miami -Dade 2,496,435 2,610,526 2,724,618 2,838,709 2,952,800 Monroe 73,090 72,143 71,195 70,248 69,300 Hendry 1,279 1,320 11360 1,401 1,441 Total LEC Planning Area 5,639,004 5,895,971 6,152,936 6,409,902 6,666,866 This trend is consistent with and based on the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) medium range twenty-year projections completed over each of the last six years (Figure 5). Changes in population projections, in combination with reduced per capita water use, resulted in progressively declining PWS demand projections over the last three plans (Figure 6). C ❑ 7,500,000 n3 7,000,000 0- � 6,500,000 N tn 41 6,000,000 5,500,000 I►��I�I:�►��I��►i��I�� IL[i Figure 5. BEBR twenty-year population projections for 2030 over the last six years for the LEC Planning Area. 22 1 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections 1,400 1,200 E 1,000 6 800 c E 600 Ln d 400 200 +2000 Plan 12005-2006 Plan 2013 Plan 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Figure 6. A comparison of PWS finished water demand projections in past plans and the current plan update. PROJECTED DEMAND BY WATER USE CATEGORY 2030 This section describes the gross water demand of the six water use categories. This plan update describes water demand using two methods, gross and net. Gross water demand or raw water demand, is the amount of water withdrawn from the source. Gross demand accounts for water lost during conveyance, transmission, and treatment. Gross demand is the volume of water allocated in a water use permit. Net or finished water demand is the volume of water that satisfies an end user, customer, or crop need. By definition, gross demand is greater than net demand, as most uses lose water through the treatment or transport of the water or system inefficiencies. A detailed description of both gross and net water demands is provided in Appendix A. In 2010, daily gross water demand for an average rainfall year for all categories in the LEC Planning Area totaled 11719 MGD. By 2030, the projected average annual gross water demand is projected to be 1,933 MGD, a 12 percent increase. The percent of projected demands for each water use category is provided in Figure 7. The percent change over the 20 -year planning horizon is provided in Table 3. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 23 ICI Self -Supply 3°% PWR Self -Supply 2% w rr' AGR Self -Supply 34% Ana DSS_Z 1% Figure 7. Percentage of projected demand of each water use category in 2030. Table 3. Estimated gross (raw) water demand for an average rainfall year by water use category for 2010 and 2030. Water Use Category 2010 Demand (MGD) 2030 Demand (MGD) Change in Demand between 2010 and 2030 (MGD) Percent Change in Demand between 2010 and 2030 Public Water Supply 841.7 1,007.5 165.8 20% Domestic Self -Supply 18.0 18.7 0.7 4% Agricultural Self -Supply 654.8 663.9 1 9.1 1% Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Self -Supply 44.3 56.6 12.3 28% Recreational/Landscape Self -Supply 148.9 152.8 3.9 3% Power Generation Self -Supply 11.7 33.3 21.6 185% LEC Planning Area Total 1,719.4 1,932.8 213.4 12% Public Water Supply and Domestic Self -Supply PWS is the water supplied by water treatment facilities for potable use (drinking quality) to users such as homes, offices, retail facilities, schools, and other institutions and facilities. Utilities with projected average withdrawals of 0.1 MGD or greater through 2030 comprise the PWS category. Water used by households or facilities served by small utilities (less than 0.1 MGD) or private wells are categorized as DSS. Development of the water demand projections for the LEC Planning Area was a multistep process. The process began with development of maps showing the geographic areas 24 1 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections currently served by each utility (PWS service areas). The 2010 United States Census data for population estimates (U.S. Census Bureau 2010) were then spatially distributed across PWS service areas utilizing the census block data. The 2010 population estimates for each PWS utility were projected at the medium BEBR county growth rate to provide a preliminary 2030 population projection for each service area (BEBR 2011). Itis important to note that the BEBR projections use permanent resident populations and do not include seasonal residents, tourists, and migrant workers. The 2030 service area populations were adjusted if the areas served by PWS were expected to change in the next 20 years. DSS population estimates for 2010 and 2030 were also calculated for each county. They represent the difference between the total county population and the PWS utility service area populations for the same county. A linear population growth rate was applied to distribute the initial projected population change from 2010 to 2030 in five- year intervals for each utility service area and county DSS population. The 2010 population and net water use data, as reported to FDEP by the utilities, were then used to calculate the finished water per capita use per day. Per capita use rate (PCUR) is calculated as the total water use divided by the permanent resident population. It reflects all usage as these rates are based on finished water produced by each utility, including the water used by permanent and seasonal residents, tourists, and migrant workers. Next, the finished water PCUR was applied to the 2030 population to project future demand for each utility service area. This approach produced higher PCURs for utilities with large seasonal populations than other approaches that include a factor for seasonal residents. The initial draft of the projected demand for most PWS utility service areas assumed a constant PCUR based on 2010 for the twenty-year planning horizon. DSS demands were based on its countywide weighted average PCUR for PWS. The draft PWS service area maps, treatment system descriptions, population, 2010 finished water use data, and projections for the PWS and DSS categories within the LEC Planning Area were provided to each utility and local government planning department. In several cases, the utilities were able to provide input on their respective maps and geographic information system coverages, system operational data, demands, and projections that resulted in adjustments to the projected population and/or demand. Many of these data exchanges took place during follow-up meetings, telephone conferences, and email correspondence. Revisions resulting from this coordination comprised the final projections for finished water published in this update. These finished water projections were then converted to gross or raw water withdrawals to understand the total volume required to meet potable water demands. Each utility's finished water projections were multiplied by the raw to finished percent based on their treatment systems to calculate gross water demand. During the next 20 years, the LEC Planning Area population is projected to increase from an estimated 5,639,004 in 2010 to 6,666,866 by 2030 (Table 4). PWS gross demand increases through the 2030 projection horizon are due to this anticipated population increase (Table 5). DSS demand growth rate is decreasing, as PWS systems will serve most new potable water demand. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 25 By 2030, the PWS and DSS water use categories will account for 53 percent of the LEC Planning Area's total gross water demand, with PWS representing the vast majority of this 2030 demand. PWS is expected to remain the LEC Planning Area's single largest use category. Table 4. Permanent resident population projections in the LEC Planning Area for 2010 and 2030. County 2010 Estimated Population 2030 Projected Population Total a PWS DSS Total PWS DSS Palm Beach 1,320,134 1,242,621 77,513 1,648,000 1,570,891 77,109 Broward 1,748,066 1,740,468 7,598 1,995,325 1,986,996 8,329 Miami -Dade 2,496,435 2,472,741 23,694 2,952,800 2,924,775 28,025 Monroe ` 73,090 73,090 0 69,300 69,300 0 Hendry ` 1,279 0 1,279 1,441 0 1,441 LEC Planning Area Total 5,639,004 5,528,920 110,084 6,666,866 6,551,962 114,904 a. Source: BEBR 2011 b. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and BEBR 2011 c. Portion of county within the LEC Planning Area Table 5. Gross water demand in the LEC Planning Area for 2010-2030. Lower East Coast Gross Water Demand Summary (in MGD) Gross Water Demand 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Public Water Supply 841.5 883.1 924.0 967.6 1,007.4 Domestic Self -Supply 18.0 18.2 18.6 18.5 18.7 LEC Planning Area Total 859.5 901.3 942.6 986.1 1,026.1 Agricultural Self -Supply Importance of Agriculture to LEC Planning Area and Nation Agriculture in the LEC Planning Area holds a unique place of importance to the region, the State of Florida, and the United States economy. The LEC Planning Area hosts the regions known collectively as the "Winter Bread Basket" and "Salad Bowl" to the nation. In addition, the LEC Planning Area's nursery and ornamental industry is the largest in the state and second largest in the United States. The southern Miami -Dade County portion of the LEC Planning Area is an ideal subtropical climate that is necessary and unique for the production of numerous varieties of tropical fruits including mangos, avocados, carambola, lychees, longan, mamey sapote, passion fruit, and others grown on varietal farms to meet this specialized demand. The planning area is known for growing fruit and vegetable crops that are well suited to meeting growing consumer tastes and preferences for nutrient rich diets (including antioxidants) and exotic cuisine (DCFB 2012). AGR Self -Supply in the LEC Planning Area also includes water used for commercial crop irrigation, livestock watering, and aquaculture. Key facts regarding agricultural production within the LEC Planning Area are as follows: 4 The portion of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) within Palm Beach County is ranked number one in the state and country in total sugarcane acres under cultivation. 26 1 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections 4 Palm Beach County accounted for 77 percent of the total sugarcane acreage in Florida (USDA -MASS 2007). 4 Palm Beach County ranked first in Florida in the value of vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes produced ($409 million) (USDA -MASS 2007). 4 Palm Beach County ranked first in Florida in combined vegetable acreage harvested for sale (79,792 acres) (USDA -MASS 2007). 4 Miami -Dade County leads the state in the production of nursery and ornamental/greenhouse products. 4 In 2007, Miami -Dade produced $494 million in greenhouse/nursery sales and ranked number two in the United States. Hendry County ranked number one in 2007 in terms of oranges acreage and number one in the value of fruits, tree nuts, and berries produced ($408 million) (USDA -MASS 2007). r: Hendry County is number two in terms of sugarcane acres under cultivation in Florida behind the portion of the EAA located in Palm Beach County. Projection Methodology and Considerations Agricultural acreage and associated water demand are challenging to project because of various market forces, land use patterns, growth, water management projects, environmental restoration activities, macroeconomic forces, weather, and disease issues that can impact the distribution, acreage, and production/yield over a twenty-year planning horizon. The projections are not parcel specific, but are presented by county and for specific growing regions (see the Summary section under the Distribution of Agriculture across the LEC Planning Area section below), and incorporate general economic and agricultural production trend information using best professional judgment. The first step in the process identified the baseline or current agricultural coverage by major crop types using several data sources. For 2010, land use maps were compared to SFWMD permitted acres and various data sets from the United States Department of Agriculture. The most recent agricultural census (2007) data points, as well as select survey data for some crops since 2007 (i.e., citrus and sugarcane), were compared to the current land use and permitted acres to determine where the 2010 baseline would most likely fall in terms of irrigated acres. To develop the acreage projections, a number of sources were used including the land use projection analysis completed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Agricultural acreage estimates from the United States Department of Agriculture and SFWMD's Water Use Regulatory Database informed and revealed key patterns. Agricultural industry experts also provided review and input. Projected acreage by crop type are provided for each county in Appendix A. The projection methods applied are also discussed in more detail within Appendix A. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 27 The projected agricultural acreage, aggregated across the regions and counties, results in a net rise of 581 acres by 2030. The small net rise in total acres by 2030 results in the retention of the region's agricultural base. Table 6 shows that within the LEC Planning Area, acres under management are projected to remain stable, while some counties may show a slight decline or increase by 2030. Table 6. Change between 2010 and 2030 in acres by area within the LEC Planning Area. Area 2010 (acres) 2030 (acres) Net Change Palm Beach County–Coastal 21,647 22,820 1,173 Palm Beach County– EAA 424,152 424,152 0 Broward County 1,198 1,280 82 Miami -Dade County 47,805 46,954 (851) Monroe County 20 20 0 Hendry County – EAA 34,058 34,058 0 Hendry County – Western Basins 46,436 46,613 177 LEC Planning Area Total 575,316 575,897 581 Conversion of the EAA for SFWMD Projects The construction of stormwater treatment areas (STAB) within the EAA significantly affected the number of acres available to be farmed. Historically, the agricultural portion of the EAA has undergone periods of growth, but more recent trends indicated contraction of irrigated acres. Currently, within the EAA, approximately 458,500 acres are permitted for agriculture and this amount is expected to remain stable throughout the planning period. It is anticipated that, in the future, a portion of the remaining EAA acreage may be converted to STAB and Everglades restoration projects by SFWMD. To fulfill the Everglades Forever Act of 1994, SFWMD constructed a series of STAB to further reduce phosphorus levels in stormwater runoff before it enters the Everglades Protection Area. In 2003, the STAB consisted of six large constructed wetlands—STA 1 East, STA 1 West, STA 2, STA 3/4, STA 5, and STA 6—totaling approximately 45,000 acres. The STAB footprint expanded by approximately 6,000 acres in 2006 with the construction of STA 2 Cell 4, STA 5 Cell 3, and STA 6 Section 2, and expanded again in 2012 by approximately 17,000 acres with the construction of Compartments B and C. The total area of treatment wetlands, including canals, distribution cells, and upland areas, is approximately 68,000 acres. Flow equalization basins and additional STAB will be constructed by 2025 as part of the Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan (Chapter 4), which will result in approximately 25,000 acres within the EAA being converted to water quality projects. Lastly, 14,000 acres under consideration for use as storage in the CERP planning process may be devoted to CERP projects. In total, it is anticipated that SFWMD projects may cover up to approximately 107,000 acres in the EAA by 2030. Only the 14,000 acres that may be used for a CERP project could reduce existing permitted agricultural acreage within the planning horizon. 28 1 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections Distribution of Agriculture Across the LEC Planning Area The main areas under cultivation within the LEC Planning Area are the EAA (which includes portions of Palm Beach and Hendry counties), Hendry County (the Western Basins, outside of the EAA but within the LEC Planning Area), the Palm Beach Coastal subbasin (including the Agricultural Reserve Area), and agricultural areas in South Miami -Dade County (including the Redlands) (Figure 8). Everglades Agricultural Area in Palm Beach and Hendry Counties The EAA accounts for approximately 80 percent of the agricultural acreage within the LEC Planning Area. Sugarcane and supporting rotational crops are the dominant crops grown in the EAA. The EAA is a fully developed, stable agricultural area where permitted acres and cropping practices are not projected to change significantly over the next 20 years. Consequently, projected water demands for the EAA from 2010 to 2030 do not change because EAA cultivated acres are expected to be constant throughout the twenty-year planning horizon. Western Basins Located in Hendry County The eastern portion of Hendry County located adjacent to the EAA is referred to as the Western Basins since it is on the western fringe of the LEC Planning Area and the Everglades. The Seminole Tribe of Florida's Big Cypress Reservation and the Miccosukee Indian Reservation are located in the Western Basins and are included in this analysis. This portion of the LEC Planning Area, known for sugarcane and citrus, also hosts crops grown for use as biofuel feedstocks. These crops are used both to sustain cogeneration power requirements for sugarcane processing (i.e., residues are combined with bagasse and wood chips to fire boilers), within integrated operations, and for ethanol production. Crops grown for use as biomass feedstocks (i.e., sweet sorghum) and for ethanol production are one of the emerging trends within this region of the planning area and the acreage falls under the "Field Crops - Other" and "Field Crops - Sugarcane" categories of the plan update. Hendry County is the dominant citrus producer within the planning area (28,437 acres in 2010). Because of the uncertainty associated with the recovery of citrus production, a low and high projection was prepared for this crop (see Appendix A). By 2030, the projected high scenario for total citrus acreage in the entire LEC Planning Area is expected to total 21,157. In the low scenario, citrus acreage continues to decline and, by 2030, accounts for only 7,093 acres and the formerly cultivated citrus land is assumed to be fallow. To estimate future gross water demand, the high projected acres for citrus was incorporated. The projected citrus acreage incorporates the removal of 10,774 acres as part of the C-139 Annex Restoration Project in Hendry County by 2018. As Table 6 shows, on balance, the Western Basins total irrigated acreage is expected to increase by 177 acres by 2030 (less than 1 percent) reflecting net gains in vegetables, sugarcane, and greenhouse/ nursery acres. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 29 N OTO J'E i IiIGHLANDS l r ff, -MARTINI L� �', l LAKE /— I OKEECHOBEE I LOTTE I GLADES \, l ' I _v!�Fj LAKE OKEECHO SERVI LU q HENDRY PALM ur ACH EVERGLADES STALy i I WESTERN 1 AGRICULTURAL WCA I l I BASIN l AREA % fe t w Big Cypress Spmi WCA 2 * . Indian Reserryatl_ / 4 _ Icc ❑ 9YGANlTC n !an ❑ OCE LN' rvation WCA 3 Big Cypress National PreseveQf - ti i1L:YIC[J © �] Lower East Coast Regional l -- VWater Supply Plan Boundary MIAMI-DADE SFWMD Boundary o SOUTH MIAMI-DADE BISCAYNE r - - - County Boundaries i BAY ROE National Park Boundaries EVEOGLADES NAT1OhAL PARK Agricultural Areas l f - 1 Biscayne Western Basin I r`"•. 'National Park a f . Lake Okeechobee Service Area, l including portions outside of the f� LEC Planning Area boundary .f - Figure 8. Main areas under cultivation within the LEC Planning Area. 30 1 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections Lower East Coast Service Area Within the coastal portion of Palm Beach County located in LECSA, citrus, other fruits/nuts, sod, and greenhouse/nursery production are projected to rise 1,173 acres by 2030. The scale of sod and greenhouse/nursery production can vary positively with a recovery in housing. This projection incorporates historic commodity -based trends, regional specialization, and stakeholder preferences for sustainable agriculture visible in plans for the Agricultural Reserve Area. For South Miami -Dade County, the projections assume a slight decline in acreage -851 acres out of an existing 47,805 acres under management. This stable projection assumes the retention of the Redlands agricultural heritage (an area of critical importance to national, state, and regional consumer markets), favorable consumption and commodity demand trends, and a relatively weak future demand for new housing (and encroaching subdivisions) by historic standards. However, as noted above, some relatively small acreage losses due to fallout from the economic downturn and eventual urban encroachment under a stronger recovery are expected by 2030. For Broward County, the projections expect a slight increase of 82 acres reflecting greenhouse/nursery operations coming back with economic recovery. Monroe County's greenhouse/nursery operations are not expected to change over the planning horizon. Summary Total irrigated agricultural acreage within the LEC Planning Area is expected to rise slightly from 575,316 acres in 2010 to 575,897 acres by 2030 (Table 7). The agriculture in the LEC Planning Area is dominated by the EAA, which is a fully developed, stable agricultural area where permitted acres and cropping practices are not projected to change significantly over the next twenty years. Consequently, projected water demands for the EAA remain constant from 2010 to 2030. Citrus acreage and water use is expected to decline in the Western Basins in Hendry County, reflecting implementation of the C-139 Annex Restoration project and the associated removal of acres from agricultural production. The remaining crop types in Hendry County offset the loss of citrus resulting in an increase of 177 acres. For the LEC Planning Area as a whole, sugarcane, other field crops, sod, and greenhouse/nursery are expected to increase slightly over the planning horizon, while other fruits and nuts, and vegetables, melons, and berries are expected to fall slightly. The expected loss of additional agricultural acres due to urbanization has been deferred to much later periods over the twenty-year planning horizon. The restrained housing market and a slow economic recovery in South Florida has diminished competition for agricultural land from developers compared to the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update evaluation environment. More generally, the rapid loss of arable land over the last 10 years throughout the United States raised the relative value of existing agricultural lands and placed a renewed emphasis on sustainable land management and food security. Some small declines expected in the Palm Beach Coastal area and the loss of citrus acreage in the Western Basins portion of Hendry County will likely be offset by gains in other crops within the planning 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 31 area (sod and nursery/greenhouse production in Palm Beach County and sugarcane in the Western Basins in Hendry County). Palm Beach County is expected to retain its agricultural acres over the twenty-year planning horizon and to slightly increase agricultural lands within the Agricultural Reserve Areas. Table 7. Change between 2010 and 2030 in acres by crop type within the LEC Planning Area. Crop Type 2010 (acres) 2030 (acres) Net Change (acres) Citrus 31,628 21,157 (10,471) Field Crops — Sugarcane 409,622 418,868 9,246 Field Crops — Other 19,079 19,309 230 Vegetables, Melons, and Berries 82,530 81,918 (612) Sod 9,885 10,781 896 Greenhouse/Nursery 14,270 15,670 1,400 Other Fruits and Nuts 8,302 8,194 (108) Total for All Crop Types 575,316 575,897 581 Agricultural Water Demands Agricultural water demand reflects projected irrigated acreage, crop and soil types, growing seasons, and irrigation system types and strategies. AGR Self -Supply demand calculations for this update were completed using the Agricultural Field Scale Irrigation Requirements Simulation (AFSIRS) model. The model calculates water demand for average rainfall and 1 -in -10 year drought conditions using 30 years of daily rainfall and evapotranspiration records (Smajstrla 1990). Gross irrigation requirements are the amount of water that must be withdrawn from the source in order to be delivered to the plant root zone. It includes the effect of losses due to inefficiencies in water application. The supplemental irrigation requirement water volumes projected reflect the soil type and irrigation system efficiency. Net demand reflects an estimate of the amount of water farmers need to place into the root zones of crops to sustain yields. Appendix A presents both net and gross irrigation demands by crop type under average rainfall year and 1 -in -10 year drought conditions through the 2030 planning horizon. Current agricultural water use accounts for 38 percent of the region's total gross demand Estimated agricultural irrigated acreages and gross demand for an average year by crop type for 2010 and 2030 are presented in Table 8. By 2030, the LEC Planning Area's total gross AGR Self -Supply demand is projected to remain essentially the same compared to 2010, increasing 1 percent from 655 MGD in 2010 to 664 MGD in 2030. 32 1 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections Table 8. Estimated irrigated acreages and gross demand for an average water year by crop type for 2010 and 2030.a Crop Category 2010 Acres 2010 Demand (MGD) 2030 Acres 2030 Demand (MGD) Citrus 31,628 47.5 21,157 26.8 FieldCrops— Sugarcane 409,622 385.2 418,868 407.5 FieldCrops — Other 19,079 36.3 19,309 36.5 Vegetables, Melons, and Berries 82,530 125.5 81,918 126.8 Sod 9,885 12.1 10,781 13.3 Greenhouse/Nursery 14,270 38.1 15,670 43.1 Other Fruits and Nuts 81302 10.0 8,194 9.9 LEC Planning Area Total 575,316 654.8 575,897 663.9 a. Perceived discrepancies in totals between this chapter and Appendix Aare due to rounding. Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Self -Supply The water demand projections for the ICI Self -Supply sector are expected to rise to 57 MGD by 2030 from 44 MGD in 2010. These projections are slightly lower than the 61 MGD projected for 2025 in the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update and reflect the different economic environment and sustainable resource use applications. A large component of the water use projections for ICI Self -Supply assumed that growth in self -supply for this region is proportional to the underlying economic activity that generates water demand in the area. This assumption was developed based on observed historic correlations with industrial output and water inputs in key sectors. The ICI Self -Supply use category comprises large facilities for production processing, with the largest uses consisting of mining (i.e., aggregates industry) and food processing (dominated by the sugar industry). Because of the importance of these large users, the projection methodology was based on isolating and assessing the relationship between water use and expected future growth for these sectors. The projections also reflect trends in process efficiencies (less water input demanded per unit of output) over the past ten years observed in large ICI Self -Supply users. ICI Self - Supply projections assume demand for average rainfall year and 1 -in -10 year drought conditions are the same, and that withdrawal demand is equal to user demand so that no distinction is made between net (finished) and gross (raw) water amounts. It should be noted, with some use types within the ICI Self -Supply group, a large share of water demand is quickly returned to the system for reuse/recycling purposes (i.e., rock washing in the aggregates industry). Many other ICI Self -Supply facilities receive their water from PWS utilities and their needs are included in PWS use. Time series data of pumpage reports obtained from SFWMD's Water Use Regulatory Database were used to evaluate and calculate ICI Self -Supply water use demand in addition to other data described in Appendix A. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 33 Recreational/Landscape Self -Supply Gross demand for REC Self -Supply is projected to increase by 3 percent from the estimated 149 MGD in 2010 to 153 MGD in 2030 (Table 3). REC demand supplied by PWS utilities is included in the PWS demand. REC Self -Supply water use projections include landscape and golf course irrigation demand, as well as water needs for parks, communities, homeowner associations with common areas and consolidated irrigation systems, and areas with green spaces such as ball fields, stadiums, and cemeteries. Estimated landscape and golf course acreage were projected separately. Projected golf course acreage was based on the total number of golf course acres identified through golf course inventories and review of the water use permits in SFWMD's Water Use Regulatory Database. Time series trends of irrigated golf course acreage within the LEC Planning Area by county were reviewed from 1985 through the present and were compared to development history, depicted by a time series of annual new privately owned residential building permits within each LEC Planning Area county. Given the recession and housing crisis, followed by a weak economic recovery restrained by a structurally troubled and weak housing market, the demand for new golf courses and existing course expansion has been, and will likely remain, stagnant. Based on the expected pace of economic recovery during the twenty-year planning horizon, golf course acreage is expected to gradually decline and then stabilize before gradually increasing. In 2010, total irrigated golf course acreage in the LEC Planning Area was estimated to be 25,253 acres. Approximately 30 percent of this total acreage was irrigated in part using reclaimed water (personal communication, Richard Nevulis, Reuse Specialist, SFWMD). Historical patterns of growth in acreage for nongolf course landscaping and recreational water use were also evaluated since the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update. Between 2006 and 2011, community development expanded, increasing the landscape acreage requiring irrigation. This trend was visible in homeowners' association permit applications to irrigate common areas supporting developments rising considerably since the last plan update. The last ten years also witnessed a development phase characterized by unprecedented urban development, with community expansion moving westward in the LEC Planning Area prior to the housing price bubble bursting in 2007. With the housing correction and bubble burst, the projections assume some marginal declines in the landscape irrigated acreage category followed by a slight recovery to a plateau over the remainder of the planning horizon. The estimated 2010 and 2030 projected gross demand were calculated using 2010 estimated acreage, 2030 projected acreage, and the AFSIRS model. The AFSIRS model calculates the net irrigation requirements of a given crop type given its type of irrigation system and efficiency. Details regarding the future acreage projections for permitted landscape irrigation for each county are contained within Appendix A. 34 1 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections Power Generation Self -Supply The need for additional power supplies is expected to grow as the population in the LEC Planning Area and other portions of South Florida grow. The PWR Self -Supply water demand projections include input from Florida Power & Light (FPL), and consider expected load growth and power pool grid contributions within the LEC Planning Area. FPL utilizes an assessment method incorporating environmental, economical, and technical feasibility when selecting power generation and cooling technologies most appropriate for site- specific conditions, including water supply and wastewater disposal. Different technologies may require and utilize traditional and alternative water supply sources. Currently, three power generation plants in the LEC Planning Area are permitted to withdraw fresh or brackish water: 1) the FPL West County Energy Center, which is currently the largest combined -cycle plant in the country, located in northwestern Palm Beach County; 2) the FPL Turkey Point plant located near Florida City in Miami -Dade County; and 3) the Homestead Municipal Power Plant in Miami -Dade County. The FPL West County Energy Center utilizes reclaimed water from Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department. FPL has not withdrawn water from surface or brackish water sources for this center since 2010. FPL uses water from the closed -cycle recirculation canal system and brackish Floridan aquifer water at Turkey Point Plant Unit S. The Homestead Municipal Power Plant withdraws water from the Biscayne aquifer. Another potential FPL plant may be sited in the LEC Planning Area, possibly in Hendry County where FPL has purchased land. The demand associated with this future plant is 22.8 MGD in 2030. Net PWR Self -Supply is projected to increase from 12 MGD in 2010 to 33 MGD by 2030 (Table 3) in the LEC Planning Area. The projections do not include the Lake Worth Power Plant or other FPL facilities. The Lake Worth Power Plant uses fresh water provided by the City of Lake Worth Utilities. Therefore, PWS takes into account the Lake Worth Power Plant demand. The other FPL plants use or propose to use seawater or reclaimed waters, which do not require a SFWMD water use permit. The proposed Turkey Point Plant Units 6 and 7 expansions are expected to be added to FPL's South Florida grid system within the next 20 years. The planned source of cooling water for Units 6 and 7 is reclaimed water provided by the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department. Other FPL power generation plants in the LEC Planning Area use seawater, including Cutler and Lauderdale. FPL recently demolished the 1960s era Riviera and Port Everglades Plants and is replacing them with new, state-of-the-art high efficiency facilities. The new Riviera Beach plant will begin serving customers in 2014 when it returns to service as a "next generation clean energy center." The Riviera Plant will continue to use water from the Intracoastal Waterway for once -through cooling purposes, while the Port Everglades Energy Center may continue to use water from the Intracoastal Waterway for once -through cooling purposes or switch to reclaimed water. The projections reflect process efficiencies associated with natural gas combined -cycle generation units. In the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update, the estimated thermoelectric self - supply freshwater demand for 2005 was only 5 MGD, but expected to grow to 103 MGD by 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 35 2025 to support proposed new power generating facilities. However, FPL's continued use of seawater, the modernization of plants, and use of reclaimed water when available contributed to the decrease in water resources permitted by SFWMD for PWR Self -Supply. DEMAND PROJECTIONS IN PERSPECTIVE The demand projections presented in this update are based on the best information available. These projections reflect trends, circumstances, and industry plans that change over time. For example, this update expects slower population growth than was anticipated in the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update. The timing and strength of economic recovery will play a role in future land use patterns and the relative water demand uses across sectors. During past economic recoveries, housing led the expansion by stimulating demand. In contrast, under the current expansion, the job of leading the recovery is falling on the cumulative contributions from other sectors. As a consequence, moderate economic growth trajectory is deferred until much later in the planning horizon. This expectation is based on housing conditions that restrained development and urban growth. Industries important to the LEC Planning Area, such as construction and the supporting materials industries, have been sidelined. With housing and construction remaining depressed, other sectors such as tourism and agriculture become relatively more important in lifting the economy closer to its long-term trend growth potential. Table 9 shows the 2025 gross demand projected in the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update compared to the 2030 demand projected in this plan update. The tables contrast the different planning environments (and expectations for future growth) existing at the time of the projections and plan development. Table 9. Gross demand projected in the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update versus this plan update. Projected 2025 Water Use Category Demand from 2005- 2006 Plan Update (MGD) Projected 2030 Demand from This Plan Update (MGD) Percent Difference Public Water Supply 1,286.5 1,007.4 (22) Domestic Self -Supply 48.9 18.7 (62) Agricultural Self -Supply 689.1 663.9 (4) Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Self -Supply 61.3 56.6 (8) Recreation/Landscape Self -Supply 84.8 152.8 80 Power Generation Self -Supply 102.6 33.3 68 LEC Planning Area Gross Demand Total 2,273.2 1,932.7 (15) Since completion of the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update, less water was used in 2010 for a number of reasons, including implementation of rules restricting lawn irrigation, water shortage restrictions, conservation education, and a decline in economic activity. These changes suppressed PCUR to varying degrees over the past ten years. It is uncertain if the newly learned behaviors or water use ethics that reduced water demand at the tap or effects of the economic downturn are permanent or temporary. Water conservation measures were not explicitly factored into the demand projections used in this chapter unless requested by a utility. Rather, water conservation was considered a water source 36 1 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections option. The utilities implementing significant conservation projects included them on their utility profiles (Chapter 6) to meet their future needs. With urbanization pressure diminished, the projections assume an opportunity for agricultural land use retention over the twenty-year planning horizon that is supported by market forces and rising trends in net farm incomes. The agricultural projections are uncertain for a number of reasons including industry -specific factors, such as weather and disease, which may continue to affect agricultural production within the LEC Planning Area. Agriculture is highly dependent on global market conditions and, as the economy eventually recovers at a faster rate further out in the planning horizon, pressure from urban development and competition for land to support ecosystem restoration projects is likely. REC Self -Supply gross demand is expected to increase by 3 MGD in the course of the 2010- 2030 planning horizon. The majority of future landscaped areas will be associated with the continued support and maintenance of residential developments (constructed under the past housing boom) and corresponding irrigation needs will be met using reclaimed water where feasible. REC Self -Supply demand increased significantly from the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update with the inclusion of a number of developments and commercial properties that have a single irrigation system for the entire property and were recently permitted. For the PWR Self -Supply use category, future load growth requiring capacity expansions of the FPL plants will increase the demand for cooling process water to more than 33 MGD by 2030, which is much lower than the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update estimate for 2025 of 103 MGD. FPL's use of seawater, modernization of plants, and the use of reclaimed water when available contributed to the decrease compared to the previous plan in projected water demand for this use. In summary, the population growth driving the LEC Planning Area's urban needs will be the major force behind the growth in water demand reflected in this update. Most of the population growth is expected to take place in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties, which will mask the small decline expected in Monroe County's population. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 37 38 1 Chapter 2: Demand Estimates and Projections 3 Water Resource Analyses - Current and Future Conditions This chapter provides an overview and status of the water resources within the Lower East Coast (LEC) • Planning Area and the protections afforded water resources through regulatory criteria. Water supply to r4Regulatory Protection meet the demands described in Chapter 2 is largely ♦ Water Resources by Region dependent on the availability of water resources. Understanding the relationship and effect of meeting 6 Climate Change water demands via withdrawals from water resources is critical to water supply planning. The current condition of the water resources is a product of a rich history of natural events and human alteration. With an annual precipitation average of 57 inches and nearly 75 percent of the rainfall occurring during the wet season of May through October (Abtew et al. 2013), the region is dependent on the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project). This regional water management system—with nearly 2,000 miles of canals and more than 2,800 miles of levees and berms, 69 pump stations, 645 water control structures, and more than 700 culverts—helps to provide regional water supplies and flood control. Canals move water from Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades to coastal counties to recharge the surficial aquifer system (SAS) during dry times. The canals are also a crucial component of the flood control system for the region. Canals discharge water to tide through bays, lagoons, and coastal estuaries, which support biological diversity. Maintaining this diversity is a key part of maintaining the health of Florida's ecological systems and resources. Past analyses indicated that fresh water from the surficial and Biscayne aquifers and surface water from Lake Okeechobee and canals is not adequate to meet the growing needs of the LEC Planning Area during 1 -in -10 year drought conditions. Potential impacts on wetlands, potential for saltwater intrusion, and other factors limit the sources available to meet water demands. Previous water supply plans identified a variety of alternative water supply development projects to avoid water resource impacts, avoid competition between water users, and provide a sustainable supply of water (SFWMD 2000, 2007). Implementation of these recommendations is well under way and includes increased water conservation, use 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 39 of reclaimed water, surface water storage and management, and development and use of brackish water. Concurrently, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) adopted two additional restricted allocation area rules to protect significant portions of water resources found in the LEC Planning Area. The interaction between science, policy, and legal tools, as well as water supply regulatory programs, aid to protect water supplies for the natural systems mentioned above. Water use permit applicants must provide reasonable assurances that the proposed water use 1) is reasonable -beneficial, 2) will not interfere with any existing legal use of water, and 3) is consistent with the public interest. An existing legal use of water is a water use authorized under a SFWMD water use permit or existing and exempt from permit requirements. This chapter describes water use permitting criteria, minimum flow and level (MFL) criteria, water reservations, and water shortage plans designed to protect and manage water resources. This chapter also describes the major water resources and their current condition, future trends, and the effect of changed operational protocols. Water resource development projects that provide additional water and restore or improve water quality of our water resources will be discussed in Chapter 4. REGULATORY PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES The intent of Chapter 373, Florida Statues (F.S.), is to manage Florida's water resources to ensure their sustainability (Section 373.016, F.S.). SFWMD developed water resource protection standards consistent with the legislative direction. The levels of harm—"harm", "significant harm", and "serious harm"—are relative resource protection terms, each playing a role in the ultimate goal of achieving a sustainable water resource. For instance, programs regulating surface water management and water use permitting must prevent harm to the water resource. The conceptual relationship among the various harm standards, associated conditions, and water shortage severity is shown in Figure 9 while Table 10 summarizes statutory resource protection tools and definitions. Water Resource Protection Standards OBSERVED IMPACTS Figure 9. Conceptual relationship among the harm, significant harm, and serious harm water resource protection standards. 40 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses – Current and Future Conditions Permittable Water NO HARM Normal Permitted Operation/ Water Reservation of WaterEnvironmental i1 in 1B levelafcertainty} Restoration levels/flow decreasing Phase I Water Shortage HARM Temporary loss of water Phase II Water Shortage resource functions taking 1 to 2 years to recover Drought MINIMUM FLOWS & LEVELS severity increasing Phase III Water Shortage SIGNIFICANT HARM Water resource functions require multiple years to recover Phase IV Water Shortage SERIOUS HARM Permanentor irreversible loss of water resource functions Figure 9. Conceptual relationship among the harm, significant harm, and serious harm water resource protection standards. 40 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses – Current and Future Conditions Table 10. Summary of statutory resource protection tools. Tool Description The right to use water is authorized by permit. The conditions of permit issuance are more specifically enumerated in Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-20, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In order to provide reasonable assurances that the conditions of permit issuance are met, applicants must meet the technical criteria in the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD 2012b). The technical criteria used to evaluate the quantity and the proposed water uses' impact on the source include Water Use the following: Permitting • Saltwater intrusion • Wetland and other surface water body impacts • Pollution • Impacts to off-site land uses • Interference with existing legal users • MFLs and their regulatory components MFL criteria are the flows or levels at which the specific water resource would experience significant harm from further withdrawals. If water flows or levels are below the MFL criteria, or projected to fall below the MFL criteria within the next 20 years, SFWMD must expeditiously Minimum Flows implement a recovery or prevention strategy (Subsection 373.0421(2), F.S.). These strategies and Levels may include the construction of new or improved water storage facilities, development of additional water supplies, implementation of water conservation, etc. The strategy is to be developed in concert with the water supply planning process and coincide with the twenty-year planning horizon for the area. A water reservation sets aside water for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety. When a volume of water is reserved, it is not available for allocation to consumptive uses. Water reservations can be developed based on existing water availability and/or consideration of future water supplies made available by water resource projects. The Water Water Resources Development Act of 2000 requires SFWMD to use its reservation or allocation Reservations authority to protect water made available by Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) projects as necessary for the natural system. Any volume of water not necessary for the protection of fish and wildlife or public health and safety may be certified as available and allocated to consumptive uses. Water shortages are declared by SFWMD's Governing Board when available groundwater or surface water is not sufficient to meet users' needs or when conditions require temporary reduction in total use within the area to protect water resources from serious harm. SFWMD's Water Shortage Plans are contained in Chapters 40E-21 and 40E-22, F.A.C. The purposes of the Water Shortage plans are to protect the water resources of SFWMD from serious harm; assure equitable distribution of available water resources among all water users during times of shortage consistent with the goals of minimizing adverse economic, social, and health related impacts; provide advance knowledge of the means by which water apportionments and reductions will be made during times of shortage; and promote greater security for water use permittees. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 41 To ensure the sustainability of Florida's water resources, Chapter 373, F.S., provides water management districts with several regulatory tools to protect water resources where the harm standards are applied: 4 Water use permitting addresses the use of water resources to protect them from harm. Harm is defined as the temporary loss of water resource functions that results from a change in surface water or groundwater hydrology, and takes a period of one to two years of average rainfall conditions to recover (Rule 40E- 8.021(9), Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). 4 MFL criteria define the point at which additional withdrawals will result in significant harm to the water resources or the ecology of the area (Sections 373.042 and 373.0421, F.S.). Significant harm is the temporary loss of water resource functions that results from a change in surface water or groundwater hydrology that takes more than two years to recover, but which is considered less severe than serious harm (Rule 40E-8.021(31), F.A.C.). 4 Water reservations set aside water for the protection of fish and wildlife or public health and safety. Reserved water is not allocated to consumptive uses (Subsection 373.223(4), F.S.). Water shortage restrictions limit water use when sufficient water is temporarily unavailable to meet user needs or when conditions require temporary reduction in use to prevent serious harm to water resources (Sections 373.175 and 373.246, F.S.). Serious harm is the long-term loss of water resource functions resulting from a change in surface water or groundwater hydrology (Rule 40E- 8.021(30), F.A.C.). Changes to Water Use Permitting The 2000 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan (2000 LEC Plan) (SFWMD 2000) recommended incorporation of resource protection criteria (MFLs and water reservations), level of certainty, special designations, and permit durations into the water use permitting criteria. A series of rulemaking efforts was completed in September 2003, resulting in amendments to Chapters 40E-1, 40E-2, 40E-5, 40E-8, 40E-20, and 40E-21, F.A.C. and the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, referred to as the Basis of Review (SFWMD 2012b). Among the most significant changes were the amendments to permit duration, permit renewal, wetland protection, supplemental irrigation requirements, saltwater intrusion, aquifer storage and recovery, and model evaluation criteria. A renewal process for irrigation class water use permits in the LEC Planning Area's urban corridor began in 2004 and was mostly complete in 2006. Most Lower East Coast Service Area (LECSA) Public Water Supply (PWS) permits were renewed between 2008-2011. Lake Okeechobee Service Area (LOSA) permit renewals began in 2009, with most permits issued by 2011. Many of the renewed permits are for twenty-year durations. The processing of permit applications, and the associated data and analysis to support and evaluate them, benefited the evaluation of current conditions for this plan update. 42 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses - Current and Future Conditions Additional Protection Afforded Water Resources The water resource protection criteria contained in the Basis of Review includes three additional mechanisms to protect water supplies for natural systems from consumptive uses: 1) MFLs, 2) water reservations, and 3) restricted allocation area rules. In recent years, the SFWMD's priorities have focused on establishing water reservation and restricted allocation area rules to facilitate construction of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) project components. Federal law requires natural system water provided by CERP projects to be protected by water reservation or restricted allocation area rules prior to executing a cost -share agreement to construct. The SFWMD also continues to fulfill its statutory obligation to identify key water bodies for which MFLs should be developed or updated. Section 373.042(2), F.S. requires each of the five water management districts to provide an annual MFL priority list and schedule to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The statute was modified in 2013 to require identification of proposed water reservations. Future submittals to FDEP will include lists and schedules for MFL and water reservation water bodies. The priority list is based on the importance of the waters to the state or region and the existence of, or potential for, significant harm to the water resources or ecology of the state or region, and includes those waters that are experiencing or may reasonably be expected to experience adverse impacts. In addition, the SFWMD considers the CERP project schedule and the related federal and state requirements to protect water for the natural system using its reservation or allocation authority. To this end, in 2007 the SFWMD adopted restricted allocation area rules for the Lower East Coast Service Area and North Palm Beach County/Loxahatchee River Watershed to limit allocation of water and, in part, to support construction of CERP projects. Restricted allocation area and water reservation rules function similarly and limit allocations; therefore the SFWMD has removed initial water reservations for the Everglades and Loxahatchee River water bodies from its priority lists. In addition, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has verified that federal requirements have been met for several CERP projects by virtue of the SFWMD's adoption of water reservations and restricted allocation area rules. Taken together, these rules function to afford protection for water resources across significant portions of the planning area. Minimum Flows and Levels MFL criteria define the point at which further withdrawals will result in significant harm to the water resources or ecology of the area. These criteria are applied individually to affected water bodies and define flow or stage, durations, and return frequency. When setting MFL criteria, the Governing Board must consider changes and structural alterations to watersheds, surface waters, and aquifers and the effects such changes or alterations had, and the constraints such changes or alterations placed on the hydrology of an affected watershed, surface water, or aquifer (Subsection 373.0421(1), F.S.). 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 43 Within the LEC Planning Area, between 2001 and 2006, the Governing Board adopted MFL criteria for five water bodies. These water bodies include 1) Lake Okeechobee, 2) the Everglades, which includes Water Conservation Area (WCA) 1, WCA 2, WCA 3, Everglades National Park, and Rotenberger and Holey Land wildlife management areas, 3) the Biscayne aquifer, 4) the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River and Estuary, and 5) Florida Bay (Chapter 40E-8, F.A.C.). Figure 10 shows the location of both MFL and water reservation water bodies. MFL criteria must be reviewed periodically. SFWMD is currently reviewing the Caloosahatchee and Florida Bay MFL criteria as described in the 2013 priority water body list submitted to FDEP (Medellin 2013). When SFWMD establishes an MFL, it must determine whether the existing flow or level in the water body is below or projected to fall below, the MFL criteria within the next 20 years. If it will, SFWMD must develop and expeditiously implement a recovery or prevention strategy. The strategy, when appropriate, should include development of additional water supplies, water conservation, and other efficiency measures consistent with the provisions in Sections 373.0421 and 373.709, F.S. SFWMD develops a recovery strategy when the water body currently exceeds the MFL criteria. The goal of a recovery strategy is to achieve the established MFL as soon as practicable. The recovery strategy must include the provision of sufficient water supplies for all existing and projected reasonable -beneficial uses, and may include the development of additional supplies, construction of new or improved storage facilities, and implementation of conservation or other efficiency measures. A prevention strategy is developed when the MFL criteria is not currently violated, but is projected to be exceeded within the next 20 years. The goal of a prevention strategy is for the water body to continue to meet the established MFL in the future. Both recovery and prevention strategies must include phasing or a timetable that allows for the provision of sufficient water supplies for all existing and projected reasonable -beneficial uses. MFL recovery and prevention strategies are implemented in phases with consideration of SFWMD's missions in managing water resources, including water supply, flood protection, environmental enhancement, and water quality protection, as required by Section 373.016, F.S. Presently, recovery strategies exist for Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. Prevention strategies exist for the Biscayne aquifer and Florida Bay. Both types of MFL strategies are described in Appendix B. Details and the status of projects and programs identified in Appendix B can be found later in this chapter and in Chapter 4. Further details on MFLs are available on SFWMD's website at www.sfwmd.gov/mfls. 44 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions Figure 10. MFL and water reservation water bodies. (Note: WMA— Wildlife Management Area.) 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 45 Palm Be h i 1 • West Palm Beach i. Caloosahatchee Holey Land .r — Rimmer Rotenberger WMA WCA 1 . }i WMA WCA 2 , Coastal Canals -14 associated with ,z Biscayne Aquifer ,MICA Collier 3� Fort Lauderdale Miami -Dad' Biscayne Bay i Y Everglades ?` Gulfof Mexico National Park i Atlantic Ocean Florida Bay 11 • Minimum Flow Level and Water Reservations N Lower East Coast LE wE Minimum Flows and Levels Q Lower East Coast r S Planning Area Water Reservations Major Roads r' 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ---- County Line Loxer Eaaa� Miles Canals Prepared byRexourcn &aluatim Oalc. 5+13rgpt3 Z DD, LEG_MKL yyi1.RS,9 Figure 10. MFL and water reservation water bodies. (Note: WMA— Wildlife Management Area.) 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 45 Water Reservations Chapter 373.709(h), F.S. requires regional water supply plans to include water reservation rules adopted for the planning area. A water reservation rule sets aside water for the protection of fish and wildlife or public health and safety. When a volume of water is reserved, it is unavailable to allocate for consumptive uses. Water reservations are developed based on existing water availability and/or consideration of future water supplies that water resource projects make available. The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 and Section 373.470, F.S. require SFWMD to reserve or allocate the increase water supplies for the natural system identified in CERP project implementation reports. Water reservations rules became effective in support of the CERP Picayune Strand Restoration, the Indian River Lagoon - South, and Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) projects in 2009, 2010 and 2013. The Governing Board is expected to consider draft water reservation rules in 2014 for the CERP Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir. Biscayne Bay Water Reservation From 2003 to 2011, SFWMD evaluated different approaches to establish rules to protect Biscayne Bay. The approaches included evaluating whether to establish MFL criterion to establish the point at which further withdrawals would cause significant harm to the bay's resources, implementing a restricted allocation area rule or a water reservation to protect surface water flows to the bay. From 2003 to 2007, SFWMD completed a series of reports, which did not demonstrate a clear link between biological resources and salinity based on freshwater inflows, a necessary linkage for defining the MFL significant harm threshold. From 2008 to 2009, SFWMD refocused its efforts on measures needed to achieve restoration of Biscayne Bay and completed a peer reviewed report, Adequacy of Technical Information to Support Minimum Inflow Needs for Biscayne Bay, which concluded that additional salinity information needed to be developed (SFWMD 2009a). In 2012, SFWMD and USACE completed the project implementation report for the BBCW Phase I Project, which identified a specific quantity of surface water to be protected in order for the project to achieve its intended benefits. SFWMD-considered options to protect water for the bay, which included 1) a water reservation for surface water flows identified for the portions of the bay improved by the CERP project; 2) a water reservation for surface water flows for all of Biscayne Bay; and 3) a restricted allocation area rule for surface water flows for all of Biscayne Bay. The SFWMD Governing Board directed staff to undertake rule development for a water reservation for surface water associated with the CERP project. SFWMD adopted a rule to reserve water to protect existing surface water flows up to the target flows, which is greater than the water provided by Phase 1 of the BBCW Project and identified in the CERP project implementation report (USACE and SFWMD 2012). Specifically, the proposed rule prohibits the allocation of surface water within certain reaches of the C- 100, C-1, C-102, C-103, and associated canals to consumptive uses. Further details on water reservations are available on SFWMD's website at www.sfwmd.gov/reservations. 46 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions Restricted Allocation Area Rules Restricted allocation areas limit allocations from water resources (e.g., lakes, wetlands, and canals) in defined geographic areas. Three areas have restrictions on allocations within the LEC Planning Area. The two largest areas and water users affected are the Lower East Coast and Lake Okeechobee service areas. By limiting allocation, restricted allocation area rules function similar to a water reservation that also limits allocations. To that end the SFWMD has removed initial water reservations for the Everglades and the Loxahatchee River Watershed water bodies from its priority lists. Additional areas include canals in eastern Hendry County and the North Palm Beach/Loxahatchee River Watershed. Figure 11 shows the locations of restriction allocation areas within the LEC Planning Area. In February 2007, SFWMD's Governing Board adopted restricted allocation area criteria for the Everglades and Loxahatchee River Watershed water bodies (Section 3.2.1.E, Basis of Review). This criteria limits allocations to conditions or withdrawals in the Lower East Coast Service Area and North Palm Beach County/Loxahatchee River Watershed, depending on the specific use class, that existed as of April 1, 2006, known as the "base condition water use." The rule only allows allocations over the "base condition water use" through alternative source development, implementation of offsets (e.g., recharge barriers and recharge trenches), or identification of terminated or reduced water uses that existed as of April 1, 2006. Wet season water can be allocated if the permit applicant demonstrates that such flows are not needed for restoration of the Everglades pursuant to CERP or for the Loxahatchee River Watershed water bodies, pursuant to the Northern Palm Beach County Comprehensive Water Management Plan (SFWMD 2002). This criteria is part of the MFL recovery strategies for both the Everglades and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. In October 2008, SFWMD's Governing Board adopted restricted allocation area criteria for LOSA (Section 3.2.1.G, Basis of Review). These criteria limit surface water withdrawals from Lake Okeechobee and all surface water hydraulically connected to the lake. The change in permit criteria was necessitated by the impacts to water supply and increased exceedances of the lake MFL criteria from implementation of the 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (2008 LORS), which reduced stages in Lake Okeechobee by approximately one foot. When repairs by USACE to the Herbert Hoover Dike are complete and the lake's regulation schedule is revised through a National Environmental Policy Act analysis, the expectation is that the resulting schedule will raise lake levels. The additional water held in the lake is expected to return the lake from MFL recovery status to MFL prevention status, enhance the level of certainty to existing permitted users now receiving less than 1 -in -10 level of certainty, and support environmental objectives. In the meantime, these criteria are part of the MFL recovery strategy for the lake. The third restricted allocation area found in the LEC Planning Area is located just south of LOSA in eastern Hendry County. These basins have a limited network of surface water canals that are not connected to Lake Okeechobee. Canals in this area include the L-1, L-2, and L-3 canals, where no additional surface water can be allocated over the existing allocations (Section 3.2.1.C, Basis of Review). 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 47 2 0 Gulf of Mexico Lake Okeechobee "o BaeiM1 I Ip Feeder Canal I v Baan y ti Atlantic Ocean + West Palm ` y Beach YMCA 1 ' Nnby � I VWMA WMA wcRz a�a $ ' Fort Lauderdale cou WCA3 -i c �— £ Miami F, W t T o Biscayne Bay Mal L]� 0 G Florida Bay Q L Restricted Allocation Areas J N in the Lower East Coast ' WE Lower East Coast Lower East Coast , 1 Everglades Waterhodies Planning Area 5 Lake Okeechobee ---- County Line Waterbodies ru 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 F7 North Palm Beach Countyl Major Roads Lox ahatchee River Watershed Canals rhe Eauco�ss Miles Whterhodies Prepared 6y :Resource Evaluation U. L2 and L3 Canals Vale 42ar201a Map Doe: LEC RAA 20130826.mxd Figure 11. Restricted allocation areas in the LEC Planning Area. (Note: WMA— Wildlife Management Area.) 48 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions Water Shortage Criteria In accordance with Sections 373.175 and 373.246, F.S., water shortage declarations are designed to prevent serious harm from occurring to water resources. Serious harm is defined as the long-term loss of water resource functions resulting from a change in surface water or groundwater hydrology. Observed impacts associated with serious harm can result in long-term, irreversible, or permanent loss of water resource functions (Rule 40E-8.021(30), F.A.C.). The Water Shortage Plan laid out in Chapter 40E-21, F.A.C. is applied to manage water use when insufficient groundwater or surface water is available to meet user needs or when conditions require temporary reduction in use. The goal is to protect the remaining supply through demand management and ensure a fair distribution of this supply. Chapter 40E-22, F.A.C. is the SFWMD Regional Water Shortage Plan. It contains water shortage restrictions related to specific water bodies, including Lake Okeechobee. Further information on water shortage management is available in the 2011-2013 Water Supply Plan Support Document, referred to as the Support Document (SFWMD 2013a). OVERVIEW OF WATER RESOURCES BY REGION Major regions of the LEC Planning Area include Lake Okeechobee and hydraulically connected surface water bodies; the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), which is located in LOSA; the Everglades, including the WCAs and Everglades National Park; Loxahatchee River and Estuary; Lake Worth Lagoon; Biscayne Bay; Florida Bay, and the Lower West Coast Service Area (Figure 12). Lake Okeechobee Lake Okeechobee serves multiple purposes, including urban, agricultural and environmental water supply, flood control, navigation, and commercial and recreational fisheries. It is also a key ecological component of the Greater Everglades ecosystem (Zhang and Sharfstein 2013). The lake has multiple inflows, including the Kissimmee River, and receives water from a watershed in excess of 4,600 square miles. However, the lake only has two major outlets for flood control purposes: one to the east coast via the St. Lucie Canal and another to the west coast via the Caloosahatchee Canal (SFWMD 2011b). The 143 -mile long Herbert Hoover Dike encircles the lake to protect the surrounding communities from flooding. A technical review of the dike conducted by an expert panel in 2006 (Bromwell et al. 2006) indicated the need for a major rehabilitation. MFL criteria and a prevention strategy were established for Lake Okeechobee in 2001. Significant harm criteria associated with the MFL criteria were based on the relationship between water levels in the lake and the abilities to 1) protect the coastal aquifer against saltwater intrusion, 2) supply water to Everglades National Park, 3) provide littoral zone habitat for fish and wildlife, and 4) ensure navigational and recreational access (SFWMD 2000). 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 49 r— ! I I a I � i r ! , e I GULF _ OF MEXICO N w+e S - - - County Boundaries Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan Boundary SFWMD Boundary . National Park Boundaries Lake Okeechobee Service Area, including portions outside of the LEC Planning Area boundary LAKE 1 Y OKEECHOBEE _LAKE �OKEECHOB ICE AREA Q- (EVERGLADES C-139 AGRICULTURAL WCA1 ca 1 i AREA I Feeder Canai _. O . 1 L-28 WCA 2 y Inferceptar 8 Co WCA 3 Q W Big Cypress • _National Preseve 47 , D O ATLANTIC OCEAN LOXAHATCHEE RIVER AND ESTUARY a �a Figure 12. Major regions of the LEC Planning Area. 50 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses - Current and Future Conditions LAKE WORTH LAGOON I BISCAYNE EVEkGLADES BAY NAIrIONAL Biscayne BARK National Park I %FLORIDA a BAY a �a Figure 12. Major regions of the LEC Planning Area. 50 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses - Current and Future Conditions LAKE WORTH LAGOON 2008 LORS and Adaptive Protocols As mentioned earlier in the chapter, USACE adopted a new lake schedule, 2008 LORS, to reduce the risk of the dike failure (USACE 2007) until it is rehabilitated. The schedule includes operating guidelines designed to maintain Lake Okeechobee water levels approximately one foot lower than the previous schedule to protect the integrity of the dike and enhance lake ecology. Under 2008 LORS, water levels are primarily maintained between 12.5 and 15.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD). Overall, the changes under 2008 LORS result in an average loss of approximately 430,000 acre-feet (ac - ft) of water storage for all uses. The new schedule increased the frequency of low lake stage exceeding the MFL criteria. As a result of the impacts to water supply and the water resource, SFWMD changed the MFL status from prevention to recovery and developed a recovery strategy, which can be found in Appendix B. The strategy includes a regulatory component that limits future additional withdrawals from Lake Okeechobee and all surface water hydraulically connected to the lake (referred to in the Florida Statutes as the "Lake Okeechobee Waterbody") in order to prevent further degradation of the level of certainty for existing legal users or change in lake MFL performance. To assist managing the lake under 2008 LORS, adaptive protocols for Lake Okeechobee operations were revised (SFWMD 2010). The key goals of the revisions are to improve water supply, flood protection, and ecosystem benefits within the constraints of 2008 LORS and the Central and Southern Florida Project Water Control Plan for Lake Okeechobee and Everglades Agricultural Area (USACE 2008). Adaptive protocols provide guidance to water managers for discretionary releases for ecosystem benefits or to improve conditions related to the operation of the C&SF Project when the lake stage is in the low, base flow, and beneficial use sub -bands. For further discussion of these changes, see Appendix B. Lake Okeechobee's response to changing levels and stage ranges has been quite dynamic. However, a number of trends appear to be emerging. The emergent and submerged vegetation communities appear to have moved lakeward (towards previously deeper water areas); with the upper, short hydroperiod marsh becoming progressively more terrestrial in character. Additionally, many of the large shallow bays, particularly at the southern end of the lake, are shifting from being dominated by submerged vegetation towards being dominated by emergent species; while submerged plant beds extended further offshore (Figure 13). For the most part, faunal responses to these changes have been positive. Both sport and commercial fish species appear to be thriving (Zhang and Sharfstein 2012, 2013). The lake had more nesting activity of the endangered Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) in 2012 than in any year since 1992 (Kitchens et al. in press). Use of the lake by waterfowl remained high. However, wading bird foraging and nesting success (with one exception) has been relatively poor in the last several years. This may be due to low lake levels preventing adequate development of the required prey base in areas of suitable depth in the marsh (Zhang and Sharfstein 2012, 2013, Chastant and Gawlik 2011). 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 51 MooreHaven NOW r . � f Figure 13. Major shifts in the Lake Okeechobee marsh vegetation community occurred over the past seven years in response to recent droughts and implementation of 2008 LORS, which strives to maintain the lake at least a foot lower than the previous operating schedule. Water quality in Lake Okeechobee remains relatively unchanged and appears to be insensitive to both the change to 2008 LORS schedule and the relatively modest nutrient abatement projects that have been implemented to date. The main driver for annual phosphorus load continues to be volume and source of inflow to the lake (Zhang and Sharfstein 2013), which is directly related to annual rainfall in the watershed. Even though high nutrient levels, lower lake levels, and clearer water occurred over the past several years, cyanobacterial (blue-green algae) blooms and their associated toxins remained low since 2005 (Zhang and Sharfstein 2012, 2013). Because of the climatic variability of South Florida, coupled with large differences between the lake's inflow and outflow potential and the lack of additional water storage features both upstream and downstream of the lake, the overarching driver for lake ecology continues to be stochastic or naturally occurring events like droughts and hurricanes (Havens et al. 2001). Their dominance was clearly demonstrated by years like 2001, 2007, and 2011 (droughts), and 2004 and 2005 (major hurricanes). 52 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions Everglades The Everglades, which includes the WCAs and Everglades National Park (Figure 14), are managed for flood control, water supply, regional groundwater control (including prevention of saltwater intrusion), recreation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, including endangered and threatened species (Abtew et al. 2013). As a natural ecosystem, it contains the globally rare and last remnant ridge and slough patterning, tree islands that are considered important habitat for subtropical and tropical plant and animal species, marl marshes, and coastal mangrove forests and marshes. The Everglades is the focus of one of the largest ecological restoration projects in the world. The Everglades is a peatland, a type of wetland with soils composed of organic matter that builds up by accumulating decaying vegetation. Natural peatlands stay saturated and the peat generally remains wet year-round. Within the Everglades is a patterned peatland, called ridge and slough, consisting of long, linear patterns of alternating sawgrass ridges among sloughs populated by water lilies. The entire landscape pattern is oriented parallel to water flow. These peatlands provided a wide variety of habitat for fish and other aquatic species, reptiles and amphibians, such as alligators and frogs, wading birds, and migratory birds. They were very low nutrient (especially phosphorus) wetlands. The Everglades were initially drained to encourage use for farming. Then, as the peat was over -dried and burned, water supply became an issue for the growing coastal human population. Beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, the wetlands were compartmentalized to retain water for water supply as part of the C&SF Project (Alexander and Crook 1973), radically altering these depths. Compartmentalization required intensive water management. The WCAs are impoundments that confine water over a sloped surface (sloping generally southward from Lake Okeechobee towards Florida Bay). Therefore, water depths in the northern regions are lower than in the southern regions of each WCA. Prior to human development, water flowed unimpeded out of Lake Okeechobee over what is now the EAA, bounded by the coastal ridge to the east and the higher lands west of what is now WCA 3A and Big Cypress National Preserve (McVoy et al. 2011). Historically, this flow wound its way to Biscayne or Florida bays. Under natural flows, water levels across the landscape were generally equally deep. Now, the primary inflows and outflows from the WCAs are rainfall and evapotranspiration (Abtew et al. 2013), which is evaporation plus water released by vegetation. Additional inflows come from the stormwater treatment areas (STAs) and through gates that connect one WCA to another (5-10 structures from WCA 1 to WCA 2, 5-11 structures from WCA 2A to WCA 3A, and 5-12 structures from WCA 3A to Everglades National Park). Storm water from the EAA moves south through STAs constructed by SFWMD and into the Everglades Protection Area. The STAs include STA 1 East, STA 1 West, STA 2, STA 3/4, and STA 5/6 as of September 2012. Expansion of STA 2 (known as Compartment B) and STA 5/6 (known as Compartment C) are complete and are permitted to operate. These two STA expansion projects increase the total effective treatment area to 57,000 acres. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 53 a Lational c-s-.EXTG11 WCA3AY serve �. • •n w n n � 0 C -i W o d.... N ,-I -,a7 y as � Biscayne Bay G13 Ga3h, n V O Everglades = =I National Park ,1 d Gulf of Mexicor D a D 6 9 � a ti o Florida Bay a a 17� o U t� O Atlantic Ocean 0 10 20 Miles Figure 14. Map of the Greater Everglades region. (Note: WMA— Wildlife Management Area.) 54 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions ➢-3 Lower East Coast Planning Area iaw Lake Okeechobee �F U$ `<,2 Sy - - -- STA 1W LIE Everglades -- STA 1E `2W - Agricultural. Rot nberger Area MA Holey Land \ J / WCA1 L;3w WMA STA 2 r, 9 Q STA 6 '�EEEOER NAL L4 L-5 WCA2A r STA 314 A ` a Lational c-s-.EXTG11 WCA3AY serve �. • •n w n n � 0 C -i W o d.... N ,-I -,a7 y as � Biscayne Bay G13 Ga3h, n V O Everglades = =I National Park ,1 d Gulf of Mexicor D a D 6 9 � a ti o Florida Bay a a 17� o U t� O Atlantic Ocean 0 10 20 Miles Figure 14. Map of the Greater Everglades region. (Note: WMA— Wildlife Management Area.) 54 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions Water levels in most of the WCAs are managed via inflow and outflow control structures using a set of regulation schedules established by USACE (USACE 1996). These schedules allow for different water levels under different conditions. These ranges can provide storage of runoff during the wet season for subsequent use during the dry season, and flood control during the wet season. Everglades MFL criteria were established in 2001. Impacts associated with significant harm include increased peat oxidation, frequency of severe fires, soil subsidence, loss of aquatic refugia, loss of tree islands, and long-term changes in vegetation or wildlife habitat. The MFL criteria for the Everglades were based on protecting the two dominant soil types, peat -forming and marl -forming wetlands, found within the ecosystem. An MFL recovery strategy has been in place since 2001 when the criteria were adopted. This strategy can be found in Appendix B. In 2007, regulatory criteria limited additional withdrawals, whether direct or indirect, from Everglades water bodies to the levels permitted as of April 1, 2006. Everglades Restoration Transition Plan The Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP) (USACE 2011) defines water management operating criteria for the C&SF Project features and the constructed features of the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project and the C-111 South Dade Project until the Combined Operational Plan is implemented, which incorporates more flexible operating criteria to better manage WCA 3A. The ERTP is intended to improve conditions for the Everglades snail kite, the wood stork (Mycteria americana), and wading birds and their habitats while maintaining protection requirements for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis), along with C&SF Project purposes. The limited flexibility within the current system was evaluated by reviewing hydrological, meteorological, and ecological data from 1998 to 2009. Specifically, this time frame corresponds to several efforts: evaluation of the protection of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (USACE 1999, 2000a, USACE and SFWMD 1999), development of the 2000 and 2001 Interim Structural and Operational Plans (USACE 2000a), and development of the 2002 and 2006 Interim Operational Plans (USACE 2002, 2006). Recommendations within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Draft Multi -Species Transition Strategy for Water Conservation Area 3A (USFWS 2010a) formed the basis for the ERTP performance measures and ecological targets. Through the ERTP, the USFWS and USACE implemented a Multi -species Management Plan for WCA 3A to manage hydrology to better address the needs of multiple species. These species included the endangered wood storks, Everglades snail kites, and wading birds. Habitats included wet prairies and tree islands. During this process, concern over levee integrity led USACE to replace the flood regulation schedule for WCA 3A with the 1960 flood regulation schedule. The 1960 schedule reduces the three -gauge average wet season stages by 0.25 foot and the dry season stages by 0.5 foot relative to the existing schedule (USACE 2011). 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 55 Following the approval of the ERTP final environmental impact statement (USACE 2011), the ERTP replaced the Interim Operating Plan when the Record of Decision Central and Southern Florida Project Everglades Restoration Transition Plan was signed on October 19, 2012 (USACE 2012). This reduced dry season schedule may significantly decrease water supply for natural ecosystems and downstream uses and has already produced stages lower than those of the previous year. Response to Recent Droughts An additional water supply concern is the recent droughts. The Everglades experienced two relatively severe droughts in 2009 and 2011, when water levels in the five WCAs fell below ground over 87 to 100 percent of their areas. In WCA 3A, where water levels along the L-67 and L-29 canals usually remain aboveground throughout the dry season, water levels fell belowground and exceeded MFL criteria (Figure 15 and Figure 16). Peat fires can result in catastrophic loss of peat, which took decades to centuries to form. In June 2011, the Prairie Fire burned 68,300 acres of WCA 3B and was extinguished by rainfall a few days later (Figure 17). Of additional concern was that water depths in west central WCA 3A, the location of the best ridge and slough patterning, was up to 2 feet underground, leading potentially to significant peat loss through exposure to air, leading to high rates of decomposition. Figure 15. Wetland conditions were similar throughout most of WCA 3A with dried and cracked peat. This photo, taken on June 6, 2011, was from an area immediately adjacent to the L-67 Canal that is nearly always inundated. (Photo by M. Nungesser, SFWMD.) 56 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions Figure 16. Wetland conditions on June 6, 2011, in southern WCA 3A about one mile north of Tamiami Trail. Sawgrass ridges are exposed and mud is cracking. Sloughs are exposed or with a very shallow cover of water, which is unusual for southern WCA 3A. (Photo by M. Nungesser, SFWMD.) Figure 17. Prairie Fire in WCA 3B during June 2011 which burned over 107 square miles over five days. (Photo by M. Kobza, SFWMD.) 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 57 South Florida is facing climate change in the form of increased temperatures and effects on evapotranspiration, increased or decreased rainfall, and sea level rise. These alterations may affect water supply for the natural ecosystems of the Everglades (see the Outlook on Climate Change section at end of this chapter for more information). Loxahatchee River and Estuary The Loxahatchee River and Estuary lie in southern Martin County and northern Palm Beach County on the east coast of Florida (Figure 18). The Loxahatchee River is referred to as the "last free flowing river in southeastern Florida" and represents one of the last vestiges of native cypress river swamp within southeastern Florida. In 1985, 9.5 miles of the Northwest Fork was federally -designated as Florida's first National Wild and Scenic River. Large sections of the river's watershed and river corridor are within Jonathan Dickinson State Park, which includes outstanding examples of the region's natural biological communities. Loxahatchee A Watershed South Florida A Reach Lower Tida I r �` , ' JaYYathan l Diekinsoa� t State Y Park N I , C'd1 c'tlll CULYIty. fy a F :ICI Bcach COUfI v � I La�nhart Oamr — - Northwest Fork Loxahatchee River/Estuary -ffpawBc Loxahatchee I Slough i a C-18 Canal --V. Riverine s Water + •1t' Preserve`+� i - Upper7tlal t ..,:K Figure 18. Major features of the Loxahatchee River and Estuary. (Note: RM — River Mile.) 0_'_11 22 3 Mites °x 0 1 2 3 Kilometers A system of inland wetlands, known as Grassy Waters Preserve and the Loxahatchee and Hungryland sloughs, form the headwaters of the watershed and drain into the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. Floodplain plant communities, soils, and salinity regimes can be used to identify and characterize three distinct reaches along the system: riverine, upper 58 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions tidal, and lower tidal. The Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River contains about 790 acres of riverine, 59 acres of upper tidal floodplain, and 111 acres of lower tidal floodplain regimes (SFWMD 2006). The riverine reach is generally unaffected by salinity. The upper tidal reach experiences some saltwater intrusion during the dry season. The lower tidal reach is highly influenced by tides and salinity in the water and soils. Despite these enduring natural resources, the Loxahatchee ecosystem was permanently altered by the opening of the Jupiter Inlet in 1947, which allows a larger tidal amplitude and saltwater intrusion. Drainage canal systems also altered the natural pattern of freshwater inflow and inundation of the floodplain. Saltwater intrusion and reduced freshwater inflows to the riverine and upper tidal reaches of the Northwest Fork have particularly been problematic. As a result, in 2003, SFWMD adopted MFL criteria for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River (Chapter 40E-8, F.A.C.). The MFL criteria is exceeded when flow over the Lainhart Dam declines below 35 cubic feet per second (cfs) for more than 20 days or the average salinity at River Mile 9.1, expressed as a twenty -day rolling average, exceeds 2.1 An MFL recovery strategy was adopted simultaneously with the MFL criteria. Since the recovery strategy's adoption, it has been revised and can be found in Appendix B. In 2006, SFWMD developed a restoration plan for the Northwest Fork (SFWMD 2006). The restoration plan includes the ecological target species, performance measures, and monitoring requirements needed to track the success of restoration goals, and provide guidance for future adaptive management and operational practices. The plan identified five valued ecosystem components for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River: 1) cypress swamp and hydric hammock in the freshwater riverine floodplain, 2) cypress swamp in the tidal floodplain, 3) fish larvae in the low salinity zone, 4) oysters in the mesohaline zone, and 5) seagrasses in the polyhaline zone downstream. Monitoring of these communities continues along the river. Salinity concentrations and freshwater flows are examined each year to better understand dry and wet season hydrologic flow patterns and how water management can best be used to ecologically benefit the freshwater portions of the river and estuary. The restoration plan describes a preferred restoration scenario that establishes a variable dry season flow between 50 and 110 cfs over Lainhart Dam, providing an additional 30 cfs of flow from the downstream tributaries (light blue line in Figure 19). SFWMD monitors compliance with the MFL criterion via results from the five tidal and salinity stations and a flow meter at Lainhart Dam. During Water Year 2011 (May 1, 2010 -April 30, 2011), flow over Lainhart Dam was mostly maintained above the MFL criterion of 35 cfs, except for the periods of November 27, 2010 to March 3, 2011 (66 days) and April 20 to May 1, 2010 (12 days) (Figure 19). The twenty -day rolling average salinity at River Mile 9.1 did not exceed 2 during Water Year 2011. 1 Common practice no longer uses measurements of salinity, which previously used parts per thousand or practical salinity units. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 59 2.5 2.0 1.5 U) 1.0 0.5 0.0 20 -day Moving Average Salnity at RM 9.1 — — —2 Lainhart Dam Daily Flow MF (35 cfs) -- -- ----- - --------------- May-09 Aug -09 Nov -09 Feb -10 May -10 Aug -10 Nov -10 Feb -11 Figure 19. Flow rate and salinity related to the MFL criterion at Lainhart Dam in the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River during Water Years 2010-2011. (Note: RM — River Mile, MF — Minimum Flow.) Response to Recent Drought 400 300 3 0 U- 200 0 100 —j 0 During the 2011 drought, SFWMD experimented with operational options in an effort to get more water to the Loxahatchee River to meet the MFL criteria (Alleman 2012). Water from the L-8 site was pumped through a series of canals northward to the City of West Palm Beach's Grassy Waters Preserve. A portion of the water stored within Grassy Waters Preserve was then released north through the G-161, G-160, and G-92 structures to the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. These releases were a collaborative effort between SFWMD, City of West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, and Loxahatchee River District. An estimated 10,872 ac -ft of water were delivered to the Loxahatchee River, meeting the MFL criterion for 48 days during the 2011 drought. A report on the pilot test results, L-8 Reservoir Pilot Test Water Quality Results, was submitted to the FDEP in June 2011 (SFWMD 2011a). The pilot test produced a broader understanding of the operational complexities involved in routing L-8 Reservoir water to the Loxahatchee River during extreme dry conditions and data on water conveyance losses associated with making these deliveries. SFWMD also gained a better understanding of changes in water quality, especially with respect to salinity and phosphorus concentrations. Loxahatchee River Science Plan As recommended in the Restoration Plan for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River (SFWMD et al. 2006), the Loxahatchee Interagency Science Team was established to collaboratively develop a science plan to address prioritization of monitoring efforts that 60 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions support adaptive management of the system, and fill in gaps of critical knowledge regarding ecosystem restoration success. The science plan was completed in 2010 (SFWMD et al. 2010). Management and research objectives were described and linked to watershed, riverine, and estuarine resources. Several ongoing projects were identified along with new projects to address informational gaps. Results are expected to be used to evaluate the status of the system, and develop predictive tools and improved performance measures for assessing biological and hydrological effects of water management practices on the ecosystem. Lake Worth Lagoon Lake Worth Lagoon is a 22 -mile long estuary adjacent to eastern Palm Beach County (Figure 20). It is bounded by land to the west and barrier islands to the east. Depths within the estuary are typically between 6 and 10 feet. Tidal exchange with the Atlantic Ocean occurs at Lake Worth (Palm Beach) and South Lake Worth (Boynton) inlets. Lake Worth Lagoon Watershed encompasses about 450 square miles of primarily urbanized land. IVia'i Comfy- 4 :s�rj 1 a=:`.l7 l•w.. Pio ■'�`&Wl fi=r1 i9 I! i/�1 ti f! i *I a � � � i'' � ��►. � � � fes. t" 4. Figure 20. Major features of Lake Worth Lagoon. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 61 jam- oJ �� '' � _ -��ry_=' ■� �� , � N!, s 'alm a cM_ na'' a } 'L[�3`' �• ■ Z �I' 11;1,ti STA -1 E ral 0* NMI lrw �Qi■ i ' + ► li �Acme Basin B4 i irr Discharge Project ."._.' Lake Worth 111111 I e Lagoon ■ C1'i 3 Watershed ■ 0.� •. + i ,r r Zxia. 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 Miles r+ South Florida .y 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers Figure 20. Major features of Lake Worth Lagoon. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 61 Lake Worth Lagoon is divided into three geographical segments—north, central and south. Each segment has its own water quality, circulation and physical characteristics. Freshwater runoff from the watershed is collected in primary and secondary canals. The major sources of fresh water are the C-17 Canal (Earman River), C-51 Canal (West Palm Beach Canal), and the C-16 Canal (Boynton Canal). The C-51 Canal contributes about 50 percent of the freshwater runoff to the lagoon. Studies indicate that about 75 percent of the C-51 Canal discharge turns northward in the lagoon and about 25 percent turns southward (Chiu et al.1970). The Lake Worth Lagoon Management Plan was first drafted in 1998 by Palm Beach County's Department of Environmental Resource Management and updated in 2008 (PBCDERM 2008). The plan reviews progress made implementing the original goals and priorities. It also provides the status of the lagoon and actions plans for future projects. Implementation of the plan relies on partnerships and cooperative agencies, including SFWMD. Excessive fresh water is sometimes discharged into the lagoon, reducing salinity and causing excessive sedimentation and turbidity. The average daily flow is 419 cfs, but can be greater than 7,000 cfs during wet periods. Salinity can be below optional thresholds for key species, such as the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and Johnson's seagrass (Halophila johnsonii). Current performance measures are targeted at limiting the discharges from the C-51 Canal so that salinity does not stay below 15 for more than 26 days or less than 5 for more than seven days from April through July each year. To accomplish these targets, two upper limitations are recommended: 1) eliminate flow events of 1,000 cfs or greater and 2) eliminate flows greater than 500 cfs for extended periods of time (seven days or greater). To attain this salinity threshold, the targets are as follows: ♦ Inflows should be maintained between 0 to 500 cfs based on a seven-day moving average. ♦ High flow events of 1,000 cfs or greater, based upon a two-day moving average, should not occur. ♦ Flow greater than 500 cfs based on a seven-day moving average should be eliminated (Rudolph 1998). The CERP Environmental Preserve at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Habitat (formerly known as Acme Basin B Discharge Project), which includes C-51 pump station installations and C-51 Canal improvements, was completed in spring 2010. This project diverts urban runoff in Palm Beach County to the C-51 Canal, where it is subsequently directed to STA 1E for treatment before discharge to the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Along 62 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses – Current and Future Conditions with environmental and flood control benefits, this project may reduce some of the harmful discharges to Lake Worth Lagoon, reducing the frequency of low salinity events (see Chapter 4 for more information). In partnerships with SFWMD and the City of West Palm Beach, the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management conducted annual hydrographic surveys of the C-51 Canal system following the C-51 Canal Sediment Management Project completion in 2006 (Alleman 2012). About 101,500 cubic yards of muck were removed from a 3,500 -linear foot section of the canal where a sediment trap was constructed. Annual hydrographic surveys were conducted between 2007 and 2010 to determine the effectiveness of a newly created sediment trap, and to examine volumetric changes (i.e., erosion or accretion) over the project area. The purpose of this analysis was to 1) determine if a correlation exists between annual discharge volumes at the S-155 structure and sediment accretion within the C-51 Canal, 2) estimate the annual rate of accretion within the sediment trap, 3) propose maintenance dredging requirements for the canal system, and 4) evaluate any remaining muck deposits that might exist outside of the dredged area. About 11,394 cubic yards of material accreted within the sediment trap throughout the project area between 2007 and 2009. During the final year of the study period (2009-2010), a substantial loss of material throughout all reaches of the canal occurred. The loss was attributed to an increase in rate and volume of water discharged through the S-155 structure. A second sediment management project was conducted in 2009 and completed in 2010 near Ibis Isle, a mangrove fringed island located about 2.5 miles south of the confluence of the t `. ��'� ` ;' '*A C-51 Canal and Lake Worth Lagoon (Alleman 2012). In this study, 41,000 cubic yards of sand were brought into 1• the project area to cap the muck and raise the wetland shelf elevation to =` intertidal levels for the planting of mangroves and cord grass (Spartina Ibis Isle restoration in Lake Worth Lagoon alterniflora). In addition, lime rock was deposited to create oyster habitat. Both of these sediment projects were a part of the CERP North Palm Beach County - Part 1 Project (USACE and SFWMD 2005), now referred to as the CERP Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 63 Biscayne Bay Biscayne Bay is a shallow, subtropical estuary located along Florida's southeastern coast (Figure 21). The bay covers about 428 square miles, with 270 square miles lying within Biscayne National Park. Biscayne National Park was designated in 1980 to protect, among other purposes, a combination of terrestrial and undersea life. The entire watershed area covers about 850 square miles. Most of the northern and central areas of the watershed are urban, with Miami being the largest city. Large parts of the southern watershed are dominated by agricultural land. SFWMD manages and maintains a drainage network that includes 16 outfalls into Biscayne Bay. The water management system regulates water levels within the watershed for flood control and water supply. Drainage of the watershed altered the location and timing of freshwater inputs to the bay. On both an annual scale and during rainfall events, runoff into canals that historically flowed into the bay through small rivers, streams, and groundwater has been altered. In addition, construction of artificial inlets and channels, particularly in the northern area, contributed to the bay's transition from a freshwater estuary to a more saline environment. From the 1900s to today, salinity increased in the southern area of the bay, especially along the western nearshore areas (Wingard et al. 2004). A primary concern has been both hypersalinity and the annual range of salinity near the western shore of south central Biscayne Bay and within Manatee Bay. The cause of increased salinity is not clear, but may be a combination of reduced average rainfall, sea level rise, and diversion or altered timing of freshwater inputs. About half of the total freshwater input to the bay consists of discharges from the primary canals, totaling an average of 1.4 million ac -ft per year on average. Additional significant sources of fresh water include rainfall, averaging about 60 inches per year, and groundwater influx, which is estimated to be roughly five percent of surface water inputs (Langevin 2001). Water quality in Biscayne Bay has been impacted by increasing stormwater runoff from developed lands and raw sewage discharges. Raw sewage discharges ceased in the 1950s. More recently, water quality has been improving. Despite these dramatic physical and chemical changes, the bay supports extensive submerged aquatic vegetation, macroalgal, and hard ground communities. On the other hand, some fisheries that were once abundant, such as redfish or red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), mullet (Mugil sp.) and spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), declined substantially. The bay still supports a large recreational fishery and viable commercial pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) fishery. Eastern oysters were abundant prior to the changes to Biscayne Bay, and oyster bars were relatively common. Now oyster bars are rare, and individuals are mostly found on mangrove prop roots and bulkheads. Additionally, large areas of coastal wetlands have been filled, and most of the remaining coastal wetlands are in the central and southern areas of Biscayne Bay. These wetlands have been largely starved of fresh water because of diversion of storm water to canals. 64 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions Bay Biscayne ,. rs fir' •'._� f. • Everglades NationalR. Park — = Deering Estate ' , V' f k .,I4a f Cutler Flow -way ' L31 E Culverts a 4o Everglades National _— Park L r4r IL JJ . � Biscayne Bay Watershe V Q R y '11\ Biscayne National Park Boundary 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 Miles 012 4 6 8 10 Kilometers Figure 21. Major features of Biscayne Bay. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 65 The CERP BBCW Project will restore some overland freshwater flow to coastal wetlands in central Biscayne Bay. The project is likely to result in some incidental reduction of nutrient loads into the bay. SFWMD constructed some components of the project, including the Deering Estate Flow -way and culverts in the L -31E Canal. However, most of the project will not be completed for several years. SFWMD adopted a water reservation rule to reserve water needed for the BBCW Project in 2013. See Chapter 4 for more information about the project. SFWMD tracks salinity in the nearshore area of south-central Biscayne Bay to monitor how the system responds to inflows from the C-102, C-103, and Military canals. Salinity in this area tends to become hypersaline (i.e., salinity greater than 35) during the dry season (Alleman 2011). This condition is considered unhealthy for many estuarine species (Montagna et al. 2008). It is unlikely the current BBCW Project features will completely alleviate this condition. SFWMD also tracks performance of the newly constructed components of the BBCW Project, which include culverts along the L -31E to divert canal water into coastal wetlands and a pump at the Deering Estate to divert canal water into the historic Cutler Creek and Deering Slough. The L -31E culverts are passive, flap -gated devices designed to divert available fresh water from the L -31E Canal into adjacent wetlands. During the 2011 dry season (November 2011 -April 2012), SFWMD experienced below average rainfall in this region, which resulted in relatively low flows. The total quantity of water discharged through the L -31E culverts component area was approximately 4,703 ac -ft (Figure 22). The total fresh water diverted in 2011 and 2012 through the L -31E culverts was 4,444 and 4,927 ac -ft, respectively, which represents about 4 percent of the total flow available for diversion. The pump at Deering Estate began operation in 2012. The pump diverted about 3,350 ac -ft of water through February 2013, rehydrating wetlands. BBCW Project monitoring data and analyses are reported annually in the South Florida Environmental Reports (wv%rw.sfwmd.gov/sfe r) . South Miami -Dade Area of Interest Agriculture has been a key economic component in southeastern Miami -Dade County since the early 1900s. Crops vary year to year based on market conditions but winter vegetables and ornamental nursery stock are the primary agricultural staples in the region. Agriculture benefited from moderate temperatures during winter months. However, agriculture is also challenged by the low lying nature of the topography, which frequently results in thin unsaturated soil thicknesses and a high risk of crop loss due to flooding during moderate rainfall events. Early farming interests worked together to develop local drainage through the construction and operations of canals, pumps, and structures. In the 1960s, USACE incorporated these local drainage features into the C&SF Project. In 1966 and 1967, operations of the S -21A structure, which provides drainage to the C-102 Basin, and the S-179 and S -20F structures, which drain the Florida City and C-103 basins, were transferred to the Central and Southern Flood Control District (predecessor to SFWMD). 66 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions Comparison of Flow (Acre -FT) Diverted Through Culverts BBCW, L-31 E Component 2011-2012 Figure 22. Flows diverted to the BBCW Project area in 2011 and 2012. (Note: Acre -FT — acre-feet.) SFWMD, as local sponsor of the federal C&SF Project, operates these structures under the provisions contained in the Master Water Control Manual, East Coast Canals, Volume 5 (USACE 1995). The manual identifies high and low operational ranges for these structures and provides for flexibility in selecting the operational settings to use depending on field conditions and agricultural needs. Initially, the structures were set at the low operational levels for most of the growing season (October -April) and raised to the high operational settings during the wet season (May -September). However, during dry years, the shift from the low to high operational ranges occurred earlier in the year as additional drainage was not needed under those conditions. In response to drought conditions during the 1980s, which caused coastal irrigation wells to become salty, local farmers worked with SFWMD to incorporate an intermediate operational range for the S -20F and S -21A structures, which holds slightly higher groundwater levels in the spring to reduce inland saltwater intrusion. Concerns over the seasonal operations were raised by area environmental interests and Biscayne National Park. In particular, concerns were expressed that shifting to the low operational range in October drained area groundwater that may otherwise be available to moderate nearshore salinity levels in Biscayne Bay during the later months of the dry season (March -May). In 2010, SFWMD initiated a series of workshops and studies—the South Miami -Dade Water Issues Coordination Initiative—geared toward evaluating the historic seasonal operations and identifying feasible opportunities to manage water to support area agriculture and improve dry season salinity conditions in the nearshore south Biscayne Bay area. The statistical analysis report, South Miami -Dade Statistical Data Analysis (Smith 2010), can be found on the SFWMD website at 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 67 www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portallxrepositoU/sfwmd repository ndf/south miami- dade statistical data analysis.pdf. Through this process, SFWMD learned that delaying the initiation of the drawdown from October to later in the year would significantly impact winter vegetable crop marketability by delaying the timing of the crop delivery to market away from the December -January freeze window, which provided a competitive advantage to south Miami -Dade growers over other north and central Florida winter vegetable producers impacted by freeze losses and associated market valuation, and by reducing the number of crop cycles per year resulting from the shorter growing season. In addition, research conducted by the National Park Service identified that relatively small releases of fresh water from S -20F, S -21A, and/or 5-12 (on the order of 76 cfs per any two of three structures) during the dry season effectively moderates the occurrence of high salinity and hypersalinity events in the productive nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay. Efforts to redirect regional water supplies from outside of the coastal basins to make dry season deliveries to Biscayne Bay were thwarted in 2011 and 2012 due to drought conditions that affected water storage. However, in 2012, in a coordinated effort between the National Park Service, the United States Department of the Interior, and SFWMD, an operational test was conducted to move water from WCA 3A through 5-21 over a two-week period at average discharge rates of 100 cfs. The test successfully reduced elevated salinity levels in nearshore monitoring stations in the bay. In addition, operation of available CERP BBCW Project components, including the L -31E culverts and the Deering Estate 5-700 pump station, proved beneficial in distributing fresh water through coastal marine wetlands. During the 2012-2013 dry season, S -20F remained in the lower operational range, which provided daily low level freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay while maintaining area drainage for farming activities. These low level releases were shown to be successful in moderating nearshore bay salinities in the vicinity of the S -20F structure. SFWMD will continue to work closely with area interests to identify opportunities to optimize the management of water in southeastern Miami -Dade County based on real-time conditions consistent with the constraints of the system. Florida Bay Covering a triangular area of 850 square miles at the southern tip of the state, Florida Bay lies between the Everglades and the Florida Keys (Figure 23). About 80 percent of the estuary lies within Everglades National Park. The shallow bay has an average depth of about 3.3 feet, and most of the bottom is covered by submerged aquatic vegetation, particularly seagrass, which is beneficial habitat for many invertebrate and fish species. Since 1987, when widespread seagrass die -off began, a cascade of ecosystem changes occurred, including subsequent seagrass die -off events, algal blooms, high turbidity, widespread mortality of sponges, and decreases in some other invertebrates and fish species (Fourqurean and Robblee 1999). A major premise of Everglades restoration is that historical decreases in freshwater inflow from the Everglades and resultant increases in salinity contributed to these ecological changes (Rudnick et al. 2005). 68 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses - Current and Future Conditions ¥jr A vo ,a 0 � k ui s LL. 0 LL -i Z) 0 § � k � �® - 2 1 I ; ■ q( LU $ U , o � . « LU ¢Z� in - 7¢u 4W - 0 � k ui s LL. 0 LL -i Z) 0 § � 5 3 � CL _ _ / CL E _ Ln / \ LU \ 0 r14 k � I ; ■ ; � $ , « ¢Z� in - 7¢u 4W - � 5 3 � CL _ _ / CL E _ Ln / \ LU \ 0 r14 Protective rules for Florida Bay include MFL criterion established in 2006. An MFL exceedance occurs in northeastern Florida Bay when the average salinity over 30 or more consecutive days exceeds 30 at the Taylor River salinity monitoring station. This criterion is based on the needs of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat within the Florida Bay Taylor River/Little Madeira Bay/Eagle Key gradient, which is responsive to conditions in the transition zone between the Everglades and Florida Bay. Submerged aquatic vegetation is a critical component of the Florida Bay ecosystem. An MFL prevention strategy has been in place since 2006 and is provided in Appendix B. Since adoption of the Florida Bay MFL in 2006, there have been three MFL exceedances, but no MFL violations. SFWMD has a program of monitoring, research, and modeling in Florida Bay to 1) better understand the importance of water management as a driver of these and other ecological changes, 2) improve the ability to forecast the impacts of changing water management, and 3) improve management structures and operations for the protection and restoration of the Florida Bay ecosystem. Results from major monitoring projects emphasizing hydrologic and salinity conditions, water quality, seagrass habitat, and upper trophic levels including waterfowl, shrimp, and lobster can be found in Chapter 12 of Volume I of the 2010 South Florida Environmental Report (Doering and Alleman 2010). An update on research and modeling activities and research planning is also provided, summarizing key results related to water management operations, the Florida Bay MFL, and CERP. SFWMD is currently reevaluating the MFL criterion for Florida Bay. The technical assessment will consider the ecological and hydrologic components and include the research data collected since 2006. The MFL prevention strategy will be reevaluated as well, including whether to retain or modify the prevention strategy or develop a recovery strategy. CERP C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project: Baseline and Post -Implementation Monitoring The CERP C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project, which aims to reduce water losses from Taylor Slough to the eastern boundary of the Everglades, was completed in February 2012. This project creates a hydrologic ridge along the eastern border of Taylor Slough, thereby increasing the flow of water to Florida Bay via the slough. As a result of the project, important changes in the hydrology and ecology of the southern Everglades wetlands, the mangrove ecotone, and Florida Bay are expected to occur. For more information see www.evergladesplan.org/pm/projects/proj 29 c111.aspx. 70 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions The ecological effects of the CERP C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project are being assessed by comparing baseline monitoring to post -implementation monitoring. Previous monitoring efforts assisted with the development of baseline data for operational and restoration planning, performance measures and targets, and simulation models. Post -implementation monitoring includes the following: 4 Monitoring changes in nutrient and organic matter transport and transformations in water flowing from canals and through the wetlands of the southern Everglades to Florida Bay. Documenting changes in wetland salinity and vegetation. 4 Synthesizing the findings from this large wetland monitoring network with complementary monitoring and research efforts in the region to assess status and trends and causes of change. Additional Monitoring SFWMD is conducting additional long-term monitoring. The monitoring includes 1) freshwater macrophyte species composition; 2) sawgrass biomass, productivity, and tissue nutrient content; 3) soil characteristics, geochemical parameters, porewater salinity, and nutrients in several transects across the salinity gradient; 4) water levels and hydroperiod within the study area; 5) nutrient concentrations in the wetland and in creek inputs to Florida Bay; and 6) periphyton biomass and nutrient ratios at selected sites. The project will provide water quality and ecological data necessary for meeting several mandates: CERP C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project d'Restoration Coordination and Verification Program system status reports (RECOVER 2007a, 2007b, 2009, 2012) 4 Reevaluation of the Florida Bay MFL criteria 4 Assessment of this portion of the Everglades Protection Area pertaining to the Everglades Forever Act ♦ Assessment of ongoing operational plans and effects Lower East Coast Service Area Surficial Aquifer System The SAS extends across the LEC Planning area. It provides up to 94 percent of the fresh water for PWS and other urban uses within the planning area. The vertical extent and lateral variations within the aquifer are shown on the cross-section provided in Figure 3 within Chapter 1. Groundwater withdrawals from the SAS for agricultural users are common in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties. The highly transmissive Biscayne aquifer is part of the SAS, primarily extending across Broward and Miami -Dade counties and a small portion of southern Palm Beach County. A map of the transmissivity 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 71 and spatial extent of the Biscayne aquifer is presented in Figure 24, and indicates the aquifer becomes more transmissive (i.e., permeable) to the south. The Biscayne aquifer is designated as a "sole source aquifer" by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act because it is a principal source of drinking water and highly susceptible to contamination due to its high permeability and proximity to land surface. Martin L -k-e-- - �~ Okeechobee r l Pakn Bleach r Hendry 9 i I 1 b--- ----- - I I I I I h Monroe I I Mfaml�,a�J�, Trans rn is sivity ft ^ 21 500-10,000 U 10,001 -50,000 0 50,001 -100,000 ® 100,001 - 200,000 200,001 - 500,000 500.001- 750,000 - 750,001 - 1,000,000 - 1,000,001 - 1,500,000 1,500,001 - 5,000,000 Atlantic Ocean Figure 24. Map of the spatial extent and transmissivity of the Biscayne aquifer. (Note: in units of square feet per day.) 72 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions Protective rules for the Biscayne aquifer include MFL criterion established by rule in 2001. The minimum level for the Biscayne aquifer is the water level associated with preventing movement of the saltwater interface landward to the extent that groundwater quality at the withdrawal point is insufficient to serve as a water supply source. To meet the operational criteria, the canal stages at 11 primary structures cannot fall below identified levels for more than 180 days, and the average annual stage must be sufficient to allow levels and chloride concentrations in the aquifer to recover to levels that existed before a drought or discharge event occurred. An MFL prevention strategy has also been in place since 2001. Water Levels The SAS is an unconfined aquifer and responds rapidly to rainfall or the lack of rainfall. The Biscayne aquifer is also hydraulically connected to the surface water management systems in the LEC Planning Area, and is readily recharged and drained by canal water levels. As an example of this rapid response, Figure 25 displays a 35 -year period of record from a SAS well in east -central Broward County showing annual variations in water levels in response to seasonal rainfall and longer-term climactic variations. In this well (G-1221), average annual variations range within about 2 feet, although variations of as much as 6 feet can occur in response to heavy rain events. Because of the shallow, unconfined nature and high transmissivity of the Biscayne aquifer, canal stages and groundwater elevations are highly interdependent. Surface water management systems function as aquifer drains during dry periods. Rainfall intercepted by canal systems is diverted before recharging the aquifer and can lead to recharge in other areas, diversion to downstream consumptive use, loss to evapotranspiration, or discharge to tide. Urban and agricultural development and construction of the C&SF Project canal system resulted in changes to the groundwater hydrology of the area and an increased concern about the inland movement of salt water in coastal areas. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a network of wells that records water levels within the SAS throughout South Florida. This network is useful when comparing current water levels within each well with historical ranges. Figure 26 displays USGS maps from May 2011 and May 2012, showing differences between water levels throughout most of the area, resulting from considerably wetter conditions during 2012 as compared to 2011. SFWMD monitors these comparison maps weekly and uses them to determine areas of potential concern, particularly with regard to saltwater intrusion or when considering operational adjustments. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 73 5 M Water -level elevations from the past 35 years at G -1221 (26045808013480 1) PRDIJISIO-NAL DRAFT --Subject to Revision. Statistical measures are based on the last 35 years of PUBLISHED con tnuously-recorded data of U.S. Geological Survey data produced for http:lhvwwv.sflorid h.er.usgs.gov4 July 18, 2012. . 1 t t t - t - t t - t t 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 Daily maximum water -level elevation Lang -terns water level trend 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 YEAR Water levels measured at site visits Figure 25. Long-term water levels in a Biscayne aquifer well in Broward County. (Source: USGS National Weather Information System database.) 74 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions May 1, 2011 May 22, 2012 91•t}C�}11- 92'W'D,_ e7.. ., _ sa+oonpor rs��oo�uo- .,� 'o�• �o- - _. zalw,N, 7roni;a to Pop VV �a�oo as d: �IFr zs�no'oo- a-K"Ll e4 t7*30'8" . 1 arm fie'-. I-liµ_hFarwG6 Cr.. Iily�llkH�.�le. f_:, ?7"GOW.� Ca. rr4ae'nb. i $�+Wwve�, � LEtG AL QIr Cir�ieteCs � ' 0 PWrn .a Oke�obsi le.. r.GeQ4Mdroh �} Iae ! r Cdunt lbs L'd C MV Y BR�SY-04` O T f" C CBuah �1'�5'0@'. j �'t `7:: Ga tY .a AkA V A V O,. w d eo. • C7 6 ..,rd Ct. � C� �o11er Ca. vo-VIO Cb e � r4l4nrae Ca. Imo: UMS r 4 1S 0 is 00 75 7U NLIE S 4 5 aD a} 0 71 1* Aign U 15 36 45 W 75 00 KvDMETER9 C •..i, 10 45 60 75 ad r[i *VfT[M Footnote= Red braces denote �%,ater Ievels -; ithin Inr,; est 10% of historical range; green circles denote h-ater Irzvels -r, ithtl]N of historical i77ean; IDI L e triangles denote AraterIeve[ sbetu;eenhighestlO%tc30%r_rfhist-_-ricalrang?; I_•url)Iecross denotes -„aterlevelsrMthhighestc-fhistc-ricalrang? Figure 26. Water levels recorded at USGS monitoring wells during May 2011 (left panel) and May 2012 (right panel). 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 75 Chloride Concentrations SFWMD regulates withdrawals from the SAS to, among other items, prevent saltwater intrusion and to support ongoing environmental restoration programs among others. SFWMD implemented a rigorous program of chloride and water level monitoring to determine the extent of saltwater intrusion throughout the LEC Planning Area. Data from wells in the monitoring network in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties are online at USGS' website at www.sflorida.er.usgs.gov/ddn data/index.html. SFWMD recently (May 2011) estimated the position of the saltwater interface for each coastal county within the SAS and documented this position on maps. Figure 27 presents an example, showing the approximate extent of SAS saltwater intrusion for Broward County as of 2009. The maps were prepared based on periodic salinity monitoring conducted by USGS, SFWMD, and water use permit holders in select monitoring wells as of spring 2009. In general, the position of the interface remained relatively stable when compared to maps previously published by USGS. That said, the interface is certainly dynamic, and chloride concentrations increased in some areas (e.g., City of Lake Worth and southern Broward and Miami -Dade counties), while some wells in Palm Beach County exhibited freshening. SFWMD intends to periodically (i.e., every three to five years) compile chloride data from its salinity monitoring well network and prepare maps to estimate the position of the saltwater interface and allow comparison over time. 76 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions 100 0 51oC-3s 51OAS39 Baa V41J0_77Wj G56 • r Q. •Coral Springs rll � N N 3:Margate mpa S11C • �_•� •G i-358 S37B S 11 BTamarao • S37 511A r S -B ` + =XT C; 1 z S33 • G54 Beach A11anlic Ocean V Diulamor for l sochlor "The mchlor line marks an approximation of Phe farthasf Landward exlonl of the saltwater interface as defined by the 250 ri • Davie isoohl". regardless of well dept. andlor the farlhest landward exleM of saline surface water. The isochlor is based on Cho ■ average of available Chloride values for line period of Aprit-May Well and chbride information was oblained from LISGS and Carol City • r,4 I �29 �, North Dale: 4117f2D13 have nor been validated..- 28 C7 Beach A11anlic Ocean 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 77 Chloride Concentration in Wells Diulamor for l sochlor "The mchlor line marks an approximation of Phe farthasf Landward exlonl of the saltwater interface as defined by the 250 ri Po 0 <100 mg/L '� Estimated 250 mglL Isochlor w _ E isoohl". regardless of well dept. andlor the farlhest landward exleM of saline surface water. The isochlor is based on Cho h q 100-250 mg/L r7 Spillway0 S average of available Chloride values for line period of Aprit-May Well and chbride information was oblained from LISGS and Major Roads2DD9. — 2'550-1 000 M91L SF' Mlp reCord_s. Chloride and "if dare from the U5GS are available via hupPwalerdata. usgs.govinwis. Chloride and wall Mires ` >1000 mg�L Prepared by . Rawkime Fvahration data from the SFWMD have been furnished by Permlllaas and Dale: 4117f2D13 have nor been validated..- Map Doc.: LEG MP 5atl-ine.mi Figure 27. Estimated position of the saltwater intrusion extent in Broward County in 2009. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 77 Utilities Response to Saltwater Intrusion Saltwater intrusion was identified in the 2000 LEC Plan as a significant concern for 15 coastal utilities, which were asked to identify potential locations for new wellfields further inland. Following the adoption of the plan, the SFWMD planning and regulatory programs provided support to these utilities considered most at risk. Some of the utilities at risk had already begun planning either new wellfield sites or alternative source development. The 2005-2006 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update (2005-2006 LEC Plan Update; SFWMD 2007) included specific alternative water supply projects for each utility. During 2007 and extending into mid -2008, South Florida experienced an extended period of dry weather. Water levels declined throughout the region, creating concerns for accelerated saltwater intrusion, particularly in the areas of large water supply withdrawals at PWS wellfields located in close proximity to the coastline. As a result, SFWMD updated its analysis of utilities facing saltwater intrusion. Utilities were classified as "at risk" if they either did not have a western wellfield, an alternative source of water, or the ability to meet their needs through interconnection with other utilities. Additionally, other utilities were designated as "of concern" if they operated wellfields near the saltwater interface, but also had a western wellfield, or had developed an alternative source that was not threatened by saltwater intrusion. The utilities at risk in the LEC Planning Area identified during the 2007 drought included City of Lake Worth Utilities, Town of Lantana, City of Dania Beach, Town of Hillsboro Beach, City of Hallandale Beach, Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) south wellfields, Florida City Water and Sewer Department, City of Homestead, and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA). The locations of several of the wellfields relative to the historic saltwater intrusion line are shown in Figure 28 and Figure 29. As a result of prudent management of the water withdrawals, each of the utilities was able to meet demands during the 2007 drought without loss of eastern wells to saltwater intrusion. Seven of the utilities at risk have taken steps to diversify their sources or otherwise reduce their vulnerability to saltwater intrusion. Two utilities, MDWASD and Florida City, are pursuing projects that would help reduce saltwater intrusion concerns. SFWMD anticipates reformulating its analysis of utilities at risk and utilities of concern prior to the next update of the LEC plan. 78 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions os 9B PBC UALTIEs SYSTEM 1 t n VILLAGEOF �'-. '� PALM SPRINGS WEST 'n VILLAGE OF • • WELLINGTON • VILLA • OF •I Q s1ss PBC UTILITIES PALM SPRINGS EAST SYSTEM 2 .L51<E W9RTM U 1 LANTANAI gMANALAPAN I BOYNTON BEACH Sr•I wEsr • I 9OVNTON BEACI I WCA� I PBCUTIUTIES ( ! i • SYSTEM 3 N}J r DELRAYSEACH OELRAY BEACHI DELRAY GOLF COURSE • 1• DE LRAY BEACH I ■. E. ES IL BEACH MORI MORIKAMI • e SOCA RAT4N• I XGHLAND BEACX CRTH BOCA `ATM I • NORTHWEST //J1 i✓ffJ BOCA RATCH SOCA RATON EAST WEST L.�1�PUC UTILITIES l7.-TCMa I i waeaaaaasa uaaaa• • 1 cr'fjj(18 BROWARD CC NORTH REGIONAL. pEERFIEl6 BEACH EAST NORTH SPRINGS IMPROV DIST OEERFIEL I BEACH •1 �_ - —.-- WE5, J • BROWARD CO 2A CDRALSPRINGS • HILLSBORO BEACH CORALSPRINGa MARGATE I • POMPANO BEACH IMPRO; D1 ST • ' 1 AIRPORT TAMARAC• / WCA2B SUNRISE SPRING TREE• SUNRI BE SAWGRASS• j PLANTAT22L �c SUNRI�F�AMINGO, EAST•+ I- PI'ANTATGN CENTRAL • I� SUNRISE MELALEUCA r'JS t^i$$ i• I � I SUNI PARKCITY• :I :q coorERGFf CODPER CITY• OAW NA¢IEast�� j t DAVIE SO H. 4 OWARD CO SOUTH BRIAN PICCOLO PAR. • PEM9ROKE PINES CENTPAL ,. 1 PEMBRG1tE P IVES FAST I ;I • HOLLYMA70CIS NORTH I MIAMI--bADE"IHPMSI NW W'F • HlakaM1Pra_slon �\ MIAM-ADE T011 III/ Atlantic OCCQN Radars. - 1998 USGS HiHle VVRI 994212 Palm Beach, Mallin and St. Lucie Intrusion line. 1995 Sonenshein USES Dade County Intrusion line. VVRI 96-4285 200013—ard County Department of Planning and Environmental Pretecdon DISTHICT3 J DD EAST RIDAN LTH DIS1ICT11 WEST;YUELLFIELO Salinity Control Structure O Utilities At Risk O Utilities Of Concern aaaaaa County Lines - - - Major Roads WEST;YUELLFIELO I I MTAVIELAOE MIAMI-DAOE �I SW WELLFIELO •; I MIRMI-DACE AleFander� •' • I MIAMhDnDE SNAPPER CREEK Major Canals Approximate Historic Extent of Salt Water Intrusion Line Utilities at Risk 1 Utilities of Concern in 13roward County �#M[uad. acv W* E � Bcu[h Rloritla W31er Management Dlstricl V*Ier Supply Depadment S 3301 Gun Club Road, Vliet Palm Beech, 0 3 6 12 FL.33408 561 -580 -MOO -- sf—d 9av Prepared 3/1112013 Miles Figure 28. Utilities at risk and utilities of concern in southern Palm Beach and Broward counties in 2007 relative to the historic saltwater intrusion extent. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 79 MIRAMAR MIRAMAR EAST! y�'I WEST I _ .I --- .w.ww.}rwwww..iwu'-7 BROW . ...............0 .ww....o.w L....... ,Ax ' WCAU NORTH MIAMI BEACH., • � FG 82g NORTH MIAMV s11 Lf • TLE Rrr'ER CANAL i HIALEAH PRESTON. WCA38MIAMI-DADE i I I 326 1pbj f=95 I i i e i '1,\.ir.Irag pi h� ! conn - 1 Q-z F Everglades National Park I DADE REDAVO. .DADE�KOP i FLORIDACITY l SW WELLFIELD MIAMI-DADE SNAPPER CREEK. I i i SOUTH DADE FORMER ! PLANT 1 & 2 BPRTA HUNTER SOUTH DADE CARIBBEA I i� (SOUTH DADE•NARANJA SOUTH DADE ELEVATED TANK References 1995 USGS Halle WRI 99-4212 Palm 9eanh, Martin and SI. Lucie Intrusion line. 1995 Soaen ih.m USCS Dade County Intrusion line. WRI 964205 Hisekl tie �f1V �r Allarilic Ocean 200D Broward County Depantmentof Planning andq - Enwronmental Protection o of Salt Water Intrusion Line Utilities at Risk I Utilities of Concern N in Miami -Dade County W E South Florida VRter Management District Water Supply Department s 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, FL. 33406 0 2 4 8 561-BBBA000 - www.siwmd.gov Prepared 311112013 Miles Figure 29. Utilities at risk and utilities of concern in Miami -Dade County in 2007 relative to the historic saltwater intrusion extent. 80 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions ® Salinity Control Structure �. Utilities at Risk �a G) Utilities of Concern ....• County Lines S - - - Major Roads Major Canals Approximate Historic Extent 200D Broward County Depantmentof Planning andq - Enwronmental Protection o of Salt Water Intrusion Line Utilities at Risk I Utilities of Concern N in Miami -Dade County W E South Florida VRter Management District Water Supply Department s 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, FL. 33406 0 2 4 8 561-BBBA000 - www.siwmd.gov Prepared 311112013 Miles Figure 29. Utilities at risk and utilities of concern in Miami -Dade County in 2007 relative to the historic saltwater intrusion extent. 80 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions Floridan Aquifer System Within the LEC Planning Area, the Floridan aquifer system (FAS) represents a source of brackish groundwater for water users to meet future demand. More than 500 feet of low permeability sediments of the Hawthorn Group separate the FAS from the overlying SAS. Under such conditions, the FAS is "confined" and water within the FAS exists under artesian pressure. Although the potentiometric surface of the FAS is above land surface, the low permeability sediments of the Hawthorn Group prevent upward migration of brackish waters into the shallower aquifers. From Jupiter to southern Miami, water from the FAS is highly mineralized and requires specialized treatment, such as reverse osmosis or blending, to be converted into drinking water. As a result of the brackish quality of the water, the FAS is not a suitable source of agricultural water supply in the LEC Planning Area without blending or treatment. The FAS is generally subdivided into upper and lower sections separated by a relatively continuous low permeability, confining unit. The top of the upper FAS is approximately 900 to 1,000 feet below land surface in southeastern Florida, and the base of the upper Floridan aquifer extends as deep as 1,500 feet below land surface. More recently, the lower permeable zone of the upper Floridan aquifer, referred to as the Avon Park Permeable Zone, has been identified. This zone can be more productive and is frequently of better quality than the upper Floridan aquifer (Reese and Richardson 2007). Below this is the uppermost zone of the lower Floridan aquifer, which is more brackish than the upper Floridan aquifer. Several hundreds of feet of low transmissivity limestone are present at this depth, which effectively confine the formations in the FAS beneath it. At the base of the lower Floridan aquifer, at a depth of approximately 2,500 feet below land surface, are cavernous zones with extremely high transmissivity, known as the Boulder Zone, which provides a zone for disposal of treated wastewater, brine by-products of reverse osmosis treatment, and other FDEP-regulated discharges in the LEC Planning Area. Since the 2005-2006 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update (SFWMD 2007) was published, water withdrawals from the FAS increased by approximately 20 MGD. Presently, utilities produce a total of about 30 MGD of treated "finished" water from the FAS. Construction of new systems and expansion of existing FAS wellfields were undertaken by the following utilities: Seacoast Utility Authority, Glades Utility Authority, City of Lake Worth Utilities, City of Deerfield Beach, Town of Davie, City of Miramar, MDWASD (City of Hialeah), City of North Miami Beach, and FKAA. Seven golf courses also use the FAS as an irrigation supply source. Figure 30 presents a map with the location of permitted existing and proposed FAS wells within the LEC Planning Area. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 81 f�K[ Permitted Floridan Aquifer Users ;°"�s w- ad sl—d -IanS:YY's' LtL'-201 C'JUUete•.'e�!n!IzJFIo'.Sanl15zi5:MaUs:}IotiUan lJvls nlxU Figure 30. Locations of existing and potential FAS wells for PWS in the LEC Planning Area. 82 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions WntPr I PVPIC SFWMD maintains a FAS water level monitoring network throughout South Florida to observe long-term trends and serve as calibration points for groundwater models. The locations of wells within this network are shown in Figure 31. The data from this monitoring network is important, particularly in light of the trend of increasing withdrawals from the aquifer over the past few decades. To date, available water level data from wells monitoring the ambient conditions with the FAS—away from most permitted specific withdrawal locations—indicates that water levels within the aquifer remained fairly stable over the past decade. Chloride Concentrations To date, most of the usage of water from the FAS comes from the upper Floridan aquifer and the Avon Park Permeable Zone because the water in deeper portions of the FAS is more saline. A map of chloride concentrations in the upper Floridan aquifer is presented in Figure 32. In the recent periods of increasing withdrawals, the chloride concentration of water produced from FAS wellfields generally remained fairly stable. However, chloride concentrations within the aquifer are geographically variable. Within the past few years, the Glades Utility Authority wellfield in the Belle Glade area experienced an unanticipated increase in chlorides within the produced water. This phenomenon is probably a result of upconing of saline groundwater from deeper portions of the aquifer. This illustrates that supply wellfields drawing from the FAS need to be carefully evaluated, designed, and operated to minimize the potential for water quality degradation over time. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 83 V f : I ° I Atlantfc Ocean s - Lake Okeechobee ■ Q �'rJ I � ■ I Gulf of Mexico ■ :, s • ! ■ z� .R . ■ 4� �■■ p ■ I sae A. ■ ■ FAS Wells � _■� SFWMQArea Ii 6� A �' 6 fl 0 20 40 Miles Figure 31. FAS monitoring wells. 84 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses —Current and Future Conditions � I I I o II I ° a -------------- �I I + I 7 I I + o + , I } h1 I I CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION mg/L < 100 100-250 250-500 500 - 1,00c) 1,000 - 5,000 > 5,000 t3r7L o0 25 12.5 0 25 hliiies Figure 32. Estimated chloride concentrations in the upper FAS within SFWMD. (Note: mg/L— milligrams per liter.) 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 85 OUTLOOK ON CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change, especially sea level rise, may affect the water supply in the LEC Planning Area. While climate change is occurring across the globe, the regional impact varies and the degree and rate of change remains uncertain. Long-term data show changes in parameters such as temperature, rainfall, and sea level. Despite the uncertainties, climate change and its effects on coastal freshwater aquifers should be included as a consideration in water supply planning (see Chapters 1 and 7). The potential impacts of climate change vary. Rising sea levels will cause groundwater near the coast to become more saline and groundwater levels to increase. Shallow water supply wellfields within this area will potentially become brackish. The rising sea level has the strong potential to increase the salt content of water leaking into sewer collection systems and complicate the operations of wastewater treatment plants (Bloetscher et al. 2009). Changes to evapotranspiration and weather patterns are not predictable today but will likely affect water supply and demand. If temperatures and evapotranspiration increase as many experts expect, both PWS and Agricultural Self -Supply water demands may increase. More frequent intense rainfall events with longer interim dry periods could increase total annual rainfall, but decrease effective rainfall, as more water may be lost to runoff or tide. These changes in precipitation and runoff will further alter estuarine circulation patterns and salinity regimes (Scavia et al. 2002). The uncertainty of climate change challenges water utilities as they plan for the future. Traditionally, water resource planning used climate data from the past and current hydrology to represent future supply conditions because it was assumed the parameters of water resources, such as temperature, precipitation, stream flow, groundwater, and evaporation, would be the same as they had been in the past. While large variations in observed weather were experienced in the past, it was assumed that climate statistics would stay the same and variability would not increase in the future. With climate change, future planning must be able to consider additional uncertainties and larger variability (Water Utility Climate Alliance 2010). Evaluation Efforts Efforts to understand the effects of climate change and the approaches to deal with climate change are under evaluation by many agencies. At the national level, USEPA developed the National Water Program 2012 Strategy. Response to Climate Change (USEPA 2012). In this document, USEPA stated the following: ...coastal areas are likely to see multiple impacts associated with climate change (e.g., sea level rise, increased damage from floods and storms, coastal erosion, changes in drinking water supplies, increasing temperature); acidification...; and nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, which could result in more profound consequences to water resources and 86 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions ecosystem services. These overlapping impacts make protecting water resources in coastal areas especially challenging. USEPA states that many actions that could be taken to adapt to climate change are actions that add value absent climate change. The best management practices used by PWS utilities include water conservation and other efficiencies and have the ability to deal with climate change impacts as well as increasing demand caused by population growth. Three of the goals from this strategy relate to water supply planning: ♦ Efficiency in the use of energy and water should form the foundation of how we develop, distribute, recover, and use energy and water. ♦ Wastewater treatment facilities, which treat human and animal waste, should be viewed as renewable resource recovery facilities that produce clean water, recover energy, and generate nutrients. ♦ The water and energy sectors—governments, utilities, manufacturers, and consumers—should move toward integrated energy and water management from source, production, and generation to end user. For more information on USEPA's 2012 National Water Program Strategy see water.epa.gov/scitech/climatechange12012-National-Water-Program-Strategv.cfm. The State of Florida passed the Community Planning Act in 2011 (Chapter 163, F.S.). This act provides for adaptation action areas to improve infrastructure resilience to flooding by extreme high tides, storm surges, and sea level rise in low lying coastal areas. Also in 2011, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity received funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to fund a five-year project, Community Resiliency: Planning for Sea Level Rise. Among the goals of the project are to inventory sea level rise research and adaptation initiatives, identify technical resources for local communities, identify models to assess vulnerability, and determine the best way to incorporate sea level rise adaptation planning into state and local comprehensive plans. To support regional and local efforts, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami -Dade, and Monroe counties established the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact to inform, improve, and advance regional planning efforts together. The SFWMD is an active but non- voting member of the compact. Compact participants recognized the need to protect and address the vulnerable water supply and infrastructure, and preserve both the natural system and agricultural resources. Participants in the process include the four counties, SFWMD, numerous local and city governments and utilities, other governmental agencies, and nonprofit organizations. In October 2012, the compact published A Region Responds to a Changing Climate, which serves as a regional climate action plan (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact 2012a). Because there are more than 100 local governments in the region with various government structures, management policies, land use authorities, charters, and political environments, implementation of the plan is expected to take different forms and must be flexible to address specific local conditions (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact 2012a). Additionally, Broward, Miami -Dade, and Monroe counties developed comprehensive county climate change action plans with goals, strategies, and action items. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 87 Both Broward and Miami -Dade counties are working cooperatively with the USGS on development of groundwater models to address water supply planning while considering sea level rise. The Broward model will help to simulate the historical pattern and rate of saltwater intrusion in the central and southern portions of the county. The Miami -Dade model will be used to evaluate operational scenarios and effects and how sea level rise will affect the freshwater/saltwater interface in the Biscayne aquifer. Additionally, Broward County has developed a comprehensive surface water and groundwater model that can be used to simulate various water management scenarios. This model can be used to quantify the benefits to natural areas like wetlands, as well as to wellfields, from proposed improvements to water management, and it can help us identify ways to prevent saltwater intrusion in vulnerable areas. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, SFWMD estimated the position of the saltwater interface for each coastal county within the SAS and documented this position with a series of maps. The maps were based on periodic salinity monitoring conducted by USGS, SFWMD, and water use permit holders in select monitoring wells as of spring 2009. Work on the next series of saltwater interface map updates will begin in 2014. This will allow comparison of the interface over time, and potentially identify areas of concern that may require additional monitoring or action to protect wellfields. These maps will be used in water supply planning, consumptive use permitting, and other areas of SFWMD. Response to Sea Level Rise In the LEC Planning Area, sea level rise is a key concern. Therefore, early in their efforts, members of the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact reviewed current projections and scientific literature regarding sea level rise. Compact members recommended the sea level rise projections used by the group be based on the USACE guidance document, Water Resource Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sea -Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs (USACE 2009), until more definitive information became available. USACE anticipates a sea level rise of 3 to 7 inches by 2030 and 9 to 24 inches by 2060. Related to the sea level rise projections is the need to understand the areas potentially vulnerable because of the rise. In support of the compact's efforts, SFWMD developed digital elevation data sets for mapping inundation layers to represent areas potentially vulnerable to one-, two-, and three -feet sea level rise scenarios. The maps and inundation layers were then used by the four counties to assess their jurisdictions (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact 2012a). In concert with the regional climate action plan, the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact developed a Regional Climate Action Framework. Implementation Guide (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact 2012b) that describes initiatives, planning horizon, potential partners, potential funding sources, needed policies or legislation, estimated resources needed, and performance measures. Of the 110 recommendations, 18 relate to water supply, water management, and infrastructure. SFWMD will continue to collaborate with other compact participants on the implementation process. 88 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions The SFWMD has invested resources in developing numerical models and evaluating water management model scenarios of sea level rise and precipitation. Because of the changing weather patterns, the SFWMD will extend the climate data used in modeling more frequently than every five years, which is typical. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 89 90 1 Chapter 3: Water Resource Analyses — Current and Future Conditions II Water Resource Development Projects This chapter addresses the roles of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and other parties in water resource development projects and provides a summary of projects in the Lower East Coast (LEC) Planning Area. The ♦ Regional Projects project summaries serve as a brief overview of the additional 4 Districtwide Projects water supply -related activities in the LEC Planning Area and are listed by region where benefits accrue. The regions are Lake L 4 Summary Okeechobee, the Everglades, the Loxahatchee River, Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay, and the LEC Service Area. Lastly, an update on the status of districtwide water resource development projects is provided. Annual updates on these projects can be found in Chapter 5 of Volume I of the South Florida Environmental Reports available from www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. Florida water law identifies two types of projects to meet water needs: water resource development projects (subject of this chapter) and water supply development projects. Water resource development projects are generally the responsibility of water management districts. These projects support water supply development and are intended to ensure the availability of an adequate supply of water for all existing and future uses, including maintaining the functions of natural systems. To fulfill the responsibility to provide water for the natural system, the SFWMD monitors the health of the natural system. Therefore, projects related to monitoring are included in this chapter. Water supply development projects are generally the responsibility of water users, such as utilities, and involve the water source options described in Chapter 5 to meet their needs. Specific water supply development projects are identified in Chapter 6 and Appendix F. Water resource planning in the LEC Planning Area is strongly influenced by the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Authorized by the United States Congress in 2000, CERP is a conceptual plan, the implementation of which is a significant restoration program. CERP builds upon and complements other state and federal initiatives to revitalize South Florida's ecosystem. In 2000, federal and state legislation authorized the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and SFWMD to equally fund restoration, protection, and preservation of water resources in Central and South Florida, including the 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 91 Everglades. To implement CERP, USACE and SFWMD employ the following phases: 1) project identification, 2) project planning, 3) approval and authorization, 4) project design, S) project construction, and 6) operation and maintenance. These phases are supported by modeling, land acquisition, project controls, and technical services performed throughout the process. CERP projects are discussed by region in this chapter and are listed in Table 11. The CERP projects also form the capital projects element of the MFL recovery strategies found in Appendix B. Table 11. Regions within the LEC Planning Area and CERP projects within each region. Region CERP Project Lake Okeechobee Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project Everglades Water Conservation Area 3A Decompartmentalization Physical Model Loxahatchee River Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project Biscayne Bay Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project Florida Bay C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project LEC Service Area Fran Reich Preserve Reservoir Hillsboro Aquifer Storage and Recovery Pilot Project Broward County Water Preserve Areas Environmental Preserve at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Habitat REGIONAL WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Lake Okeechobee In this section, the following projects are discussed: 4 CERP Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project Taylor Creek, Nubbin Slough, and Lakeside Ranch Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAB) 4 USACE Herbert Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation Lake Okeechobee Habitat Enhancements The locations of these projects are shown in Figure 33. 92 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Taylor Creek Resery Okeechobee 1� Glades l5. 4 "'0 Lake Okeechobee ('i . ------------------------------ Hendry Cypress, Oak, or Pond Apple Tree Planting, 2007-2011 Recreation and Navigation Area Enhancement, 2007-2008 Q Tire Debris Removal Site, 2008 Q Native Aquatic Plant Enhancements, 2011 Apple Snail Enhancement Areas, 2010 -Present Exotic and Nuisance Plant Control Areas, 2002-2011 Muck Scraping, Tilling, & Disking, 2007-2008 Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Reach 1 Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Reach 2 "t Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Reach 3 Non -Vegetated Lake Area Nubbin Slough STA Expansion L.., a. Lakeside Ranch STA 7 �� f IA Elm 1 s.� I:, on S 0 i � 1 Ilk Palrn:Beaeh �� �� ■r_�II yip 61 am -i LJ ON ■ L -2T 411 M Y Lake " III Okeechobee r- 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Figure 33. Projects in the Lake Okeechobee region. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 93 CERP Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project The CERP Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project area covers approximately 1,800 square miles and incorporates the four major tributary systems that drain the lower portion of the watershed into Lake Okeechobee. The purpose of this project is to reduce damaging releases to the surrounding estuaries, increase aquatic and wildlife habitat, regulate extreme highs and lows in lake staging, and reduce phosphorus loading. In addition, this project will focus on rehydrating wetlands in and around the areas north of Lake Okeechobee and improving the ecological health of Lake Istokpoga. Although located outside of the LEC Planning Area, this project includes additional storage that will provide water supplies needed for Lake Okeechobee minimum flows and levels (MFL) recovery. The key components of the CERP Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project proposed tentatively selected plan consist of a recommended Lake Istokpoga regulation schedule and the following six structural water storage and treatment features: 4 Reservoir in the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Basin - an 1,984 -acre reservoir will provide a maximum capacity of 32,000 acre-feet (ac -ft). It will receive inflows from, and discharge back to, Taylor Creek. 4 STA in the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Basin - a 3,975 -acre treatment area will receive inflow from the L-64 Canal and discharge back to the L-47 Canal. It is projected to provide 15.8 metric tons per year total phosphorus load reduction. Reservoir in the Kissimmee River Basin - a 10,281 -acre aboveground reservoir will provide a maximum storage capacity of 161,263 ac -ft within the Kissimmee River Basin. It will receive flow from and discharge back to the Kissimmee River. 4 Reservoir in the Lake Istokpoga Basin - a 5,416 -acre reservoir to provide a maximum storage capacity of 79,560 ac -ft. It will receive inflow from and discharge back to the C -41A Canal. 4 STA in the Lake Istokpoga Basin - an 8,044 -acre treatment area will receive flow from the C-41 Canal and discharge treated water to Lake Okeechobee. It is expected to provide approximately 29.1 metric tons per year total phosphorus load reduction. Restored Wetland in Paradise Run - a 3,730 -acre wetland restoration site located at the ecologically significant confluence of Paradise Run, oxbows of the Kissimmee River, and Lake Okeechobee. Implementation of the CERP Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project has been delayed primarily due to unresolved federal -state cost-sharing issues for project water quality components. However, water resource development projects progressed in the region under the auspices of other programs and initiatives. These include the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan, the 94 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Plan, and the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phases 1 and 2. Taylor Creek, Nubbin Slough, and Lakeside Ranch STAs Numerous efforts have been conducted under the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project, including completion of the Lakeside Ranch STA Phase I construction and two pilot -scale STAs in Taylor Creek and Nubbin Slough. Taylor Creek STA Pilot Proiect The Taylor Creek STA pilot project was constructed in 2006 and implemented under the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project - Phase 1. The STA is located in central Okeechobee County and is approximately 142 acres in size with an effective treatment area of 118 acres. It is divided into two cells in series and is expected to treat about 10 percent of the water flow in Taylor Creek. The expected annual average total phosphorus removal performance of the Taylor Creek Pilot STA was estimated at 2.08 metric tons per year. Initial flow-through operations at the Taylor Creek STA commenced in 2008, but were suspended due to a culvert failure at the discharge structure. After repairs were completed, the STA resumed continuous flow-through operation in September 2010. USACE and SFWMD, the project's co-sponsors, have a 50-50 cost share agreement. SFWMD is responsible for the operation, monitoring, and maintenance of the facility. Since May 2011, SFWMD has operated the facility under a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit. Nubbin Slough STA Pilot Proiect The Nubbin Slough STA Pilot Project was also implemented under the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project - Phase 1. It is the larger of the two pilot STAs implemented north of the lake. USACE was responsible for the design and construction of the project. SFWMD is the local sponsor of the project and will be responsible for operation and maintenance. It is located about 6.5 miles southeast of the City of Okeechobee. This two - celled STA is approximately 809 acres in size with an effective treatment area of 773 acres. The projected long-term average total phosphorus reduction within the STA was estimated at 5 metric tons or about 85 percent of the total phosphorus load of Nubbin Slough at the project location. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 95 Construction of the Nubbin Slough STA was completed in September 2006; however, it could not be operated as designed due to a series of electrical and mechanical problems uncovered during pump tests. Aggradations of sediment in the pump basin also impaired operations. Repairs and construction modifications to the intake basin were completed and the STA became operational in June 2012. Flooding associated with Tropical Storm Isaac revealed that remnant pipes exist within the STAB footprint and need to be plugged. SFWMD and USACE developed a repair plan for the 5-385 bypass weir and piping under the levee. Repairs will begin when groundwater levels are low enough to proceed with the pipeline excavation and grouting. In the meantime, pumping operations and water quality monitoring at the Nubbin Slough STA are suspended. Lakeside Ranch STA Proiect The Lakeside Ranch STA Project is a key component of the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program and is featured in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase 2 Technical Plan (SFWMD et al. 2008). The Lakeside Ranch STA is in the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Subwatershed, a nutrient hot spot in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed. The STA is expected to reduce total phosphorus loads to the lake by up to 19 metric tons per year. The STA will also be able to recirculate water from the lake, which may provide potential for internal phosphorus removal. The Lakeside Ranch STA Project was designed in two phases. Phase I includes a northern STA (919 -acre effective treatment area), canal improvements along the L-63 and L-64 levees, and installation of the 5-650 pump station. State appropriations funded construction of Phase I, which was completed in May 2012. Phase II includes a southern STA (788 -acre effective treatment area), a new pump station at 5-191, and a discharge canal. Final design of Phase II was completed in December 2011 and implementation is subject to future funding. This STA is anticipated to be one of the tentatively selected plan components of the CERP Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project. USACE Herbert Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation USACE is rehabilitating the Herbert Hoover Dike, a 143 - mile series of levees and structures surrounding Lake Okeechobee, to address structural integrity concerns with the embankment and internal culvert structures. The Herbert Hoover Dike was first authorized in 1930. It was constructed by hydraulic dredge and fill methods. In 2007, USACE designated the Herbert Hoover Dike a dam safety action classification risk of Class I, representing the highest USACE dam risk of failure rating and requiring remedial action. The project originally included construction of structural features, cut-off walls, and landside rehabilitation. It also included design of rehabilitation features in current and 96 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects m Herbert Hoover Dike rehabilitation construction future segments (Reaches 1-8) of the Herbert Hoover Dike. The Herbert Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Report (USACE 2000b) divided the 143 -mile dike into eight reaches with the initial focus on Reach 1. This reach -by -reach approach has been replaced with the systemwide risk reduction approach USACE utilizes for safety modifications to dams. The current approved and planned remediation measures will address the highest points of potential failure in the system based on known areas of concern. The implementation of the 21.4 -mile cutoff wall component in Reach 1 satisfies the majority of the risk reduction goals. This component is scheduled to be completed in 2013. As part of this risk reduction approach, the 32 water control structures (culverts) operated by USACE are being replaced, removed, or abandoned with a scheduled completion in 2018. Culvert 14, north of Canal Point, was removed in 2011. Replacement work began in 2012 to Culverts 11 and 16 south of Port Mayaca, at Culverts 1 and 1A east of Moore Haven, and at Culverts 3 and 4A near South Bay. Additional contracts for the replacement of other culverts are expected to be awarded by late 2013. USACE is currently conducting the Herbert Hoover Dike Dam Safety Modification Study, which is anticipated to be complete in 2015. The study is a comprehensive, systemwide study intended to identify risks in the system, and to recommend the necessary measures that can reduce the risk of failure. USACE expects the results of the study to provide the final roadmap toward the ultimate goal of reducing failure risk at the Herbert Hoover Dike. Culvert replacement will continue as the study progresses. Once the study is complete, USACE will execute projects identified by the study. Additional planned remediation measures consist of construction of a cutoff wall and/or a seepage management system in Reaches 2 and 3. These actions are scheduled for completion by 2022 (USACE and SFWMD 2013) and should lower the dam safety action classification from Class I. USACE committed to revision of the Lake Okeechobee operations in its Final Environmental Impact Statement Including Appendices A through G - Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (USACE 2007). Specifically, USACE stated, the following: Pending completion of rehabilitation in Reaches 1, 2 or 3, as HHD2 rehabilitation progresses, the Corps' will evaluate the capacity to operate the Lake in a manner to provide more water storage in conjunction with achieving other project purposes. The anticipated points at which the Corps will utilize the flexibility within the schedule consistent with protection of health safety and welfare to provide additional storage include, at a minimum, completion of filling of the toe ditch, construction of the seepage berm within the existing right of way in Reach 1, and equivalent dike improvements in Reaches 2 or 3, which are currently under design. Upon changed circumstances, the Corps will provide additional storage, consistent with technical analysis, that might result from higher lake elevations. 2 HHD - Herbert Hoover Dike 3 Corps - United States Army Corps of Engineers 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 97 The USACE expects to operate under the 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (2008 LOBS) until the earlier of 1) implementation of a new Lake Okeechobee schedule as a component of the systemwide operating plan to accommodate CERP projects, or 2) completion of the Herbert Hoover Dike seepage management system for Reaches 1, 2, and 3 as determined necessary to lower the dam safety action classification rating from Class 1. USACE intends to implement a new schedule or any necessary schedule modifications or deviations concurrent with the completion of item 1 or item 2 above (USACE and SFWMD 2013). A revised regulation schedule could provide the additional water supplies needed for Lake Okeechobee MFL recovery, enhance the level of certainty to existing permitted users, and support other environmental objectives. For more information see www.saj.usace.army.mil /Missions /CivilWorks/LakeOkeechobee/HerbertHooverDike.aspx. Lake Okeechobee Habitat Enhancements The 2007 drought lowered Lake Okeechobee water levels, allowing SFWMD to cost- effectively conduct a series of management activities. Continued low water levels in both Lakes Okeechobee and Istokpoga during 2008 prompted SFWMD to garner input from various agencies to plan low lake stage restoration projects for the coming dry seasons, as well as helping to mitigate more the frequent low lake stages anticipated under the 2008 LORS. These low lake level activities resulted in further research and aided project formulation. The activities include muck scraping and disking/plowing, native aquatic plant enhancement, exotic and nuisance plant control, recreation and navigation area enhancement, in -lake debris removal, and initiation of an apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) nursery. These activities were implemented during subsequent droughts. Everglades The following projects are discussed in this section (Figure 34): 4 Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan 4 C-139 Annex Restoration Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (ModWaters) 4 CERP Water Conservation Area (WCA) 3A Deco mpartmentalization (Decomp) Physical Model (DPM) 4 Ongoing CERP Planning, including the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) 4 Wading Bird Monitoring Report ♦ Historical Tree Island Mapping 98 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects I- Green heron in Everglades National Park Figure 34. Projects in the Everglades region. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 99 Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan The Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan is a strategy and technical plan comprised of a suite of projects designed to meet water quality objectives supporting Everglades' restoration. FDEP and SFWMD worked in coordination with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to develop projects that will work in combination with the existing STAB to achieve the Water Quality Based Effluent Limit. The technical plan includes six projects that will create more than 6,500 acres of new STAB and 110,000 ac -ft of additional water storage through construction of flow equalization basins (FEBs) (Figure 35). FEBs are constructed storage features used to capture and store peak stormwater flows. FEBs provide a more steady flow of water to STAB, helping to maintain desired water levels needed to achieve optimal water quality treatment performance. Figure 35. Key elements of the Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan. The strategy also includes additional source controls—pollution reduction at its source—in the eastern Everglades Agricultural Area where phosphorus levels in stormwater runoff have been historically higher. In addition, a robust science plan will ensure continued research and monitoring to improve and optimize the performance of water quality treatment technologies. In the L-8 Basin, located in central Palm Beach County, SFWMD purchased a 46,000 ac -ft belowground impoundment created by rock mining operations. The L-8 site was originally anticipated to provide water storage as a CERP component. The unique geology (low transmissivity limestone) at the L-8 site allows for deep, belowground storage, minimizing water loss through seepage. As part of the Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality 100 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Plan approved in 2012, the L-8 site is now under construction for use as an FEB. The L-8 FEB will provide storage for delivery of consistent flows needed to optimize performance of the STAB. In September 2012, SFWMD awarded a $63.9 million contract for design and construction of an inflow structure, internal improvements, revetment strengthening, a pump station, and six pumps to convey water into and out of the L-8 FEB, which can pull water from 40 feet below land surface. The A-1 FEB is an 15,000 -acre shallow impoundment area located south of Lake Okeechobee. It is designed to store approximately 60,000 ac -ft of storm water. The A-1 FEB is the largest of three FEBs identified in the plan. The A-1 FEB will attenuate peak stormwater flows, temporarily storing water so it can be delivered at a steady rate to STA 2 and STA 3/4 to improve their performance. FDEP issued a permit authorizing SFWMD to build, operate, and maintain the A-1 FEB in July 2013. Construction of the A-1 FEB is scheduled to be completed by July 2016. Design and construction of the treatment and storage projects will be completed in three phases over a twelve-year timeframe, with completion set for 2025. More information is available at www.sfwmd.gov/restorationstrategies. C-139 Annex Restoration The C-139 Annex Restoration property is a restoration project funded in part by the Lake Belt Mitigation Fund. The Lake Belt Mitigation Committee4 studied the restoration potential of the site and approved its use as mitigation for wetland impacts in the Lake Belt region in December 2012. The project will restore historic Everglades hydrologic conditions to 15,000 acres formerly used as a citrus grove. Restoration will progress as mitigation funds allow and is expected to be by complete by 2018. The project will consist of the following elements: # Buildings and structures removal ♦ Exotic vegetation removal 4 Citrus tree clearing and planting bed leveling i Irrigation system removal and well abandonment Canal backfilling, and road and levee degradation to restore sheetflow 4 Native vegetation replanting and microtopographical contouring 4 The Lake Belt Mitigation Trust Fund is designed to fund mitigation projects offsetting limerock mining impacts within areas of the Miami -Dade County Lake Belt. The fund is supported by a per -ton mitigation fee assessed on limestone sold from the Lake Belt area. The fund is used for acquiring environmentally sensitive lands and for restoration, maintenance, and other environmental purposes. Expenditures from the fund are managed by the Miami -Dade County Lake Belt Mitigation Committee, an interagency committee consisting of representatives from the Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management, FDEP, SFWMD, and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 101 Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park The United States Department of Interior and USACE co-sponsor ModWaters. Its purpose is to restore natural hydrologic conditions in Everglades National Park, which were altered by the construction of roads, levees, and canals. The project is a foundation project for CERP, providing the first major restoration effort for Everglades National Park. This project will provide water supplies needed for Everglades MFL recovery. Many of the anticipated CERP projects will not be technically feasible without implementation of ModWaters. ModWaters is essential to provide the flow capacity necessary for future CERP projects. ModWaters has five major components: Tamiami Trail Modifications - The L-29 Levee and Tamiami Trail Highway impede water flow from WCA 313 to northeastern Shark River Slough in Everglades National Park. These impediments will be overcome by completion of two new water control structures that will allow flow through the L-29 Levee, raising Tamiami Trail, and installation of a one -mile long bridge on Tamiami Trail. Construction of this project began in 2010 and the new bridge opened for use in April 2013 with additional site work continuing through the end of the year. 4 L -67A Conveyance Features - This component involves the construction of new water control structures to allow water to flow from WCA 3A into WCA 313. These features may not be executed as part of ModWaters due to budgetary constraints. 8.5 -Square Mile Area Protection Features - This component includes a protection levee, seepage collection canal, pump station, and detention area to maintain existing levels of flood protection to the 8.5 -Square Mile Area under the higher stages expected with increased flow to northeastern Shark River Slough. Construction of this component was complete in 2008. 5-356 Pump Station - This pump station will collect water that seeps out of WCA 313 and northeastern Shark River Slough into the L-30 and L-31 canals and pump it into the L-29 Canal, thereby returning water to northeastern Shark River Slough. This component will provide restoration benefits to Everglades National Park and avoid impacts on flood protection to the east. Construction was complete in 2002. However, FDEP has not issued an operational permit. Considerable stakeholder controversy surrounding the use of the 5-356 pump station prevented it from reaching operational status. USACE submitted an application to FDEP in October 2012 requesting authorization to field test operations at the 5-356 pump station and to modify G-3273 criteria. As of February 2013, action on the application is pending USACE response to FDEP's request for additional information. 4 Taylor Slough Bridge - A replacement bridge was constructed in 2007 to increase the flow capacity under the main park road. 102 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects CERP WCA 3A Decompartmentalization Physical Model DPM is a field -scale test that will assess the effects of pulsed flows on hydrology, sediment transport, vegetation, and wildlife. DPM results will determine how best to design and formulate plans for future decompartmentalization of WCA 3, as visualized in CERP. DPM is designed to address scientific, hydrologic, and water management uncertainties that require clarification prior to future planning and construction of Everglades restoration projects. This project will help determine the water supplies needed for Everglades MFL recovery. This project will temporarily install the following features: ten 60 -inch culverts in the L -67A Levee, and a 3,000 -foot gap in the L -67C Levee with three experimental backfill methods. Deconstruction of these features will occur at the end of the DPM testing period and the project area will be restored to pre -DPM conditions. In 2012, USACE received the final permit for DPM construction and interim operations. A contract for construction was awarded in May 2012. SFWMD anticipates testing will begin November 2013 and continue through 2014. Ongoing CERP Planning In October 2011, the intergovernmental South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force endorsed a state -federal initiative to speed up the CERP planning process for key restoration projects in the Everglades. Now under way, CEPP combines a series of CERP components into one project implementation report. CEPP will identify and plan for projects on land already in public ownership to direct more water south to the central Everglades, WCA 3, Everglades National Park, and Florida Bay while providing water for other water -related needs. The following CEPP components for storage and treatment, distribution and conveyance, and seepage management elements are under consideration (Figure 36): Storage and Treatment Construction of an FEB on the Talisman A-2 parcel with integrated operations with the Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan A-1 FEB operations. ♦ Diversion of L-6 Canal flows and L-5 Canal improvements. ♦ Removal of approximately 2.9 miles of the western portion of the L-4 Levee and modification of the S-8 pump station. ♦ Miami Canal backfill and spoil mound removal (beginning approximately 1.5 miles south of the S-8 structure and ending at I-75). 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 103 0 r v'IP 4 0 A-2 A-1° S-8 L-5 L-4 co4 1 L-28 Triangle L-33 W C A L-30 3 B S-335 5-333 L-29 Tarnlarni Trall 2 S- L-67 Ext v WIZE S NOT TO SCALE FEB IWSTA (> Pump Backfill Levee Removal 71�> Gated Structure � Seepage Barrier ® Divide o Levee Figure 36. CEPP features under consideration. 104 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Distribution and Conveyance (Southern WCA 3A/B) 4 Increase the 5-333 structure capacity. 4 Construction of three structures and spoil removal west of the L -67A Canal north and south of the structures with two of the structures at the beginning of the flow -way from WCA 3A through WCA 3B to Everglades National Park. 4 Construction of a levee in WCA 3B connecting the L -67A Levee to the L-29 Levee along with removal of the L -67C (no canal backfill) and L-29 levees, creating a flow -way from WCA 3A through WCA 3B to Everglades National Park. 4 Construction of a gated structure along the L -67A Levee and 6,000 -foot gap in the L -67C Levee. 4 Removal of the entire L-67 Extension Levee and backfill the L-67 Extension Canal. 4 Removal of the Old Tamiami Trail road from the L-67 Extension Levee to Everglades National Park's Tram Road. Seepage Management 4 Increase 5-356 pump station capacity. 4 Construction of a partial depth seepage barrier south of Tamiami Trail (along the L -31N Levee). 4 G-211 structure operations refinement and use of coastal canals to convey seepage. Wading Bird Monitoring Report Wading birds are useful indicators of environmental health. The collection of data and analysis of the trends is a useful tool to track changes in the environment. Each year, SFWMD prepares the Wading Bird Monitoring Report covering all wading bird breeding colonies in South Florida. The 2012 report documents continued declines in the nesting activity of many wading bird species highlighting the need for Everglades restoration and development of regional water resources projects (Cook and Kobza 2012). Historical Tree Island Mapping Everglades tree islands are areas of critical habitat and centers of biodiversity. In 2011, this project mapped tree islands within Everglades National Park using stereoscopic analyses of historic aerial photography from 1952 through 2004. Previous mapping efforts found tree island degradation or loss on 90 percent of WCA 2A and 60 percent of WCA 3A since the 1940s due to hydrologic alterations. This project sought to examine relatively healthy tree islands of Shark River Slough for comparison to the degraded tree islands in the WCAs. Data gained from this and previous tree island studies gives insight into the hydrologic conditions needed to sustain healthy 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 105 tree islands. The study highlights the need for development of regional water resources projects to restore hydrologic conditions in the WCAs to sustain tree islands. Documentation of this additional information is necessary to provide a better understanding of how and why tree islands changed over the last 50 years and what might be in store for their future. Loxahatchee River In this section, the following projects are discussed: Restoration Plan for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River A CERP Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project (formerly known as North Palm Beach County - Part 1) ♦ Storage for the Loxahatchee River Restoration Plan for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River Loxahatchee River In April 2003, a recovery strategy was approved, which included the commitment by SFWMD to develop, in partnership with FDEP, "a practical restoration plan and goal" for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. The objective of the Restoration Plan for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River is to use the best available scientific and technical information to develop a practical restoration goal and plan to provide restorative flows to the ecosystem of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River (SFWMD et al. 2006). The staff of SFWMD, FDEP, Jonathan Dickinson State Park, and the Loxahatchee River District collected and analyzed data to develop and evaluate the restoration flow alternatives. After evaluating the ability of each variable flow scenario to achieve the restoration goal, the preferred restoration flow scenario was selected. The preferred scenario provides near optimal inundation for the freshwater riverine floodplain forest, reverses saltwater intrusion within the tidal floodplain, and has minimal impact on the downstream estuarine biota. The Restoration Plan for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River with its preferred restoration flow scenario is the foundation for other important plans and projects within the Loxahatchee River Watershed. Projects benefitting the Loxahatchee River constructed by SFWMD, or with SFWMD support to other agencies, include the following: 4 M -Canal Widening - completed 2007 4 C-18 Project Culvert Replacements - completed 2007 4 Nine Gems Restoration - completed 2010 Culpepper Hydrologic Restoration - completed 2011 Cypress Creek Weir Installation - completed 2012 106 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects 4 Cypress Creek Berm/Water Control Structures - ongoing 2013 Loxahatchee Slough Restoration - ongoing 2013 SFWMD also acquired land in support of Loxahatchee River restoration including the following parcels: Culpepper (1,282 acres), Cypress Creek (3,398 acres), Palmar East - Nine Gems (2,895 acres), and Loxahatchee Slough (592 acres). CERP Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project The purpose of the CERP Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project, formerly known as the North Palm Beach County Project - Part 1, is to capture, store, and treat excess water currently discharged to Lake Worth Lagoon and use that water to enhance the Loxahatchee River and Slough and provide water supplies to Grassy Waters Preserve. This project provides water needed for Loxahatchee River MFL recovery. Excess canal water would be back -pumped through existing and proposed water control structures and canals, which would provide water quality treatment prior to discharge into Grassy Waters Preserve. The CERP planning process will evaluate a suite of alternative flow -ways and components with respect to providing beneficial flows to the Loxahatchee River, achieving hydropattern restoration, and reducing flows to the Lake Worth Lagoon. Elements of Flow -way 1 that have already been constructed (i.e., G-160 and G-161 Structures, and M Canal Widening) will be included in the evaluation process. SFWMD constructed the C-18 Canal Control Structure (G-160) Project and the G-161 Water Control Structure Phase II Project in 2004 and 2007, respectively. These structures are designed to restore a more natural hydroperiod to the Loxahatchee Slough while increasing flows to the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. These projects provide water supplies needed for Loxahatchee River MFL recovery. G-160 structure Construction of the G-161 Northlake 1 Boulevard Water Control Structure was completed in January 2007. The structure consists of remotely operated gates and dual 60 - inch steel culverts installed under Northlake Boulevard near its intersection with the Beeline Highway in northern Palm Beach County. The structure will assist with achieving the desired environmental hydroperiods in Grassy Waters Preserve as well as the Loxahatchee Slough. It also will facilitate gravity flows from these environmental areas to the C-18 Canal and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River during dry periods. SFWMD initiated incremental operation of the G-160 structure on June 1, 2009. However, contribution of the G-161 project to the restoration of natural hydroperiod to this system, 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 107 individually or together with the related G-160 project, is constrained by water availability. Full benefits of the G-160 and G-161 structures will not be realized until water is available in amounts adequate to provide restorative flows to the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. Storage for Loxahatchee River The L-8 Site was originally acquired to provide water storage as a component of the CERP Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project and was an element of the MFL recovery strategy for the Loxahatchee River. Recently, the Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan incorporated the L-8 Site as one of its features. It is now under construction for use as an FEB for the eastern flow -way, and will provide storage to allow for the delivery of consistent flows that are needed to optimize performance of STAB. While interim operations for the L-8 FEB may provide for the delivery of dry season flows to the Loxahatchee River, a permanent replacement storage feature for the Loxahatchee River is needed. In 2013, SFWMD and Palm Beach County conceptually agreed to the acquisition of approximately 1,800 acres owned by the county that could be used to store and deliver water to the Loxahatchee River. The Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan includes the cost to acquire property and to construct a storage facility on an alternative site. Acquisition of the site is expected to be complete in 2014, and design of the storage facility is expected to proceed in 2018. Biscayne Bay In this section, the following projects are discussed and locations of some are shown in Figure 37: ♦ CERP Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project (Phase 1) ♦ Developing Technical Information for Biscayne Bay ♦ Biscayne Bay Seepage Study ♦ Biscayne Bay and Watershed Water Quality Data Analysis ♦ Storm Event Sampling in the Biscayne Bay Watershed ♦ Characterization of Nearshore Epifauna Study Development of surface drainage systems and groundwater extraction altered the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay. The links between development, freshwater inflows, and the bay's ecology are complex. The Biscayne Bay Seepage Study and Characterization of Nearshore Epifauna Study are part of the effort to clarify these relationships. The CERP BBCW Project seeks to restore areas impacted by channelization by restoring the quantity and distribution of fresh surface water discharging to the bay. Water quality in the bay also suffered as a result of rapid runoff entering the bay from surface drainage systems. The Storm Event Sampling in the Biscayne Bay Watershed Project seeks to understand these impacts more clearly. The overall mass balance of freshwater inflows to Biscayne Bay shifted as a result of development and altered the 108 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects salinity of the bay. The project, Developing Technical Information for Biscayne Bay, seeks to build a technical basis for policies to protect the bay as a whole. SFWMD will also continue to work closely with area interests to identify opportunities to optimize the management of water in southeastern Miami -Dade County based on real-time conditions consistent with the constraints of the system. ,I IWCA WCA �I � 451 3A 3B Cutler Flow -way ► a L-31 E Culverts Q 1 � Everglades National - Park ! j Biscayne National Park clxuoao Boundary r�'ti r alr y `1 C'a Projects in the Biscayne Bay Region N Projects _ Biscayne Bay coastal Wetlands c s do 1 Characterization of Nearshore Epifauna Study LEC Biscayne Ba Seepage Stud Dae. D2 i95 13033 Y YY wem,saaGrr�.Fl"wsP ec,��xuveauM.n+ad� .lar.mee Figure 37. Projects in the Biscayne Bay region. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 109 CERP Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project (Phase 1) The CERP BBCW Project is essential to achieving restoration of tidal wetlands and nearshore habitats within Biscayne Bay, including Biscayne National Park. The project will divert runoff that currently discharges through regional canals and redistribute the fresh water through a spreader canal system into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow. The slower, more natural delivery of fresh water over a broad area is expected to provide more stable salinity conditions and reestablish appropriate estuarine salinities that are important for fish and shellfish nursery habitat in tidal wetlands and the nearshore bay. SFWMD expects this project will create conditions conducive to the reestablishment of oysters and other components typical of a healthy estuarine ecosystem. The CERP BBCW Project is composed of three components: Cutler Wetlands Flow -way, Deering Estate Flow -way, and L-31 East Flow -way. In advance of congressional authorization and appropriations, SFWMD constructed the Deering Estates Flow -way and a portion of the L -31E Flow -way: ♦ Cutler Wetlands Flow -way - The infrastructure includes a pump station on the C-1 Canal, construction of a lined conveyance canal, construction of a spreader canal system, box culverts under roadways, and plugging of mosquito control ditches. The pump station will deliver water to the spreader canal located in the saltwater wetlands via a lined conveyance canal. The Cutler Wetlands Flow -way construction was completed in February 2013. ♦ Deering Estate Flow -way - This flow -way redistributes excess freshwater runoff, directing it away from existing canal discharges and spreading it out as sheetflow prior to discharging into Biscayne Bay. SFWMD completed construction in April 2012. The project became operational in November 2012 and is currently in the implementation stage. ♦ L-31 East Flow -way - This flow -way is designed to reestablish, at least in part, historical sheetflow and wetland hydroperiods downstream of the project area. This component may also provide the additional benefit of mitigating impacts of discharging fresh water via the existing canals. SFWMD expects this component will achieve its objectives by redirecting flow through a series of new culverts. As of January 2013, SFWMD constructed four of the ten culverts planned for the L-31 East Flow -way. 110 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects USACE and its co-sponsor, SFWMD, completed the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Final Project Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement in January 2012 (USACE and SFWMD 2012). The final report describes the project purpose and need, location, evaluation of alternatives, and recommended plan. The chief of engineers report was signed in May 2012 and submitted to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works for review. The signed record of decision was transmitted to the United States Congress for authorization. Developing Technical Information for Biscayne Bay In 2008, SFWMD compiled the report, Adequacy of Technical Information to Support Minimum Inflow Needs for Biscayne Bay (SFWMD 2009a) as part of continuing work undertaken to assess potential technical criteria for Biscayne Bay. SFWMD conducted a peer review of this report in advance of the development of criteria or a technical approach for water management strategies to protect inflows needed for Biscayne Bay (Montagna et al. 2008). The peer review independently evaluated the adequacy of available information to support a technical approach to manage minimum freshwater inflow needs of natural resources in Biscayne Bay. As part of this effort, a mass balance analysis of freshwater inflows and salinity in Biscayne Bay was completed to describe how general salinity patterns relate to inflows in different areas of Biscayne Bay (Marshall et al. 2008). Also evaluated within the technical report were differing approaches of structuring estuarine criteria that have been used or proposed in South Florida and elsewhere (SFWMD 2009a). Biscayne Bay Seepage Study SFWMD needs a better understanding of the hydrogeologic framework of the surficial aquifer system (SAS) in the bay's coastal wetlands for the CERP BBCW Project to support modeling efforts and ongoing water resource management initiatives. To investigate aquifer salinity in the CERP BBCW Project area, 22 groundwater monitoring wells were installed at 13 sites along the western edge of Biscayne National Park. SFWMD will use this data to delineate the saltwater interface and study the hydrogeologic characteristics and groundwater quality within the upper portion of the Biscayne aquifer around the CERP BBCW Project. The initial findings of this study are in Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands, Aquifer Salinity Investigation (Janzen et al. 2008). Biscayne Bay and Watershed Water Quality Data Analysis This project collected, organized, and analyzed water quality data for Biscayne Bay. The project's results are in Biscayne Bay and Watershed Water Quality Data Analysis, Task 5: 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 111 Final Report (Migliaccio 2008). The report includes 1) a summary of water quality in Biscayne Bay, 2) an analysis of time series results describing canal nutrient water quality entering the bay and within the bay, 3) comparisons of land uses from 1972 to the present, as available over time, and 4) examination of the relationships between land use changes and water quality. Storm Event Sampling in the Biscayne Bay Watershed Existing monthly grab sample monitoring of pollutants discharging into Biscayne Bay may not be sufficient to fully characterize loading that occurs during storm events. The primary purposes of this project were to 1) assess existing event mean concentration results for the Biscayne Bay Watershed to determine if the existing data were adequate to characterize nutrient loads into Biscayne Bay and 2) provide recommendations for the development of a monitoring plan to collect such data if it does not currently exist. The investigators concluded that, in some cases, existing data was inadequate for accurate characterization of nutrient loads into Biscayne Bay. Technical recommendations for improvement of sampling procedures and associated analysis are documented in the project's final report, Storm Event Sampling in the Biscayne Bay Watershed: Final Project Report (Migliaccio 2009). Characterization of Nearshore Epifauna Study Historical descriptions of the fisheries of Biscayne Bay suggest that a greater diversity and abundance of fishery species associated with mesohaline habitat once occurred in the bay. In southern Biscayne Bay, the Characterization of Nearshore Epifauna Study is designed to help assess CERP effectiveness, once implemented, in meeting this objective. The purpose of this project is to create a baseline characterization of the present day alongshore epifauna from Shoal Point to Manatee Bay, determine species relationships with salinity, classify species on the basis of these salinity relationships, identify indicators, and formulate performance measures and targets for assessing CERP implementation effects. Preliminary analytical results suggest that relationships between faunal distributions and salinity can be found in data acquired from shallow water, nearshore epifaunal sampling. Expanding sampling may increase understanding of relationships among mangrove and seagrass fauna, seagrass habitat, and salinity. This final report for this project—Epifaunal Communities of Mainland Nearshore South Biscayne Bay (Browder et al. 2011)—was completed in May 2011. 112 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Florida Bay The following projects are discussed in this section: USACE C-111 South Dade Project i 5-197 Structure Replacement Project 4 CERP C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project 4 Florida Bay MFL Prevention Strategy Monitoring and Research Locations of most these projects or their components are shown in Figure 38. USACE C-111 South Dade Project In 1994, USACE completed a study of potential alterations to the C-111 Canal to reduce impacts to Everglades National Park (USACE 1994). This report outlined new water control facilities and modifications to the existing Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project). The ongoing C-111 South Dade Project implements the report's recommendations in phases. This project provides water supplies identified in the Florida Bay MFL prevention strategy. The C-111 South Dade Project is composed of twelve contracts or phases. The project began in 1994 with construction commencing in 1996. At present, seven of the twelve contracts have been executed. Work completed to date includes the following: 4 Two interim pump stations and one permanent pump station were constructed between 1997 and 2002. 4 4.75 miles of spoil mounds along the lower C-111 Canal were removed in 1997. Taylor Slough Bridge was replaced in 1999. 4 Partial retention/detention zones were completed in 2000 and 2002. 4 5-331 Command and Control Center was constructed in 2009. A full retention/detention area linking previously separated pump station detention areas was constructed in 2009. In April 2012, SFWMD issued a solicitation to identify qualified firms for the eighth contract. This contract includes construction to extend the 5-332B North detention area and contain discharges from the 8.5 -Square Mile Area STA component of ModWaters. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 113 F8-5-Square Mile Area i ! 5-33'I '• North Detention Area ' - k,4. South ca d Detention Area-�' rb YANAL J CERP C--111 Spreader Cana! (Western) Project Frog Pond _ Detention Area L-31 E Genal Plug .Y Taylor Slough #" Bridge e 4 C LU a 0 G-110 R w Canal Plugs O Q E- S-197 Structure Replacement Pr©ject q Q1 Everglades National. t a Park � d r� Ufl alb e z ri7 Projects in the Florida Bay Region 1101% kk N Legend SFWMD Structures CULVERT - USACE C-111 South Dade Project 0 5 1a a PUMP reader Canal Western Pro ect CE RP 0-111 S j P ( j � SPILLWAY M es LEC �-y Date. 02t* M10 y WEIR U.P %lad.aM ndf,-1W.L4%w.MGI3V.I3P_2"` I7UN3IftI"d"Pmyl Wa1ldiupp! lans'WSP LECV012,1 pdNtp&T-t idaBay.m.d Figure 38. Projects in the Florida Bay region. 114 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects S-197 Structure Replacement Project The 5-197 structure is located in southern Miami -Dade County near Manatee Bay. SFWMD is replacing this structure to ensure it continues to be an effective component of flood control operations in the C-111 Canal until the CERP C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project is complete. The structure also provides important environmental benefits and water resource protection by preventing saltwater intrusion to coastal fresh waters, particularly during high tides. The new 5-197 Structure will use the same operation criteria, is at the same location, and will have the same discharge capacity as the previous structure. SFWMD expects the 5-197 Structure Replacement Project will be complete and operational before the end of 2013. The new 5-197 design took into account a maximum (worst case) differential head on the gates, considering the C-111 Canal full of water on one side and empty on the other side. CERP C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project This project includes structural and operational changes to improve the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough to improve hydroperiods within the wetlands of the Southern Glades and Model Lands. The project provides more natural sheetflow to Florida Bay and decreases damaging discharges through the C-111 Canal to Manatee Bay and Barnes Sound, without adversely impacting existing levels of flood protection provided to adjacent agricultural and urban lands. This project provides water supplies identified in the Florida Bay MFL prevention strategy (Subsection 40E-8.421(8), Florida Administrative Code). The C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project created a nine -mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park, which keeps more of the natural rainfall and water flows within Taylor Slough. The hydraulic ridge was created by the following: Construction of a 590 -acre aboveground detention area in the Frog Pond area Installation of two 225 -cubic feet per second pump stations Integration of other project features. Project elements intended to provide ecosystem restoration benefits in the Southern Glades and Model Lands include the following: ♦ An operable structure in the lower C-111 Canal ♦ Incremental operational changes at the S -18C structure ♦ A plug at the S -20A structure ♦ Operational changes at the 5-20 structure Construction of earthen plugs in the C-110 Canal The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works signed the project's record of decision in 2012 and transmitted it to the United States Congress for authorization. In February 2012, SFWMD completed construction of key components of the CERP C-111 Spreader 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 115 Canal Western Project as part of its state -expedited program. Construction included the Frog Pond Detention Area, Aerojet Canal features, plugs in the C-110 Canal, a plug at the S -20A structure and operational changes at S -18C and S-20. A new structure in the lower C-111 Canal is still scheduled for construction in the future. Florida Bay MFL Prevention Strategy Monitoring and Research In 2006, SFWMD adopted MFL criterion for northeastern Florida Bay (see Chapter 3). A scientific peer review panel reviewed the 2006 technical documentation supporting MFL development—Draft Technical Documentation to Support Development of Minimum Flows and Levels for Florida Bay (SFWMD 2006)—and made recommendations for additional research, monitoring, and modeling. Many of the recommendations, including monitoring and modeling, have been initiated and are ongoing. A review of information collected from Florida Bay is under way and expected to be complete at the end of 2013. Ecological and hydrological data are being considered for use in evaluating the condition of the protected resource and the performance of the MFL criteria. The ecological information includes distribution of various seagrasses and their response to variable salinity conditions. The hydrologic information will analyze existing flow, stage, rainfall, and modeling data. The ecological and hydrologic evaluations will be integrated into a single technical report to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing MFL criterion. Lower East Coast Service Area In this section, the following projects are discussed and locations of many are in Figure 39: 4 CERP Fran Reich Preserve Reservoir (formerly Site 1 Reservoir) 4 CERP Hillsboro Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Pilot Project CERP Broward County Water Preserve Areas 4 CERP Environmental Preserve at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Habitat (formerly Acme Basin B Discharge Project) L -31N Seepage Management Project 4 Lower East Coast Subregional Model (LECsR) Update 4 Saltwater Interface Mapping East Coast Floridan Model Gun Club Road Satellite Reuse Facility Feasibility Study and Pilot Project Groundwater Replenishment via Canal Recharge Augmentation Study 4 Alternative Water Sources Subregional Feasibility Study: Fort Lauderdale, Sunrise, and Miami -Dade County S -155A Divide Structure 4 Florida City Canal Water Control Structure 116 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects CERP Fran Reich Preserve Reservoir This project provides water supplies needed for Everglades MFL recovery. This facility will capture and store the excess surface water runoff from the Hillsboro Basin and releases from the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. The project is located in Palm Beach County near the East Coast Protective Levee and Hillsboro Canal. The project will complete a 1,660 -acre, 8 -foot deep, aboveground impoundment to capture excess surface water in the Hillsboro Canal. With the reservoir in place, dry season water withdrawals from the refuge to meet water demands will be reduced, allowing more natural and consistent water levels within the refuge. Benefits to the downstream estuaries and reduced groundwater seepage from the refuge are also expected. USACE and SFWMD executed the project partnership agreement for Phase I (L-40 improvements) construction in June 2010 and USACE initiated construction. The original construction strategy for the project involved a single contract. However, in order to utilize funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a standalone and usable portion of the project was identified for construction. The standalone features are the embankment (L-40 modifications) and the S-530 spillway. These Phase 1 features will reduce the amount of seepage loss from the adjacent refuge. Reducing seepage will help increase the amount of water that remains in that natural system, especially during dry periods. Maintaining the additional water will allow for ecological habitat improvements in the refuge. USACE terminated the Phase 1 contract in July 2012 with approximately 20 percent of the work completed. In January 2013, USACE awarded a contract to construct the remaining features. Work on the project began in April 2013 with expected completion by December 2014. The Phase II of this project requires congressional authorization due to increased project cost. Phase II, if approved, will include additional site preparation, earthwork, construction of pump stations, canal improvements, embankment, placement of geocells on the embankment exterior, and placement of soil cement on embankment interior. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 117 j'� p g g Miami MONROE MIAMI-DADE bi t� O Q) tia Q Everglades National ParkD °0 r d I. Projects in the LECSA Region A LEC Dat,'. 05182013 Map:1LAd,slWmd,o,vldfs..tCdata\—dlGIS1GIS P_20121DistricMNideP.jl W"SVPplyPia0 StW SP_ LEC12012UPdateWaPS1 EC5A3-mxd Figure 39. Projects in the Lower East Coast Service Area (LECSA). 118 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects AllWest Palm Beach Environmental Preserve at Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Habitat 06 PALM BEACH WCA Boynton - HENDRY 1 I Beach Delray Beach Fran Reich Preserve Reservoir V r Boca Raton Hillsboro ASR Pilot Project WCA vi&� 1 2A WCA 28 BROWAR ° "< Fort COLLIER I Lauderdale WCA 3A Broward County Water Preserve Areas! ra WCA 313 See a e Barrier Ale 1 -31 N j'� p g g Miami MONROE MIAMI-DADE bi t� O Q) tia Q Everglades National ParkD °0 r d I. Projects in the LECSA Region A LEC Dat,'. 05182013 Map:1LAd,slWmd,o,vldfs..tCdata\—dlGIS1GIS P_20121DistricMNideP.jl W"SVPplyPia0 StW SP_ LEC12012UPdateWaPS1 EC5A3-mxd Figure 39. Projects in the Lower East Coast Service Area (LECSA). 118 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects CERP Hillsboro ASR Not Project This project is located just south of the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and north of the Hillsboro Canal on a 1,660 -acre tract of SFWMD-owned land in south-central Palm Beach County. The project includes the construction of a 5 -million gallons per day (MGD) ASR well and several monitoring wells. The project's purpose is to evaluate and reduce the technical and regulatory uncertainties of implementing the full- scale Hillsboro ASR project as planned for CERP. As the lead agency, SFWMD prepared the plans and specifications for the 5 -MGD ASR system that was installed in fall 2008. Cycle testing began in January 2010 and finished in 2012. The system operated successfully. Although some arsenic was observed in water recovered during the first cycle, concentrations declined to below regulatory concern during subsequent cycles. Recovery efficiencies increased from approximately 21 percent during the first cycle to above 40 percent by third cycle. Continued improvement is anticipated as the system is operated in the future. Cycle testing indicates that ASR technology can be implemented near the Fran Reich Preserve Reservoir. The SFWMD and USACE are preparing the final project technical data report with finalization set for 2013. The future use of the project for non-CERP purposes is under evaluation. CERP Broward County Water Preserve Areas This project is designed to perform three primary functions: 4 Reduce seepage loss from WCA 3A and WCA 3B to the C-11 and C-9 basins. ♦ Capture, store, and distribute surface water runoff from the western C-11 Basin. 4 Wetland restoration The project will construct the following major infrastructure features: 4 An 1,168 -acre impoundment to capture and store runoff from the C-11 Basin, reduce pumping of surface water into WCAs, and provide releases for other regional uses 4 A 4,353 -acre seepage management area that would establish a buffer, reducing seepage to and from WCAs, and maintain flood protection An 1,641 -acre impoundment that would capture and store surface runoff from the C-9 Basin, store C-11 Impoundment overflow, manage seepage, and provide releases for regional benefit Additional project functions include maintaining existing level of service flood protection, groundwater recharge, increasing spatial extent of wetlands, and improving hydroperiods and hydropatterns in WCA 3A and WCA 3B. The preserve areas will benefit federally -listed threatened and endangered species and many wading birds. This project provides water supplies needed for Everglades (including WCAs and Everglades National Park) MFL recovery. The chief's report was signed in May 2012 and the record of decision for the project implementation report was submitted in October 2012 to the United States Congress for authorization. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 119 CERP Environmental Preserve at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Habitat The Environmental Preserve at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Habitat (formerly called the Acme Basin B Discharge Project) is the first CERP project completed in Palm Beach County. The project's primary purpose is to provide water quality and flood mitigation benefits. It improves water quality by diverting the direct discharge of urban runoff away from the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. The project directs runoff north to STA 1 East, before it enters the refuge. Two pump stations and a 365 -acre water storage area were constructed to impound flood waters and provide a buffer between natural and developed areas. SFWMD and the Village of Wellington invested approximately $35 million in the project. Construction began in 2007 and finished in 2010. This project provides water supplies needed for Everglades (including WCAs and Everglades National Park) MFL recovery. The project also has recreational and educational aspects. Visitors can access the site. Over two miles of paved pedestrian paths and a six -story observation tower are contained within the 365 -acre site. The paths connect seven learning areas that explain native vegetation and wildlife. L -31N Seepage Management Project The Miami -Dade Limestone Products Association constructed the L -31N Seepage Management Project using funds collected through a state imposed fee on limestone products sold by the mining companies operating in the Lake Belt region of Miami -Dade County. The barrier's purpose is to reduce the seepage from Everglades National Park. In November 2011, the Lake Belt Mitigation Committee approved Phase 1 of the L -31N Seepage Management Project. Under Phase 1 and the L -31N Seepage Management Field Test, a 35 -foot deep seepage barrier was constructed extending two miles south from Tamiami Trail along the berm of the L -31N Canal. Construction of the barrier was complete in July 2012. A monitoring program is now under way to measure changes in water level and L -31N Canal flow using a network of hydrologic data gathering sites. The monitoring program, designed to last two years, will provide the necessary information to evaluate performance of the barrier. This project helps conserve water supplies needed for Everglades MFL recovery. 120 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Lower East Coast Subregional Model Update SFWMD developed the LECsR Model based on the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Modular Three- dimensional Finite -difference Groundwater Flow Model code, referred to as MODFLOW. This model simulates groundwater flow in the LEC Planning Area (Figure 40). It is used for planning and regulatory purposes. SFWMD conducted a peer review of the LECsR Model. The peer review panel prepared a report in June 2006. SFWMD updated the model to reflect the majority of the primary peer review comments. The tool, and variations of the tool, were used to address a number of site-specific issues relating to water use permitting, the CERP Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project, C-4 Impoundment Project, and C-51 Reservoir Feasibility Study. Saltwater Interface Mapping f t LECsR Lower East Coast Subregional Model Figure 40. Domain of the LECsR Model. In August 2011, SFWMD published maps displaying the estimated position of the freshwater -saltwater interface in the coastal SAS of St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, Lee, and Collier counties. SFWMD used data from April and May 2009 (i.e., the end of the dry season) to document the current inland extent of the saltwater front within the aquifer for future comparison. The maps are based on measured or estimated chloride concentrations in water samples from three primary sources: 1) wells of water use permittees 2) USGS wells, and 3) SFWMD wells. In a separate effort, Miami -Dade County worked with USGS to develop saltwater intrusion maps of their county. Maps for each county are at the following web locations: 4 Palm Beach County: www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository pdf/palm beach isochlor apr-may 2009opt.pdf 4 Broward County: www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository Vdf/brow and isochlor apr-may 2009opt.12df 4 Miami -Dade County: An interactive saltwater intrusion map viewer is at www.envirobase.usgs.gov/FLIMS/SaltFront/viewer.htm A review of previous freshwater -saltwater interface maps of South Florida indicate that the interface is dynamic but has not moved appreciably over time. This is due, in large part, to coastal salinity control structures maintaining adequate freshwater heads. Maps prepared at five years intervals document any progression of the saltwater front within the aquifers. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 121 Gun Club Road Satellite Reuse Facility Feasibility Study and Pilot Project From 2005 to 2006, SFWMD and Palm Beach County conducted the Gun Club Road Satellite Reuse Facility Feasibility Study and Pilot Project. The project evaluated the feasibility of providing reclaimed water for irrigation at SFWMD's headquarters and the immediate vicinity in West Palm Beach. Two types of membrane bioreactor treatments were tested to produce reclaimed water that meets applicable requirements. The study evaluated construction and operational costs, potential end users, the distribution system, and overall cost. Potential users included SFWMD headquarters, Trump International Golf Course, United States Army Reserve facilities, Lake Lytal Park, and Palm Beach International Airport. �l. The results of the study indicated limited benefits to Reuse system the county's water supply because of the project's distance from supply wells. Based on these findings, as well as financial limitations and other priorities, Palm Beach County and SFWMD decided not to move forward with the project. Groundwater Replenishment via Canal Recharge Augmentation Study Canal recharge or indirect aquifer recharge refers to the replacement of existing fresh surface water regional water supply deliveries with highly treated reclaimed water. Canal recharge would reduce dependency on regional resources and reuse effluent that is currently disposed of by deep well injection or discharge to the ocean. A legislatively directed study was completed by FDEP in 2006 evaluating canal recharge. In addition, SFWMD sponsored, in coordination with two local utilities, two advanced wastewater treatment pilot studies to evaluate reusing highly treated reclaimed water for canal and groundwater discharge, which were completed in 2008. 2007 FDEP Report to the Legislature on Canal Recharge In 2004, the Florida Legislature directed (Chapter 2004-381, Laws of Florida) FDEP, in coordination with SFWMD, to conduct a study to investigate the feasibility of discharging reclaimed water into canals and the aquifer system as an environmentally acceptable means of augmenting groundwater supplies and enhancing natural systems in the LEC Planning Area. The legislature recognized direct or indirect discharge of reclaimed water into canals and the aquifer system for transport and subsequent reuse may provide an environmentally acceptable means to augment water supplies and enhance natural systems, but also that there are water quantity and water quality challenges that must be better understood and resolved. The study process, including workshops, presentations, and findings can be found at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wgsspIcanals.htm. 122 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects FDEP published a preliminary final draft document, Canal Recharge: A Report to the Governor and Legislature, reflecting the outcome of this investigation (FDEP 2006). The report was never finalized. Three fundamental considerations guided FDEP's evaluation of canal recharge feasibility: 1) whether canal recharge could be considered beneficial reuse under Florida law; 2) whether those benefits could be achieved without compromising water quality; and 3) whether canal recharge, when compared with alternative types of reuse and water supply, would be cost effective. Modeling for the study indicates that reclaimed water could potentially reduce regional system releases by an average of 27 percent. Water quality was another consideration. Under Florida's water quality standards, canal recharge likely could be authorized only if the highest available wastewater treatment technology were employed—generally speaking, reverse osmosis with advanced nutrient removal and high-level disinfection. Project -specific analyses would have to be undertaken to account for these costs and the revenue sources to underwrite them, as well as the potential value of the natural system or water supply benefits to be achieved. Based on this study, FDEP concluded that individual canal recharge projects may prove worthwhile and recommends evaluating any proposed canal recharge project on its individual merits. However, the report also stated there is no basis to conclude at the time that canal recharge should be implemented on a regional scale. The report contained the following specific recommendations: ♦ Canal recharge is one of many options that may help achieve water supply goals in southeastern Florida. These options should be evaluated and compared directly in terms of water supply and natural systems benefits, water quality implications, relative costs and economic value, and implementation demands. ♦ Canal recharge should be factored into local and regional water supply planning and development in the proper context, combined with other reuse and alternative water supply options to be judged based on relative environmental merit, cost-effectiveness, and public interest. ♦ It would be appropriate for entities interested in exploring specific canal recharge projects to work with FDEP and SFWMD to submit permit applications. A detailed review of a specific project, with this study as context, would yield much more information as to the value of canal recharge. Any such project would have to include a more refined accounting of the relationship between the amount of water released to the canals and the volume of groundwater recharge thereby achieved. Local Pilot Studies To further investigate treatment associated with direct and indirect canal recharge, SFWMD entered into interagency agreements with the cities of Plantation and Sunrise to perform advanced wastewater treatment pilot studies to evaluate reusing highly treated reclaimed water for canal and groundwater discharge. These pilot studies investigated the 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 123 performance of different physical, chemical, and biological advanced wastewater treatment technologies. The studies also evaluated the removal of micro -constituents (pharmaceuticals or personal care products) from the wastewater; modeled the fate, transport, and impact of discharged reclaimed water; and evaluated the toxicity of reclaimed water discharge into natural water bodies. For more information see www.sfwmd.gov/portal/Vage/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository ndf/reuse pilot sww wtf.pdf for the City of Sunrise (MWH Global, Inc. 2008) and www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portallxrepository/sfwmd repository pdf/reuse pilot awt.p df) for the City of Plantation (Hazen and Sawyer 2008). Alternative Water Sources Subregional Feasibility Study During the 2005-2006 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update (2005-2006 LEC Plan Update) (SFWMD 2007), it was recognized that some of the assumptions of the 2000 Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan (2000 LEC Plan) (SFWMD 2000) were no longer valid, including the completion of certain CERP projects and the associated water that was assumed to be available. Moreover, establishment of the Everglades MFL and the associated recovery strategy limited the ability of Public Water Supply utilities to meet future water demands from traditional sources. Analyses conducted indicated that certain subregions of the LEC Planning Area—Fort Lauderdale, Sunrise, and Miami -Dade County—were likely to face greater challenges in meeting water demands. Towards that end, SFWMD initiated a feasibility study to evaluate the potential for subregional alternative water supply sources to meet these demands. The study, Alternative Water Sources Sub -Regional Feasibility Study. Fort Lauderdale, Sunrise, and Miami -Dade County (CDM 2006), included development of evaluation criteria and cost estimates for identified technologies as well as first and second tier screening of alternatives. Four projects were selected for more detailed analysis including preparation of conceptual designs. Given the subregional nature of the projects, a 20 -MGD capacity was selected as the minimum amount to be provided that might be beneficial. The study developed conceptual designs for a potential canal augmentation project coupled with a large user reclaimed water irrigation project for the City of Sunrise, and a combination of brackish reverse osmosis water treatment with a satellite wastewater treatment facility to provide indirect potable water recharge in Fort Lauderdale. Planning level data developed in the study, and subsequent conceptual designs, provided information helpful to LEC Planning Area water users during consideration of alternative water supply project options. Cost estimates developed for each treatment technology utilized in the conceptual designs provided a resource for alternative water supply feasibility assessment in the LEC Planning Area. The final report for this project was published in 2006. S -155A Divide Structure The 2000 LEC Plan contained recommendations for CERP planners to conduct additional analysis in the planning and placement of the proposed S -155A divide structure. USACE constructed S -155A and transferred it to SFWMD in 2004. The S -155A divide structure, along with S-319 and STA -1 East, were constructed by the USACE as part of the C-51 124 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Western Basin Flood Control Project; which is considered part of the base condition of CERP. However, 5-155A's intended use was substantially modified from the previous conceptual plan. Initially, the structure was to be integrated into the CERP North Palm Beach County Project. It was to be part of a system designed to benefit Lake Worth Lagoon by improving water quality and reducing discharges from the C-51 Canal using a backpumping and treatment concept. However, the CERP North Palm Beach County Project has since been reconfigured and renamed the Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project. The C-51 backpumping and treatment elements were eliminated from the project. At present, the 5-155A divide structure divides the C-51 Basin into the Western C-51 and Eastern C-51 basins. It passes flood discharges from the Western C-51 and S -SA basins to the east via the C-51 Canal when STA 1 East reaches maximum operational depths and no longer has the capacity for additional inflows. The 5-155A also passes flood discharges from the L-8 Basin to the east via the C-51 Canal at times. Florida City Canal Water Control Structure The Florida City Canal located in southern Miami -Dade County is a tributary to the L -31E and C-103 canals, which discharge through the SFWMD's S -20F structure into Biscayne Bay. Miami -Dade County wishes to improve water management and wetland resources on environmentally endangered lands in the vicinity of the Florida City Canal. The county proposes to construct a water control structure in the Florida City Canal at the intersection with Southwest 1071h Avenue, and to retrofit existing culverts to improve wetlands hydrology of Miami -Dade County owned environmentally endangered lands adjacent to the canal. Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2014 and take less than one year to construct; however, it is contingent upon funding. DISTRICTWIDE WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Water resource development projects encompassing more than one planning area are considered districtwide projects. Table 12 at the end of this section summarizes the estimated costs and timeframes of the described districtwide projects. Aspects specifically pertaining to or having relevance to the LEC Planning Area are identified within the context of these districtwide projects. Table 12 does not include other programs with water resources development components, such as CERP, which are primarily budgeted as ecosystem restoration projects; however these were discussed earlier in the chapter. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 125 SFWMD undertakes districtwide water resource development projects consistent with sections 373.05 and 373.019, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Specifically, Section 373.019(24), F.S. states the following: "Water resource development" means the formulation and implementation of regional water resource management strategies, including the collection and evaluation of surface water and groundwater data; structural and nonstructural programs to protect and manage water resources; the development of regional water resource implementation programs; the construction, operation, and maintenance of major public works facilities to provide for flood control, surface and underground water storage, and groundwater recharge augmentation; and related technical assistance to local governments and to government-owned and privately owned water utilities. Most water resource development projects described in this section support and enhance water supply development projects but do not themselves yield specific quantities of water. For example, groundwater monitoring groundwater assessment and modeling provide important information about aquifer characteristics (e.g., hydraulic properties and water quality) but do not provide details on water quantities. Information derived from these water resource development projects supports water supply development projects (i.e., developing appropriate facility design identifying safe aquifer yields, and evaluating the economic viability of projects). SFWMD is the implementing agency for the projects described in this section. The following projects have been completed since the last plan update and are discussed in this section: Evapotranspiration Measurement Project 4 Water Supply Cost Estimation Study Water Desalination Concentrate Management and Piloting Study The following ongoing and future projects are also discussed in this section: c MFL, Water Reservation and Restricted Allocation Areas Rule Activities b Comprehensive Water Conservation Program ♦ Alternative Water Supply ♦ Drilling and Testing 4 Groundwater Assessment Groundwater, Surface Water, and Wetland Monitoring Groundwater Modeling 126 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Completed Districtwide Projects Evapotranspiration Measurement Project Evapotranspiration (ET) is a large part of the hydrologic budget in Florida, ranging from 30 to over 100 percent of average precipitation. In the past, the accuracy of hydrologic models, basin -scale studies, water budgets, and other hydrologic analyses throughout the state was limited because of the lack of accurate estimates for this large water loss. Scientists and water managers in Florida benefit from having a network of consistently operated high quality ET stations from representative land use areas using state -of -the - science methods. The ET Measurement Project collected information to improve methods for computing the potential ET and reference ET. Potential ET is a necessary data input for most hydrologic simulation models. Reference ET is a necessary input for SFWMD permit applications. Over the years, USGS, in cooperation with SFWMD, completed a number of specialized hydrogeologic studies to address specific SFWMD needs. The information provided from these studies was necessary to enhance the understanding of ET rates in various wetland and upland plant communities, and similar issues. USGS completed a series of ET studies between October 2000 and September 2011. The objectives of the studies were as follows: ♦ Measure actual ET from representative land covers in Florida ♦ Develop models to estimate projected ET from environmental variables such as depth to water, season, and net radiation ♦ Provide 2 -kilometer gridded satellite -based estimates of potential and reference ET on a daily timescale for the entire state. The data products for this series of studies include the following: ♦ Daily values of ET, archived in USGS National Weather Information System database, which are accessible at fl.water.usgs.gov/et/etdata.html. ♦ The daily potential and reference ET data sets, by year and county from 1995 through 2010, which are accessible at fl.water.usgs.gov/et/. ♦ Big Cypress field investigations are published in Evapotranspiration over Spatially Extensive Plant Communities in the Big Cypress National Preserve, Southern Florida, 2007-2010 (Shoemaker et al. 2011), which is available at pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5212/. Water Supply Cos, Estimation Study The objective of this project was to develop engineering cost estimation relationships for evaluating water supply alternatives for SFWMD's regional planning areas. The study 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 127 evaluated options using groundwater, surface water, seawater, ASR, and reclaimed water. The final cost study was published in two reports: Water Supply Cost Estimation Study (CDM 2007a) and Water Supply Cost Estimation Study - Phase II Addendum (CDM 2007b). Descriptions of these studies are as follows: Water Supply Cost Estimation Study - This study developed opinions of probable costs for various water treatment and disinfection technologies, water treatment plant and distribution components, and various wastewater treatment technologies for capacities of 5, 10, 15, and 20 MGD based on project records. The report provides estimates of costs for wells, well treatment methods, wastewater treatment methods, deep injection well disposal, ASR, and surface water storage projects. This report is available at www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository Vdf/water %20supply%20cost%20estimation%20study%202-2007 cdm.pdf. 4 Water Supply Cost Estimation Study - Phase II Addendum - This addendum complements the previous study providing cost estimates for additional capacities of 1 and 3 MGD, as well as estimates for wastewater granular filters and chlorine disinfection using onsite generation of hypochlorite. See www.sfwmd.gov/12ortal/12age/12ortal/xrel2ository/sfwmd repository pdf/wtrsu reply costeststudysphaseii add 21-2007.12df for this report. Water Desalination Concentrate Management and Piloting Study SFWMD undertook this study to evaluate alternatives for concentrate minimization in South Florida and provide technological recommendations. The study included two phases. Phase 1 constituted several desktop evaluations of four concentrate minimization methods and several representative reverse osmosis treatment plants in the SFWMD region. Phase 2 further evaluated, through pilot testing, a concentrate minimization method at a representative brackish water reverse osmosis plant site, which was selected based on Phase 1 evaluations. The purpose of the pilot test was to demonstrate the feasibility of the selected concentrate minimization methodology and evaluate its performance. The pilot study was performed at the City of North Miami Beach Norwood-Oeffler Water Treatment Plant. The testing began in August 2009 and finished in November 2009. The pilot study demonstrated stable performance, effectively increasing the overall system recovery from 75 to 88 percent under conservative operating conditions for secondary reverse osmosis, implying an increase of 13 percent in production efficiency. The study showed the process is viable for representative South Florida brackish water. The study recommended further optimization of the process and operational parameters in a subsequent study. This subsequent study would be conducted on a larger demonstration scale and operated over a longer duration to capture any size -related scale -up effects and seasonal variability. The report (Carollo Engineers 2009) can be found at www.sfwmd.gov/12ortal[12age/12ortal/xrel2ository/sfwmd repositoryndf/waterdesalinatio nconcentratemgmtpiloting-dec09-carollo.pdf. 128 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Ongoing and Future Districtwide Projects MFL, Water Reservation and Restricted Allocation Areas Rule Activities MFLs, water reservations, and restricted allocation area rules are water resource protection measures that have been developed to help ensure the sustainability of water resources within the SFWMD. The costs included in Table 12 are for contracts (such as ecological monitoring) and staff time. For information on MFLs, water reservations, and restricted allocation areas, see Chapter 3 of this report. Chapter 3 summarizes current rules in effect as of 2013. Additional information can also be found in Appendix B, which includes a table (Table B-3) that lists the status of water resource development projects that provide water supplies associated with MFL recovery and prevention strategies. Comprehensive Water Conservation Program The long-standing conservation goal of SFWMD is to prevent and reduce wasteful, uneconomical, impractical or unreasonable uses of water resources. This is addressed through planning, regulation, the use of alternative sources including reclaimed water, public education, and demand reduction through conservation technology, best management practices and water -saving funding programs. The costs included in Table 12 are for contracts (such as WaterSIP) and staff time. The Comprehensive Water Conservation Program is a series of implementation strategies designed to create an enduring conservation ethic and permanent reduction in water use. It was approved in 2008 and developed in conjunction with stakeholders through the SFWMD's Water Resources Advisory Commission. The program is organized into regulatory, voluntary and incentive -based, and educational and marketing initiatives. More detailed information about the Comprehensive Water Conservation Program, is found in Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options. Additional supporting information can be found in Appendix D and Chapter 5 of the 2011-2013 Water Supply Plan Support Document (SFWMD 2013a). Alternative Water Supply The ability to meet the need for additional water supply hinges on efforts to develop region - specific sources that offer an alternative to traditional groundwater and surface water. The costs included in Table 12 are for contracts and staff time. Through the Alternative Water Supply Funding Program, SFWMD assisted permittees in the development of reclaimed water projects, water reclamation facilities, brackish water wellfields, reverse osmosis treatment facilities, and ASR well systems. From fiscal year (FY) 2007 to FY 2012, SFWMD, in cooperation with the State of Florida, provided more than $123 million in alternative water supply funding for 212 projects. Ninety of these projects are within the LEC Planning Area. Between FY 2007 and FY 2011, projects funded by the Alternative Water Supply 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 129 Funding Program created 72 MGD of new water capacity in the LEC Planning Area. The water sources include 27 MGD of brackish water, 21 MGD of reclaimed water, and 23 MGD of surface water/storm water. Additional information can be found in Chapter 6 of this update. A full description of Alternative Water Supply -related projects and associated funding is contained in the SFWMD's Alternative Water Supply Annual Reports, prepared pursuant to Section 373.707(7), F.S., and published in Volume II of the annual South Florida Environmental Reports (www.sfwmd.gov/sfer). Drilling and Testing Drilling and testing includes the installation of wells for aquifer investigations of short to long-term monitoring of aquifer water levels. This work includes contract and staff time for items such as drilling and well construction, geophysical logging, pump tests, sediment analysis, and lithological descriptions. The costs included in Table 12 are for contracts (such as drilling) and staff time. The SFWMD's knowledge of South Florida hydrogeology is enhanced whenever exploratory/test wells are constructed. Such increased understanding has improved the accuracy of groundwater modeling and decision making regarding the approval of consumptive use permits. Groundwater Assessment Groundwater assessment includes items such as the development of hydrostratigraphic maps and saltwater interface maps. The costs included in Table 12 are for staff time. Saltwater Interface Mapping SFWMD publishes maps displaying the estimated position of the freshwater -saltwater interface in the coastal SAS of St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, Lee, and Collier counties to document the current inland extent of the saltwater front within the aquifer for future comparison. The SFWMD publishes saltwater interface maps in five-year intervals based on ongoing collection and analysis of groundwater monitoring data. Maps for Miami - Dade and Monroe counties are prepared by the USGS. Groundwater, Surface Water, and Wetland Monitoring Information regarding the groundwater and surface water levels is essential to managing and protecting South Florida's water resources. Real-time data combined with historical information about water levels, weather, rainfall, and water quality changes help managers make water resource decisions. The costs included in Table 12 are for contracts (such as USGS contracts) and staff time. 130 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Water level and water quality monitoring at existing wells provide critical information to aid SFWMD in the development of groundwater models, assessing groundwater conditions, and management of these resources. SFWMD maintains extensive groundwater monitoring networks. SFWMD partners with USGS, providing additional support for ongoing monitoring. Data are archived in DBHYDRO—SFWMD's corporate environmental database—which stores hydrological, meteorological, hydrogeological, and water quality data. USGS monitors, archives, and publishes data annually. Districtwide groundwater monitoring activities related to the LEC Planning Area include the following: USGS Water Level Monitoring - An ongoing effort to collect data from groundwater level monitoring in the SAS. The project includes well and recorder maintenance as well as archiving data in the USGS database. In FY 2011, the groundwater monitoring network was reduced due to budgetary constraints, loss of sites, well destruction, and equipment damage. Groundwater Monitoring - An ongoing effort of monitoring groundwater levels in all water supply planning areas of the SFWMD. Monitoring includes 760 groundwater stations districtwide as of 2012. Monitoring is done for the SAS, intermediate aquifer system, and Floridan aquifer system (FAS), and recorders are maintained. Data are collected, analyzed, validated, and archived in DBHYDRO. Data are available through www.sfwmd.gov/dbhydro. Regional FAS Exploration and Well Maintenance - Water level and water quality monitoring is ongoing at select FAS well sites districtwide. SFWMD monitors water levels at 61 sites in its FAS well network. SFWMD has installed one FAS well in the LEC Planning Area since the 2005-2006 LEC Plan was published—a tri -zone monitor well on the L-8 Canal in Palm Beach County. Well maintenance is conducted at FAS well sites as needed. Data are collected, analyzed, validated, and archived in SFWMD's DBHYDRO database. Ak Hydrogeologic Database Improvements - This effort involves uploading of backlogged data and conducting miscellaneous database corrections. c Monthly Groundwater Level Measurements - Continued water level monitoring at select sites, including data collection, data analysis, and validation. Groundwater Modeling Regional groundwater flow models simulate the rate and direction of movement through the subsurface. The models include the major hydrologic components of the hydrologic cycle. They are used in water supply planning to understand the effects of current and future water supply usage. The costs included in Table 12 are for contracts (such as peer review) and staff time. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 131 Floridan Aquifer System Model and Database Development SFWMD recognized the need to develop a FAS groundwater model in the LEC Planning Area to improve management of this water resource given projected limits on traditional sources (e.g., Biscayne aquifer) to meet future water demands. SFWMD developed Phase I of the Lower East Coast Floridan Model (HydroGeologic, Inc. 2006), using USGS' computer code SEAWAT 2000—a fully coupled or uncoupled density -dependent flow and transport model— to allow simulation of density -dependent flow given the brackish water quality of the FAS. The availability of additional hydrogeologic and validated water use data, as well as a desire to expand the model domain to include the Upper East Coast Planning Area, led to the initiation of a Phase II modeling project. Development of this combined LEC and Upper East Coast model, referred to as the East Coast Floridan Aquifer System Model, began in 2007 and was completed in October 2008 (Golder Associates 2008). An independent peer review of this model was completed in June 2011. Peer review comments suggested development of a predevelopment steady- state model, changes in boundary conditions, incorporation of more recent hydrogeologic and time series data, and recalibration. SFWMD incorporated these comments using data available up until December 2011. The predevelopment model, including revised boundary conditions and updated hydrogeologic and historical water use data, was recently calibrated. The final transient, density - dependent model—now known as the East Coast Floridan Model—is scheduled for completion by the end of 2013. Model documentation will then follow. Once complete, the model will be available to address regional resource questions, including those that will arise during the next LEC water supply plan update. Figure 41 shows the model boundary. Figure 41. East Coast Floridan Model boundary. 132 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Lower West Coast Floridan Aauifer Model. Incorporation of Peer Review Comments The Lower West Coast Floridan Aquifer Model extends into the western portion of the LEC Planning Area (Figure 42). It includes Hendry County and fragments of western Broward and Miami -Dade counties. In 2008, SFWMD retained three independent groundwater modeling experts to conduct a technical peer review of its draft Lower West Coast Floridan Aquifer Model, which uses USGS's SEAWAT 2005 code. The peer review panel completed its report in August 2008. Table 12 provides for estimated costs and timeframes for completion of water resource development projects described in this chapter or in Chapter 5. Figure 42. Lower West Coast Floridan Aquifer Model boundary. Table 12. Implementation schedule and costs for ongoing districtwide water resource development projects. Source: Table 5A-1 in Martin (2012). Districtwide Plan Implementation Costs ($ in thousands) Water Resource Development Projects FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 Total MFL, Water Reservation Activities and Restricted Allocation Areas a Est. start date: 1995 658 667 660 660 660 3,305 Est. finish date: ongoing Comprehensive Water Conservation Program a Est. start date: 1977 903 867 850 850 850 4,320 Est. finish date: ongoing Alternative Water Supply a Est. start date: 1997 2,900 1,590 1,840 1,840 1,840 10,010 Est. finish date: ongoing Drilling and Testing a Est. start date: 1990 1,409 1,157 1,140 1,140 1,140 5,986 Est. finish date: ongoing Groundwater Assessment Est. start date: 2002 40 40 40 40 40 200 Est. finish date: ongoing Groundwater, Surface Water, and Wetland Monitoring a Est. start date: 2002 1,517 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 7,037 Est. finish date: ongoing Groundwater Modelinga Est. start date: 1997 402 406 406 406 406 2,026 Est. finish date: ongoing Sub -Total 7,829 6,107 6,316 6,316 6,316 32,884 a. Includes staff time and contract dollars b. Includes staff time only 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 133 SUMMARY Water resource development projects serve various purposes in support of water supply development. Benefits of the water resource development projects discussed in this chapter include the following: ♦ Improved understanding of the hydrogeologic system that is the source of both traditional and alternative water supplies for the LEC Planning Area ♦ Prevention of the loss of natural resources ♦ Preservation of existing supplies through better resource understanding and management and continued implementation of regional resource monitoring ♦ Water conservation to protect water sources and provide an efficient way to expand current water supplies ♦ Increased future supply availability Table 13 provides that status of all of the projects discussed in this chapter. 134 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Table 13. Project status table. Project Completed Elements Status of Uncompleted Elements Lake Okeechobee Region CERP Lake Okeechobee • Waiting for decisions on federal/state cost sharing. Watershed Project • Taylor Creek STA Pilot Project became operational in 2011. • Lakeside Ranch STA Pilot Project Phase 2 waiting for Taylor Creek, Nubbin Slough, and . Lakeside Ranch STA Pilot Project Phase 1 became operational construction funding. Lakeside Ranch STA pilot projects • Nubbin Slough STA Project is complete, but nonoperational in 2012. until repaired. • Reach 1 cutoff wall to be complete in 2013. • Replacement work began on culverts in 2012. • Replacement of other culverts to be awarded by late 2013. USACE Herbert Hoover Dike • USACE completed assessment of Hebert Hoover Dike and • Replacement of all 32 culverts to be completed by 2018. Major Rehabilitation classified it a damn safety action classification of Class 1. • Cutoff wall and/or seepage management systems to be implemented in • Culvert 14 removed and replaced with fill in 2011. Reaches 2 and 3 by 2022. • Remaining rehabilitation projects will be developed based on the findings of the Herbert Hoover Dike Dam Safety Modification Study, which is underway, and expected to be complete in 2015. Lake Okeechobee Habitat Enhancements • Most activities completed by 2011. • Apple snail enhancement continues in 2013. Everglades Region • L-8 FEB design and construction initiated and expected to be complete December 2016. • In 2012, $63.9 million contract awarded to design/build the • A-1 FEB construction expected to be complete July 2016. L-8 FEB including an inflow structure, internal improvements, • S-5AS Divide Structure modification initiated and expected to be revetment strengthening, a pump station, and six pumps. complete September 2016. Restoration Strategies Regional • Final design of A-1 FEB completed in 2013. • S-375 structure expansion initiated and expected to be complete Water Quality Plan • In 2013, FDEP issued a permit authorizing SFWMD to build, December 2018. operate, and maintain the A-1 FEB. • STA 1 West expansion planned and expected to be complete • L-8 Divide Structure (G-541) preliminary design completed in December 2018. 2013. • L-8 Divide Structure (G-541) construction expected to be complete March 2016. • Completion of all elements estimated by 2025. C 139 Annex Restoration • The Lake Belt Mitigation Committee approved the C-139 Annex • Restoration will progress as mitigation funds allow and is expected to be for wetlands mitigation in 2012. complete in 2018. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 135 Table 13. Continued. Project Completed Elements I Status of Uncompleted Elements Everglades Region (continued) • 8.5 -Square Mile Area protection features completed in 2008. Modified Water Deliveries to • Taylor Slough Bridge completed in 2007. • 5-356 pump station construction is complete and awaiting permit Everglades National Park • 1 -mile bridge on Tamiami Trail completed in 2013. to operate. • L-67 extension canal and levee has 4 of 9 miles degraded. • Final permit for DPM construction and interim operations • Testing is anticipated to begin in November 2013 and continue Decomp Physical Model received in 2012. through 2014. • Construction contract was awarded in May 2012. • When the PIR is finalized, the SFWMD Governing Board will Ongoing CERP Planning •Draft project implementation report (PIR) complete and consider approval. including CEPP available for public comment in September 2013. • USACE to complete PIR and chief of engineer's report to transmit project to United States Congress for authorization. • CERP planning on other projects is ongoing. Wading Bird Monitoring Report • Most recent report has been published. • Reports completed annually to identify breeding colonies. Historical Tree Island Mapping • Completed in 2011 Loxahatchee River • SFWMD acquired land in support of Loxahatchee River restoration. Restoration Plan for the • M -Canal widening completed in 2007. • Cypress Creek berm/water control structures is ongoing in 2013. Northwest Fork of the • C-18 Project culvert replacements completed in 2007. • Loxahatchee Slough restoration is ongoing in 2013. Loxahatchee River • Nine Gems restoration completed in 2010. • Planning is ongoing in 2013. • Culpepper hydrologic restoration completed in 2011. • Cypress Creek weir installation completed in 2012. • SFWMD acquired land in support of Loxahatchee River restoration. CERP Loxahatchee River • M -Canal widening completed in 2007. Watershed Restoration Project • G-160 completed in 2004 and currently operational. • Planning is ongoing in 2013. . G-161 completed in 2007 and currently operational. • Operational testing of L-8 and flow -way was conducted by SFWMD in 2011. • In 2013, SFWMD and Palm Beach County conceptually agreed to Storage for Loxahatchee River the acquisition of approximately 1,800 acres. Design is expected to proceed in 2018. 136 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects Table 13. Continued. Project Completed Elements Status of Uncompleted Elements Biscayne Bay • PIR and chief of engineer's report completed in 2012. • Cutler Wetlands Flow -way completed in 2013. CERP BBCW Project Phase 1 • Deering Estate Flow -way construction completed and • Signed record of decision transmitted to congress for authorization. operational in 2012. • L-31 East Flow -way has 4 of 10 culverts completed. Developing Technical Information * Completed in 2008. for Biscayne Bay Biscayne Bay Seepage Study • Completed in 2008. Biscayne Bay and Watershed • Completed in 2008. Water Quality Data Analysis Storm Event Sampling in the • Completed in 2009. Biscayne Bay Watershed Characterization of Nearshore • Completed in 2011. Epifauna Study Florida Bay USACE C-111 South Dade Project • Seven of the twelve contracts for this project executed since • Execution of construction contracts is ongoing. In April 2012, SFWMD work began in 1994. issued a solicitation to identify qualified firms for the eighth contract. S-197 Structure Replacement • Construction is ongoing with completion expected in 2013. Project CERP C-111 Spreader Canal • PIR completed in 2011 and chief of engineer's report completed Western Project in 2012. • Signed record of decision transmitted to congress for authorization. • SFWMD construction of major elements completed in 2012. Florida Bay MFL Prevention 'Monitoring data collection completed in 2012. • Review of data collected from Florida Bay is underway and expected to Strategy Monitoring and Research be complete by 2013. Lower East Coast Service Area CERP Fran Reich Preserve •PIR completed in 2006 and congress authorized construction for • Phase 1 under construction and expected to be complete byDecember Reservoir Phase 1 in 2007. 2014. • Additional authorization from congress needed for Phase 2. CERP Hillsboro ASR Pilot Project • Cycle testing completed in 2012. • Final technical data report expected to be complete in 2013. CERP Broward County Water • PIR and chief of engineer's report completed in 2012. • Signed record of decision transmitted to congress for authorization. Preserve Areas CERP Environmental Preserve at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas • Completed and operational in 2010. Everglades Habitat L -31N Seepage Management • Construction of the underground barrier completed in July 2012. • A performance monitoring program is under way until 2014. Project 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 137 Table 13. Continued. Project Completed Elements I Status of Uncompleted Elements Lower East Coast Service Area (continued) LECsR Model Update • Completed in 2006. • Updates ongoing in 2013. Saltwater Interface Mapping •Updated maps for LEC Planning Area completed in 2011. • Monitoring is ongoing. . Preparation of saltwater interface maps will be complete in 2014. Gun Club Road Satellite Reuse Facility • Completed in 2006. Feasibility Study and Pilot Project Groundwater Replenishment via • Completed in 2008. Canal Recharge Augmentation Study Alternative Water Sources Subregional Feasibility Study: Fort . Completed in 2006. Lauderdale, Sunrise, and Miami -Dade County 5-155A Divide Structure 1 • Completed in 2004 and operational. Florida City Canal • If funded, construction is anticipated to begin in 2014 and be completed in 2015. Districtwide Water Resource Development Projects ET Measurement Project • Completed in 2011. Water Desalination Concentrate • Completed in 2009. Management and Piloting Study Water Supply Cost Estimation Study • Completed in 2007. MFL, Water Reservation and Restricted Allocation Areas Rule • Three water reservation rules and two restricted allocation • Continued implementation of MFL recovery and prevention strategies. Activities area rules adopted since 2007. Development of new water reservation rules. Comprehensive Water Conservation •Program completed in 2008. • Continued operation of recognition and certification programs, Program • Adopted year-round irrigation rule in 2010. regulatory initiatives, education, and outreach with funding support through Water$IP. Alternative Water Supply • Funds distributed on an annual basis. • Continued support through Alternative Water Supply Funding Program Drilling and Testing • Installation of monitoring wells and subsurface testing as needed. Groundwater Assessment • Preparation of saltwater interface maps for six counties will be complete in 2014. Groundwater, Surface Water, and • Ongoing monitoring of 760 groundwater stations districtwide. Wetland Monitoring • East Coast Floridan Model completed in 2008 and peer review Groundwater Modeling completed in 2011. • East Coast Floridan Model completion, including response to peer • Peer review for the Lower West Coast Floridan Aquifer Model review, expected in 2013. completed in 2008. 138 1 Chapter 4: Water Resource Development Projects 5 Evaluation of Water Source Options The Lower East Coast (LEC) Planning Area historically relied on fresh water from aquifers and surface water sources to meet RIMM water supply needs. As population and water demand increased, the development of other water source options also increased. ♦ Groundwater This chapter presents an evaluation of water source options 4 Surface Water available within the LEC Planning Area through 2030 to accommodate future urban and agricultural growth while 16 Reclaimed Water meeting the needs of the ecosystem. ♦ Storage: Surface Water & In the LEC Planning Area, traditional freshwater source options Groundwater include groundwater from the surficial aquifer system (SAS) and surface water from Lake Okeechobee, the Water Conservation Seawater Areas (WCAs), and connected water bodies. Alternative water ♦ Water Conservation source options include brackish groundwater from the Floridan 4 Summary aquifer, reclaimed water, seawater, storage capacity by using reservoirs or aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems, and = water conservation. To evaluate the water source options, consideration must be given to several key factors, such as future water needs, source availability, water quality requirements for the intended uses, and cost. Chapter 2 provides summaries of gross water demand for all water use categories: Public Water Supply (PWS), Domestic Self -Supply (DSS), Agricultural (AGR) Self - Supply, Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Self -Supply, Recreational/Landscape (REC) Self -Supply, and Power Generation (PWR) Self -Supply. The LEC Planning Area population is expected to increase by 18 percent, from approximately 5.6 million people in 2010 to more than 6.6 million by 2030. Gross water demand for all water use categories is projected to increase by 214 million gallons per day (MGD) (12 percent) by 2 03 0. The PWS and AGR Self -Supply categories account for more than 88 percent of all water use in the LEC Planning Area. Currently, all but two PWS utilities in the LEC Planning Area utilize fresh groundwater from the SAS to supply the majority of potable water demand. Agricultural operations in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) rely on surface water, while growers in the eastern portion of the planning area use a combination of groundwater 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 139 and surface water. Water use permits have been issued and infrastructure exists to meet a significant portion of the 2030 water needs for PWS and AGR Self -Supply. This is important because restricted allocation area criteria limit new allocations from traditional groundwater and surface water sources, which are described in Chapter 3 and discussed briefly later in this chapter. Each water source option presented in this chapter briefly describes current and future uses. Additional information about water source options and their related costs is provided in Chapter 5 of the 2011-2013 Water Supply Plan Support Document (Support Document) (SFWMD 2013a). Water treatment technologies and associated costs are presented in Chapter 6 of the Support Document. GROUNDWATER Groundwater sources in the LEC Planning Area include fresh groundwater from the SAS, including the Biscayne aquifer, and brackish groundwater from the Floridan aquifer. More information about these aquifers, including yields and characteristics specific to the LEC Planning Area, is provided in Chapter 3 of this update and Chapter 10 of the Support Document. Fresh Groundwater Fresh groundwater is the primary source of supply for potable water consumption, landscape irrigation, and industrial and commercial uses in the LEC Planning Area. In the urban areas of the LEC Planning Area, PWS relies heavily on the SAS, including the Biscayne aquifer. The SAS produces good quality fresh water from relatively shallow wells. In some cases, the ambient water quality meets most primary and secondary drinking water quality standards. Local rainfall, canals, groundwater seepage from WCAs and Everglades National Park, and surface water deliveries from WCAs recharge these aquifers. When sufficient water is available, surface water from Lake Okeechobee can also be routed to WCAs, then to regional canals to maintain water levels and recharge the aquifer. During droughts, lower regional groundwater levels may cause inland movement of salt water at the interface of the aquifer with seawater. In this case, water shortage restrictions may be declared by the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to conserve freshwater supplies. Figure 43 shows the distribution of SFWMD-permitted SAS wells for PWS utilities producing over 0.1 MGD. The map reveals that well capacities generally increase from Palm Beach County to the south towards Miami -Dade County as a result of the presence of the Biscayne aquifer. The transmissivity of the Biscayne aquifer generally increases from north to south. In 2010, PWS utilities utilized fresh groundwater to supply 94 percent of their total potable water demand. Existing allocations of fresh groundwater exceed projected 2030 demand for more than half of the PWS utilities (see Chapter 6 for specifics). Most of the 2030 demand will continue to be met by fresh groundwater from the SAS. More details about actual and permitted withdrawals from each source can be found in Appendix C. 140 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options .ry LakeI Okeechobee r' Glades -• ed�y i® Collier Marlin Palm Beach Broward r; V. h�kiffl EDIN-11 i "1•lnn r08 I h -I rn Dade 00 I` -.J I - I I - I_ PWS Wells within the SAS N Lower East Coast W+E Major Roads PWS Wells (MGD) s^• minty Line i - Q 5 1t] 15 2i1 Extent of Biscayne Aquifer t $ Biscayne Aquifer Miles Atlantic Ocean I .i I-.e,�er €ea cee� Prepared M• Resource Fwaldatlon bete: $1.1 $f2U13 M qac.: .RrW Figure 43. Location and approximate yield of SAS PWS production wells in the LEC Planning Area. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 141 Fresh groundwater supplied all of the estimated 18 MGD of DSS in 2010. By 2030, DSS demand throughout the LEC Planning Area is expected to increase slightly to 19 MGD. Domestic wells are exempt from SFWMD water use permitting requirements. Fresh groundwater from the SAS will continue to supply DSS. Agriculture in Broward and Miami -Dade counties, comprising approximately 8 percent of irrigated agricultural acres in the LEC Planning Area, is primarily dependent upon withdrawals from the Biscayne aquifer to supply supplemental irrigation for crops, livestock, and other purposes. Fresh groundwater supplied approximately 10 percent of the total AGR Self -Supply water demand in the LEC Planning Area. In 2010, the AGR Self -Supply demand met by fresh groundwater was approximately 68 MGD. AGR Self -Supply demand is expected to remain somewhat constant for the next 20 years. Figure 44 shows the location and relative magnitude of agricultural allocations. The remainder of agriculture acreage and demand is supplied by fresh surface water and discussed below. The primary use for water in the REC Self -Supply category is for irrigation of parks, athletic fields, golf courses, medians, and large landscaped areas. The largest water users in the ICI Self -Supply category are the aggregates mining and food processing industries, such as sugar mills. Fresh groundwater accounted for 40 percent of the total REC Self -Supply demand and 60 percent of the total ICI Self -Supply demand in 2010. The remainder of the water for these two categories is from diverse sources including surface water, brackish groundwater, and reclaimed water. Growth in the REC Self -Supply category is expected to be small, about 3 percent. The increased demand will likely be met by the same three sources, depending on availability at specific locations. By 2030, ICI Self -Supply demand is expected to increase by 28 percent. The increase will largely be met by groundwater where available. Fresh groundwater provided less than 10 percent of the total water demand for PWR Self - Supply in the LEC Planning Area in 2010. It is anticipated that a similar volume of fresh groundwater will be used for PWR Self -Supply in 2030, while reliance on other sources, such as seawater, will expand. Reclaimed water use for cooling recently expanded and is anticipated to continue to grow to meet PWR Self -Supply needs through 2030. 142 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options Hendry Collier P � _ Gulf of Me. ico J*F Lake Okeecho&ee b *WO ,• # s_ Palm Beach + # #I # + ly •I N • rs I � Browa rd 4t MiamiIC' Monroe Dade �a o 4 AtlanL c O Leah Water Use Permits Allocations in MGD* Aquaculture 0.00 -0.10 0.10-0.50 0.50 - 1.00 1.00 - 4.50 Nursery • 000-010 • 010-050 0 0.50- 1.00 • 1.00 -4-50 Agricultural 000-0.10 0 010-050 0 0.50 - 1.00 i 1.00-450 =Lower East Coast Service Area = Lake Okeechobee =Counties Roads == —ts maycotrtant bnrrh Cat dNat=r at+ -35 urkce Water BD1 r�ea Albmtbn mayre "ct the total o: both sources. KIWI SFWMt} CUP Agricultural, Nursery, and ri Aquaculture Permits with Groundwater Sources+r in the Lower East Coast Service Area "a4 2A" It 1r,tillu ry �... �e Figure 44. Location and relative magnitude of agricultural allocations from the SAS. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 143 Western Basins The Everglades Protection Area's tributary basins include the C-139, Feeder Canal, L-28 Interceptor, and L-28 Gap (located within the Big Cypress National Preserve) basins, which encompasses approximately 440,000 acres located primarily in eastern Hendry County (Figure 45). These basins are collectively called the Western Basins because they are along the western edge of the Everglades. Generally, land within these basins have three classifications: 1) agricultural (vegetable, sugarcane, and citrus), 2) cow -calf operations, and 3) wetlands and native areas. Agricultural land dominates the C-139 and Feeder Canal basins. While the L-28 interceptor basin land use is split between wetlands and agricultural. The L-28 Gap Basin consists almost entirely (98 percent) of wetlands. Urban land classifications occupy 4 percent of the C-139 Basin. Overall, agricultural land uses and urban lands are projected to remain stable. The Seminole Tribe of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida both have reservations in the Western Basins (Figure 46) with water supply needs for its residents, agriculture and wetlands. Both water supply and water quality of stormwater runoff are challenges facing the development of the Western Basins. Florida's 1994 Everglades Forever Act, Section 373.4592, Florida Statutes (F.S.), mandated 1) the construction of stormwater treatment areas (STAB), 2) landowners within the C-139 Basin should implement best management practices (BMPs), and 3) landowners not collectively exceed average annual historic total phosphorus load adjusted for rainfall. In 2002, SFWMD adopted the C-139 Basin BMPs Regulatory Program, Chapter 40E-63, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to ensure the total phosphorous load requirements would be met. After four years with source control mandatory BMP permits, the C-139 Basin was not meeting the historic total phosphorus load required by rule. SFWMD amended Chapter 40E-63, F.A.C. to address future compliance. The amendments became effective in November 2010. The performance measure to meet historic total phosphorous loading adjusted by rainfall were met in water years 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 (a water year begins on May 1 and ends on April 30 of the following year). Water management in general (water supply and discharges) is thought to be a critical factor affecting phosphorus loads from the basin. Water management, water availability, and the effects of allocation of water supply for the Western Basins require further study. Studies and data of the surface and groundwater in the Western Basins will assist with restoration of wetland hydroperiods on the Seminole Tribe of Florida's Big Cypress Reservation and in the Big Cypress National Preserve. The Seminole Tribe's long standing concerns in the Western Basins include adequate water supply for the environment and the lack of attention by federal and state resource agencies on its condition. To address this deficiency, a subset of South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force member agencies, which includes federal and state agencies, has convened to discuss this issue and other specific concerns raised by the Seminole Tribe. 144 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options 11T11INTIC LAKE OKEECHOBEE to T01E LAKE CKEEC EE S VICE AREA tY < C -iu C-139 EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL WCA1 rJ AREA > WESTERN Feeder BASINS Canal LU WCA2 co Gi WCA3 0 N Big Cypress W E nn National Preseve qr --------------- W M)"VIC0 % 4� Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan Boundary SFWMD Boundary — — — County Boundaries National Park Boundaries Lake Okeechobee Service Area. including portions outside of the LEC Planning Area boundary BISCAYNE: EV RGLADES BAY NliTIONAL PARK Biscayne cob National Park % 0 6 - Figure 45. EAA, Western Basins, and surrounding areas. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 145 I rnln Dl@ - r l r � Lake .0keectwboo . r 1 C; I.anc^ ,t I i LANE 0 I E OBEE RVlCE AREA I � I I I I _ — I Lower East Coast Reg lonal Mier Supply Plan Boundary SFWMD Sour Bary - - County Boundary National Park Boundaries --- Lake Okeech Dbee Service Area - including portions outside & the LEC Pfanning Area boundary Agricultural Areas v'stern BaSin EVERGLADES I AIMCUL7GRAL AREA I i NWEST.ERN resse41gWRrtR e se I s 4 v7. Se mino]e Im3i-an Ho�lywua❑ N.e se rvntron Figure 46. Western Basins map showing the Seminole Tribe of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida reservations. Available water supplies for allocation for the basin from the SAS are constrained by the presence of isolated wetlands. Water supply demands fluctuate seasonally, with emphasis on the fall -to -winter and winter -to -spring growing seasons, which require optimal water table levels. However, some additional groundwater supplies may be available consistent with the wetland criteria and maximum developable limits applicable to this area. Maximum developable limits are discussed in Section 3.2.4 of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, commonly referred as the Basis of Review (SFWMD 2012b). Applicants must provide reasonable assurances that the proposed use shall not cause harmful drawdowns so as to deplete semi - confined freshwater aquifers within the Lower West Coast Planning Area, which is adjacent. The potentiometric head within the lower Tamiami aquifer shall not be allowed to drop to less than 20 feet above the top of the uppermost geologic strata that comprises the aquifer at any point during a 1 -in -10 year drought condition. Alternatives to increase the availability of water supply sources, permanently or seasonally, involve studying ways to develop water supply storage capacity for periods of need, and further supporting a means to optimize and reuse irrigation water in identified areas. Coordinated long-term plans are needed that consider alternative water supplies or 146 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options matching demand to availability. To that end, SFWMD is updating the Lower West Coast Surficial Aquifer and Intermediate System Model, a groundwater flow model, to include the intermediate aquifer system. Once peer reviewed, which is tentatively scheduled for completion during Fiscal Year 2014, it will be applied to examine the potential impacts of existing and future groundwater withdrawals from the SAS and intermediate aquifer system. In 2010, SFWMD purchased land from the United States Sugar Corporation, providing 26,800 acres (42 square miles) of strategically located property south of Lake Okeechobee for the construction of water storage and water quality improvement projects and wetland restoration that will bring meaningful environmental benefits to the Everglades. Currently, the land is leased back to agricultural producers for farming until plans can be developed and implemented for restoration projects. The purchase included 17,900 citrus acres in Hendry County to improve water quality in the Western Basins where phosphorus loads have historically been high. Approximately 14,400 acres of the C-139 Annex (see Figure 34 in Chapter 4), located just west of thousands of acres of existing STAB that treat agricultural runoff, will be restored to a more natural condition. Removal of the citrus trees from production will begin in 2014 and finish by 2018. Removal of the citrus trees will reduce the demand for groundwater currently used for irrigation. Restoration will improve the quality, timing, and distribution of water flowing into the Everglades. See the C-139 Annex Restoration project description in Chapter 4 for more information. Limits on Availability The SAS, including the Biscayne aquifer, is a source of limited availability to the extent that withdrawals result in induced seepage from the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project), except when stormwater or wet season discharge occurs, as defined by Section 1.7.2.2.13 of the Basis of Review. In 2007, SFWMD adopted the LECSA and North Palm Beach County/Loxahatchee River Watershed water bodies restricted allocation area criteria (Section 3.2.1.E, Basis of Review). Within these areas, the SAS is generally limited due to potential impacts on the regional system, wetlands, existing legal water users including DSS, and the potential for saltwater intrusion. SFWMD will evaluate new or increased allocations on an application -by -application basis to determine if the project meets water use permitting criteria. Brackish Groundwater Brackish groundwater is defined as water with a chloride concentration greater than 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and less than 19,000 mg/L. In the LEC Planning Area, water produced from the Floridan aquifer system (FAS), the upper Floridan aquifer specifically, typically contains chlorides in excess of 500 mg/L. Appropriate desalination treatment technologies must be used before this type of water supply can be suitable for most uses, including human consumption. Brackish groundwater is generally not suitable for agricultural water supply. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 147 In the LEC Planning Area, the upper Floridan aquifer provides brackish groundwater to supplement PWS and PWR Self -Supply demands. Water use from the FAS began in the late 1970s, and increased in the 1990s, with more significant use after 2000. By 2010, approximately 30 MGD was produced for PWS from brackish water sources in the LEC Planning Area and as of 2012, 11 PWS treatment plant facilities utilize a brackish water source (Figure 47). Combined, these facilities have an installed treatment capacity of 86 MGD. Overall, 23 utilities in the planning area obtained upper Floridan aquifer allocations totaling 190 MGD. Most of this volume has not been needed to date, and likely will not be needed prior to 2030, based on current demand projections. 35 25 l7 20 Ln 15 10 5 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 47. PWS withdrawals from brackish water sources in the LEC Planning Area for 2003-2011. PWS utilities typically use the reverse osmosis (RO) process to remove excess salinity. The approximate production efficiency or recovery for brackish water RO facilities districtwide is between 75 and 85 percent, depending upon the membrane technology employed and the salinity of the water from the aquifer (Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2009). Some utilities blend brackish upper Floridan aquifer water with fresh groundwater and treat the blended product with lime softening or nanofiltration technology to meet drinking water standards. Blending can reduce treatment costs and increase production efficiency in order to meet drinking water standards. Additional users of Floridan aquifer water in the LEC Planning Area include four golf courses—Seminole, Breakers, and Everglades Club golf courses in Palm Beach County, and Card Sound Golf Club in Monroe County. Only one power generating facility—the Florida Power & Light (FPL) Turkey Point Plant Unit 5—uses groundwater drawn from the Floridan aquifer for cooling. 148 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options SURFACE WATER Lake Okeechobee and Water Conservation Areas Surface water has been a major source of water in the LEC Planning Area and will continue to be in the future. An overview of water resources including Lake Okeechobee and WCAs is provided in Chapter 3. Lake Okeechobee, its connected conveyance system, and the WCAs are the most significant surface water sources for the LEC Planning Area. Surface water from these sources supply water to the regional system via canals and recharges the SAS. Lake Okeechobee has multiple purposes and is critical for flood control during wet seasons as well as water supply during dry seasons. Agriculture in the Lake Okeechobee Service Area covered approximately 255,500 acres outside of the EAA and the 458,500 acres within the EAA (see Figure 2 in Chapter 1) in 2010. It is the predominate user of lake water. Lake Okeechobee serves as a supplemental water supply source for agriculture when rainfall is insufficient and can be used as a backup source for urban users in the coastal basins of the LEC Planning Area during droughts and dry times, and depending upon availability, may provide 'pass through' water to the WCAs in accordance with their regulation schedules. The implementation of the 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule, referred to as 2008 LORS, resulted in an average loss of approximately 430,000 acre-feet of storage for all uses. Canals connected to the lake will continue to provide fresh surface water for supplemental irrigation in the future consistent with water use permits. Subsequent to the implementation of 2008 LORS, South Florida experienced several years of below average rainfall. This resulted in lake levels substantially lower than those that characterized the Water Supply and Environment and predecessor schedules. To fulfill its water supply function when at lower lake levels, SFWMD is permitted to deploy portable pumps at S-351, S-352, and S-354 at extreme low lake stages (less than 10.5 feet in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929). This enables SFWMD to meet water supply needs in the EAA and the Seminole Tribe of Florida's Big Cypress Reservation. The Okeechobee Utility Authority in the Kissimmee Basin Planning Area is the only remaining PWS utility using water directly from Lake Okeechobee. Since the last plan update, Clewiston, South Bay, Belle Glade, and Pahokee discontinued their use of Lake Okeechobee and now use FAS water treated by RO for their PWS demand (SFWMD 2012a). The City of West Palm Beach is the only PWS utility in the LEC Planning Area to rely on surface water as its primary source. The city draws its water from Clear Lake, which is indirectly connected to Lake Okeechobee via a series of tie -back canals. The city also supplies water to the towns of Palm Beach and South Palm Beach. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 149 In 2010, AGR Self -Supply accounted for approximately 90 percent of surface water allocations in the LEC Planning Area (Figure 48). The majority of AGR Self -Supply acreage in Palm Beach and Hendry counties is located within the EAA (see Figure 2 in Chapter 1) and supplemental irrigation supplied by surface water withdrawals from canals connected to Lake Okeechobee. Agriculture in eastern Palm Beach County also relies primarily on surface water in the regional canal network and WCA 1, as well as deliveries from Lake Okeechobee, for supplemental irrigation. Combined, they are the largest users of surface water in the LEC Planning Area. Some smaller agricultural uses, including nurseries and aquaculture utilizing surface water, occur in Broward and Miami -Dade counties. The EAA accounts for approximately 80 percent of the agricultural acreage within the LEC Planning Area. It is a fully developed, very stable agricultural area where permitted acres and cropping practices are not projected to change significantly over the next twenty years. Projected water demands for the EAA from 2010 to 2030 do not increase because EAA cultivated acres are consistent throughout the planning horizon. Agricultural demand in eastern Palm Beach County is projected to increase slightly. Water Supplies to Seminole Tribe of Florida The Seminole Tribe of Florida has three reservations in the LEC Planning Area—Brighton, Hollywood, and Big Cypress (see Figure 46). Two reservations rely on Lake Okeechobee as a secondary supplemental irrigation supply source, with specific volumes of water identified for the Big Cypress Reservation and drought -water shortage operations for the Brighton Reservation. The Seminole Tribe also owns other facilities and land within the LEC Planning Area. Demands, if any, associated with these other properties and the Hollywood Reservation are included within the PWS water use category. The Seminole Tribe of Florida has surface water entitlement rights pursuant to the 1987 Water Rights Compact between the Seminole Tribe of Florida, State of Florida, and SFWMD (Public Law 100-228, 101 Statute 1566, and Chapter 87-292, Laws of Florida, as codified in Section 28S.16S, F.S.). The parties executed subsequent additional documents addressing the compact entitlement provisions. These documents include agreements between the Seminole Tribe and SFWMD and a SFWMD final order. Of particular interest in this regard is the 1996 agreement that addresses SFWMD mitigation responsibilities regarding impacts to the Seminole Tribe's ability to obtain surface water supplies at both the Brighton and Big Cypress reservations, which may be diminished as a result of various activities. For the Big Cypress Reservation, SFWMD can install four portable forward pumps, capable of delivering up to 400 cubic feet per second from Lake Okeechobee to the Miami Canal to maintain stages in the canal. The SFWMD acquired an interim permit to operate the pumps from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), who in turn, is consulting with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the permitting process. This option remains a part of drought management alternatives and was completed in coordination with water restriction plans. Real-time operational decisions made during a declared drought event are made while fully cognizant of the Seminole Tribe's water rights. These 150 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options decisions remain a part of the drought management operations. In addition, SFWMD built a weir at G-404 to facilitate delivery of water from the Miami Canal. • + T .Y GladesQLak. Okeechobee ; LI � St11 � + Palm Beach • Hendry -- ---- Broward + i l l E,oilll�r �'+ • � i ai Gulf of • 4fe'lled Miami -•. Monroe Dade Atlande Oee.vj Water Use Permits Allocations in MGD" Nursery • 0-00 - 0.10 • 010-050 0 0.50-1.00 i 1.00-450 Agricultural • 0.00-0.10 ! 0.10-0.50 • 0.50-100 • 100-450 Lower East Coast Service Area = Lake O keen hobee = Counties Road s a - ,c a maLr wd5aTttm Water srrms Wlomtkw rmyralace the IDtal ofbab s LF: . fhtra SFWMD CUP Agricultural and Nursery a Permits with Surface Water Sources in the Lower East Coast Service Area w E Figure 48. Location and relative magnitude of agricultural allocations utilizing surface water. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 151 Limits on Availability As discussed in Chapter 3, in October 2008, SFWMD developed restricted allocation area criteria for the Lake Okeechobee Service Area as part of the minimum flow and level recovery strategy for Lake Okeechobee. A recovery strategy was needed due to the USACE's adoption of 2008 LORS, which generally lowered the water levels in Lake Okeechobee by approximately one foot. These criteria limit allocations from Lake Okeechobee and connected surface waters, including the C-43 and C-44 canals, to base condition water uses that occurred from April 1, 2001 to January 1, 2008. Implementation of the restricted allocation area criteria in the Lake Okeechobee Service Area began in fall 2008. During this time, irrigation water use permits for surface water were renewed or issued for twenty-year durations. The permits covered approximately 714,000 acres in the service area, of which approximately 4S8,S00 acres were in the EAA. As part of the permit renewal process for agricultural permits in the EAA, SFWMD reviewed historical operations of actual water supply deliveries during a 1 -in -10 year drought. This evaluation observed that crop management, water quality BMPs, and unique water management activities within the EAA result in a more efficient use of water when compared to other agricultural areas using similar seepage systems. As a result of this analysis, and in consultation with the industry, an efficiency of 7S percent rather than the typical SO percent was applied to water use permit renewals for agricultural projects within the EAA Basin employing a flood irrigation system. This change in methodology resulted in a 33 percent decrease in allocation for the basin. Another restricted allocation area found in the LEC Planning Area is located just south of the Lake Okeechobee Service Area in eastern Hendry County. The limited network of surface water canals within these basins are not connected to Lake Okeechobee. SFWMD will not allocate additional surface water from the L-1, L-2, and L-3 canals over the existing allocations (Section 3.2.1.C, Basis of Review). RECLAIMED WATER Reclaimed water receives at least secondary treatment and basic disinfection and is reused after flowing out of a domestic wastewater treatment facility. In the LEC Planning Area, reclaimed water is used for landscape irrigation (e.g., medians, residential lots, and golf courses), groundwater recharge, cooling water, and environmental enhancement. The State of Florida encourages and promotes the use of reclaimed water. The Water Resource Implementation Rule (Chapter 62-40, F.A.C.) requires the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and water management districts to advocate and direct the use of reclaimed water as an integral part of water management programs, rules, and plans. SFWMD requires all applicants for water use permits proposing to irrigate with more than 0.1 MGD of water and those applicants within a mandatory reuse zone to use reclaimed water if it is feasible. Mandatory reuse zones are geographic areas designated by local governments through ordinance where reclaimed water use is required if it is 152 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options environmentally and technically feasible. Reclaimed water can be used for many purposes, including green space irrigation, industrial cooling and process water, groundwater recharge, saltwater intrusion barriers, and other nonpotable use activities. The use of reclaimed water in the LEC Planning Area helps to reduce potential resource impacts by decreasing the reliance on traditional fresh sources, such as groundwater and surface water. Wastewater reuse reduces use of the traditional wastewater disposal methods, such as ocean outfalls and deep well injection. Wastewater reuse provides an environmentally sound alternative. Reclaimed water also provides additional supply for uses not requiring potable water, such as irrigation, although utilities require backup disposal methods during wet periods when irrigation demand is low. Reclaimed water generally contains relatively high concentrations of nutrients that could justify decreased use of fertilizer when used for irrigation. The increased level of nutrients may also be a concern for numeric nutrient criteria in the region. Existing Reuse in the LEC Planning Area Wastewater management generally evolved from smaller subregional facilities to a partially integrated system of larger regional facilities and a limited, but growing network of pipelines to carry reclaimed water to end users. Maps showing the current extent of reclaimed water pipelines are shown in Appendix C. The volume of reclaimed water used for a beneficial purpose, such as landscape irrigation and cooling water, increased eight -fold from 1994 to 2011 as shown in Figure 49. Most of this growth occurred in Palm Beach County. Over this period, the volume of reclaimed water use varied from year to year, depending on the addition of new users and rainfall. This information was collected by SFWMD and supplemented by the 2011 Reuse Inventory (FDEP 2012). 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LEC Planning Area Reuse History (1994-2011) 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Figure 49. Annual average reclaimed water reuse in MGD in the LEC Planning Area from 1994 to 2011. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 153 In 2010, 44 wastewater treatment facilities in the LEC Planning Area had a permitted treatment capacity of 0.1 MGD or greater. These facilities had a total wastewater treatment capacity of 860 MGD to meet peak daily flows and treated an average of 636 MGD of wastewater in 2010. The Miami -Dade Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant, operated by the Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD), remains the area's largest wastewater treatment facility, with a capacity of 143 MGD. In 2010, approximately 93 percent, or 594 MGD of the LEC Planning Area's treated wastewater supply, was disposed through deep well injection (353 MGD) and ocean outfalls (240 MGD). Only 71 MGD was beneficially reused. About 1 MGD was disposed through shallow injection wells in the Florida Keys area of Monroe County. Of the 44 wastewater treatment facilities, 25 facilities reused at least a portion of their wastewater in 2010 (71 MGD). Nearly 41 MGD was used to irrigate almost 20,000 residences, 55 golf courses, 47 parks, and 12 schools, mostly within Palm Beach County (FDEP 2011). Over 6 MGD of the reclaimed water supply was reused for groundwater recharge, mainly by the City of Homestead in Miami -Dade County, through rapid infiltration basins and percolation ponds. The remaining 24 MGD of reclaimed water was reused for various purposes, including hydration of two created wetlands in Palm Beach County and use at wastewater treatment facilities. Summaries of wastewater and reclaimed water facilities, including their capacities and locations, are provided in Appendix C. The total amount of water reused in the LEC Planning Area in 2010 (71 MGD) exceeds the difference between wastewater treated (636 MGD) and wastewater disposed (594 MGD). Total wastewater treated and disposed cannot be simply subtracted to quantify the volume reused. Reclaimed water reused at the wastewater treatment facility may be double - counted by adding both to the treated wastewater flow and water reuse flow totals. This occurs, for example, when the utility reuses water at the treatment plant for process water, then returns it to the disposal system. In addition, several utilities have permits to blend either groundwater or surface water with their reclaimed water. This supplemental water is added into the total water reuse without being treated at the facility. Reclaimed water is one of three primary sources of cooling water for PWR Self -Supply, along with tidal water and seawater. These sources do not require a permit from SFWMD. As a result, they are not included in the demand numbers provided in Chapter 2 and Appendix A. Starting in late 2010, the use of reclaimed water for power generation increased when Palm Beach County began providing the FPL West County Energy Center with reclaimed water from the East Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. The average flow of reclaimed water in 2010 to the West County Energy Center was 12 MGD (FDEP 2011) (see difference in reclaimed water use between 2010 and 2011 in Figure 49). This flow is expected to approach 20 MGD with the reuse utility's first full year of reporting, and up to 27 MGD in the future. It should be noted that the addition of the FPL West County Energy Center as a reclaimed water customer followed the reporting period for the 2010 Reuse Inventory (FDEP 2011), which is used as the baseline year for this document. As a result, this reuse is not reflected in the totals provided above and in Appendix C. 154 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options Future Reuse in the LEC Planning Area By 2030, wastewater flows are projected to increase from 636 MGD in 2010 to an estimated 832 MGD. In addition, 42 of the 44 utilities operating wastewater facilities indicated they will be reusing some portion of their treated wastewater flow. MDWASD is proposing to provide up to 90 MGD of reclaimed water to FPL for cooling water at a planned expansion of nuclear powered generation at Turkey Point (Units 6 and 7). In the future, several other reuse options are worth noting. Reclaimed water for irrigation will continue to be an important and expanding part of future reuse in the LEC Planning Area. In addition to the traditional reuse methods, a few other methods might be available to help meet water demands or offset potential impacts associated with future withdrawals. Reclaimed water could be used by water suppliers to recharge and replenish the network of canals found in many areas of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties and reduce water deliveries from the regional water management system, especially during the dry season. These canals could act as a distribution network for the reclaimed water. Reclaimed water could also be used as a saltwater intrusion barrier preventing or delaying saltwater intrusion along the coast. Under this scenario, reclaimed water would be injected into the aquifer between the saltwater source and the supply wells. Another potential use of reclaimed water is for the benefit of the environment. This application of water reuse for environmental benefit could be accomplished in a number of ways, including the hydration of natural or created wetlands. Elsewhere, inroads to utilizing reclaimed water for direct potable supply are taking place. Singapore's NEWater facilities have been producing potable water for over a decade. In the United States, locations in California and other areas in the southwest are turning to direct potable reuse for water supply. Several local wastewater utilities have successfully implemented some of these reuse options. Irrigation using reclaimed water is prevalent in Palm Beach County, with substantially less in Broward and Miami -Dade counties. Irrigation with reclaimed water could result in a decrease in per capita demand to the local utility if replacing the use of potable water. If groundwater or surface water use is replaced, the utility has the potential to receive a substitution credit as part of their consumptive use permit. A couple of LEC PWS utilities have substitution credits, or similar, incorporated into their current consumptive use permit. Hydration of wetlands has been successfully implemented at two projects in the LEC Planning Area, which benefits the utility by providing an environmentally friendly means wastewater disposal in addition to indirectly recharging the aquifer. Canal recharge and saltwater intrusion barriers reuse options have not been implemented by wastewater utilities in the LEC Planning Area. Studies discussed in Chapter 4 have evaluated canal recharge and advanced wastewater treatment. The concept remains viable. Saltwater intrusion barriers have been, and continue to be, viable reuse options for coastal utilities. State and local regulatory constraints would need to be addressed for any significant progress. One benefit to the utility for using reclaimed water as a saltwater intrusion barrier might be potential impact offsets that would allow the utility to pump more water from an inland wellfield. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 155 The most significant increase in the projected reuse is expected by the utilities impacted by the 2008 amendment to the Florida Statutes concerning use of ocean outfall for disposal. Those facilities and the state requirements are discussed in the next section. Leah Schad Memorial Ocean Outfall Program In 2008, the Florida Legislature enacted an ocean outfall statute (Subsection 403.086(9), F.S.) requiring the elimination of the use of six ocean outfalls in southeastern Florida as the primary means for disposal of treated domestic wastewater. In addition, the affected wastewater utilities have to reuse at least 60 percent of the outfall flows by 2025. The objectives of this statute were to reduce nutrient loadings to the environment and to achieve the more efficient use of water for water supply needs. This statute became effective on July 1, 2008. The 2008 Leah Schad Memorial Ocean Outfall Program applies to each of the facilities/utilities that have permits to discharge through an ocean outfall. All of the wastewater/reuse facilities utilizing ocean outfalls are located in the LEC Planning Area. The facilities are as follows: 4 South Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility (Delray Beach and Boynton Beach) 4 Boca Raton Water Reclamation Facility 4 Broward County North Regional Water Reclamation Facility 4 Hollywood Southern Regional Water Reclamation Facility 4 Miami -Dade North District Wastewater Treatment Plant (MDWASD) 4 Miami -Dade Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant (MDWASD) Additionally, Cooper City and the Town of Davie are permitted to discharge effluent through the outfall operated by the City of Hollywood at the Southern Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Therefore, these two local governments also have obligations to meet the outfall requirements. Requirements of the outfall program include the following: 4 Discharge through ocean outfalls must meet either advanced wastewater treatment and management by December 31, 2018, or an equivalent reduction in outfall nutrient loading. 4 A functioning reuse system that reuses a minimum of 60 percent of the facility's actual flow on an annual basis installed no later than December 31, 2025. 4 Timely submission of certain progress and planning summary documents. 4 Inclusion of projects that promote the elimination of wastewater ocean outfalls in SFMWD's regional water supply plans. 156 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options State or SFWMD funding assistance must give first consideration to water supply development projects that replace existing sources or implement reuse projects to eliminate ocean outfalls. By 2025, 60 percent of wastewater discharged through ocean outfalls must be beneficially reused as defined in Chapter 62-610, F.A.C. This percentage is computed from a baseline discharge flow of the ocean outfalls from 2003 through 2007. The baseline flows and the 60 percent reuse requirement for each utility are presented in Table 14. The reuse requirements for Miami -Dade County facilities may be met countywide since the North District, Central District, and South District facilities are owned and operated by the MDWASD and are interconnected. Table 14. Baseline flows and 60 percent reuse requirement for the utilities affected by the 2008 Ocean Outfall statute. Utility Baseline Flow (MGD) 60 Percent Reuse Requirement (MGD) South Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility (Delray & Boynton) 12.9 7.7 Boca Raton Water Reclamation Facility 10.3 6.2 Broward County North Regional Water Reclamation Facility 37.4 22.4 Hollywood Southern Regional Water Reclamation Facility 36.7 22.0a Cooper City Wastewater Treatment Facility 1.5 0.9 Davie Wastewater Treatment Plant 1.9 1.1 Miami -Dade North District Wastewater Treatment Plant (MDWASD) 81.0 Miami -Dade Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant (MDWASD) Totals 114.8 296.5 117.5 177.8 a. Includes 1.6 MGD for the City of Miramar Water Reclamation Facility. Each of the utilities using ocean outfalls submitted an annual report on July 1, 2013 to FDEP on the implementation of the ocean outfall statute. The utilities continue to implement and plan for these changes. The status of those changes for each of the ocean outfall utilities is as follows: South Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility - A deep injection well was installed to handle disposal. The ocean outfall will now only be used as a backup for emergencies. Sixty percent water reuse requirement is expected to be met by primarily increasing public access irrigation in the cities of Boynton Beach and Delray Beach. Boca Raton Water Reclamation Facility - The city is planning to increase capacity of its facility to provide 100 percent reuse. Reclaimed water will be provided for public access irrigation at additional locations in, or near, the city. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 157 Broward County North Regional Water Reclamation Facility - Broward County is planning to meet the 60 percent reuse requirement by expanding its public access irrigation in northern Broward and southern Palm Beach counties, including expanding reuse systems in the cities of Pompano Beach and Coconut Creek. Hollywood Southern Regional Water Reclamation Facility - Hollywood is planning to inject the upper Floridan aquifer with reclaimed water to meet the 60 percent reuse requirement. Cooper City Wastewater Treatment FacilitX - It is anticipated that Cooper City will be working together with one of its neighboring utilities to meet the ocean outfall requirements. 4 Davie Wastewater Treatment Plant - Davie is in the process of constructing a city -owned water reclamation facility, thereby reducing the amount of wastewater effluent it sends to the Hollywood Southern Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Reclaimed water from the new facility will be reused for public access irrigation in the city, and to meet the ocean outfall requirements. clMiami-Dade North. Central. and South District Wastewater Treatment Plants - The MDSAWD is planning a combination of alternatives to meet the 60 percent reuse requirement. These alternatives include providing up to 90 MGD of reclaimed water to the FPL Turkey Point Plant for cooling water, and injecting the upper Floridan aquifer. Reclaimed Water Legislation In 2012, the Florida Legislature amended Section 373.250, F.S. The amendments required FDEP to initiate rulemaking to incorporate criteria for the use of "substitution credits" and "impact offsets" when a water management district is reviewing a water use permit application. Impact offsets are derived from the use of reclaimed water to reduce or eliminate a harmful impact that has or would otherwise occur as a result of a surface or groundwater withdrawal. A substitution credit means the use of reclaimed water to replace all, or a portion of, an existing permitted use of a resource -limited surface water or groundwater, allowing a different user or use to initiate a withdrawal or increase its withdrawal from the same resource -limited water resource. Legislation in 2013 amended the 2008 Ocean Outfall statute and included that the LEC Plan must evaluate reuse demand in the context of future water supply demands, and recommend adjustments, as necessary to, the reuse requirements in the act. Prior to this legislation, SFWMD has considered the utilization of reclaimed water and its benefits in assessing proposed withdrawals during the water use permitting application process, and will continue to do so. Water management districts are in the process of modifying their rules, as needed, to be consistent with the amendments to Section 373.250, F.S., and amendments to FDEP's Chapter 62-40, F.A.C. 158 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options Supplemental Sources to Meet Reuse Demand In some service areas, the demand for reuse exceeds the volume of wastewater treated by the utility. Meeting demands with reclaimed water may require the use of supplemental water supplies such as surface water, groundwater, or potable water, which enable a utility to maximize use of reclaimed water. However, during times of drought, other water sources, such as surface water, groundwater, or potable water, may not be available to supplement reclaimed water supplies. Use of supplemental water supplies is subject to water use permitting by SFWMD. The availability of these supplies to supplement reclaimed water will be evaluated on an application -by -application basis. Two LEC Planning Area utilities used supplemental water in their water reuse systems in 2010. Usage (flow) is expressed in terms of annual average MGD, but tends to be greater during the dry season and less during the wet season. The Seacoast Utility Authority used a combination of surface water (0.7 MGD), drinking water (0.2 MGD), and groundwater (0.2 MGD) for supplementation. The City of Boca Raton used 0.6 MGD of supplemental groundwater in their water reuse system. STORAGE: SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER Storage is an essential component of any supply system experiencing fluctuation in supply and demand. Capturing surface water and groundwater during wet conditions for use during dry conditions increases the use of available water. Two-thirds of South Florida's annual rainfall occurs in the wet season. Without sufficient storage capacity, much of this water discharges to tide through surface water management systems and natural drainage. In the LEC Planning Area, potential types of water storage include ASR wells, reservoirs, and surface water impoundments and ponds. Aquifer Storage and Recovery ASR is the underground storage of injected water into an aquifer. Water is collected during times when it is plentiful, typically during the wet season in South Florida, and pumped into an aquifer through a well that is also used for subsequent recovery of the water. In South Florida, most ASR systems store treated water in the FAS, which contains brackish water. When recharged into the aquifer, the stored water displaces the brackish water. The aquifer acts as an underground reservoir for the injected water. ASR provides for storage of large quantities of water for long-term storage and ultimate recovery that would otherwise be unavailable due to land limitations, lost to tide, or evaporation. Potable water, surface water, groundwater, or reclaimed water can be stored using ASR technology. The quantity and quality of water recovered depends on subsurface conditions, such as the transmissivity of the aquifer or the ambient water quality within the aquifer. The level of treatment required after storage and recovery depends on whether the water is for public consumption, irrigation, surface water augmentation, or wetlands enhancement. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 159 The volume of water made available through ASR wells depends on factors such as well yield, water availability, variability in water supply and demand, background water quality in the ASR well's storage zone, and use type. Uncertainty of storage and yield capabilities and water quality characteristics present associated risks for success. To date, thirteen ASR systems have been constructed by ten different utilities and by the USACE and SFWMD within the LEC Planning Are (Figure 50). Many of these ASR wells store treated drinking water, although other source waters stored include raw groundwater, and raw or partially -treated surface water. The 2010 revision of the arsenic standard from 50 to 10 parts per billion added uncertainty to obtaining an operation permit from FDEP for ASR systems. As a result of this uncertainty, some utilities opted to convert the ASR wells to raw water supply wells, used solely for withdrawing water from the Floridan aquifer for blending with other water sources in the treatment system. Since the publication of the 2005-2006 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update (2005- 2006 LEC Plan Update) (SFWMD 2007), the City of Boynton Beach, MDWASD, and Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) constructed new ASR test and monitoring wells. The new Boynton Beach ASR well is now in service and represents the utility's second operating ASR well. The MDWASD has five ASR wells and associated monitoring wells at their West and Southwest wellfields. Most recently, MDWASD installed ultraviolet disinfection systems on their ASR wells and anticipate cycle testing during 2013. The results from the FKAA well indicated that subsurface conditions at the water treatment plant site were not conducive to ASR implementation. As a result, FKAA converted this well to a supply well for their RO facility. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Investigations To further the understanding of storing injected water into an aquifer, several investigations were conducted. CERP ASR Pilot Projects SFWMD and the USACE are conducting pilot tests on two ASR systems within SFWMD boundaries to evaluate the feasibility of ASR for the large-scale storage of surface water as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The Hillsboro ASR Pilot Project, located in western Boca Raton, recently completed three test cycles. The pilot facility recharged treated surface water into the FAS, at a depth of approximately 1,000 feet below sea level. Prior to recharge, the surface water passed through a coarse screen filter and was disinfected via ultraviolet radiation. The test cycles consisted of recharge periods between 30 to 90 days (at a daily rate of 5 MGD), storage periods from 0 to 80 days, and recovery set to limits defined by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the Hillsboro Canal. 160 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options WEST PALM BEACH ■ i Palm Beach Caurlly BOYNTON BEACH PBCWUD SYSTEM 3 rr DELRAY BEACH CERP HILLSBORO CANAL PILOT DEERFIELD BEACH PBCWUD HILLSBORO EAST BR©WARD COUNTY SUNRISE SPRINGTREE FART LAUDERDALE FIVEASH Browaid County — — v i Atlantic Ocean eze Miami-Oade County MIAMI BEACH 4 1 is - MIAMI-DADE WEST 41AMI-DADE SOUTHWEST ASR SYSTEMS Nj� LOWER EAST COAST -' WJE E. 5 ■ ASR Systems 0 5 IO 15 County Line tw u . can coasr Miles Major Roads Prepared by ; RasaurceEvaluaton Date. 2J2=013 We Dc.: .mxd Figure 50. Location of ASR systems within the LEC Planning Area. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 161 The results of the Hillsboro ASR Pilot Project indicate that high capacity ASR wells, on the order of 5 MGD per well, can be successfully installed and operated in this vicinity. Recovery efficiencies ranged from approximately 20 to 40 percent, which is not uncommon for the initial test cycles at ASR systems in the LEC Planning Area. Further improvement in the recovery efficiencies would be anticipated with continued cycling testing and investment in a freshwater "target storage volume" near the ASR well. A technical report on the CERP Hillsboro ASR Pilot Project is expected in 2013. The second CERP ASR project is located in Okeechobee County at the confluence of the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. The pilot operation of this 5 MGD facility is scheduled to be completed in mid -2013. Recent test cycles produced 100 percent recovery and resulted in reduced phosphorus concentrations. CERP ASR Regional Study The results of the individual CERP ASR pilot projects will be integrated into the CERP ASR Regional Study, which is designed to address regional technical issues associated with the CERP ASR program beyond the scope and budget of the ASR pilot projects. Of the 68 project components recommended in CERP, seven recommended inclusion of up to 333 ASR wells. These include the Lake Okeechobee ASR (200 wells), Caloosahatchee (C-43) Reservoir ASR (44 wells), L-8 Basin ASR (10 wells), C-51 Canal ASR (34 wells), Central Palm Beach County (Agricultural Reserve) Reservoir ASR (15 wells), and Site 1/Hillsboro ASR (30 wells). Additional ASR wells are under consideration for inclusion in conjunction with other CERP projects. The exact number of wells has not been finalized. In addition, the final number and disposition of all proposed ASR wells will be determined through scientific investigations conducted under the ASR Regional Study, the associated ASR pilot projects, and required project implementation report studies for each CERP ASR component. This project's major elements are a technology inventory, field data collection, geotechnical and geophysical evaluations, laboratory analysis, groundwater modeling, surface water modeling, water quality monitoring, and ecological assessments. The ASR Regional Study should be complete approximately one year after the completion of the ASR pilot projects, which is anticipated to be by 2014. The report will include conclusions regarding the actual quantity of ASR wells that may be feasible and recommendations on implementation of future components of the CERP ASR program. ASR Pretreatment Investigation This project investigated methods to suppress the mobilization of arsenic from the aquifer - rock matrix that is associated with ASR activities. The City of Bradenton, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the St. Johns River Water Management District, and SFWMD (through CERP) cooperatively funded this project. The pilot project began in 2008 and ended in 2012. The project consisted of 1) evaluation of arsenic mobilization processes occurring during ASR activities, 2) bench -scale studies on storage zone cores, and 3) development of a degasification "pretreatment" system to remove dissolved oxygen from 162 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options source water prior to recharge into an ASR well. The results of the investigation indicated the removal of dissolved oxygen from the recharge water successfully resulted in the elimination of arsenic mobilization within the aquifer. These findings are significant in that they represent a technical solution to the arsenic mobilization issue associated with some ASR systems. CERP ASR Program Interim Report In 2008, the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Program Interim Report 2008 was published (SFWMD and USACE 2008). The report presented findings from the first seven years of technical studies conducted by the CERP ASR Program. Among the data presented were the progress of the ASR pilot projects, exploratory well drilling, water quality monitoring, geotechnical investigations, and geophysical surveys. The report also presented the development of ASR groundwater models, geochemical analyses, and ecological evaluations. At the time the report was published, no "fatal flaws" were uncovered that might hinder the implementation of ASR in South Florida, and that additional studies were warranted to fully evaluate the full-scale implementation of ASR technology as originally envisioned in CERP. The document is available at www.evergladesplan.org/nmll2rojectsll2dp 32 33 34 44 asr combined.aWx. Local and Regional Reservoirs Surface water reservoirs provide storage of water, primarily captured during wet weather conditions, for use in the dry season. Water is typically captured and pumped from rivers or canals and stored in aboveground or inground reservoirs. For example, individual farms use small-scale (local) reservoirs for storage of recycled irrigation water or the collection of local stormwater runoff. These reservoirs may also provide water quality treatment before off-site discharge. Large-scale (regional) reservoirs are used for stormwater attenuation, water quality treatment in conjunction with STAB, and storage of seasonally available supplies. New surface reservoirs constructed near canals or surface water bodies are referred to as off -stream reservoirs. The concept of storing excess surface water runoff in regional reservoirs generated significant interest in the northern portion of the LEC Planning Area. The proposed C-51 Reservoir is an example of an off -stream, regional reservoir. Water resource development projects designed to capture, treat, and store water are discussed in Chapter 4. C-51 Reservoir Project A mining operation is under way that may provide an additional 75,000 acre-feet of storage, if converted to the C-51 Reservoir. SFWMD, Lake Worth Drainage District, Palm Beach Aggregates, and PWS utilities jointly investigated the feasibility of using these facilities to capture and store excess surface water runoff from the C-51 Basin for beneficial uses. Structures, pumps, and canals would be constructed to deliver water to and from the reservoir. The amount of water available to the reservoir would be supplemented by 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 163 pumping water from eastern C-51 Basin at the 5-155A structure into the western basins. Capturing this water would reduce discharges to the Lake Worth Lagoon. The water would then be pumped into the reservoir during wet periods and released into the C-51 Canal during dry periods to meet future demands for water users. This operation is based on modeling conducted for the C-51 Reservoir - Preliminary Design and Cost Estimate Final Report (Lake Worth Drainage District et al. 2013). At full construction, the reservoir could be capable of producing 185 MGD of water during the dry season in a 1 -in -10 year drought. LEC Planning Area utilities are currently evaluating a variety of potential implementation and funding options for the project. SFWMD continues to explore a potential operational role. Over time, SFWMD's role may evolve, depending on Governing Board direction. Recently, a memorandum of understanding between SFWMD and Palm Beach Aggregates was executed to identify the responsibilities of each in moving the project forward. The memorandum of understanding describes the responsibilities for design, finance, construction, conveyance, assistance in permitting and, eventually, operation of the project. As part of this process, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners approved creation of the C-51 Governance and Finance Workgroup. If permitted and constructed, the C-51 Reservoir could be available to LEC Planning Area utilities as a water supply option. To utilize this as a water source, utilities would have to revise their water use permits and address applicable regulatory criteria. SEAWATER The use of desalinated seawater from the Atlantic Ocean is an additional water source option for the LEC Planning Area. SFWMD does not require a user to obtain a water use permit for the use of seawater. The ocean is an essentially unlimited source of water; however, desalination is required before use of seawater for water supply purposes. Desalination treatment technologies include distillation, R0, or electrodialysis reversal. RO is currently the most utilized desalination technology in the LEC Planning Area. To date, two RO seawater desalination treatment plants are located within the LEC Planning Area. Both plants are located in Monroe County and operated by FKAA, and have a combined supply capacity of 3 MGD to the lower Florida Keys. One is located on Stock Island—the first desalination plant built in Florida—and the other is located in Marathon. However, the largest seawater desalination facility in Florida is the Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination System, which provides up to 25 MGD of drinking water to southwestern Florida. Significant advances in treatment and efficiencies in seawater desalination occurred over the past decade. As a result, seawater treatment costs are declining. The cost of stand-alone seawater desalination facilities remain moderately higher than brackish water desalination. The cost of seawater desalination facilities co -located with coastal power plants result in additional cost savings, further decreasing the cost difference compared to other alternative water supply sources. In December 2006, SFWMD completed a feasibility study, Technical and Economic Feasibility of Co -located Desalination Facilities, for co -locating seawater treatment facilities with power plants in South Florida (Metcalf & Eddy 2006). The study concluded that the most feasible three sites are co -located with FPL facilities in Fort Myers, 164 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options Fort Lauderdale, and Port Everglades. For additional information about desalination costs, see the Support Document. WATER CONSERVATION Water conservation is an integral part of water supply planning and water resource management. For planning purposes, water conservation is considered a water source option because it can reduce, defer, or eliminate the need for expansion of the water supply infrastructure. This section describes water conservation opportunities, programs, and tools available to users in the LEC Planning Area. Additional supporting information can be found in Appendix D and Chapter 5 of the Support Document. Comprehensive Water Conservation Program In 2008, SFWMD's Governing Board approved the Comprehensive Water Conservation Program. This program is organized into three initiatives: 1) regulatory, 2) voluntary and incentive -based, and 3) education and marketing (SFWMD 2008). Each of these initiatives has corresponding goals and specific yet adaptable implementation strategies. The overarching vision of the program is to achieve a measurable reduction in water use, inspire governments, citizens, and businesses to value and embrace a conservation ethic, and serve as a model for water conservation. Though the SFWMD is fully committed to implementing the action steps identified in the Comprehensive Water Conservation Program, it is independent from the consumptive use permitting process and is nonbinding. The scope and implementation schedule of the action steps outlined in the Comprehensive Water Conservation Program are subject to funding levels and voluntary participation by public water suppliers and other participating groups. Public Water Supply For PWS, one key indicator of long-term water conservation effectiveness is decreasing daily per capita use rates over time. A per capita use rate is calculated as PWS finished water demand in gallons per day divided by the number of permanent residents. While the per capita use rate is an effective measure of conservation effectiveness for a single community or utility over time, it is less effective when comparing communities or utilities to each other. Significant differences between communities, such as the quantity of industrial use, seasonal populations, and other demographic differences can affect the total amount of water used by a community. Table 15 presents weighted average utility per capita use rates by county for 2000, 2005, and 2010. Table 15 shows a downward trend in the per capita use rates. This reduction in water use reflects, in part, an emerging water conservation ethic. Utility -driven plumbing retrofit programs, building code standards, public education, and the effects of SFWMD and local government year-round irrigation rules all contributed to the reduction in finished water use. In addition, there are external factors that can affect measured per capita rates and trends. These include the passive replacement of inefficient water using devices for efficient ones, recent declines in the 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 165 economy, fluctuating population demographics of an area (e.g., persons per household and vacancy rates) the local climate, and regional droughts. SFWMD's objective is to continue this downward trend by working with water users and PWS providers to achieve significant long-term water savings. These external factors mentioned above make calculating the per capita reduction due to conservation highly complex. Modeling tools, such as those mentioned below and in the Support Document, are capable of accounting for many of these factors, but are predictive in design. Using those tools to retroactively examine past per capita trends for the purpose of isolated effects of conservation apart from any external factors may be possible, but would require significant modification of the tools. For an expanded discussion about estimating the effects of water conservation, see the Support Document. Appendix D provides the status for PWS water conservation programs for municipalities and water utilities in the LEC Planning Area. Table 15. Per capita use rates in gallons in the LEC Planning Area for PWS finished water. County Per Capita Use Rates (gallons) 2000 2005 2010 Palm Beach 219 203 166 Broward 153 139 123 Miami -Dade 168 157 140 Monroe 216 211 109 LEC Planning Area Weighted Average 176 163 142a a. Reflects variations in demand by permanent and seasonal populations. Comparing per capita use rates from utility to utility or county to county is challenging. Along with the conservation, economic conditions, and landscape rules mentioned earlier, additional factors that affect these use rates include the following: 4 Changing demographics of a community (such as ages and persons per household) Location of community—is the quality of the surface water or shallow aquifer sufficient to be used for landscape irrigation? 4 Availability of reclaimed water t, Age of home—newer homes generally have landscape irrigation systems 4 Local ordinances that promote or restrict the use of potable water for landscape irrigation 4 Number of seasonal visitors/residents 166 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options Water Conservation versus Alternative Water Supply Options Meeting future water demand may require a blend of developing new alternative water supplies and increased water conservation. While most water supply development options require significant upfront investments and ongoing maintenance costs to expand water supply capacity, conservation can be the least costly means to reduce demand met by existing water supply capacity. Table 16 compares the costs of developing 1,000 gallons of water supply through new facility construction or the expansion of an existing facility, and the costs of saving 1,000 gallons through water conservation. Table 16. Comparison of alternative water supply development costs and water conservation costs for 1,000 gallons. Water Conservation New Facility Construction Expansion of Existing Facility Typical Retrofit/ Nanofiltration Low Pressure RO Nanofiltration Process Low Pressure RO Replacement Capacity Capacity Train Capacity Train Capacity Programs 1 MGD 5 MGD 1 MGD 5 MGD 1 MGD 5 MGD 1 MGD 5 MGD $0.40—$3.00 $9.46 $3.42 $11.33 $4.41 $9.07 $3.13 $10.38 $3.69 Water conservation projects exceeding $3.00 per 1,000 gallons of water saved are typically not implemented by utilities because that is the point where developing alternative water supplies can become price competitive. Therefore, projects with costs above this threshold were not included in this comparison. PWS -Sponsored Conservation Programs and Tools Typical PWS -sponsored water conservation programs support the purchase and installation of high efficiency plumbing and irrigation fixtures, the production of educational campaigns, and the adoption of conservation -related ordinances and codes. Additionally, many of the options prescribed for PWS users are also applicable for DSS users. SFWMD supports PWS water conservation efforts through the implementation of programs mentioned below. PWS utilities are encouraged to operate treatment facilities in a highly efficient manner including ongoing leak detection and repair campaigns. Efficient Water Using Technology & Hardware Many PWS -sponsored programs have incentives for the replacement of older, less efficient indoor plumbing fixtures, such as toilets, faucet aerators, showerheads, and restaurant pre - rinse spray valves. These programs are often implemented through rebates, trade-ins or give aways, depending on the technology and the target audience. Similar programs focus on reducing outdoor water use through the dissemination of efficient irrigation spray heads, rain and soil moisture sensors, and computerized irrigation controllers. These related hardware and technology -related programs are often accompanied by an end user educational component to "lock in" savings and reinforce a conservation ethic. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 167 The United States Environmental Protection Agency developed a program called WaterSense designed to protect the future of our nation's water supply by promoting water efficiency and enhancing the market for water efficient products, programs, and practices. When designing and planning a retrofit program, SFWMD recommends utilities and municipalities refer to the WaterSense program for standards, criteria, and information. More information about this program is available from the WaterSense website, www.el2a.gov/WaterSense/. Upon request, SFWMD can provide technical assistance on water efficient technology and hardware. In addition, SFWMD administers a cost-sharing program accessible to local governments and utilities, homeowner associations, and commercial entities for technology and hardware -based conservation programs through the Water Savings Incentive Program (WaterSIP). Additional information on WaterSIP can be found in Chapter 6, Appendix D, and the Support Document. Certification and Recognition Programs Many public water suppliers support programs that recognize end user water conservation efforts. Some of these programs, which are referred to as certification programs, are driven by specific criteria that aim to improve efficiency in certain areas of water use. SFWMD implements and supports several recognition and certification programs. These programs include the following: 1) Water Conservation Hotel and Motel Program (Water CHAMP), which recognizes water efficiency efforts made by the lodging industry; 2) Florida Water Star program, which certifies existing buildings have been built or retrofit to high water efficiency standards; and 3) Florida -Friendly Yard program, which is administered by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences extension office. Additional information on these programs can be found in the Support Document. Regulatory Initiatives Ordinances and other regulatory measures can be a low cost means to significantly advance water use efficiency. Section 373.62(1), F.S requires the installation, operation, and maintenance of a rain sensor device that overrides the cycle of an irrigation system when adequate rainfall has occurred. Conservation -related ordinances that local governments can adopt include those requiring greater water use efficiency in construction, such as the International Green Construction Code and standards derived from the Florida Water Star program and the Florida Green Building Coalition, and landscaping and irrigation, such as the Florida -Friendly Landscape Ordinance and SFWMD's Year -Round Landscape Irrigation Rule. One advantage of ordinance and code adoption is that they can be adopted wholesale or piece meal depending on pre-existing conditions in the locality. It is the responsibility of local governments to enforce compliance with landscape irrigation rules and ordinances. In March 2010, the Mandatory Year -Round Landscape Irrigation Conservation Measures Rule (Chapter 40E-24, F.A.C.) became effective. Broadly, this rule limits irrigation of existing landscapes to two days per week with a three -day -per -week provision for counties wholly located within SFWMD's jurisdictional boundaries, including Palm Beach, Broward, Miami - 168 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options Dade, and Monroe counties. The rule also provides local governments across the region the flexibility to adopt alternative landscape irrigation ordinances that are at least as stringent as SFWMD's rule. The Mandatory Year -Round Landscape Irrigation Conservation Measures does not supplant the SFWMD Regional Water Shortage Plan (Chapter 40E-22, F.A.C.). It contains water shortage restrictions related to specific water bodies, including Lake Okeechobee. Further information on water shortage management is available in the Support Document. In accordance with Section 373.185, F.S, the SFWMD encourages all local governments to adopt an ordinance or amend a current ordinance to require Florida -Friendly Landscaping for all future development. SFWMD provides a model ordinance and technical support for local governments seeking to adopt a Florida -Friendly Landscaping ordinance or an irrigation ordinance consistent with Chapter 40E-24, F.A.C. The state of Florida has undertaken an initiative, under the direction of FDEP, to bring more consistency to the consumptive use permitting programs implemented by the water management districts. Part of that initiative currently being contemplated entails making changes to the rules affecting conservation requirements for the PWS use class. It is not known at the time of this writing what changes in the permitting criteria will ultimately be made. Regardless of the required permitting criteria for water conservation, SFWMD will continue working with utilities utilizing voluntary conservation initiatives and providing assistance with goal -based planning, the use of analyses tools, and matching funding for conservation projects under SFWMD's WaterSIP program. Water Conservation Rate Structures Water pricing is one of the most effective means to promote water conservation. A water conservation -based rate structure provides a financial incentive to reduce use. In the LEC Planning Area, the majority of PWS providers have a block rate structure (also referred to as a "tiered" rate structure) in place. The block rate structure is generally expected to have the largest impact on heavy irrigation users. If properly structured, a tiered rate system can have a minimal impact on utility revenue. The customer's responsiveness to water conservation rate structures depends on the existing price structure, incentives of the new price structure, the customer base, and their water uses. For more information on rate structures please refer to Appendix D. Education, Outreach, and Marketing Education, outreach, and marketing are essential to accomplish a measurable change in water conservation and instill a lasting conservation ethic in South Florida businesses and communities. PWS are encouraged to have a robust and comprehensive conservation educational program. SFWMD continues to implement and support a wide variety of programs designed to build a conservation ethic and permanently reduce individual and commercial water use. Information on these programs is provided in the Support Document. Appendix D contains the implementation status of public education programs for PWS utilities in the LEC Planning Area. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 169 Goal -based Water Conservation Plans A goal -based water conservation program is a longer-term water use reduction program that has a specified numerical water use target. The target is expressed in per capita use or quantifiable volume of water saved. Because a well-designed goal -based conservation program can lower peak demands in addition to reducing overall per capita water use, they can help a utility meet future water supply demands without building new facilities or wells. In addition to being cost-effective, when properly planned and monitored, conservation can be as reliable as an alternative water supply source in many cases. A well designed program identifies a variety of methods and practices along with anticipated costs, savings, and estimates of revenue impacts that decrease water demand to meet numeric goals. The practices selected should reflect, among other parameters, the service area's population projections, existing per capita use, participation rates, existing housing stock, and the current and anticipated service area's water use profile. SFWMD recommends regular review and analysis of plan results, which allow for program adjustments as needed to meet water conservation goals. A good example of a goal -based water conservation plan is the Miami -Dade County Water Use Efficiency 20 -Year Plan (Miami -Dade County 2007), which is described in greater detail in Appendix D. Water Conservation Program Planning Tools for Public Water Supply Utilities PWS utilities are strongly encouraged to use a water conservation planning tool when creating a goal -based water conservation program. In general, water conservation planning tools can help a utility develop a service area water use profile, evaluate and compare the costs and benefits of various conservation measures, show projected water savings, and create a mid- to long-range conservation (or demand management) plan. Some of these tools match actual billing data to property appraiser parcel data while others use proxy data. The tools being developed today are highly comprehensive, accounting for many factors that affect per capita water use and conservation such as the (passive) replacement of old fixtures with new ones outside of utility -driven conservation programs. In addition, some tools identify specific points of capacity deferment and present value benefits, and calculate utility revenue and rate impacts. Upon request, SFWMD provides support and assistance to utilities to access and apply these types of tools and creating service area demand management plans. Detailed descriptions and explanations on where to find two such tools—the Conserve Florida Water Clearinghouse's EZ Guide (EZ Guide) and the Alliance for Water Efficiency's Conservation Tracking Tool—can be found in the Support Document. The St Johns River Water Management District recently developed the Florida Automated Water Conservation Estimation Tool. This tool uses linear programming to process account -level billing data, county property appraiser information, and Florida Department of Revenue land use codes to develop customer water use profiles within utility service areas. Proxy data can be used to estimate consumption by individual accounts in the absence of actual billing data. The tool generates an optimized list of water conservation BMPs, as well as a geographic 170 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options information system map of all customers in each consumption block. SFWMD will be using this and other similar tools in the future to conduct regional analysis of conservation. Conservation staff from SFWMD can assist public water suppliers to access and apply these tools to conduct similar analyses of their service areas. Regional Approach to Water Conservation (Broward Water Partnership) Smaller utilities may find it advantageous to create partnerships with other utilities in implementing water conservation projects or programs. This type of consortium may be able to capitalize on bulk buying and other economy of scale benefits by pooling and sharing resources. One such consortium is the Broward Water Partnership. This is a government service currently consisting of 18 municipalities and water utilities. The goal of the partnership is to achieve at least a 10 percent reduction in countywide water demand. The partnership was initiated in 2011 with the intent to provide regional programming, including rebates and other incentives, for high efficiency plumbing fixtures and messaging to residential and commercial water users. It is estimated that up to 30 MGD may be saved by this program by 2030. More information on the partnership can be found at www.conservationpays.com and the participating utilities' summaries in Chapter 6. Agricultural Use Agriculture is the second largest water user in the LEC Planning Area. As such, the AGR Self - Supply water use category offers significant water conservation potential. The water use permitting process bases water allocations for agriculture on a number of factors, including the crop type, growing and irrigation methods, and site-specific parameters such as soil type and anticipated rainfall. Because a number of these factors are fixed, demand reduction must be based on aspects that can be changed, such as irrigation and growing methods. Generally, these types of changes are expensive and require extensive planning and consideration. Because of the costs associated with moving water, which affects the profitability of the overall crop, it is assumed that most farmers are as efficient as practicable with their water use. SFWMD requires new citrus and container nursery projects to use microirrigation systems or other systems of equivalent efficiency. Flood/seepage irrigation type systems are typically used for tomato, corn, rice, and sugarcane production. While flood/seepage irrigation systems are not as efficient as microirrigation, tailwater recovery can be applied. It is considered a water use efficiency measure that may be used on individual projects, depending on applicability, and does provide some recharge to the SAS. Most projects located within the EAA utilizing flood/seepage irrigation have unique conditions that allow for a more efficient use of water as the water is passed from farm to farm. For permitting purposes, a higher than normal efficiency value was applied for most of the flood/seepage projects located within the EAA. Projects in the EAA may not benefit as greatly, from a water conservation perspective, from the installation of a tailwater recovery systems when compared to other projects outside the EAA. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 171 Agricultural Best Management Practices Agricultural BMPs are actions agricultural businesses can take to protect or improve water quality or quantity while maintaining or even enhancing agricultural production. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and FDEP develop and adopt BMPs by rule for different types of agricultural operations, specific regions, or statewide. Most BMPs in the region are established to improve water quality; however, some contain an implicit water conservation component. BMPs identified as having implicit water conservation benefits include tailwater recovery, land leveling, observation wells, regular system maintenance and evaluation, irrigation scheduling, irrigation system design, and irrigation efficiency. Tailwater recovery is a planned system to capture and recycle irrigation and storm water that runs off the field. Land leveling allows for a more uniform and efficient application of irrigation water. Observation wells provide a visual indication of surficial groundwater levels for sub - irrigation systems and can be used to optimize soil moisture while minimizing water use. Irrigation efficiency can be improved by either replacing an outdated or inefficient irrigation system or by optimizing the operations and maintenance of an existing irrigation system. The selection of a new system depends on the type of crop, soil, water source, and water availability. A review of irrigation scheduling—time between irrigation events and amount of water applied—might result in an increase of irrigation efficiency. Farmers can also use soil moisture sensors and weather -based irrigation controllers to customize irrigation based on site-specific soil and weather conditions. The volume of water that can be conserved on any individual project as a result of implementation of any of these voluntary BMPs is difficult to estimate. Agricultural Mobile Irrigation Labs Agricultural mobile irrigation labs evaluate the performance of irrigation systems and encourage the adoption of efficient irrigation management practices that conserve water. Three agricultural mobile irrigation labs service the LEC Planning Area and are managed and administered by the Soil Water Conservation Districts in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami - Dade, and Hendry counties. From 2006 to the third quarter of 2012, evaluations were conducted on 8,893 agricultural acres in the LEC Planning Area. Total water savings of 2.95 MGD has been estimated based on follow-up evaluations to a small number of farms. Environmental Quality Incentives Progt ui The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, implemented through the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service, was reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to provide a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers. The program promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible national goals. Financial and technical assistance is offered to eligible participants to install or implement structural and management practices that address impaired water quality and conservation of water resources on eligible agricultural land. For example, reduction of soil erosion and sedimentation can have a 172 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options positive impact on water quality and improve irrigation efficiency. During Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, 28 farms encompassing approximately 12,000 acres participated in the program in the LEC Planning Area. Recreational/Landscape Use Recreational/Landscape water use includes water used to irrigate parks, athletic fields, golf courses, landscaped areas (e.g., homeowner association common areas and the areas around malls and office buildings), roadway medians, and cemeteries. The demand for water used for this purpose generally increases at a rate similar to population growth. While many recreational landscapes in the LEC Planning Area are self -supplied and irrigated drawing from either an on-site well, retention pond, canal, or even reclaimed water, many others are irrigated using potable utility -supplied water. In any case, some of the tools and programs mentioned throughout this chapter can be employed to increase efficiency and reduce wasteful use by self -supplied and PWS -supplied water users alike. Demand reduction is possible through the use of increasing efficacy of landscape irrigation, which includes Florida -Friendly Landscaping principles, rain sensors, advanced irrigation technology, proper irrigation system design and scheduling, and maintenance of automatic irrigation systems. Other on-site options include capture of gray water or storm water in rain barrels or cisterns. The deployment of mobile irrigation labs can help residents and commercial water users identify areas where and how the aforementioned and other system efficiencies can be greatly improved. Information on smart irrigation technologies and mobile irrigation labs can be found in the Support Document. Golf Courses One of the largest subclass of users in the Recreational/Landscape water use category are made up of golf courses (37 percent of the region's total recreational water demand). As of 2010, 184 permitted golf courses (totaling 27,500 acres) were located within the LEC Planning Area. Estimated annual gross irrigation demand is 80 MGD. Many golf courses currently employ best management and design practices and new irrigation technologies, including rain sensors or soil moisture sensors and weather -based irrigation system controllers, to maintain a high degree of water use efficiency. Golf courses using antiquated equipment should consider upgrading to the latest irrigation control technology and the use of Florida -Friendly Landscaping principles wherever feasible. For some projects, funding assistance through WaterSIP may be available to golf courses. Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Use For many PWS, industrial, commercial, and institutional water users typically make up a relatively small number of accounts, yet make up a large proportion of a utility service area's water use profile. Working with this sector, therefore, presents an opportunity to have a significant impact on decreasing finished water demands by working with a lower 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 173 number of users relative to other use categories. While many industrial, commercial and institutional users in the LEC Planning Area are self -supplied (i.e., draw water from either an on-site well, retention pond, canal, or even reclaimed water), some use potable utility - supplied water. The tools and programs mentioned throughout this chapter can be employed to increase efficiency and reduce wasteful use. To assist industrial, commercial, and institutional users to improve water use efficiency, SFWMD published the Water Efficiency and Self -Conducted Water Audits at Commercial and Institutional Facilities, A Guide for Facility Managers (SFWMD 2013b). This guide assists facility managers through detailed self -conducted water use assessment procedures and evaluation of water usage and potential for conservation for the most common points of water use at commercial or institutional facilities. Utilities are encouraged to incorporate this guide into their outreach efforts toward commercial and institutional water users. The guidebook and its companion water use and savings calculators are available free for download from SFWMD's conservation webpage (www.savewaterfl.com) under Businesses. Water Conservation Summary Cooperative water conservation efforts among water users, utilities, local governments, and SFWMD are necessary to accomplish water savings. SFWMD also encourages long-term reductions in water consumption across all water use categories by promoting and implementing many of the water conservation measures and the Comprehensive Water Conservation Program initiatives presented in this chapter. Appendix D of this update includes the status of water conservation implementation, water conservation rate structures, water conservation versus development of additional water supplies, goal -based water conservation plans, and the WaterSIP projects. SUMMARY OF WATER SOURCE OPTIONS The LEC Planning Area traditionally has relied on fresh groundwater from the SAS and fresh surface water as the primary water source for urban, agricultural, and industrial uses. In many areas of the LEC Planning Area, development of these sources has been maximized due to potential impacts on the regional system, wetlands, existing water users, and the potential for saltwater intrusion. Therefore, new or increased allocations from these freshwater sources will be reviewed on an application -by -application basis to determine if a project meets the consumptive use permitting criteria. As a result, diversification of water supply sources, such as use of the upper Floridan aquifer, increased storage, reclaimed water, and appropriate water conservation has been occurring in the LEC Planning Area and is expected to continue to occur in the future. The source options are dependent on location, use type, demand, regulatory requirements, and cost. 174 1 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Water Source Options rrah Water Supply Development Status and Projects This chapter provides a summary of the water supply development projects anticipated to meet i Regional and Local Planning Linkages the water demands of the Lower East Coast (LEC) Planning Area for the 2010 to 2030 planning 6 Projects Identified horizon. Information is provided for each water ♦ Funding use category presented in Chapter 2. Additional ♦ Summary details about demand projections, local government responsibilities, and water supply ♦ Public Water Supply Utility Summary development projects can be found in Appendices Sheets A, E, and F, respectively. A growing population in the LEC Planning Area is driving the demand increases and need to develop water supplies. The region's population is expected to increase by 18 percent, from approximately 5.6 million in 2010 to more than 6.6 million in 2030. The gross demand for Public Water Supply (PWS), the largest water use type in the LEC Planning Area, is expected to increase 20 percent to a projected demand of 1,007 million gallons per day (MGD). Water users, such as utilities, local governments, and self -suppliers, including agriculture, industrial/commercial/ institutional, and power generation, are primarily responsible for water supply development projects. PWS relies almost exclusively on fresh groundwater from the surficial aquifer system (SAS), which includes the Biscayne aquifer. However, as discussed in previous chapters, most utilities have allocations and infrastructure in place to meet their 2030 demands. The availability of fresh groundwater to meet the needs of future growth in the LEC Planning Area could be limited by local conditions if needed. The additional water to meet future PWS demand is generally expected to be developed from other sources, primarily through development of brackish groundwater, reclaimed water, and stormwater/surface water capture. The implementation of water conservation programs offers potential water use savings to reduce future water demand. A utility summary is included at the end of this chapter for each PWS utility supplying 100,000 gallons per day (0.1 MGD) or greater to its service area. Each summary includes the water supply projects proposed by utilities. For other water use categories, specific projects 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 175 are identified as provided to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for this plan update. REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING LINKAGE SFWMD's water supply planning process is closely coordinated and linked to the water supply planning of local governments and utilities. Significant coordination and collaboration throughout the water supply plan development and approval process is needed among all water supply planning entities. In the LEC Planning Area, 52 PWS utilities had a capacity of 0.1 MGD or greater in 2010. In 2013, the number of utilities is 50 as a result of closure or reorganization. The Glades Utility Authority was incorporated into the Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department (PBCWUD) system in 2013. In future plan updates, this facility will be included as part of the PBCWUD. The State of Florida closed the AG Holley State Hospital in Palm Beach County in 2012. Of these, 40 are local government owned utilities and four are privately owned utilities serving 112 local governments and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Five water control or special districts (Chapter 298) are also located within the LEC Planning Area and operate PWS utilities serving portions of local governments. Appendix C provides lists of utilities and local governments served as well as statutory requirements relevant to local government comprehensive plans. For consistency in the water supply planning process, SFWMD, local governments, and utilities worked closely to project demand and identify water supply projects for the future. Projects proposed in local governments' water supply facilities work plans are listed in the annual utility progress reports provided to SFWMD each fall. The regional and local water supply planning process is illustrated in Figure 51 and described in the Process box on the next page. Comprehensive plans, water supply facilities work plans, and water use permit applications are prepared at different times, each using the latest and best data available at that time. Projections and estimates could differ between local governments' work plans (and comprehensive plans) and the applicable regional water supply plan. Local economic conditions and population growth rates may affect when water is needed and projects initiated. Local governments' future water supply development projects should generally be consistent among plans and permits and meet projected water demands. Many of the projects identified in this plan update were listed in the 2005-2006 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update (2005-2006 LEC Plan Update) (SFWMD 2007). Some of these projects are still proposed with future expansion phases (multiple phase projects), or were delayed and/or modified due to slower than projected population and demand growth. 176 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Role of SFWMQ Water supply plan updates every live years Section 373 709. F S 6 Months pply • SFVVMD notifies PVVS entities of water su pply development projects included in plan update . Sec ti on 373 M9, F S November 15 Annually F701 —F, W- —0- - iaz� - - Ok Role of Local Govemments '13 months after water supply plan update is adopted' Water supply facilities work plans and amendments adopted into focal gov em ments' comprehensive plan Section 163.3177, FS Role of PWS Entities 12 Months 18 Months Role of PWS Entitles Within 12 mein€hs of nutifieatronf]y± 1 SFVWD: 1 PVVS entities select proj ects to be 1 implemented 1 • SFVVMD workswith PVVS entities to 1 ensure projects meet future needs 1 • Section373 709, F S. 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 PWS entities submit annual progress report about status of nater supply projects to the 3=VMD. • SFWMD rev le@Us progress reports and provides assistance as appropriate. o-tion373.709, F.S Annually Role of LocalGoveninients b Local governments may update, capital improvement element by ordinance without amending comprehens ive plan Section 163,3177, F.S Figure 51. Linking regional water supply planning with local government comprehensive planning. (Note: F.S. — Florida Statutes.) 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 177 Regional and Local Water Supply Planning Process SFWMD is required to notify each PWS utility of the projects identified in this plan update for that utility to consider and incorporate into its corresponding government's required water supply facilities work plan in order to meet future water demand. This notification must occur within six months following approval of the water supply plan update. Once the notice is received, PWS utilities then must respond to SFWMD within 12 months about their intentions to develop and implement the projects identified by the plan or provide a list of other projects or methods to meet these needs (Section 373.709, Florida Statutes [F.S.]). Additionally, local governments are required to adopt water supply facilities work plans and related amendments into their comprehensive plans within 18 months following approval of the regional water supply plan. The work plans contain information to update the comprehensive plan's capital improvements element, which outlines specifics about the need for, and the location of, public facilities, principles for construction, cost estimates, and a schedule of capital improvements. Local governments are required by Subsection 163.3177(6)(c)3, F.S. to modify the potable water sub - element of their comprehensive plan to include the following: ♦ Incorporate the water supply project or projects selected by the local government from those projects identified in the updated regional water supply plan or proposed by the local government. ♦ Identify water supply projects to meet the water needs identified in the updated regional water supply plan within the local government's jurisdiction. ♦ Include a work plan, covering at least a ten-year planning period, for building public, private, and regional water supply facilities, including the development of alternative water supplies, which are identified in the potable water element to meet the needs of existing and new development. By November 15 of each year, all utilities are required to submit a progress report about the status of their water supply projects (completed, underway, or planned for implementation). Local governments are required to perform an annual review of the capital improvements element to update the five-year capital improvements schedule. The local governments are encouraged to send updates to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and SFWMD. 178 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Link to Water Use Permitting Although comprehensive plans, water supply facilities work plans, and water use permit applications are prepared at different times, each uses the latest and best data available at that time. Local governments' future water supply development projects should generally be consistent among plans and permits and meet projected water demands. However, local economic conditions and population growth rates may affect when water is needed and when water use permits should be modified to accommodate demands. When this takes place, projects may need to be proposed that may not be consistent with earlier dated documents. A Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) guidance memo addresses coordination between SFWMD's water use permitting and water supply planning staff on projects included in water supply plans. By increasing coordination during the water supply planning process, water use permit applicants planning one of the identified water supply projects will be assured that SFWMD staff is familiar with the projects, have supporting data, and will be able to facilitate the permitting process. The proposed projects considered for this plan update were reviewed at a cursory level by SFWMD staff working in water use permitting and water supply planning using the following set of questions: ♦ Does the proposed project use a source of limited availability? ♦ Is the project located in a restricted allocation area? ♦ Is the proposed source from a minimum flows and levels (MFL) water body or is it connected, directly or indirectly, to an MFL water body? If yes, is the proposed use consistent with MFL recovery or prevention strategies? ♦ What other environmental water needs (i.e., Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP] targets, water reservations, etc.) may be impacted? ♦ What resource issues have been identified in recent permit applications in the general area for the same source (i.e., wetlands, saltwater intrusion, MFLs, etc.)? ♦ Have existing legal users of the same source had resource -related compliance issues? ♦ Have any new technical studies been completed related to source availability? However, each proposed use of water must meet the conditions for permit issuance found in Section 373.223, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and the implementing criteria found in Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-20, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Section 373.223, F.S. requires applicants to establish that the proposed use of water 1) is a reasonable -beneficial use as defined in Section 373.019, F.S., 2) will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and 3) is consistent with the public interest. Water use permits are required for all water supply development projects, except for those using 100 percent seawater or reclaimed water under direct pressure or from a lined pond. The availability of new freshwater supplies in the LEC Planning Area is limited due to existing permitted users and source limitations, including environmental protection criteria such as saltwater intrusion (see Chapter 3). This is reflected in existing permitted 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 179 allocations. The availability and permittability of freshwater supplies to meet projected water demands through 2030 will be determined on an application -by -application basis. Some freshwater supply development may be feasible depending on local conditions. PROJECTS IDENTIFIED FOR THIS PLAN UPDATE A discussion of the demand and supply conditions for each of the six major water use categories follows. Because most of the growth in demand during the next 20 years will occur in the urban sector, more specifically PWS uses, all of the proposed potable and nonpotable water and conservation projects will be implemented by PWS utilities. The demand for PWS in the LEC Planning Area is projected to increase through 2030. A combination of existing and additional capacity developed by new water supply development projects will be used to meet the demand. The utility summaries indicate all LEC Planning Area utilities can meet their projected 2030 demand with existing treatment capacity or by supplementing that capacity by developing one or more identified projects. In addition to meeting demands, utilities may propose water supply development projects due to their own unique situations. These can include accommodating a change in treatment processes or sources; or optimizing distribution systems to match future demand locations. Each utility's proposed projects are displayed in their summary found at the end of this chapter and in Appendix F. To manage the water resources in the region, this update promotes the diversification of sources for the water supply projects needed to meet future demands. Projects proposed for inclusion in this update were evaluated based on factors discussed in the previous section, level of detail provided (i.e., project scope, cost, and schedule), and whether the project is expected to contribute to new water supply, resulting in a potentially permittable increase in their allocations or a treatment system's rated capacity. The majority of the PWS water providers appear to be able to meet their 2030 projected demand without additional allocation or infrastructure. Utilities have been expanding and upgrading their water treatment infrastructure since the last plan update. Between 2007 and 2009, utilities added 41 MGD of potable water supply capacity. Between 2010 and 2013, ten utilities built potable water supply projects with a capacity of 49 MGD. In this plan update, nine utilities have proposed 11 new potable water supply projects totaling 50 MGD to implement planned system expansions, source diversification, or changes in treatment technology between 2014 and 2030 (Figure 52). Several of the 11 proposed projects are in response to utilities anticipating future growth at a faster rate than projected in this plan update. 180 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects r -------------------------------_-- Lake Town of Jupiter ■ Okeechobee I' Seacoast Utility Authority ■ 10 eRownRD Village of Wellington Palm Beach Co Water Utilities Dept ❑ rd m ■ City of Lake Worth Atlantic Ocean ■ "City of Deerfield Beach ■ Town of Hillsboro Beach City of Tamarac ❑ Broward Co Water and Wastewater Services City of Lauderhill ❑ ❑ ❑ City of Fort Lauderdale City of Sunrise ■ tP '® Town of Davie 110 City of Hollywood ❑■ City of Miramar ? ------------------- [3 City of North Miami Beach R24 ■ Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department ❑ Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department POTABLE WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS 2010-2030 N I_. W rE ■ Completed s ❑ Proposed �^ L. East Cnart D 5 1D 15 Major Roads Prepared by: Re me Evaluation Miles Dale- ar2212013 County Line Con..: LEC_Proje-tsCompk+taA_ y Pro .sed-mxd Figure 52. Completed and proposed potable water supply projects for 2010-2030. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 181 Based on the 2030 demand projections, two utilities appear to need their proposed potable water supply projects during the planning period. The Town of Davie has proposed a 6 MGD expansion project. Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) has proposed to build a new 20 MGD water treatment plant to meet the projected growth within the southern portion of its service area. The timing and sizing of each proposed project in this plan may depend on several factors (e.g., economic recovery, conservation programs, and constraints within treatment and distribution systems) that affect the actual demand increases over the next 20 years. Utilities with Completed Potable Projects 2010-2013 • Seacoast Utility Authority • Town of Jupiter • City of Lake Worth Utilities • Town of Hillsboro Beach • City of Deerfield Beach • City of Sunrise • Town of Davie • City of Hollywood • City of Miramar • MDWASD Utilities with Proposed Potable Projects 2014-2030 • PBCWUD • Wellington Public Utilities Department • Broward County Water and Wastewater Services (District 1) • City of Tamarac • City of Lauderhill • City of Fort Lauderdale • Town of Davie • City of Hollywood • City of North Miami Beach • MDWASD Furthermore, a project identified for inclusion in this plan update may not necessarily be selected for development by the utility. In accordance with Section 373.709(6), F.S. nothing contained in the water supply component of a regional water supply plan should be construed to require local governments, public or privately owned utilities, special districts, self -suppliers, multijurisdictional entities, and other water suppliers to select the identified project. If the projects identified in this plan update are not selected by a utility, the utility must identify another method to meet its needs and advise SFWMD of the alternative projects(s). The local government then needs to include the project information in its water supply facilities work plan. One reason a project may not be selected for implementation is need, or lack thereof. Several utilities proposed projects that exceed the projected demands for 2030. As happened with the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update, utilities may replace or delete projects 182 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects that are not needed or defer projects beyond the twenty-year planning horizon of this update. Public Water Supply PWS demand includes all potable uses served by public and private utilities with a production capacity equal to or greater than 0.1 MGD. The PWS finished (net) demand is projected to increase by 154 MGD from 784 MGD in 2010 to 938 MGD in 2030, while gross (raw) water demand is projected to grow by 166 MGD from 842 MGD to 1,007 MGD in 2030. In aggregate, the utilities of the LEC Planning Area have both adequate permitted water use allocation and adequate permitted potable water treatment capacity to meet the LEC Planning Area's 2030 demands. This is due in part to proactive water supply planning by utilities in coordination with SFWMD's regional planning, slower than anticipated growth rates over the past five years, and the issuance (including renewals and modifications) of water use permits with twenty-year durations. As of 2010, PWS demand was met by fresh groundwater from the SAS (94 percent), brackish groundwater from the upper Floridan aquifer system (FAS) (3 percent), and surface water (3 percent). Although reclaimed water and conservation of potable water do not produce potable water per se, it is a means to meet nonpotable demand or extend the existing potable supplies to meet future demand. All PWS water use permits contain provisions limiting the volume of water withdrawn from each source. If permitted allocations cannot meet 2030 demand, water supply development projects, increased allocation, or other options may be necessary. Some utilities, such as the cities of Dania Beach and Homestead expect to meet future supplemental demands by purchasing bulk or finished water through interconnections with nearby utilities that have sufficient water capacity. Other utilities, such as Seacoast Utility Authority, City of Deerfield Beach, City of Sunrise, Town of Davie, and MDWASD, have developed alternative water supplies using brackish groundwater from the FAS. Brackish water projects in the LEC Planning Area include construction of reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment plants, expansion of existing plants, and construction of new production wells. In total, the proposed potable water supply development projects will potentially create new treatment capacity yielding 76 MGD of finished water by 10 utilities (Table 17). Together with existing capacity, this will exceed the projected 2030 PWS total finished demand of 938 MGD. Of the 76 MGD of new potable treatment capacity, 67 MGD would be produced by 11 brackish water source projects. An additional 10 MGD would be produced by two freshwater source projects. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 183 Table 17. Proposed potable water supply development projects and capacity for 2010-2030. Water Source Number of Projects a Capacity (MGD) Fresh groundwater (SAS) 2 9.90 Brackish groundwater (FAS) 11 66.50 Tota I 13 176.40 a. Some projects consist of more than one construction component and will be implemented in multiple phases. PWS utilities identified 11 new reclaimed water projects with 151 MGD of new treatment capacity (Table 18). The reclaimed water projects will meet multiple types of demand, including 1) landscape irrigation, including golf courses and parks, 2) groundwater recharge, and 3) power generation. Some reclaimed water projects will produce new treatment capacity by construction or expansion of reclaimed water production facilities. Other projects involve increasing reuse distribution lines and storage facilities. PWS utilities also identified 12 reclaimed distribution projects with total capacity of 104 MGD. The capacities for reclaimed distribution and treatment projected are not summed to avoid double counting. The largest proposed reclaimed water project is located in Miami -Dade County and will supply 90 MGD to the Florida Power & Light (FPL) Turkey Point plant expansion. The City of West Palm Beach is reactivating their existing ASR system. The city is also increasing pumping capacity to move a higher volume of water to Grassy Waters Preserve. Florida City is proposing two stormwater capture projects. Table 18. Proposed nonpotable water supply projects and capacity for 2010-2030. Project Type Number of Projects a Capacity (MGD) Reclaimed water (new treatment capacity) 11 151.10 Stored surface water/storm water/ASR 4 17.00 Total 15 168.10 a. Some projects consist of more than one construction component and will be implemented in multiple phases. Conservation is an important component of utilities' plans for meeting future demands. Four specific conservation projects were proposed. Additionally, seventeen water utilities in the LEC Planning Area are participating in the Broward Water Partnership, a multiple year program that provides rebates and other water conservation tools and tips to businesses and homeowners (see Chapter 5). The program was recently expanded to include multiple family units, commercial buildings, and not-for-profit agencies, as well as single family homes. It is estimated that up to 30 MGD can be saved throughout Broward County by 2030 through this program. Three utilities are also planning on implementing discrete water conservation programs that will result in a combined total of savings of 45.4 MGD by 2030. 184 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Domestic Self -Supply Domestic Self -Supply (DSS) includes potable water from a private domestic well serving a private residence, and utilities that produce less than 0.1 MGD on an annual basis. DSS finished (net) demands in the LEC Planning Area are only projected to increase by less than 1 MGD from 17 MGD in 2010 to 18 MGD in 2030 (gross [raw] demands are projected to increase by less than 1 MGD from 18 MGD in 2010 to 19 MGD in 2030). DSS needs are met almost exclusively with fresh groundwater from the SAS, and will continue to do so in the future. As such, no water supply development projects are proposed for this use class. Agricultural Self -Supply Agricultural (AGR) Self -Supply is expected to remain the second largest water use category within the planning area after PWS. Irrigated agricultural acreage in the LEC Planning Area collectively is very stable and not projected to change significantly over the next twenty years. This is especially true in the Everglades Agricultural Area where permitted acres (458,210) and cropping practices are not projected to change. The Western Basins, which are in Hendry County but outside of the Everglades Agricultural Area and Lake Okeechobee Service Area, are projected to have a slight increase in irrigated acres. Using an estimate of irrigated acres in 2010 (575,316) as a starting point, the total irrigated acres is projected to be 575,897 acres in 2030. Consequently, estimated AGR Self -Supply irrigation needs (gross demand) is projected to be 664 MGD in 2030, the vast majority of which is already permitted. AGR Self -Supply water use accounts for 34 percent of the region's total gross demand. The primary water sources used for agricultural irrigation in the LEC Planning Area are fresh surface water in Palm Beach County, the portions of Hendry County in the LEC Planning Area, and the portions of Okeechobee, Glades, and St. Lucie counties within the Lake Okeechobee Service Area, and fresh groundwater in Hendry, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties. However, agricultural operations use both sources in the LEC Service Area (Palm Beach, Broward and Miami -Dade counties). Monroe County relies upon potable water and/or cisterns for the limited amount of supplemental irrigation needed by nurseries. The Everglades Agricultural Area within Lake Okeechobee Service Area will continue to rely on fresh surface water from Lake Okeechobee and connected conveyance canals consistent with the existing water use permits. For the remaining portion of the Lake Okeechobee Service Area, which encompasses basins in the other three planning areas plus the C-21 and 5-236 basins in the LEC Planning Area, up to 156,171 acres will be provided supplemental irrigation by fresh surface water from the lake consistent with their existing water use permits. In addition, the portion of irrigated acres in Hendry County that fall outside of the Lake Okeechobee Service Area is supplied by fresh surface and groundwater. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 185 The projected increase in irrigated acreage (581 acres) is minimal in comparison to the estimated 2010 actual irrigated acreage. No specific water supply development projects for agriculture were provided or have been identified in this plan update. The continued use of and increased voluntary use of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' best management practices, including water conservation, could reduce the amount of water needed to meet crop demands. These efforts are discussed in Chapter 5. Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Self -Supply The Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Self -Supply water use category is comprised of large facilities for production processing with the largest uses being mining (i.e., aggregates industry) and food processing (dominated by the sugar industry). In the LEC Planning Area, the water use projection for ICI Self -Supply assumes that growth for this region is proportional to the underlying economic activity that generates PWS demand in the area. The projected demand for this category is expected to be 57 MGD by 2030, 28 percent greater than the 2010 demand. Currently, the ICI Self -Supply water use category has sufficient supply to meet future needs. Any increase in water demands must meet the requirements of water use permitting criteria, however, existing water use permits cover the majority of the projected growth. Although fresh groundwater supplies are generally considered adequate to meet the relatively small new demands projected for this use category, alternative water supply options should be considered based on local conditions. If reclaimed water is available to meet existing and new ICI Self -Supply water demands, the feasibility of such opportunities will be evaluated through SFWMD's Water Use Permitting Program. No specific projects for ICI Self -Supply were provided or identified in this plan update. Recreational/Landscape Self -Supply Recreational/ Landscape (REC) Self -Supply includes the use of water for irrigation of common areas, golf courses, parks, cemeteries, schools, commercial developments, and other self -supplied irrigation uses with demand of 0.1 MGD or greater. REC Self -Supply gross demand is projected to increase by 3 percent (149 MGD in 2010 compared to 153 MGD in 2030). Historically, irrigation supplies for this category include local fresh groundwater and surface water captured from canals or stormwater management systems. In recent years, irrigation for new golf courses often includes reclaimed water and on-site blending of brackish groundwater with surface water. Four golf courses use brackish groundwater treated by R0. The small demand increase for REC Self -Supply should be met, for the most part, by currently proposed reclaimed water projects or by locally derived groundwater, which may be included in existing water use permits if applicable. Projects submitted by utilities and wastewater treatment facilities indicate that use of reclaimed water will increase significantly in the future. Expansion of water reuse systems for REC Self -Supply may reduce withdrawal demands on the water resources. Where reclaimed water is not 186 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects available, users may qualify for limited freshwater withdrawals on an application -by - application basis. Implementation of the Mandatory Year -Round Landscape Irrigation Conservation Measures Rule (Rule 40E-24.201, F.A.C.), water conservation methods using more efficient irrigation systems, and Florida -Friendly Landscaping offer potential cost savings and may reduce future demand. However, no specific projects for REC Self -Supply were provided or identified in this plan update. Power Generation Self -Supply The Power Generation (PWR) Self -Supply water use category is expected to grow by approximately 21 MGD (gross demand) during the next 20 years from 12 to 33 MGD as FPL plans to build a new facility in the LEC Planning Area in order to meet electrical power demand. FPL utilizes an assessment method incorporating environmental, economic, and technical feasibility when selecting power generation and cooling technologies most appropriate for site-specific conditions, including water supply and wastewater disposal. Different technologies may require and utilize both traditional and alternative water supply sources. Currently, three power generation plants in the LEC Planning Area are permitted to withdraw groundwater: 1) West County Energy Center, 2) FPL Turkey Point Plant, and 3) Homestead Municipal Power Plant. The West Energy facility's back-up source is the SAS. FPL increased its power resources at the existing Turkey Point plant by adding combined - cycle generating technology (Unit 5). This facility uses FAS water and water from a closed- loop cooling canal system. The Homestead Municipal plant is a peaking plant that only supplies electricity when needed utilizing water from the Biscayne aquifer. A potential plant may be sited in the LEC Planning Area, possibly in Hendry County where FPL has purchased land. The demand associated with this future plant is 22.8 MGD in 2030. In addition, other FPL plants also use alternative water sources. Several power generation plants use seawater: Cutler, Lauderdale, Port Everglades, and Riviera Beach. The FPL West County Energy Center, located in northwestern Palm Beach County, utilizes reclaimed water (approximately 22 to 27 MGD contracted) supplied by PBCWUD since late 2010. In the future, MDWASD will provide up to 90 MGD of reclaimed water to meet FPL cooling needs at Turkey Point for the planned nuclear generating expansion units (Units 6 and 7). These plants are not addressed in the water supply plan because SFWMD does not regulate the use of seawater and reclaimed water. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 187 FUNDING Funding of water supply development and water conservation projects at the local level is the shared responsibility of water suppliers and users. The State of Florida and the water management districts provided funding assistance to local water users developing alternative water supplies and measurable water conservation programs. One criterion for funding consideration is that the project has to be included in, or be consistent with, a regional water supply plan update. Some projects not included in this update, but are consistent with the plan's goals, may also be funded. When SFWMD deems it appropriate, a plan update may specifically identify the need for multijurisdictional approaches to project options based on analysis, the ability to permit and finance, and technical feasibility. SFWMD provides funding for alternative water supply and measurable water conservation through its Alternative Water Supply and Water Savings Incentive (WaterSIP) funding programs. Funds for these programs are allocated annually through the Governing Boards approval of SFWMD's budget. An alternative water supply or water conservation project identified in this update makes that project eligible for future funding, although funding is not guaranteed. An application must be submitted during the program solicitation period and processed for the determination of whether funding will be granted for the project. Alternative Water Supply Progralil Alternative water supply sources in the LEC Planning Area include brackish water from the Upper Floridan aquifer, reclaimed water, seawater, capture of surface or storm water, new storage capacity, and conservation. Although declining per capita use rates help to reduce or defer development of new water production capacity, in some cases, new water supplies will also be needed to accommodate the region's future growth. SFWMD's Alternative Water Supply Program funds up to 40 percent of an alternative water supply project's construction cost to qualified applicants seeking cost-sharing assistance. Since 1997, SFWMD, in cooperation with the State of Florida through the Florida Water Protection and Sustainability Program, approved over $204 million in cost -share funding for the construction of 474 alternative water supply projects throughout SFWMD boundaries. Funds provided by the state are matched dollar for dollar with SFWMD funds. While the legislature has not provided funding to the program since 2009, SFWMD continued appropriating ad valorem revenues to the program at significantly reduced levels since Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. In FY 2012 and FY 2013, budgeted Alternative Water Supply Program funding was $1.25 million and $1.6 million, respectively, including reallocated funds from prior fiscal years. In the LEC Planning Area, $53.8 million was allocated to 121 projects from FY 2006 to FY 2012. The projects created 112 MGD of new water capacity within the LEC Planning Area. 188 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Water Savings Incentive Program WaterSIP is SFWMD's conservation funding assistance program. Through WaterSIP, SFWMD provides matching funds (up to 50-50 cost share) up to $50,000 to water providers and users (e.g., cities, utilities, industrial groups, schools, hospitals, and homeowners associations) for noncapital water efficiency improvement projects that reduce urban water use utilizing water saving technologies. These technologies include low flow plumbing fixtures, rain sensors, fire hydrant flushing devices, cisterns, and other hardware. Examples of projects are toilet and bathroom fixture retrofit programs, irrigation system retrofits involving the use of micro -irrigation or the latest irrigation scheduling technologies, automatic hydrant flushing devices that eliminate the need for manual line flushing, and low flow prerinse spray valve retrofits to improve water efficiency in commercial kitchens. Program funds are budgeted annually. From FY 2005 to FY 2012, the SFWMD budgeted a total of $4.1 million, including reallocated funds from prior fiscal years, for WaterSIP with annual funding amounts between $250,000 and $1,000,000 allocated between FY 2011 and FY 2013, funding amounts ranged between $250,000 and $300,000. Approximately $2.4 million has been allocated for projects in the LEC Planning Area since FY 2005. The funded projects represented an estimated potential savings of 1.5 billion gallons per year (4.1 MGD). Please refer to the 2011-2013 Water Supply Plan Support Document (Support Document) (SFWMD 2013a) for additional information. Appendix D provides WaterSIP projects funded in the LEC Planning Area through 2012. SUMMARY As discussed in Chapter 2, economic trends in South Florida over the past five years resulted in a lowering of population and demand projections for the next twenty years when compared to the projections in the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update. During the twenty- year planning horizon period, the PWS category projects only a 20 percent increase in finished demand. This, combined with PWS utilities water treatment facilities expansions over that same period, resulted in most PWS utilities possessing sufficient treatment capacity and permitted allocations to meet their estimated 2030 demands. Ten utilities proposed 22 potable water projects. Of the 10, only two utilities appear to need the projects before 2030 based on LEC Planning Area projections or their respective treatment system requirements. Some utilities will meet future demand by purchasing water from other suppliers. Amongst the DSS, AGR Self -Supply, ICI Self -Supply, REC Self -Supply, and PWR Self -Supply sectors, no new projects have been proposed, and future needs can be met under existing permit allocations; by use of existing and alternative sources, and conservation. However, future increases in withdrawals from Lake Okeechobee; the L-1, L-2, and L-3 canal system; the Everglades; and North Palm Beach/Loxahatchee Watershed water bodies must comply with the restricted allocation area criteria. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 189 A total of 17 utilities proposed water supply development projects.5 SFWMD staff evaluated all proposed water resource development projects and incorporated 28 new projects for this update, which includes projects that develop fresh and brackish groundwater sources, provide reclaimed water treatment or storage of surface and storm water. Of these, 10 utilities proposed 13 potable water projects, and eight of the 10 utilities may be able to defer some or all of their potable water projects until after 2030. Four water conservation projects proposed in this plan may also assist utilities to defer capital expenses for potable water projects. As a result, potential new PWS supply capacity is significantly greater than the projected increase in demand for the planning horizon of this update. The proposed design capacity may have several purposes including meeting peak demands or operational flexibility. Most water supply development options require significant upfront investments and ongoing maintenance costs. Individual utilities may find that a portion of future water needs can be met in a more immediate and cost-effective way through a demand management program, purchasing water from neighboring utilities, or by implementing a reclaimed water project. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY UTILITY SUMMARIES In this section, a utility summary is provided for each PWS utility in the LEC Planning Area. The summaries are organized by county and alphabetically within each county. A sample utility summary explains the descriptions provided. No PWS utilities are located within the portion of Hendry County within the LEC Planning Area. However, a small portion of Clewiston Utilities' service area extends into Palm Beach County and the LEC Planning Area. Given that the majority of the Clewiston Utilities service area and population served are located within the Lower West Coast Planning Area, Clewiston Utilities is included in the 2012 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update (SFWMD 2012a). 5 Does not include the three utilities that have proposed reclaimed distribution projects. 190 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Descriptions of each numbered item are provided on the next two pages. SAMPLE CITY County: Broward County Service Area: Sample city and portions of unincorporated county. Description: This description includes the number and type of water treatment plants (WTPs), water sources, areas served, bulk sales or purchases, and other issues of concern to the utility. If the utility produces reclaimed water, information regarding the quantity and customers may also be be included. Utilities that participate in the Broward Water Partnership conservation program are identified here. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND I (1 Existing Projected 2 2010 _ 2020 2030 Population 3 100,000 1 110,000 120,000 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) V 100 100 100 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 10.0 11.0 12.0 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (00-00000-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Potable Water Source Existing Projected 4 2010 2020 5 2030 Fresh Water 14.00 14.00 14.00 Brackish Water 0.00 2.00 4.00 6 Total Allocation 14.00 16.00 18.00 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY FDEP Permitted Capacity Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 7 18.00 18.00 8 18.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 2.00 3.00 9 Total Capacity 18.00 20.00 21.0 NONPOTABLE WATER TPACITY Reclaimed Water 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects _ Source _ Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water New Floridan RO WTP (2MGD) Brackish Water 2017 $4.00 2.00 2.00 13 Additional RO Train (+1 MG kish Water 2025 $2.00 L12 0.00 1.00 Total 14 $6.00 2.00 3.00 Conservation and Irrigation Conservation 2025 $0.00 0.10 0.10 Restrictions 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 191 Descriptions of numbered items on the sample utility summary provided on the previous page. 1. Population: The 2010 population was determined using the map of the area served by the utility in 2010 and the census block data from the 2010 United States Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Projections are generally based on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research population projections report published in Florida Population Studies in July 2011 (BEBR 2011). For some utilities, the growth rate to project the 2020 and 2030 populations were based on additional data provided by the utility (see Appendix A for more information). 2. Per Capita Water Use: This number was calculated by dividing the 2010 total finished water produced by the utility (from monthly operating reports submitted by each utility to FDEP) by the 2010 population. It is expected that this number will differ from the per capita rate used during the water use permitting process. 3. Potable Water Demands: The 2010 amount is the daily average finished water produced by the utility in 2010 (from monthly operating reports submitted by each utility to FDEP). The 2020 and 2030 projected demands are the respective populations multiplied by the 2010 per capita water use for that utility (see Appendix A for more information). 4. Allocation from the Current Water Use Permit: The allocation is composed of fresh and brackish gross water allocations as described in the permit. S. Projected Allocation 2020/2030: If the current water use permit specifies a change in the allocation, the 2020 or 2030 allocation is listed. Otherwise, the current allocation is assumed to continue through 2030. 6. Total Allocation: The total gross water allocation found in the water use permit. The total allocation may be less than the sum of the freshwater and brackish water allocations providing the utility with some operational flexibility. 7. FDEP Permitted Capacity: The total capacity of the WTPs used by the utility as listed on FDEP website as of May 2012. The capacity is split into the capacity available to process fresh water or brackish water. 8. Planned Project Capacity: The volumes of water created by projects listed in the Project Summary as proposed by the utilities. Project capacity to be completed by 2020 are shown in the 2020 column and project capacity to be completed between 2021 and 2030 are shown in the 2030 column. 9. Total Capacity: The existing capacity of the WTPs owned/operated by this utility plus the volumes of water produced by future planned projects. 10. Reclaimed Water: The capacity of the wastewater treatment plant(s) (WWTP) to produce reclaimed water. The 2010 capacity is from the 2010 Reuse Inventory (FDEP 2011). Additional capacity is from projects planned by the utility. These projects are listed under item 11. 192 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects 11. Project Summary: A description of the projects the utility is proposing to construct. Only projects that produce additional water (i.e., wells, water treatments plants, etc.) or distribute water are included. Maintenance or replacement projects are not included. Each project has an anticipated completion date, water source, estimated capital cost, and volume of water produced or planned treatment capacity. Water volumes associated with distribution projects are not included in the volume summaries. The project information was provided by the utility. Not all utilities reported a project; however, all utilities that have a need for additional water did plan a project or projects. 12. Total Projected Cumulative Design Capacity for 2020: The total volume of projects expected to be completed between 2012 and 2020. These totals are added to the existing total in items 8 or 10, as appropriate. 13. Total Projected Cumulative Design Capacity for 2030: The total volume of projects expected to be completed between 2021 and 2030. These totals are added to the existing total in 8 or 10, as appropriate. 14. Conservation: Conservation projects projected to save at least 0.1 MGD were included by some utilities. Because these save water, rather than producing additional water, they are not included in the projected cumulative design capacity total. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 193 Palm Beach County Utilities AG HOLLEY STATE HOSPITAL County: Palm Beach County Service Area: AG Holley State Hospital Description: This utility is located at a State of Florida hospital in the Town of Lantana. Withdrawals were from the SAS (two wells), with an annual allocation of 0.09 MGD. The hospital was closed in July 2012; therefore, future use of the existing water treatment facility is unknown at this time. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 Population 32 0 0 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 0 0 0 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 0.07 0.00 0.00 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-01092-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 0.09 0.09 10.09 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 0.09 0.09 0.09 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 0.36 0.36 0.36 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 0.36 0.36 0.36 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 194 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects CITY OF BOCA RATON County: Palm Beach County Service Area: City of Boca Raton and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County Description: Water supply for the City of Boca Raton is from the SAS. The city owns and operates two water treatment facilities that blend a 1:2 ratio of lime softened and membrane softened water. The water use permit was renewed in 2008 and provides for the completion of reclaimed water projects in 2013 that authorize the city to withdraw additional water based on the termination of identified base condition water use through the provision of reclaimed water to meet the projected increased demands in 2020. The city implemented a fully operational reclaimed water system that has the capacity to utilize 100 percent of its annual average daily flow for reuse as authorized by FDEP. The city's water reclamation facility has met the requirements of a 100 percent reuse facility to meet the requirements of the Ocean Outfall statute (Subsection 403.086(9), F.S.). In 2011, the city provided customers with an average of 7.0 MGD and a maximum of 10.09 MGD of reclaimed water for irrigation demands that would otherwise come from the Biscayne aquifer. The city is planning a membrane concentrate and reclaimed water blending project that will increase the availability of reclaimed water. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 Population 107,224 120,539 1 133,854 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 320 320 320 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 34.31 38.57 42.83 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00367-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 _ 2030 Fresh Water 51.54 51.54 51.54 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 51.54 51.54 51.54 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 _ 2030 Fresh Water 70.00 70.00 70.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 70.00 70.00 70.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 17.50 1 17.50 17.50 PROJECT SUMMARY Projected Cumulative Design Capacity Completion Total Capital Cost (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Nonpotable Water Recycling of Membrane Reclaimed 2013 $2.00 4.25 a 4.25 a Concentrate for Reuse Water Water Total $2.00 4.25 4.25 a. This project adds capacity to the reclaimed water distribution system but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the reclaimed water plant. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 195 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH County: Palm Beach County Service Area: City of Boynton Beach; towns of Briny Breezes, Hypoluxo, and Ocean Ridge; and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County Description: Water supply for the City of Boynton Beach is from the SAS. The city owns and operates two WTPs that use lime softening and nanofiltration processes. The water supply system is also augmented by the use of two ASR wells, which provide water in the dry season and allow the city to reduce pumping of the eastern wellfield. The city's recent water supply plan includes a water conservation program and expanded use of reclaimed water to help with the reuse requirement of the Ocean Outfall statute (Subsection 403.086(9), F.S.) at the South Central Regional WWTP. The city shares the South Central Regional WWTP with the City of Delray Beach. This plant produces reclaimed water, which is used by both cities. If Boynton Beach is successful in hooking up a pre -approved set of large users to its reuse system, the city can seek up to 25 percent more water from the SAS, pursuant to conditions in its consumptive use permit. The city currently purchases 2 MGD of potable water from the PBCWUD. This purchased amount will be reduced to 1 MGD after 2013. The city is planning a membrane concentrate blending project to decrease treatment losses. The city also built a pipeline to connect its western SAS wellfield to its eastern lime softening plant to further improve treatment efficiency. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND 29.64 29.64 29.64 Existing 0.00 Projected 2010 2020 _ 2030 Population 102,512 115,242 127,972 Reclaimed Water NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 10.00 10.00 10.00 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 131 131 131 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 13.43 15.10 16.76 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00499-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) _ Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 1 Fresh Water 16.58 a 16.58 a 16.58 a� Brackish Water 6.42 b 6.42 b 6.42 b Bulk Water Purchase (from Palm Beach County) 2.00 1.00 1.00 Total Allocation (including bulk water purchase) 20.86 ` 20.86 ` 20.86 ` POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 29.64 29.64 29.64 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 29.64 29.64 29.64 Reclaimed Water NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 10.00 10.00 10.00 a. The cities baseline SAS allocation is 16.58 MGD. The current consumptive use permit provides that the city may apply for an increase SAS allocation of up to 4.23 MGD if the city can document increased demand and completes a reuse implementation plan that includes the termination of existing permits by future reuse customers. b. The majority of the 6.42 MGD FAS allocation is for ASR withdrawals during the dry season. Those withdrawals are tied reductions in the eastern wellfield pumpage such that the city does not exceed its annual allocation. c. The water use permit limits the total annual withdrawals from all sources to 7,615 million gallons, an average of 20.86 MGD. 196 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 197 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Nonpotable Water Reclaimed Water i Transmission Phase 2 (US 1 Reclaimed Water 2014 $2.00 1.00a 1.00a Corridor & Cypress Creek) Leisureville Golf Course Reclaimed Water 2014 $2.00 0.65a 0.65a Galaxy Elementary Reclaimed Water 2013 $0.26 0.10a 0.10a Water Line Total $4.26 1.75a 1.75a a. This project adds capacity to the reclaimed water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the reclaimed water plant. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 197 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT County: Palm Beach County Service Area: City of Delray Beach, Town of Gulf Stream, and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County Description: Water supply for the City of Delray Beach Public Utilities Department is from the SAS and FAS. Delray Beach owns and operates one lime softening treatment system located in the vicinity of their Eastern Wellfield. The water use permit provides for operation of the Eastern, Morikami, 20 -series, and Golf Course wellfields, in addition to occasional operation of an ASR well for backup supply of brackish water for blending with fresh groundwater. Delray Beach is committed to replacing permitted SAS irrigation withdrawals within its service area with reclaimed water. The projects listed below will help meet the reuse requirements of the Ocean Outfall statute (Subsection 403.086(9), F.S.) at the South -Central Regional WWTP. 'opulation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing 2010 N 63,341 r Capita (gallons per day finished water) 232 table Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 14.70 Fresh Water Brackish Water Total Allocation Fresh Water Brackish Water Projected _ 2020 2030 71,207 79,072 232 232 16.52 18.34 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00177-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 _ 19.01 19.10 19.10 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 19.10 19.10 19.10 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Planned Project Capacity I Capacity 26.00 26.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY teclaimed Water 5.00 5.00 5.00 a. The city's FAS well does not have an allocation, but may be used as a backup source for blending if needed. Such occasional use is capped at 1.5 MGD. 198 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Nonootable Water Reclaimed Water (Area 12A Phase 1 11 — Barrier Island South, Atlantic Reclaimed 2013 $1.70 0.25a 0.25a Avenue to Casuarina Road and Water Gleason Street Trunk Line) Reclaimed Water (Area 12A Phase 2 Reclaimedl 2014 $1.20 0.25a 0.25a and Area 12B Barrier Island South) Water Jotal 2.90 0.50a 0.50a a. This project adds capacity to the reclaimed water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the reclaimed water plant. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 199 GLADES UTILITY AUTHORITY PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Cities of Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay Description: Water supply for the Glades Utility Authority comes from the FAS, which is treated at an RO WTP. The water use permit was renewed in 2010 and later modified to address an increase in the chloride concentrations in water produced from the wells. The three cities within the service area have been designated as Rural Areas of Critical Economic Concern. Glades Utility Authority is being absorbed into the PBCWUD effective April 2013, and will be described as such in the next update. The water distribution systems, which PBCWUD acquired from municipal governments have historically high rates of losses. PBCWUD has agreed to distribution system improvements to reduce losses in future years. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 Population 25,051 28,164 31,276 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 195 195 195 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 4.88 5.49 6.10 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-06857-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) 10.00 10.00 Existing lanned Project Capacity Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Brackish Water I 9.43 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 9.43 9.43 Total Allocation 9.43 0.00 9.43 1 9.43 200 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 resh Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 rackish Water 10.00 10.00 10.00 lanned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 otal Capacity 10.00 10.00 10.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY eclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 200 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects VILLAGE OF GOLF County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Village of Golf and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County Description: The water supply for the Village of Golf is from the SAS. The water is treated by lime softening and ultrafiltration processes. Wastewater from the service area is treated at the South Central Reclamation Wastewater Treatment Facility with more than 1.62 MGD contracted irrigation reuse at golf courses and for groundwater recharge. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 201 POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 _ 2020 2030 Population 1 2,755 1 3,097 1 3,439 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 145 145 145 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 0.40 0.45 0.50 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00612-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 _ 2030 _ Fresh Water 0.60 0.69 0.69 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 0.60 0.69 0.69 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 _ 2020 _ 2030 Fresh Water 0.86 0.86 0.86 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 0.86 0.86 0.86 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 201 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Town of Highland Beach Description: The Town of Highland Beach is a residential community located on a barrier island east of the Intracoastal Waterway. The water supply for the town comes from the FAS, treated by RO. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 Population 3,631 4,082 4,533 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 372 I 372 372 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 1.35 1.52 1.69 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00346-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Brackish Water 3.15 3.15 3.15 Total Allocation 3.15 3.15 3.15 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Brackish Water 3.00 3.00 3.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 3.00 3.00 3.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 202 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects TOWN OF JUPITER County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Towns of Jupiter and Juno Beach, and unincorporated areas of Martin and Palm Beach counties Description: The water supply for the Town of Jupiter is from the SAS and FAS. The town owns and operates an RO plant for the FAS source and a nanofiltration process for the SAS source. Wastewater is treated at the Loxahatchee River District facility, with 5 MGD of reclaimed water returned to the town for irrigation purposes. The water use permit includes an overlap in allocations from SAS and FAS sources to provide operational flexibility on a seasonal basis but has a maximum annual allocation (24.41 MGD) from the two sources combined. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected i 2010 _ 2020 2030 _ Population 70,840 86,224 101,608 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 188 188 188 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 13.32 16.21 19.10 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00010-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 18.80 18.80 18.80 Brackish Water 5.61 11.71 11.71 Total Allocation 24.41 24.41 a 24.41 a POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 16.30 16.30 16.30 Brackish Water 13.70 13.70 13.70 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 30.00 30.00 30.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 a. The town's total pumping may not exceed 24.41 MGD on an annual basis. The water use permit provides flexibility for the utility to maximize either SAS or FAS dependent on rainfall conditions. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 203 CITY OF LAKE WORTH UTILITIES County: Palm Beach County Service Area: City of Lake Worth, Town of Lake Clarke Shores, and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County Description: The water supply for the City of Lake Worth Utilities is from the SAS and FAS. Lake Worth was designated a "utility of concern" due to the vulnerability of its Eastern Wellfield to saltwater intrusion. In 2011, the utility brought online a wellfield that utilizes the FAS. Additionally, the utility is implementing a program of plugging and abandoning SAS wells in its Eastern Wellfield and constructing replacement wells further inland. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 _ 2020 2030 Population 45,137 1 50,742 156,347 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 98 98 98 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 4.42 4.97 5.52 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00234-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 7.58 a 5.25 b 5.25 b Brackish Water 9.00 6.00 6.00 Bulk Water Purchase (from Palm Beach County) 1.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation (including bulk water purchase) 13.07 11.25 11.25 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 12.90 12.90 12.90 Brackish Water 4.50 4.50 4.50 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 17.40 17.40 17.40 y NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 a. The city entered into an operational agreement with SFWMD in May 2010, which restricted SAS withdrawals to 5.3 MGD. b. The city's allocation has seasonal source limits of 5.00 MGD in the dry season and 5.50 MGD in the wet season. Over the course of any year, the annual withdrawals may not exceed an average of 5.25 MGD. 204 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects TOWN OF LANTANA County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Town of Lantana Description: The water supply for the Town of Lantana is from the SAS. The water supply is considered vulnerable to saltwater intrusion; hence, the town recently constructed two additional wells farther from the coast to provide for additional wellfield operational flexibility and reduce the potential for saltwater intrusion. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 Population 10,348 11,633 12,918 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) I 171 171 171 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 1.77 1.99 2. SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00575-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) 6L Existing Projected W- Potable Water Source 2020 _ 2030 Fresh Water 2.48 2.48 2.48 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 2.48 2.48 2.48 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 _2030 Fresh Water 3.84 3.84 3.84 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 3.84 3.84 3.84 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 205 TOWN OF MANALAPAN County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Towns of Manalapan and Hypoluxo Description: The water supply for the Town of Manalapan comes from the SAS and FAS. The town operates an RO WTP that has the capability of blending the fresh and brackish water sources. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 lopulation 2,421 2,722 3,022 ler Capita (gallons per day finished water) 440 440 440 potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 1.07 1.20 1.33 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00506-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) LM Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 :resh Water 0.58 0.58 t 0.58 3rackish Water 1.33 1.33 1.33 "otal Allocation 1.91 T 1.91 1.91 206 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 sh Water 0.65 0.65 0.65 ickish Water 1.70 1.70 1.70 nned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 :al Capacity 2.35 2.35 2.35 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY :laimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 206 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects TOWN OF MANGONIA PARK County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Town of Mangonia Park Description: The water supply for the Town of Mangonia Park is from the SAS. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND —W Existing Projected 2010 2020 _2030 Population 1,888 2,122 2,357 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 168 168 168 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 0.32 i 0.36 0.40 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00030-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected blmw Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 0.58 1 0.58 0.58 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 0.58 0.58 0.58 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 1.08 1.08 1.08 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 1.08 1.08 1.08 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 207 MARALAGO CAY County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Unincorporated area of Palm Beach County Description: Maralago Cay is a manufactured home community. It is not expected to exceed its allocation in future years. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND MEN&L— Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 opulation 1,008 1,133 1,258 ar Capita (gallons per day finished water) 182 I 182 182 otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 0.18 0.21 0.23 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-01283-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 esh Water 0.27 0.27 0.27 rackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 otal Allocation 0.27 0.27 0.27 208 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 sh Water 0.42 0.42 0.42 ickish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 nned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 :al Capacity 0.42 0.42 0.42 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY :laimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 208 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Cities of Atlantis, Boynton Beach, Greenacres, Lake Worth, and West Palm Beach; towns of Cloud Lake, Glen Ridge, Haverhill, Lake Clarke Shores, and Loxahatchee Groves; villages of Palm Springs, Royal Palm Beach, and Wellington; and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County. Description: PBCWUD has two lime softening and two nanofiltration WTPs. The source of water is the SAS with brackish water from FAS ASR wells to be used for blending. ASR wells are still planned as part of the alternative water supply plans in addition to expansion of reclaimed water facilities. PBCWUD's current bulk sales are 9.63 MGD, which are distributed to FPL, the cities of Boynton Beach, Atlantis, and Lake Worth, and the Town of Lake Clark Shores. The 2003 water use permit requires Palm Beach County to provide 33 MGD of alternative water supplies to avoid increased seepage from canals resulting from increased withdrawals at nearby wellfields. PBCWUD is currently supplying reclaimed water to Century Village, Emerald Dunes, and between 22 and 27 MGD to the FPL West County Energy Center. Current projections indicate that the WTP 2 expansion project may not be needed during the twenty-year planning horizon. In 2013, PBCWUD acquired the Glades Utility Authority. Hence, in future plan updates, the Glades Utility System will be included within the PBCWUD utility profile. PBCWUD is also considering a reclaimed water partnership project with Broward County to expand the distribution of reclaimed water in southern Palm Beach County. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 _ 2020 2030 _ Population 458,839 1 515,412a 572,795a Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 115 115 115 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 52.77 59.30 65.90 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00135-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 79.99 79.99 79.99 Brackish Water 7.00 7.00 7.00 Total Allocation 86.99 86.99 86.99 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected F7 FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 1 101.38 101.38 101.38 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 8.50 Total Capacity 101.38 101.38 109.88 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 17.50 42.00 51.00` a. The Palm Beach County Planning Division has recently projected that the 2020 and 2030 populations served by the utility could be as high as 558,249 and 626,388, respectively. The difference between the Palm Beach County Planning Division and the estimate used in this plan, which is from the PBCWUD, is largely due to assumptions about the rate at which existing self -supplied users will be provided centralized water services. b. Based upon information contained in the 2008 Palm Beach County 20 -Year Water Supply Work Plan. c. Based upon SFWMD staff estimation of anticipated flow quantities provided by the PBCWUD. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 209 210 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water WTP 2 Expansion Fresh Water 2025 $15.00 0.00 8.50 _ Total1 $15.00 0.00 8.50 Nonpotable Water Morikami Reclaimed Pump Station Reclaimed 2013 $0.05 2.00a 2.00a Water Total I$0.05 2.00 _JL2.00 = a. This project adds capacity to the reclaimed water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the reclaimed water plant. 210 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects VILLAGE OF PALM SPRINGS County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Village of Palm Springs, Town of Lake Clarke Shores, and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County Description: The SAS is the source of water for the Village of Palm Springs. The two water treatment facilities are interconnected and utilize ion exchange, followed by lime softerning, filtration, and disinfection. The Town of Lake Clarke Shores purchases water from the Village of Palm Springs to serve 3,126 people. The village's water use permit does not contain an allocation sufficient to meet anticipated demands through 2030. The village previously recognized the potential shortfall. The utility indicates it will purchase water from Palm Beach County. The village will need to execute a bulk purchase agreement or implement other projects to increase its water supply by 2030. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing _ 2010 45,204 Projected 2020 _ 2030 50,817 56,431 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 84 84 84 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 3.80 4.27 4.74 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00036-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Projected Existing 2020 Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water N 4.74 1 4.62 4.62 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 4.74 4.62 4.62 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 211 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 10.00 1 10.00 10.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 10.00 10.00 10.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 211 CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH County: Palm Beach County Service Area: City of Riviera Beach and Town of Palm Beach Shores Description: The SAS is the source of water for the City of Riviera Beach. It is treated by lime softening. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2020 _2030 Population 37,757 42,446 47,134 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 173 173 173 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 6.53 i 7.34 8.15 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00460-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected bmEw Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 9.08 1 9.08 9.08 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 9.08 9.08 9.08 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 17.50 17.50 17.50 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 17.50 17.50 17.50 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 212 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects SEACOAST UTILITY AUTHORIT', County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Towns of Juno Beach and Lake Park, Village of North Palm Beach, City of Palm Beach Gardens, and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County Description: Seacoast Utility Authority withdraws from the SAS and FAS. The authority replaced its lime softening plant with a nanofiltration treatment plant in 2013. In addition, a new RO plant is anticipated to come online in 2013. The Seacoast Utility Authority also provided 7.9 MGD of reclaimed water in 2011. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing 2010 87,686 Projected 2020 2030 98,575 109,464! Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 201 I 189 189 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 17.62 18.63 20.69 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00365-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) 0.00 0.00 Existing 30.50 Projected Potable Water Source 2010 _ 2020 _ 2030 Fresh Water 19.31 22.30 22.30 Brackish Water I 0.00 8.90 8.90 Total Allocation 19.31 26.92 a 26.92 a resh Water rackish Water 'lanned Project Capacity btal Capacity :eclaimed Water POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 30.50 26.00 26.00 0.00 3.00 b 3.00 b 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.50 29.00 29.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 12.00 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Nonpotable Water Nanofiltration Concentrateeclaimed Blending for Reuse Water Water 2013 $4.50 3.00 3.00 Total _ $4.50 3.00 3.00 a. Permit provides flexibility to select sources but must stay within the total allocation. b. Project will be online by 2013. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 213 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Village of Tequesta and Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony Description: The Village of Tequesta obtains water from the SAS and FAS. The SAS water supply is treated with sand filtration. The FAS supply is treated by RO. In 1996, the village began to reduce its dependence on the SAS and use the FAS as its primary source. This approach continued with the village's 2011 permit renewal. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected _ 2010 2020 2030 Population 11,581 13,345 15,108 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 235 235 235 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 2.72 3.14 3.55 T SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00046-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 _ 2030 oFreshater 2.70 a 1.10 1.10 Brackish Water 4.40 a 3.43 3.43 Total Allocation 4.84 4.37 4.37 214 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 :resh Water 2.73 2.73 2.73 irackish Water 3.60 3.60 3.60 Manned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 "otal Capacity 6.33 6.33 6.33 NON POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPAY CIT teclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 a. The permit in effect in 2010 did not have annual or monthly source limits for the SAS or FAS. The numbers shown here are maximum day allocations, which are further limited by the total annual allocation for both sources of 4.84 MGD. 214 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects WELLINGTON PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMEN i County: Palm Beach County Service Area: Villages of Wellington and Royal Palm Beach, and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County Description: The Wellington Public Utilities Department currently obtains water from the SAS. The village's northern wellfields are slightly brackish and are treated using membrane softening. Water from the southern and eastern wellfields is fresher and treated via lime softening. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Existing _ Projected 2010 2020 2030 'opulation I 55,408 62,289 69,169 lerCapita (gallons per day finished water) 105 105 105 'otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 5.82 6.54 7.26 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00464-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) 6.30 6.30 Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 resh Water 8.02 8.02 8.02 Irackish Water 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 btal Allocation 8.02 8.02 -4 8.02 resh Water rackish Water lanned Project Capacity otal Capacity imed Water Water Supply Projects PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water WTP Low Pressure RO Expansion Fresh Phase 1 and 2 (efficiency Water 2025 $0.80 0.50 1.40 improvements) Total $0.01 0.50 J 1.40 Nonpotable Water Phased Reclaimed System Reclaimed 2011-2030 $0.01 1.30a 2.90a Expansions Water Total = X L 1.30 2.90 a. This project adds capacity to the reclaimed water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the reclaimed water plant. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 215 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 _2030 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.30 6.30 6.30 0.00 0.50 1.40 12.80 13.30 14.20 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water Supply Projects PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water WTP Low Pressure RO Expansion Fresh Phase 1 and 2 (efficiency Water 2025 $0.80 0.50 1.40 improvements) Total $0.01 0.50 J 1.40 Nonpotable Water Phased Reclaimed System Reclaimed 2011-2030 $0.01 1.30a 2.90a Expansions Water Total = X L 1.30 2.90 a. This project adds capacity to the reclaimed water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the reclaimed water plant. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 215 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH PUBLIC UTILITIES County: Palm Beach County Service Area: City of West Palm Beach, and towns of Palm Beach and South Palm Beach Description: The source of water for the City of West Palm Beach Public Utilities is surface water and a SAS wellfield. The city is currently constructing a forward pump and gate structure at Clear Lake to enable the city's intake system to remain operational during drought conditions when unusually low surface water levels persist. The city faced challenges during recent water shortages and developed plans to address water shortages and long-term growth. Alternative water supply and drought management projects include urban stormwater treatment, advanced wastewater treatment at the East Central Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility, wetland rehydration, and aquifer recharge. Future plans include ASR, capture water otherwise lost to tide from the C-17 and C-51 canals (via replacement of Control Structure 2 with a 300 -cubic feet per scond pumping system and additional wells along the M Canal). POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing 2010 ation r Capita (gallons per day finished water) Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 109,958 253 27.87 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (50-00615-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected 2020 2030 123,853 143,134 253 N 253 31.33 36.21 Projected PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water ASR Well Reactivation at Clear Lake u tee 2013 $10.00 8.00' 8.00' F 17 Pump Station Storm 2020 I $2.50 8.00a 8.00' Water Total I $12.50 16.00 16.00 a. This project adds flexibility to the water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the potable water treatment plant. 216 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 39.30 1 41.20 1 41.20 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 39.30 41.20 41.20 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 47.00 47.00 47.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 47.00 47.00 47.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 6.00 _ 6.00 6.00 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water ASR Well Reactivation at Clear Lake u tee 2013 $10.00 8.00' 8.00' F 17 Pump Station Storm 2020 I $2.50 8.00a 8.00' Water Total I $12.50 16.00 16.00 a. This project adds flexibility to the water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the potable water treatment plant. 216 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Broward County Utilities BROWARD COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES DISTRICT 1 County: Broward County Service Area: All or portions of the cities of Fort Lauderdale, Lauderdale Lakes, Lauderhill, North Lauderdale, Oakland Park, Plantation, Pompano Beach, and Tamarac, and unincorporated areas of Broward County Description: The SAS provides the majority of the water supply; however the permit includes allocation from the FAS. The county is currently in the process of requesting a modification in the permit allocation from the SAS. The county is expected to start drilling the FAS wells in 2013. This utility is a contributing member to the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing 2010 71,395 r Capita (gallons per day finished water) 99 Projected _ 2020 2030 _ 75,892 80,388 99 99 Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 7.05 7.49 7.93 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00146-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Potable Water Source 2010 2020 resh Water � 10.6720 rackish Water 4.70 4.70 otal Allocation Projected 2030 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 9.20 4 4.70 Existing 13.90 Projected PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) _ Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water listrict 1A Treatment Plant Brackish xpansion (RO WTP, Floridan wells, 2017 $41.10 1.50 2.50 nd a disposal well) Water otal $41.10 1.50 2.50 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 217 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 16.00 16.00 16.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 1.50 2.50 Total Capacity 16.00 17.50 18.50 1111111116 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) _ Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water listrict 1A Treatment Plant Brackish xpansion (RO WTP, Floridan wells, 2017 $41.10 1.50 2.50 nd a disposal well) Water otal $41.10 1.50 2.50 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 217 BROWARD COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE`S DISTRICT 2A/NORTH REGIONAL WELLFIELD Service Area: All or portions of the cities of Coconut Creek, Deerfield Beach, Lighthouse Point, Parkland, and Pompano Beach, and unincorporated areas of Broward County Description: The SAS is the primary source of water supply for the District 2A system. The 2A wellfield includes SAS wells and a proposed FAS wellfield to provide water to a proposed RO treatment plant. The demand projections developed for this plan update suggest the proposed FAS project may not be needed until after the 2030 planning horizon so, at this time, the county has indefinitely postponed the project. The North Regional Wellfield is one of two wellfields the county developed to provide raw water to Deerfield Beach and the District 2A WTP. The Broward County North Regional WWTP provides 4.4 MGD of reuse water. The 2008 Ocean Outfall statute requires the county to achieve 25 MGD of reuse by 2025. The county is considering a project wherein it will provide reclaimed water to PBCWUD to comply with the statute. The City of Coconut Creek is currently developing a program to provide reclaimed water from North Regional WWTP throughout Coconut Creek. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 Population 1 110,939 1 116,274 1 121,609 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 110 110 110 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 12.20 12.79 13.38 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-01634-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 _ Fresh Water 19.95 17.50 17.50 Brackish Water 4.60 4.60 4.60 Total Allocation 22.06 22.06 22.06 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 40.00 40.00 40.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 40.00 40.00 40.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 10.00 10.00 10.00 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Nonpotable Water Reclaimed Water Highlands Reclaimed 2013 $6.50 0.30' Pompano Beach Water '_ 0.30a Total _ $6.50 0.30a 0.30a a. This project adds capacity to the reclaimed water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the reclaimed water plant. 218 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects BROWARD COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE`S SOUTH REGIONAL WELLFIELD Service Area: The Broward County Water and Wastewater Services South Regional Wellfield, also known as the Brian Piccolo Wellfield, suppiles raw water to FPL and the cities of Hollywood, Hallandale Beach, and Dania Beach. Since this system provides raw water to other facilities, no population is assigned. The county contracts with the City of Hollywood to treat water for the county's service area formerly known as System 3. The county distributes finished water to the Town of Pembroke Park, the City of West Park, the western portion of the City of Dania Beach, and unincorporated areas of Broward County. The System 3 WTPs have been dismantled, and the county proposed to abandon the remaining System 3 water wells and transfer that allocation to the South Regional Wellfield. Description: Modifications to the South Regional Wellfield have not been permitted as of the end of 2012. The existing proposal calls for the City of Hallandale to develop its own wellfield, using its share of the South Regional Wellfield allocation. In addition to the System 3 allocation, a portion of water previously allocated to the City of Dania Beach would be moved to the South Regional Wellfield. See related discussions on the utility summaries for the cities of Hallandale Beach and Dania Beach. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 Population Ii 0 0 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 0 I 0 0 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 0.00a 0.00a 0.00a SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-01474-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 _ 2030 Fresh Water 14.20 14.20 14.20 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 14.20 14.20 14.20 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 IL NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY "MM9 Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 a. Since this system provides raw water to other facilities, no population is assigned. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 219 CITY OF COOPER CITY UTILITY DEPARTMENT County: Broward County Service Area: City of Cooper City Description: The water supply for the City of Cooper City is obtained from the SAS and treated via membrane softening. The city is projected to have minimal growth beyond 2020. This utility is a contributing member to the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 28,543 1 33,335 1 33,585 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 1 95 95 1 95 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 2.71 3.17 1 3.19 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00365-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 _ Fresh Water 4.55 4.55 4.55 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 4.55 4.55 4.55 220 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 _ 2020 _ 2030 Fresh Water 7.00 7.00 7.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 7.00 7.00 7.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.000.00 220 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS County: Broward County Service Area: A portion of the City of Coral Springs Description: The water supply for the City of Coral Springs is obtained from the SAS. Portions of the city are served by other utilities: Coral Springs Improvement District, North Springs Improvement District, and Royal Utilities Corporation. The information on this page addresses only the city's service area. This utility is a contributing member to the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing 2010 58,029 Projected 2020 2030 60,820 63,610 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 114 114 0.00 114 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 6.62 6.93 7.25 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00102-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) 16.00 16.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 _ 2030 Fresh Water 9.44 9.44 9.44 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 9.44 9.44 9.44 resh Water rackish Water 'lanned Project Capacity btal Capacity reclaimed Water POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 221 CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT County: Broward County Service Area: A portion of the City of Coral Springs Description: The water supply for the Coral Springs Improvement District is obtained from the SAS. The water is treated using a lime softening process. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 opulation 36,9699 38,747 40,525 ar Capita (gallons per day finished water) 103 I 103 103 otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 3.81 3.99 4.17 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00100-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 esh Water 5.42 15.42 15.42 rackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 otal Allocation 5.42 5.42 5.42 222 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 sh Water 7.20 7.20 7.20 ickish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 nned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 :al Capacity 7.20 7.20 7.20 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY :laimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 222 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects CITY OF DANIA BEACH County: Broward County Service Area: A portion of the City of Dania Beach Description: The water supply for the City of Dania Beach comes from the SAS. Its service area covers the eastern portion of the city. The city's wellfield is limited to 1.1 MGD due to concerns about saltwater intrusion. To meet its current and future demand above its allocation, the city purchases and treats raw water from Broward County's South Regional Wellfield at Brian Piccolo Park. The city does not have a WWTP. The city's wastewater is treated by Hollywood's Southern Regional Water Reclamation Facility. This city is a contributing member to the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing IL 2010 I 14,840 r Capita (gallons per day finished water) 154 2020 15,554 154 Projected 2030 16,267 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 2.29 2.40 2.51 - SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00187-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 1.80a 1.10 1.10 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bulk Water Purchase (from Broward County Water and Wastewater 1.30 2.20 2.50 Services South Regional Wellfield) i Total Allocation (including bulk water purchase) 3.10 3.30 3.60 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity _ 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 5.02 5.02 5.02 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 5.02 5.02 5.02 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 a. In 2013, the City of Dania Beach allocation of 1.80 MGD was reduced to 1.10 MGD to reduce the risk of saltwater intrusion into the wellfield. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 223 TOWN OF DAVIE County: Broward County Service Area: A portion of the Town of Davie and the Seminole Tribe of Florida's Hollywood Reservation Description: The water supply of the Town of Davie is currently obtained from the SAS. The town has constructed a 6 -MGD RO plant to treat water from the FAS, which will be operational by 2013. An expansion of the new RO facility is proposed for later in the planning period and currently is listed at 6.0 MGD, although the demand projections developed for this plan suggest the full project may not be needed. The town is also developing a reclaimed water system. This utility is a contributing member to the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. The combination of continued conservation and the implementation of reuse will also benefit Davie in meeting its 2030 demand. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 _ 2020 2030 _ Population 27,548 59,320 911091 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 146 146 146 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 4.02 8.66 13.30 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00134-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 5.53 1 5.02 1 5.02 Brackish Water 0.00 14.83 14.83 Total Allocation 5.53 a 19.85 19.85 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 7.40 7.40 7.40 Brackish Water 0.00 6.00 b 6.00 b Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 6.00 Total Capacity 7.40 13.40 19.40 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 3.50 3.50 a. Town of Davie operated under its 2005 water use permit as reflected here until late 2010. b. Project will be online in 2013. 224 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water RO Addition to WTP Brackish 2030 $16.00 a 0.00 6.00 Water Total 1 $16.00 0.00 6.00 Nonpotable Water Reclaimed Water Facility i Reclaimed 2014 $7.50 3.50 3.50 Water Total $7.50 3.50 3.50 a. The annual operation and maintenance cost (including power, chemicals, parts, materials, labor, administration, and compliance) for operating a 6-MGD brackish water RO water treatment plant was estimated to be approximately $2,580,000 per year, as estimated from the 2007 Water Supply Cost Estimation Study by CDM (2007a). 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 225 CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH County: Broward County Service Area: City of Deerfield Beach Description: Until recently, the City of Deerfield Beach operated two interconnected WTPs: East WTP and West WTP. The city decomissioned the East WTP in 2012 and continues operation of the West WTP. The West WTP has three separate treatment systems: lime softening (7.5 MGD), nanofiltration (10.5 MGD), and RO treatment (3.0 MGD) systems. The 3.0 -MGD RO unit was completed in 2013 to treat brackish water from the city's FAS wellfield. Future demands will be met 75 percent from the SAS and 25 percent from the FAS. The city's water use permit capped the East Wellfield at 3.35 MGD due to saltwater intrusion concerns. The city also purchases 0.59 MGD of raw water from Broward County's District 2A/North Regional Wellfield. This city is a contributing member to the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected ation Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD Fresh Water rackish Water 2010 2020 _ 2030 51,842 54,335 56,828 191 191 191 9.90 10.38 10.85 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00082-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Potable Water Source Bulk Water Purchase (from Broward County) Total Allocation (including bulk water purchase) :resh Water 3rackish Water -otal Capacity teclaimed Water Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 11.91 11.91 11.91 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.59 0.59 0.59 14.74 14.74 14.74 IZ•1IM411WITIA94Mil 1.1*41LTA 14L11191e1:7ffal11 A FDEP Permitted Capacity a. Project was online in 2013 Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected 2012 2020 2030 0110111 0.00 34.80 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 0.00 226 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects 18.00 18.00 3.00a 3.00 a 21.00 21.00 Itillo)♦ I)(III] CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE County: Broward County Service Area: Cities of Fort Lauderdale, Oakland Park, Wilton Manors, and Hollywood; portions of the City of Tamarac; towns of Lauderdale -By -The -Sea and Davie; and villages of Lazy Lake and Sea Ranch Lakes. Description: The SAS currently provides the water supply for the City of Fort Lauderdale. The city has two water treatment facilities. The Fiveash WTP has a 70 -MGD design capacity and uses lime softening. The city's membrane plant (Peele-Dixie) was completed in 2008 and has a design capacity of 12 MGD. Before growth slowed in 2008, the city planned to construct a 6.0 -MGD RO plant. Current projections indicate the RO plant may not be needed during the twenty-year planning horizon. This utility is a contributing member to the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected _ 2010 _ 2020 2030 212,945 223,045 233,145 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 190 1190 82.00 190 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 40.46 42.38 44.30 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00123-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) 0.00 6.00 Existing 82.00 Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 52.55 1 52.55 1 52.55 Brackish Water 8.97 8.97 8.97 Total Allocation 61.19 61.19 61.19 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water Brackish Water Planned Project Capacity Total Capacity Reclaimed Water 82.00 82.00 82.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 82.00 82.00 88.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Supply Projects Source Floridan Water Supply/WTP BrackishWater PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Date ($ Million) Potable Water 2030 1 $22.90 90 Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) 2020 2030 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 227 CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH County: Broward County Service Area: City of Hallandale Beach Description: The water supply for the City of Hallandale Beach comes from the SAS. The city's existing wellfield allocation is capped at 3.5 MGD due to the risk of saltwater intrusion. The city also purchases up to 6.2 MGD of raw water from Broward County's South Regional Wellfield. Hallandale Beach proposed to develop a new wellfield located west of the city and abdandon its existing wellfield. The city was unable to find a viable western wellfield site. In 2013, Hallandale Beach decided to develop infrastructure to reduce the risk of saltwater intrusion at its existing wellfield. The city will remain a customer of the South Regional Wellfield. This utility is a contributing member to the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected ation Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) resh Water Water 2010 2020 2030 37,113 38,898 40,683 146 1 146 146 5.42 5.68 5.94 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00138-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Potable Water Source Bulk Water Purchase (from Broward County) Total Allocation (including bulk water purchase) resh Water rackish Water Planned Project Capacity Total Capacity Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 3.50 3.50 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.20a 6.20a 6.20a 9.70 9.70 9.70 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 I 16.00 1 16.00 1 16.00 we 0.00 16.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 16.00 Reclaimed Water 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 a. The City of Hallandale has an agreement to purchase up to 6.20 MGD of raw water from the Broward County Water and Wastewater Services' South Regional (Brian Piccolo) Wellfield. 228 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects TOWN OF HILLSBORO BEACH County: Broward County Service Area: Town of Hillsboro Beach Description: The water supply for the Town of Hillsboro Beach comes from the SAS and is treated using a lime softening process. The town is currently replacing its existing plant with new lime softening treatment equipment. This utility is a contributing member to the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 1,875 1 1,965 2,055 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 1 351 351 351 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 0.66 0.69 0.72 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00101-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 Existing Fresh Water Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 0.88 0.88 0.88 Brackish Water 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 0.88 0.88 0.88 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 229 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 2.25 2.25 2.25 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 2.25 2.25 2.25 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 229 CITY OF HOLLYWOOD County: Broward County Service Area: Cities of Hollywood and West Park, portions of the City of Dania Beach, Town of Davie, Seminole Tribe Hard Rock Casino, and portions of unincorporated Broward County Description: The majority of the City of Hollywood's water supply comes from the SAS. The city operates three distinct WTPs, utilizing lime softening, membrane, and RO treatment technologies. It is anticipated that the FAS will provide about 25 percent of future demands. The city also purchases bulk water from the Broward County's South Regional Wellfield. The city provides treated water to Broward County for distribution to Pembroke Park, West Park, and the western portions of Dania Beach. The city operates a regional WWTP that is subject to the requirements of the 2008 Ocean Outfall statute. Additionally, the city has proposed a reuse program to recharge the FAS as its primary project to meet the resuse requirements of the Ocean Outfall statute for the South Regional WWTP. More than 23 MGD of reclaimed water projects are expected to be developed by 2025. This city is a contributing member of the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. Current projections indicate that the RO expansion project may not be needed during the twenty-year planning horizon. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected lation Capita (gallons per day finished water) otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) resh Water rackish Water 2010 2020 2030 186,798 I 198,559 210,320 111 111 111 20.73 22.04 23.35 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00038-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 _ 2030 24.80 24.80 24.80 8.68 8.68 8.68 k Water Purchase (from Broward County Water and Wastewater vices' South Regional Wellfield) 3tal Allocation (including bulk water purchase) resh Water rackish Water Planned Project Capacity (Total Capacity 39.38 1 39.38 1 39.38 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 3.00 4.00a I 23.40a " PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source _ Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water _ RO Expansion (one train and Brackish Water 2027 $7.10 0.00 2.00 two Floridan wells) I i_ Total $7.10 0.00 2.00 a. Projection conveyed by city staff regarding anticipated compliance with the 2008 Ocean Outfall statute. 230 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects 55.50 55.50 55.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 59.50 59.50 61.50 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 3.00 4.00a I 23.40a " PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source _ Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water _ RO Expansion (one train and Brackish Water 2027 $7.10 0.00 2.00 two Floridan wells) I i_ Total $7.10 0.00 2.00 a. Projection conveyed by city staff regarding anticipated compliance with the 2008 Ocean Outfall statute. 230 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects CITY OF LAUDERHILL County: Broward County Service Area: City of Lauderhill Description: The water supply for the City of Lauderhill is obtained from the SAS and treated using a lime softening process. The city anticipates construction of FAS wells and an RO plant to meet future demands. Current projections indicate the FAS wells and RO plant may not be needed during the twenty-year planning horizon. The city is a contributing member of the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 _ 2020 2030 'opulation 58,114 60,909 63,704 'er Capita (gallons per day finished water) 95 95 95 'otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 5.52 5.79 6.05 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00129-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 _ 2030 resh Water 7.70 7.70 7.70 Irackish Water 1.02 1.02 1.02 btal Allocation 8.72 8.72 8.72 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 _ 2020 2030 resh Water 16.00 16.00 16.00 Irackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 'lanned Project Capacity 0.00 1.00 3.00 btal Capacity 16.00 17.00 19.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 231 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 _ Potable Water Floridan Well and RO WTP Phase 1 Brackish 2017 $27.50 1.00 1.00 (disposal well and RO WTP) Water Floridan Well and RO WTP Phase 2 Brackish 2018 $5.50 0.00 2.00 (expansion of RO WTP) Water Total $33.00 1.00 3.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 231 CITY OF MARGATI County: Broward County Service Area: City of Margate and a portion of the City of Coconut Creek Description: The water supply for the City of Margate is obtained from the SAS and treated through a lime softening process. The city intends to utilize reclaimed water to irrigate three golf courses and two residential communities. In the future, the city intends to modify its water use permit to account for reclaimed water usage. This city is a contributing member of the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide . POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 Population 58,314 61,118 631923 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 98 98 98 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 5.71 5.99 6.26 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00121-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 _ 2030 Fresh Water 9.30 8.51 8.51 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 Total Allocation 9.30 8.51 8.51 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 resh Water rackish Water 'lanned Project Capacity btal Capacity reclaimed Water 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Source Date ($ Million) 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Water Total 0.00 1.50 1.50 232 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects PROJECT SUMMARY qV Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Nonpotable Water WWTP Effluent Reuse System Reclaimed 2015 $9.50 1.50 1.50 Water Total $9.50 1.50 1.50 232 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects CITY OF MIRAMAR County: Broward County Service Area: City of Miramar Description: The water supply for the City of Miramar is obtained from the SAS and FAS. The city obtained an SAS allocation above its 11.56 -MGD base condition water use by committing its reclaimed water program to provide reuse irrigation water to current water use permit holders in the vicinity of the city's West Wellfield. Once the approximately 65 irrigation class permits are retired, the city can use another 1.78 MGD from the SAS. As a result, the city has a SAS allocation of 13.33 MGD. The city also constructed an RO treatment plant and FAS wells. This city is a contributing member of the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing )ulation Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 2010 2020 116,715 125,225 97 97 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 1 11.32 12.15 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00054-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected 2030 133,734 97 12.97 Projected 11 Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 resh Water 13.89' 11.566 13.33` Irackish Water 2.67 2.67 2.67 btal Allocation 16.00 14.236 16.00c POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 resh Water 1 15.25 15.25 15.25 irackish Water 2.50 2.50 2.50 Manned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 "otal Capacity 17.75 17.75 17.75 IL NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY teclaimed Water 2.00 4.00d 4.O0d a. The 2008 consumptive use permit included a temporary allocation of 2.33 MGD to provide adequate supply while the city developed a FAS wellfield and an RO treatment plant. b. The city's SAS allocation dropped to 11.56 MGD when the temporary allocation expired in 2013. However, the consumptive use permit provided opportunity for the City of Miramar to obtain an additional 1.78 MGD by providing reuse to approximately 65 businesses and getting those users to retire their irrigation class consumptive use permits for the SAS. c. 13.33 MGD assumes the 65 water use permits have been retired and the city has its full allocation. d. As described in the city's water supply work plan in 2008. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 233 CITY OF NORTH LAUDERDALE County: Broward County Service Area: City of North Lauderdale Description: The water supply for the City of North Lauderdale is obtained from the SAS and is treated using a lime softening process. The city's water use permit was modified in 2005 and does not anticipate a substantial increase in demand in the future. This is consistent with the demand projections provided in this plan. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 N 32,994 34,581 1 36,167 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 76 76 76 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 2.51 2.63 2.75 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00004-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 _ _ _ 2030 Existing 7.50 Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 _ 2030 _ Fresh Water 3.64 3.24 3.24 Brackish Water 0.00 7.50 0.00 0.00 Total Allocation 3.64 3.24 3.24 234 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 _ 2020 _ 2030 Fresh Water 7.50 7.50 7.50 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 7.50 7.50 7.50 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 234 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT County: Broward County Service Area: A portion of the City of Coral Springs and the City of Parkland Description: The water supply for the North Springs Improvement District is obtained from the SAS. The utility incorporated the "wedge" land parcel recently annexed from Palm Beach County into their service area. If zoning in the wedge changes from agricultural to residential, the district plans to modify its water use permit to add FAS wells and an RO plant to meet future water demands. Wastewater is currently treated at the Broward County's North Regional WWTP. However, the district is planning to develop a reuse facility by 2020. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 _ 2020 2030 Population 134,895 1 36,573 1381251 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 1 124 124 124 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 4.33 4.54 4.74 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00274-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 _ 2020 2030 Fresh Water 5.18 5.18 5.18 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 Total Allocation 5.18 5.18 tl 5.18 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 235 Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 6.80 6.80 6.80 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 6.80 6.80 6.80 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 4.00 4.00 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Nonpotable Water Water Reuse Plant Reclaimed 2017 information not Water available 4.00 4.00 Total 4.00 4.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 235 PARKLAND UTILITIES, INC. County: Broward County Service Area: City of Parkland Description: Parkland Utilities, Inc. is a private utility that obtains its water supply from the SAS and treats it using a lime softening process. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 opulation 2,161 2,265 2,369 ar Capita (gallons per day finished water) 113 113 113 otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 0.24 0.26 0.27 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00242-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 esh Water 0.35 1 0.35 10.35 rackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 otal Allocation 0.35 0.35 0.35 236 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 sh Water 0.58 0.58 0.58 ickish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 nned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 :al Capacity 0.58 Q58 0.58 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY :laimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 236 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES County: Broward County Service Area: City of Pembroke Pines and Town of Southwest Ranches (five homes) Description: The water supply for the City of Pembroke Pines is obtained from the SAS and treated using a lime softening process. The city has two wellfields: East and Central. The city owns and operates a WWTP and investigated the feasibility of producing reclaimed water for aquifer recharge in the future. At this time, the city indicated it will not proceed with the reuse project. This city is a contributing member of the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 _ 2020 2030 _ Population 152,002 1 159,312 1 166,622 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 78 78 78 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 11.86 12.43 13.00 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00135-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Brac Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 15.60 15.60 15.60 ackish Water 0.00 0. 00 Total Allocation 5 6 50 0--P— 5 60 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 18.00 18.00 18.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 18.00 18.00 18.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 237 CITY OF PLANTATION County: Broward County Service Area: City of Plantation Description: The water supply for the City of Plantation is obtained from the SAS and treated at two treatment facilities that use membrane filtration. Each plant has a 12 -MGD capacity. The city operates a WWTP and treats a portion of the wastewater for irrigation, process water, and equipment washdown at the plant. This city is a contributing member of the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing 2010 91,812 r Capita (gallons per day finished water) 127 table Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 11.66 Projected 2020 2030 97,595 103,377 127 127 12.39 13.13 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00103-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 17.24 17.24 17.24 Brackish Water 0.000.00 0.00 Total Allocation 17.24 4 17.24 17.24 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 resh Water rackish Water 'lanned Project Capacity btal Capacity reclaimed Water 24.00 24.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 0.77 Y 0.77 0.77 238 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects CITY OF POMPANO BEACH County: Broward County Service Area: Cities of Pompano Beach and Lighthouse Point, and the Town of Lauderdale -By -The -Sea Description: The water supply for the City of Pompano Beach is obtained from the SAS from eastern and western wellfields (Airport and Palm Aire, respectively). The eastern wellfield has seasonal pumpage limits due to saltwater intrusion. The city operates one WTP that utilizes lime softening and membrane processes. The city also operates a reclaimed water facility that serves residential neighborhoods, golf courses, parks, and road medians. The expansion of the city's reclaimed water system is ongoing. The city does not have a wastewater treatment facility. The source of water for reuse is the ocean outfall line from Broward County's North Regional Water Reclamation Facility. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing IL 2010 79,917 Projected 2020 2030 83,765 I 87,613 170 162 'otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 13.59 14.24 14.19 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00070-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 resh Water 17.75 17.75 17.75 Irackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 btal Allocation 17.75 17.75 17.75 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 50.00 50.00 50.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 50.00 50.00 50.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 7.50 1 7.50 7.50 Water Supply Projects Source euse Distribution Expansion Reclaimed rogram through Fiscal Year 2025 Water roward County Reuse Reclaimed istribution Water otal PROJECT SUMMARY Total Capital Completion Cost Date ($ Million) Nonpotable Water Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) 2020 2030 underway 1 $5.70 I 1.40a 1 2.20' information not a a underway available 0.10 0.10 $5.70 1.50 2.30 Conservation Proiects Conservation and Irrigation Restrictions Conservation 2025 $0.00 0.10 0.10 Total $0.001 0.101 0.10 a. This project adds to the reclaimed water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the reclaimed water plant. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 239 ROYAL UTILITY CORPORATION County: Broward County Service Area: A portion of the City of Coral Springs Description: The water supply for the Royal Utility Corporation is obtained from the SAS. The utility operates a lime softening WTP with a capacity of 1 MGD. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 opulation 3,234 3,390 3,545 ar Capita (gallons per day finished water) 98 I 98 98 otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 0.32 0.33 0.35 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00003-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 esh Water 0.48 1 0.48 10.48 rackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 otal Allocation 0.48 0.48 0.48 240 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 sh Water 1.00 1.00 1.00 ickish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 nned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 :al Capacity 1.00 7M6 1.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY :laimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 240 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA County: Broward County Service Area: Seminole Tribe of Florida's Hollywood Reservation Description: Water supply for the Seminole Tribe of Florida's Hollywood Reservation is obtained from the SAS. SFWMD does not issue a water use permit to the Seminole Tribe of Florida for this location. Rather, the Water Rights Compact Among the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the State of Florida and the South Florida Water Management District provides information about water supply planning through an annual work plan. The information recently submitted by the Seminole Tribe of Florida is contained in the Fourth Amendment to the Seventeenth Annual Work Plan. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 _ 2020 2030 Population 1,368 1,434 1 1,500 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 810 810 810 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 1.11 1.16 1.21 SFWMD WATER USE RIGHTS (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 2.40 2.40 2.40 0.00+ 0.00 00 2.40 2.40 2.40 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 resh Water Irackish Water btal Allocation resh Water rackish Water 'lanned Project Capacity 'otal Capacity 0 leclaimed Water 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 241 %'ITY OF SUNRISE County: Broward County Service Area: Cities of Sunrise and Weston, Town of Southwest Ranches, a portion of the Town of Davie, and unincorporated Broward County Description: The City of Sunrise obtains its water supply from the SAS and FAS. The city operates four wellfields and three WTPs primarily utilizing lime softening and membrane processes. In 2013, the city added a 1.5 -MGD RO treatment system at its Springtree Plant. The city previously planned to develop 9 MGD of RO treatment capacity and acquired a FAS allocation of 10.98 MGD to accommodate expected demand. Slower growth and successful conservation efforts should allow the city to postpone development of additional capacity from the FAS aquifer beyond 2030. The city is upgrading the treatment system at its Southwest WWTP to provide 1 MGD of reclaimed water capacity and is in the design phase to develop reuse facilities at its Sawgrass WWTP. The city is a contributing member of the Broward Water Partnership conservation program, which has the goal of saving a total of 30 MGD countywide. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected a ation Capita (gallons per day finished water) 2010 2020 211,403 221,570 116 116 otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 24.52 25.70 Fresh Water Brackish Water Total Allocation Fresh Water Brackish Water SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00120-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Potable Water Source Existing 2010 2020 2030 231,736 116 266.8.8 8 Projected 2030 31.39 29.09 29.09 4.76 10.98 10.98 36.15 40.07 40.07 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY FDEP Permitted Capacity Planned Project Capacity (Brackish) I Capacity Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected 2012 2020 2030 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 1.506 1.50 b 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 51.50 51.50 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.80 2.80 4.80 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Nonpotable Water Irrigation Reuse at the Reclaimed 2018 information not 2.00 4.00 Sawgrass WWTP Water available Total $0.00 2.00 4.00 a. The city estimates 10,000 housing units are currently vacant. If these units become occupied at a rate than is higher than medium Bureau of Economic and Business Research growth rates, then demands could increase above projections. b. Project will be online by 2013. 242 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects CITY OF TAMARAC County: Broward County Service Area: City of Tamarac Description: The water supply for the City of Tamarac is obtained from the SAS and treated using a lime softening process. City officials indicated that the city is experiencing a change in demographics that could result in more rapid growth in population and water demand than those anticipated by the analysis presented in this plan. The 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update recommended the city consider the construction of FAS wells and a 2 -MGD RO treatment system to meet future demands. Current projections, however, indicate that the project may not be needed during the twenty-year planning horizon. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 _ 2020 2030 _ pulation 56,064 58,760 61,456 r Capita (gallons per day finished water) 105 105 105 'otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 5.89 6.17 6.45 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00071-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 resh Water 7.19 7.19 7.19 Irackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 btal Allocation 7.19 7.19 7.19 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 16.00 16.00 16.00 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 2.00 Total Capacity 16.00 16.00 18.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water RO WTP Brackish Water 2022 $19.00 Y 0.00 2.00 Total $19.00 0.00 2.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 243 TINDALL HAMMOCK IRRIGATION AND SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT County: Broward County Service Area: Town of Davie Description: The water supply for the Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conservation District (formerly known as Ferncrest Utilities) is obtained from the SAS. The district reuses the wastewater generated by the service area for aquifer recharge. Emo POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 lopulation 2,639 2,766 2,893 ler Capita (gallons per day finished water) 158 158 158 )otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 0.42 0.44 0.46 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (06-00170-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) LM Existing Projected Potable Water Source 1 2010 2020 2030 :resh Water 0.74 0.74 1 0.74 irackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 'otal Allocation 0.74 0.74 0.74 Water Water Planned Project Capacity Total Capacity Reclaimed Water POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ="� 0.60 0.60 0.60 244 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Miami -Dade County AMERICANA VILLAGE County: Miami -Dade County Service Area: Unincorporated areas of Miami -Dade County Description: The water supply for this mobile home community is obtained from the SAS. The demand for this community is not expected to exceed its allocation in future years. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 lopulation 1,582 1,727 1,871 ler Capita (gallons per day finished water) 138 138:L 138 )otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 0.22 0.24 0.26 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (13-02004-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 :resh Water 0.26 1 0.26 0.26 3rackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 -otal Allocation 0.26 0.26 0.26 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 245 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 sh Water 0.50 0.50 0.50 ickish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 nned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 :al Capacity 0.50 0.50 0.50 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY :laimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 245 FLORIDA CITY WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT County: Miami -Dade County Service Area: City of Florida City Description: The water supply for the Florida City Water and Sewer Department is obtained from the SAS and treated using a lime softening process. Florida City has reduced its historically high rate of unaccounted for water losses, but its rate still exceeds SFWMD guidelines. Continued reductions should result in a lower per capita use rate, which should decrease the 2030 demand below 2.07 MGD. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Water Supply Projects Existing Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Projected 2010 2020 JJ 2030 'opulation 11,230 12,256 13,283 lerCapita (gallons per day finished water) 156 156 156 'otable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 1.75 1.91 2.07 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (13-00029-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) 4.00 Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 resh Water 2.44 2.44 2.44 Irackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 btal Allocation 2.44 2.44 2.44 sh Water ickish Water nned Project Capacity :al Capacity imed Water PROJECT SUMMARY POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Nonpotable Water Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Stormwater planned 4.00 4.00 4.00 Indirect Potable Use 0.00 0.00 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY _ 1W 0.00 1.00 1.00 PROJECT SUMMARY 246 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Nonpotable Water Stormwater Reuse Program Stormwater planned $13.50 0.35 0.35 Friedland Manor Storm Water for Stormwater planned $30.30 0.65 0.65 Indirect Potable Use 246 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects CITY OF HOMESTEAD County: Miami -Dade County Service Area: Cities of Homestead and Florida City, and unincorporated areas of Miami -Dade County Description: The water supply for the City of Homestead is obtained from the SAS and treated using a lime softening process. Unmet needs above the existing allocation are purchased from MDWASD, which agreed by contract to provide the city with up to 3 MGD of finished water. The city's allocation is dependent on maintaining an aquifer recharge system using reclaimed water. ation POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 65,679 71,682 1 77,686 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 1 157 157 157 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 10.31 11.25 12.20 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (13-00046-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 _ 2020 _ 2030 _ Fresh Water 10.55 10.55 10.55 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bulk Water Purchase (from MDWASD) 3.00 3.00 3.00 Total Allocation (including bulk water purchase) 13.55 13.55 13.55 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 16.90 16.90 16.90 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 16.90 16.90 16.90 :::::::a NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 6.00 6.00 6.00 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 247 MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT County: Miami -Dade County Service Area: Cities of Aventura, Coral Gables, Doral, Hialeah*, Hialeah Gardens*, Homestead*, Miami, Miami Beach*, Miami Gardens, Miami Springs, North Bay Village*, North Miami*, Opa-Locka*, South Miami, Sweetwater, and West Miami*; towns of Bay Harbor Islands*, Cutler Bay, Key Biscayne, Medley*, Miami Lakes, and Surfside*; villages of Bal Harbour*, EI Portal, Indian Creek*, Miami Shores, Palmetto Bay, Pinecrest, and Virginia Gardens*; and unincorporated areas of Miami -Dade County. Those cities marked by an asterick are wholesale customers of MDWASD. MDWASD handles distribution and billing for the other municipalities. Description: The water supply for MDWASD is obtained from the SAS, the FAS, and operation of ASR wells. MDWASD is the largest water and sewer utility in Florida. It operates three large regional and five small WTPs. Two of the county's three regional WWTPs are subject to the requirements of the 2008 Ocean Outfall statute. The county is required to achieve 117.5 MGD of reuse by 2025. The county has proposed a reuse project to recharge the FAS as a key element of its program to meet the reuse requirements of the Ocean Outfall statute for its combined flow from its regional WWTPs. Current projections indicate that some of the planned RO WTP expansion projects may not be needed during the twenty-year planning horizon. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Existing Projected _ 2010 2020 2030 _ Population 1 2,141,885 1 2,337,660 1 2,533,436 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 1 141 141 141 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 302.01 329.61 357.21 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (13-00017-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) 20.00 Existing :al Capacity Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 388.56 349.50 a 386.50 a Brackish Water 19.95 N 46.66 46.66 Total Allocation 408.51 396.16 410.70 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) a. In 2012, MDWASD's allocation was modified to 349.50 MGD, pending completion of aquifer recharge projects. These reuse offsets are listed as totaling 37 MGD by 2027, supporting an allocation of 386.50 MGD in 2030. If projects are not built, allocation remains at 349.50 MGD. b. Project will be online by 2013. 248 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 sh Water 453.93 447.18 447.18 ickish Water 0.00 10.00 b 10.00 b nned Project Capacity 0.00 20.00 27.50 :al Capacity 453.93 477.18 484.68 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY :laimed Water 16.49 16.49 149.49 a. In 2012, MDWASD's allocation was modified to 349.50 MGD, pending completion of aquifer recharge projects. These reuse offsets are listed as totaling 37 MGD by 2027, supporting an allocation of 386.50 MGD in 2030. If projects are not built, allocation remains at 349.50 MGD. b. Project will be online by 2013. 248 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Water Supply Projects Source North District WWTP Reuse Brackish uth Miami Heights RO WTP a Water [Hialeah and 3 MGD Floridan Aquifer Recharge Fresh Water Floridan Aquifer Brackish RO WTP Phase 2 and 3 Water (including concentrate disposal) Total Distribution (72 -inch pipeline) " Water PROJECT SUMMARY Total Capital Cost Completion Date ($ Million) Potable Water 2015 $194.70 2026 $37.80 $344.80'_ IE Nonpotable Water 2025 $13.50 information not 2025 available 2021 $665.00 2021 1 $593.00 2022 $1,120.00 2021 $95.00 Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) 2020 2030 I 1 11 1 11 0.00 7.50 20.00 27.75 0.00 7.00 0.00 27.10 b 0.00 1 21.00 0.00 1 16.00 0.00 89.00 0.00 90.00 d $2,486.50 0.00 L 250.10 Total Conservation Conservation Program Conservation 2030 $20.00 12.01 15.19 Total $20.00 _I 12.01 15.19 a. The annual operation and maintenance cost (including power, chemicals, parts, materials, labor, administration, and compliance) for operating a 20 -MGD brackish water RO water treatment plant was estimated to be approximately $6,990,000 per year, as estimated from the Water Supply Cost Estimation Study by CDM (2007a) b. The Central District WWTP Reuse - Floridan Aquifer Recharge 27.10 MGD does not increase the actual treatment capacity to the reclaimed water plant and was not included in capacity totals. c. Feasibility of this project will be determined in the future. d. This project adds capacity to the reclaimed water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the reclaimed water plant. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 249 Reclaimed North District WWTP Reuse Water Central District WWTP Reuse - Reclaimed Floridan Aquifer Recharge Water West District Canal Water Reclaimed Reclamation Plant Recharge Water Phase 2 West District Canal Water Reclaimed Reclamation Plant Recharge Water Phase 3 Biscayne Coastal Wetlands Reclaimed Rehydration ` Water South District WWTP - FPL Reclaimed Distribution (72 -inch pipeline) " Water PROJECT SUMMARY Total Capital Cost Completion Date ($ Million) Potable Water 2015 $194.70 2026 $37.80 $344.80'_ IE Nonpotable Water 2025 $13.50 information not 2025 available 2021 $665.00 2021 1 $593.00 2022 $1,120.00 2021 $95.00 Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) 2020 2030 I 1 11 1 11 0.00 7.50 20.00 27.75 0.00 7.00 0.00 27.10 b 0.00 1 21.00 0.00 1 16.00 0.00 89.00 0.00 90.00 d $2,486.50 0.00 L 250.10 Total Conservation Conservation Program Conservation 2030 $20.00 12.01 15.19 Total $20.00 _I 12.01 15.19 a. The annual operation and maintenance cost (including power, chemicals, parts, materials, labor, administration, and compliance) for operating a 20 -MGD brackish water RO water treatment plant was estimated to be approximately $6,990,000 per year, as estimated from the Water Supply Cost Estimation Study by CDM (2007a) b. The Central District WWTP Reuse - Floridan Aquifer Recharge 27.10 MGD does not increase the actual treatment capacity to the reclaimed water plant and was not included in capacity totals. c. Feasibility of this project will be determined in the future. d. This project adds capacity to the reclaimed water distribution system, but does not increase the actual treatment capacity of the reclaimed water plant. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 249 CITY OF NORTH MIAM County: Miami -Dade County Service Area: City of North Miami, Village of Biscayne Park, and unincorporated areas of Miami - Dade County Description: The water supply for the City of North Miami is obtained from the Biscayne aquifer, treated using a lime softening process, and augmented with the purchase of bulk water from MDWASD. The City of North Miami has a twenty-year contract to purchase water from MDWASD. Future demands are expected to be met by development of water supply from the FAS by 2018. However, the city deferred the project. Without the RO plant, the city will need to continue purchases from MDWASD to meet 2020 and 2030 demands. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected EML 2010 2020 2030 _ pulation 90,397 t98,660 106,922 r Capita (gallons per day finished water) 117 117 117 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 10.58 11.54 12.51 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (13-00059-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 9.30 9.30 9.30 Brackish Water l 7.97 7.97 a 7.97 a Bulk Water Purchase (from MDWASD) 3.20 3.00 4.00 Total Allocation (including bulk water purchase) 20.47 20.27 21.27 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 9.30 9.30 9.30 Brackish Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 9.30 9.30 9.30 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 a. The city has a FAS allocation but has placed construction of the RO WTP to treat the brackish water on indefinite hold. 250 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects ITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH County: Miami -Dade County Service Area: Cities of North Miami Beach, Aventura, Miami Gardens, North Miami, and Sunny Isles Beach; Town of Golden Beach; and unincorporated areas of Miami -Dade County Description: The water supply for the City of North Miami Beach is obtained from the SAS and FAS, and treated using a lime softening process and RO, respectively. Current projections indicate that the RO WTP expansion projects may not be needed during the twenty-year planning horizon. Water Supply Projects Source C Floridan Wells, Lines, Mains, and RO Brackish WTP Phases 2 and 3 1 Water Floridan Wells, Lines, Mains, and RO Brackish WTP Phase 4 Water Total PROJECT SUMMARY Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Completion ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water planned 1 $8.21 1 12.50 12.50 planned I $37.50 I 0.00 I 5.00 $45.71 12.50 17.50 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 251 POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing Projected 2010 2020 2030 Population 1 161,968 1 176,772 191,577 Per Capita (gallons per day finished water) 1 125 129 129 Potable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 20.25 22.80 24.72 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (13-00060-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) Existing Projected Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 Fresh Water 26.31 26.31 26.31 Brackish Water 12.07 12.07 12.07 Total Allocation 38.38 38.38 38.38 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 25.50 25.50 25.50 Brackish Water 6.50 6.50 6.50 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 12.50 17.50 Total Capacity 32.00 44.50 49.50 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 Water Supply Projects Source C Floridan Wells, Lines, Mains, and RO Brackish WTP Phases 2 and 3 1 Water Floridan Wells, Lines, Mains, and RO Brackish WTP Phase 4 Water Total PROJECT SUMMARY Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Completion ($ Million) 2020 2030 Potable Water planned 1 $8.21 1 12.50 12.50 planned I $37.50 I 0.00 I 5.00 $45.71 12.50 17.50 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 251 Monroe County FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY County: Monroe County Service Area: Cities of Key Colony Beach, Key West, Layton, and Marathon; Village of Islamorada; and unincorporated areas of Monroe County. The FKAA also has a contract to provide up to 2.4 MGD to the United States Navy. Description: The water supply for FKAA comes from the SAS and the FAS, and is treated using a lime softening process and RO, respectively. FKAA also has two desalination plants that can produce up to 3.0 MGD of finished water from seawater. These plants are used for emergencies and extreme peaks in demand. The FKAA profile recognizes the seasonal population in Monroe County now exceeds the permanent population on an annual basis. Current forecasts project a continued decline in permanent population and an increase in seasonal population (according to analyses developed by Monroe County). Data from Monroe County and FKAA indicates that the growing seasonal population appears to be driving per capita use rates upward. POPULATION AND FINISHED WATER DEMAND Existing 2010 ation (permanent) ation (seasonal) Capita (gallons per day finished water) rtable Water Demands (daily average annual finished water in MGD) 73,090 78,401 109 16.45 SFWMD WATER USE PERMITTED (13-00005-W) ALLOCATION (MGD) 252 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects Projected 2020 2030 71,195 69,300 82,151 86,855 124 139 19.00 21.70 Existing Projected _ Potable Water Source 2010 2020 2030 _ Fresh Water 17.79 a 17.79 a 17.79 a Brackish Water 9.70 9.70 9.70 Total Allocation 23.97 23.97 23.97 POTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Cumulative Facility & Project Capacity (MGD) Existing Projected FDEP Permitted Capacity 2012 2020 2030 Fresh Water 23.80 23.80 23.80 Brackish Water 6.00 6.00 6.00 Planned Project Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Capacity 29.80 29.80 29.80 NONPOTABLE WATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Reclaimed Water 0.62 1.62 2.72 a. Dry season restriction reduces allocation to 17.00 MGD from December 1 to April 30 of each year to ensure consistency with the Everglades Minimum Flow and Level criteria. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 253 PROJECT SUMMARY Completion Total Capital Cost Projected Cumulative Design Capacity (MGD) Water Supply Projects Source Date ($ Million) 2020 2030 Nonpotable Water Reclaimed Water Systems in Reclaimed 2015 $12.00 1.00 2.10 Unincorporated Monroe County Water Total $12.00 1.00 2.10 Conservation Low Flow Fixture Distribution Conservation underway 1 $0.25 0.10 0.15 Total $0.25 0.10 0.15 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 253 254 1 Chapter 6: Water Supply Development Projects 7 Future Direction This chapter summarizes the future direction for water supply in the Lower East Coast (LEC) Planning Area. Public Water Supply (PWS) demands projected to increase in the 2005- 2006 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update (2005-2006 LEC Plan Update) (SFWMD 2007) did not materialize. PWS demand actually decreased over the past five years. The reasons for the decrease are likely due to the economic downturn, water shortage restrictions during droughts, conservation efforts by the utilities, and the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD's) and local governments' year-round landscape irrigation conservation measures. Herbert Hoover Dike ♦ Water Sources ♦ Environmental Restoration ♦ Future Analysis Coordination ♦ Climate Change ♦ Conclusion Analyses conducted during this plan indicate that almost all PWS utilities have sufficient treatment capacity and permit allocation to meet projected 2030 demands. Rehabilitation of the Herbert Hoover Dike by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is important for protection of the citizens living the vicinity of the lake. Additionally, completion of this project in part or wholly may enable revision of the lake operating schedule. Meeting the 1 -in -10 level of service for all water users in the LEC Planning Area is not possible within the next five years due to the interrelationship of the federal projects outlined in the plan. Future LEC water supply plans will address the progress of these water resource development projects based on project sequencing, project funding, and implementation partnerships as applicable. Until this occurs, this plan update continues to rely upon the existing programs and regulations, along with the identified potable water 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 255 supply development projects, and their correlation with water supply demands and available sources. This plan update also concludes that future water needs of the region can be met through the 2030 planning horizon with appropriate management, conservation, and implementation of projects identified in this plan. SFWMD anticipates any additional water from Lake Okeechobee resulting from revision of the lake operating schedule could return the lake to minimum flow and level (MFL) prevention status, enhance the level of certainty to existing permitted users, and support other environmental objectives. Meeting the future water needs is dependent on the following: ♦ Construction of two potable water supply development projects by PWS utilities. ♦ Utilization of the flexibility within the 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (2008 LORS) as incremental dam safety improvements are completed; and in the longer term, completion of the seepage berm construction or equivalent repairs to the Herbert Hoover Dike for Reaches 1, 2 and 3 by USACE and implementation of a new Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule. ♦ Implementation of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and other projects identified in MFL prevention and recovery strategies. The guidance offered in this plan update should be considered in developing water supply options to meet future needs. Statutory requirements, existing conditions, resource constraints (including protection tools and criteria), and the needs of all water users are addressed, with emphasis placed on alternative water supply development, conservation, and projects for environmental needs. SFWMD's future direction for water supply planning in the LEC Planning Area requires continued coordination with utilities and other water users, natural resource protection, and continued monitoring to develop responses to saltwater intrusion and the potential of sea level rise. WATER SOURCES Groundwater remains the primary source of PWS drinking water throughout the LEC Planning Area. Withdrawals from the surficial aquifer system (SAS) are limited due to potential impacts on wetlands, MFL criteria, the potential for saltwater intrusion, pollution, interference with existing legal users, and off-site land uses. In addition, the Floridan aquifer system (FAS) is a source planned to augment some of the future PWS water demands in the LEC Planning Area. PWS utilities have proactively diversified supply sources, including use of the FAS. The use of reclaimed water has also increased significantly since the 2005-2006 LEC Plan Update, partially offsetting the use of fresh groundwater. Primary surface water sources in the LEC Planning Area include Lake Okeechobee, the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs), and regional canals, such as the L-8, Hillsboro, North New River, and Miami canals. Agricultural (AGR) Self -Supply is the largest surface water user in the planning area. Based on current and projected water demands, this traditional 256 1 Chapter 7: Water Supply Development Projects source will continue to be available to meet irrigation requirements. However, regulatory criteria limits withdrawals. Fresh groundwater in the Lower East Coast Service Area may be available, but quantities will depend on local conditions, including other uses in the area. Reclaimed water can be used to meet new uses or replace traditional freshwater sources currently used for irrigation, industrial purposes, or offsetting of regional water deliveries through canal recharge or other potable reuse options. Water storage features, such as reservoirs, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) and impoundments, can be used to capture storm water, groundwater and surface water during wet weather periods, and provide supplemental supply for PWS and natural systems. Seawater is a potential alternative water supply. The technology costs for this source continue to decline, making it a more feasible option. Water conservation is an important component in integrated water resource management. Water conservation projects are often easier to implement than supply projects due to lower costs, extending the life of existing supplies, and acceptance by the public. SFWMD offers recommendations and guidance in the following sections for consideration by local governments, utilities, other water users, and SFWMD water supply managers and staff as a basis for the future direction of water supply planning in the LEC Planning Area. Groundwater Additional allocation of fresh groundwater sources to meet future PWS demand in the LEC Planning Area is highly dependent on location, source limitations, reclaimed water availability, and water conservation measures. Approximately 94 percent of the PWS demand in 2010 was met using fresh groundwater. Fresh groundwater is also one of the primary sources of supply for agricultural and urban irrigation in the LEC Service Area. Surficial Aquifer System The potential use of the SAS for new or increased allocations will be evaluated on an application -by -application basis to determine if the project meets water use permitting criteria. When appropriate, water users are encouraged to continue diversifying water sources to meet future water demands. To sustain existing permitted uses and to identify the potential for limited development of fresh groundwater sources through the following: ♦ Careful design of wellfield locations, configurations, and pumping regimes to maximize withdrawals while avoiding saltwater intrusion, pollution sources, harm to natural systems or increased dependence on the regional system as demonstrated through modeling that meets water use permitting criteria. ♦ Expansion of reclaimed water systems to provide "substitution credits" and/or impact offsets after demonstration of water demand. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 257 Continued coordination of saltwater intrusion monitoring between SFWMD, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the counties is essential to ensure resource protection of the SAS. Maps delineating the extent of the saltwater interface should be published periodically to allow comparison with previous maps and identify areas of concern and/or future supply development. Utilities at risk and utilities of concern should continue to reduce the uncertainties and potential impacts from saltwater intrusion by implementing options such as interconnections, alternative water supply development, and wellfield configuration. Floridan Aquifer System Some utilities are proposing modest increases in FAS water source development in conjunction with reverse osmosis treatment facilities over the next 20 years in addition to the 86 million gallons per day (MGD) of existing capacity. Recommendation for the FAS include the following: Local water users and utilities developing FAS well drilling programs are encouraged to collaborate with SFWMD. Water quality, water level, and hydrologic data from these wells can increase the understanding of the FAS and be utilized in SFWMD models. IT T {' Floridan aquifer monitor well Brackish water from the FAS may be blended with fresh groundwater and surface water to produce acceptable quality water for PWS. Blended water supplies are dependent on water sources, volume of stored water, and natural system requirements, and require monitoring to ensure acceptable finished water quality. An incremental wellfield assessment and development approach should be used by utilities to design, test, and monitor production wells to minimize changes in water quality due to heterogeneities within the FAS and overstressing production zones. SFWMD anticipates finalizing the East Coast Floridan Model by the end of 2013. Once completed, the model will be available for simulations to address regional resource questions. 258 1 Chapter 7: Water Supply Development Projects Surface Water Surface water sources, including Lake Okeechobee, are integrally connected as part of the Kissimmee -Okeechobee -Everglades ecosystem and regional water supply system. Recommendations and opportunities regarding surface water include the following: USACE should complete seepage berm construction or equivalent repairs to the Herbert Hoover Dike for Reaches 1, 2, and 3 no later than 2022 and revise the Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule, as recognized in the Final Environmental Impact Statement including Appendices A through G - Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (USACE 2007) and the Draft Integrated Project Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement - Central Everglades Planning Project (USACE and SFWMD 2013). SFWMD will continue to implement MFL recovery and prevention strategies and review and update these, when appropriate, in conjunction with future plan updates. Within the LEC Planning Area, MFL criteria have been adopted for Lake Okeechobee, six areas within the Everglades (WCA 1, WCA 2, WCA 3, Everglades National Park, and Rotenberger and Holey Land wildlife management areas), the Biscayne aquifer, the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River and Estuary, and Florida Bay. Local governments and utilities are encouraged to create additional storage capacity for excess surface water for water supply purposes, when feasible. c Consideration must be given to the availability of the lowest quality source of water to meet any particular demand. Blending multiple alternative water sources to achieve acceptable water quality is a prudent approach to water supply. Reclaimed Water In the LEC Planning Area, reclaimed water is used for landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge, cooling water, and environmental enhancement. Opportunities to expand reclaimed water use are as follows: 4 Local governments should consider requiring construction of reclaimed water infrastructure in new developments and establishing mandatory reuse zones. SFWMD will provide technical assistance to local governments to establish mandatory reuse zones. Support the development of additional reclaimed water lines for green space irrigation, such as residential lots, medians, common areas, and golf courses. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 259 As part of the Leah Schad Memorial Ocean Outfall Program, six PWS utilities are required to comply with the statutory requirements. SFWMD encourages the development of creative solutions to beneficially reuse reclaimed water such as saltwater intrusion barriers, recharge of the SAS, canal recharge, environm offsets and substitution cr( ental water supply, edits. Ocean outfall potable reuse, and for impact ♦ To promote efficient use, utilities should consider, where appropriate, strategies to support the expansion of reclaimed water supply, such as metering for residential customers, tiered rate structures, limiting days of the week for landscape irrigation, and facilitating interconnects with other reclaimed water utilities. ♦ Providers may consider the use of supplemental water supplies to meet peak reclaimed system demands. Supplemental water may enable a utility to extend its supply of reclaimed water system over a larger area. However, during times of drought, availability of supplemental water sources, such as surface water, groundwater or storm water, to supplement reclaimed water supplies may be limited in some areas. ♦ The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) completed rulemaking on Chapter 62-40, Florida Administrative Code, to incorporate amendments to Section 373.250, Florida Statues (F.S.), which recognized the use of "substitution credits" and "impact offsets" to promote increased availability and distribution of reclaimed water. Where appropriate, SFWMD is amending its criteria to reflect statutory and FDEP amendments. 260 1 Chapter 7: Water Supply Development Projects New Storage Capacity for Surface Water or Groundwater In the LEC Planning Area, potential types of water storage include reservoirs, ASR wells, and surface water impoundments. Proposed projects that develop new storage and create additional water supply may be considered alternative water sources. Opportunities for new storage capacity include the following: Construction of new or retrofitted surface water storage systems for agricultural operations could provide additional supply for irrigation. 4 Utilities and other entities should continue to evaluate the feasibility of the C-51 Reservoir Project, including a variety of potential implementation and funding options. SFWMD will continue to explore a potential Seawater operational role associated with this feature. If permitted and constructed, the reservoir could be available to LEC Planning Area utilities as a water supply option. Utilities should continue use of ASR and other storage options to capture wet weather flows when available and use at a later time. ASR extends water supplies for use during peak demand periods. Hillsboro ASR Pilot Project SFWMD and USACE should continue studies to address local and regional implementation of ASR associated with CERP and related issues, such as arsenic mobilization. The ocean is an essentially unlimited source of water. The desalination process is required before use of seawater for water supply purposes. Where appropriate, utilities should consider the feasibility of desalinated seawater from the Atlantic Ocean as an additional water source option for the LEC Planning Area. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 261 Water Conservation The decline in per capita water consumption rate shows in part the importance of conservation programs since the last plan update. The implementation of robust water conservation programs throughout the LEC Planning Area offers the potential to reduce future water demand. All water suppliers are urged to implement water conservation measures to reduce water supply demands and defer the construction of capital -intensive projects. Recommendations for water conservation include the following: SFWMD should continue to implement the 2008 Comprehensive Water Conservation Program and support programs, such as the Water Savings Incentive Program (WaterSIP), Water Conservation Hotel and Motel Program (Water CHAMP), and Florida Water Star. 41 PWS utilities are encouraged to develop goal -based conservation plans to implement water conservation measures with numerical goals for achievable water savings. 4 Local governments should develop or enhance existing ordinances to be consistent with Florida -Friendly Landscaping provisions (Section 373.185, F.S.). Water users should implement advanced irrigation technology, improved landscape design and management practices, and participate in recognition programs to further increase landscape water use efficiency. Water conservation public education programs help instill a year-round conservation ethic. Local governments and utilities are encouraged to continue providing water conservation -related educational programs in cooperation with SFWMD. 4 Local governments are encouraged to implement two -day -per -week landscape irrigation ordinances, as successfully adopted in Broward and Miami - Dade counties. 4 Local municipalities are encouraged to partner with adjoining municipalities to leverage resources in public outreach and education, such as the Broward Water Partnership. 41 Installation of higher efficiency irrigation systems by agricultural water users is encouraged where applicable and appropriate for specific crop types. 262 1 Chapter 7: Water Supply Development Projects ♦ Industrial, commercial, and institutional entities are encouraged to utilize the Draft Water Efficiency and Self -Conducted Water Audits at Commercial and Institutional Facilities, A Guide for Facility Managers (SFWMD 2013b) to improve water use efficiency and reduce operating costs. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Water resources, including natural systems, their needs, and regulatory criteria, are discussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix B and are a limitation on water available for allocation. These water supply needs are addressed by water resource development projects such as CERP as detailed in Chapter 4. CERP is an ongoing joint effort between USACE and SFWMD that was approved in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This plan includes region -specific projects to improve the quality, timing, volume, distribution, and delivery of water to the natural system. CERP and related projects will provide improved water quality, timing, and distribution of flows for the enhancement of the Everglades ecosystem and benefit other water related needs. Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan In 2012, the State of Florida and the United States Environmental Protection Agency reached consensus on a new strategy for improving water quality in the Everglades. This strategy will expand water quality improvement projects to achieve the ultra-low phosphorus water quality standard established for the Everglades. SFWMD is implementing a technical plan to complete six projects that will create more than 6,500 acres of new stormwater treatment areas and 110,000 acre-feet of additional water storage. A robust science plan will ensure continued research and monitoring to improve and optimize the performance of water quality treatment technologies. Design and construction of the projects will be completed in three phases over a twelve-year time frame, with completion set for 2025. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 263 FUTURE ANALYSIS A wide range of activities outside of the LEC Planning Area water supply planning process can affect future water supply within the planning area. These include the finalization of the configuration of Central Everglades Planning Project components; changes by USACE to regulation schedules for the Everglades, Lake Okeechobee, and other water bodies of the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project); and local or subregional water supply or stormwater projects. In addition, new or modified analytical tools, such as the East Coast Floridan Aquifer Groundwater Model, are expected to become available for regional -scale water resource planning. SFWMD, in coordination with stakeholders, should determine whether available tools could be applied to better understand specific water supply issues in the LEC Planning Area. COORDINATION Coordination and collaboration throughout the water supply planning process is essential among regional and local governments and utilities. Coordination guidance includes the following: ♦ Local entities are encouraged to work together to develop consistent PWS demand projection methodologies. ♦ An emerging trend within the past five years has been the development of multi - jurisdictional partnerships to implement a program or project to benefit a greater number of people than one entity might benefit by itself. Examples of these partnerships include the Broward Water Conservation Partnership and the C-51 Reservoir Project utility participants. ♦ Water supply facilities work plans are due within 18 months of the adoption of this plan update. Local governments and utilities must provide linkage to and coordination with this plan update and the local government water supply -related components of comprehensive plans. ♦ Agricultural stakeholders and agencies need to work together to develop methodologies and data sources for future crop projections. ♦ In 2013, Chapter 373.709, F.S. was amended to provide that for future water supply plans, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services provide data indicative of future AGR Self -Supply water demands. Any adjustments of or deviation from the data provided by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services must be described and presented with the original data. 264 1 Chapter 7: Water Supply Development Projects CLIMATE CHANGE Long-term data show increasing worldwide temperatures and a corresponding sea level rise. For planning purposes, SFWMD is estimating a sea level rise of 5 to 20 inches in South Florida by 2060 (SFWMD 2009b). The anticipated rise in sea level may change the hydrodynamics of the coastal estuaries, change the location and shape of the freshwater - seawater interface, and increase the intrusion of salt water into coastal aquifers. Analysis is needed to identify the potential impact of sea level rise on utility wellfields and other users at risk of saltwater intrusion within SFWMD. In addition, comprehensive monitoring is needed to accurately characterize and measure aquifer conditions and saltwater movement. The following direction and guidance is provided for climate change and sea level rise: 6 Saltwater intrusion monitoring networks should be periodically reviewed for adequacy by utilities, counties, USGS, and SFWMD. Recommendations may be needed for additional or revised monitoring regimes. ♦ SFWMD, USACE, and potentially affected utilities and municipalities should evaluate the consequences of sea level rise, changing rainfall and storm patterns, temperature effects, and cumulative impacts to existing structures and existing legal users. ♦ SFWMD should update climate data used in the models more frequently than every five years, which is the norm. ♦ Local governments and water providers are encouraged to participate in the Southeast Florida SOUTHEAST FLORIDA Regional Climate Change Compact to h, kA .41 support regional planning efforts and CLIMATE initiatives to adapt to rising sea level l�ri.�; in the LEC Planning Area. More information can be found at Southeast Florida Regional Climate southeastfloridaclimatecompact. orZ/. Change logo ♦ Analyze the sea level rise and saltwater intrusion data to identify the utility wellfields and other users at potential risk of saltwater intrusion within the LEC Planning Area. If problematic areas are identified, SFWMD should work collaboratively with county and utility staff in these areas to identify existing numerical models and modify/update them as necessary. SFWMD should also reformulate its analysis of utilities at risk and utilities of concern prior to the next update of this plan. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 265 CONCLUSION This update concludes that the future water demands of the LEC Planning Area can continue to be met through the 2030 planning horizon with appropriate management, conservation, and implementation of projects identified in this plan. Future challenges in water resource development and natural resource protection require concerted efforts to monitor, characterize current hydrologic conditions, and project future conditions. Successful implementation of this plan update requires close coordination with other regional and local governments, utilities, and water users. Collaboration among stakeholders is also essential for directing implementation of the preceding guidance. Public and private partnering can ensure that water resources in the LEC Planning Area are prudently managed and available to meet future demands. Miami Skyline from Biscayne Bay 266 1 Chapter 7: Water Supply Development Projects ZL= 1 -in -10 year drought A drought of such intensity that it is expected to have a return frequency of once in 10 years. A drought in which below normal rainfall occurs and has a 90 percent probability of being exceeded over a twelve-month period. A drought event that results in an increase in water demand to a magnitude that would have a 10 percent probability of being exceeded during any given year. Acre-foot, acre-feet (ac -ft) The volume of water that covers 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. The equivalent of 43,560 cubic feet, 1,233.5 cubic meters, or 325,872 gallons, which is approximately the amount of water it takes to serve two typical families for one year. Agricultural best management practice (BMP) A practice or combination of agricultural practices, based on research, field testing, and expert review, determined to be the most effective and practicable means of improving water quality or quantity while maintaining or even enhancing agricultural production. Agricultural Field Scale Irrigation Requirements Simulation (AFSIRS) A simple water budget model for estimating irrigation demands that estimates demand based on basin -specific data. The AFSIRS model calculates both net and gross irrigation requirements for average and 1 -in -10 year drought irrigation requirements. A crop's net irrigation requirement is the amount of water delivered to the root zone of the crop, while the gross irrigation requirement includes both the net irrigation requirement and the losses incurred in the process of delivering irrigation to the crop's root zone. Agricultural (AGR) Self -Supply The water used to irrigate crops, water livestock, and for aquaculture (e.g., fish production) that is not supplied by a Public Water Supply utility. Alternative water supply "Salt water; brackish surface water and groundwater; surface water captured predominately during wet -weather flows; sources made available through the addition of new storage capacity for surface water or groundwater, water that has been reclaimed after one or more public supply, municipal, industrial, commercial, or agricultural uses; the downstream augmentation of water bodies with reclaimed water; storm water; and, any other water supply source that is designated as nontraditional for a water supply planning region in the applicable regional water supply plan" (Section 373.019, Florida Statutes). Aquatic preserve Water body set aside by the state to be maintained in essentially natural or existing condition for protection of fish and wildlife and public recreation so the aesthetic, biological, and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations. Aquifer A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated, permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 267 Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) The underground storage of storm water, surface water, fresh groundwater or reclaimed water, which is appropriately treated to potable standards and injected into an aquifer through wells during wet periods. The aquifer (typically the Floridan aquifer system in South Florida) acts as an underground reservoir for the injected water, reducing water loss to evaporation. The water is stored with the intent to recover it for use during future dry periods. Aquifer system A heterogeneous body of (interbedded or intercalated) permeable and less permeable material that functions regionally as a water yielding hydraulic unit and may be composed of more than one aquifer separated at least locally by confining units that impede groundwater movement, but do not greatly affect the hydraulic continuity of the system. Artesian A commonly used expression, generally synonymous with "confined," referring to subsurface (ground) bodies of water, which, due to underground drainage from higher elevations and confining layers of soil material above and below the water body (referred to as an Artesian aquifer), result in groundwater at pressures greater than atmospheric pressures. Available supply The maximum amount of reliable water supply including surface water, groundwater, and purchases under secure contracts. Base flow Sustained flow of a stream in the absence of direct runoff. It includes natural and human - induced stream flows. Natural base flow is sustained largely by groundwater discharges. Baseline condition A specified period of time during which collected data are used for comparison with subsequent data. Basin (groundwater) A hydrologic unit containing one large aquifer or several connecting and interconnecting aquifers. Basin (surface water) A tract of land drained by a surface water body or its tributaries. Basis of Review Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD 2012b). Read in conjunction with Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-20, Florida Administrative Code, the Basis of Review further specifies the general procedures and information used by SFWMD staff for review of water use permit applications with the primary goal of meeting SFWMD water resource objectives. Below land surface Depth below land surface regardless of land surface elevation. Benthos/benthic Macroscopic organisms that live on or in the bottom substrate, such as clams and worms (contrast to plankton and nekton). Biota The plant and animal life of a region or ecosystem, as in a stream or other body of water. 268 1 Glossary Biscayne aquifer A portion of the surficial aquifer system, which provides most of the fresh water for Public Water Supply and agriculture within Miami -Dade, Broward, and southeastern Palm Beach counties. It is highly susceptible to contamination due to its high permeability and proximity to the land surface in many locations. Boulder Zone A highly transmissive, cavernous zone of limestone within the Lower Floridan aquifer used to dispose of secondary -treated effluent from wastewater treatment plants and concentrate from membrane water treatment plants via deep injection wells. Brackish water Water with a chloride level greater than 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and less than 19,000 mg/L (Basis of Review, SFWMD 2012b). Capacity Capacity represents the ability to treat, move, or reuse water. Typically, capacity is expressed in millions of gallons per day (MGD). Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project) A complete system of canals, storage areas, and water control structures spanning the area from Lake Okeechobee to the east and west coasts and from Orlando south to the Everglades. It was designed and constructed during the 1950s by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to provide flood control and improve navigation and recreation. Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) CEPP is a planning process for key restoration projects in the Everglades. Now under way, CEPP combines a series of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) components into one project implementation report. Through this effort, projects will be identified and planned on land already in public ownership to allow more water to be directed south to the central Everglades, Everglades National Park, and Florida Bay while protecting coastal estuaries. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) The federal -state partnership framework and guide for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the South Florida ecosystem. CERP also provides for water -related needs of the region, such as water supply and flood protection. Confined aquifer (1) Water -bearing stratum of permeable rock, sand, or gravel overlaid by a thick, impermeable stratum. An aquifer that contains groundwater that is confined under pressure and bounded between significantly less permeable materials such that water will rise in a fully penetrating well above the top of the aquifer. In cases where the hydraulic head is greater than the elevation of the overlying land surface, a fully penetrating well will naturally flow at the land surface without means of pumping or lifting. (2) Also known as artesian or pressure aquifer, the confined aquifer exists where the groundwater system is between layers of clay, dense rock, or other materials with very low permeability. Water is under more pressure in a confined aquifer than in an unconfined aquifer. Thus, when tapped by a well, water is forced up, sometimes above the soil surface. This is how a flowing artesian well is formed. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 269 Confining unit A body of significantly less permeable material than the aquifer, or aquifers, that it stratigraphically separates. The hydraulic conductivity may range from nearly zero to some value significantly lower than that of the adjoining aquifers, and impedes the vertical movement of water. Consumptive use Any use of water that reduces the supply from which it is withdrawn or diverted. Control structure An artificial structure designed to regulate the level/flow of water in a canal or other water body (e.g., weirs, dams). Cubic feet per second (cfs) A rate of flow (e.g., in streams and rivers) equal to a volume of water 1 foot high and 1 foot wide flowing a distance of 1 foot in 1 second. One cfs is equal to 7.48 gallons of water flowing each second. For example, if a car's gas tank was 2 feet by 1 foot by 1 foot (2 cubic feet), then gas flowing at a rate of 1 cfs would fill the tank in two seconds. DBHYDRO The South Florida Water Management District's corporate environmental database, storing hydrological, meteorological, hydrogeological, and water quality data. Demand The quantity of water needed to fulfill a requirement. Demand management Also known as water conservation, demand management involves reducing the demand for water through activities that alter water use practices, improve efficiency in water use, reduce losses of water, reduce waste of water, alter land management practices, and/or alter land uses. Desalination A process that treats saltwater water to remove or reduce chlorides and dissolved solids, resulting in the production of fresh water. Discharge The rate of water movement past a reference point, measured as volume per unit of time (usually expressed as cubic feet per second or meters per second). Disinfection The process of inactivating microorganisms that cause disease. All potable water requires disinfection as part of the treatment process prior to distribution. Disinfection methods include chlorination, ultraviolet radiation, and ozonation. Disposal Effluent disposal involves the wasteful practice of releasing treated effluent back to the environment using ocean outfalls, surface water discharges, or deep injection wells. Dissolved oxygen The concentration of oxygen dissolved in water, sometimes expressed as percent saturation, where saturation is the maximum amount of oxygen that theoretically can be dissolved in water at a given altitude and temperature. Domestic Self -Supply (DSS) The water used by households whose primary source of water is water treatment facilities and/or private wells with pumpages of less than 100,000 gallons per day. 270 1 Glossary Drainage basin Land area where precipitation runs off into streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. It is a land feature that can be identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations between two areas on a map, often a ridge. The drainage basin is a part of the earth's surface that is occupied by a drainage system, which consists of a surface stream with all its tributaries and impounded bodies of water. It is also known as a watershed, a catchment area, or a drainage area. Drawdown (1) The vertical distance between the static water level and the surface of the cone of depression. (2) A lowering of the groundwater surface caused by pumping. Drought A long period of abnormally low rainfall, especially one that adversely affects growing or living conditions. Ecology The study of the inter -relationships of plants and animals to one another and to their physical and biological environment. Ecosystem Biological communities together with their environment, functioning as a unit. Ecosystem restoration The process of reestablishing to as near its natural condition as possible, the structure, function, and composition of an ecosystem. Effective rainfall The portion of rainfall that infiltrates the soil and is stored for plant use in the crop root zone. Effluent Treated water that is not reused after flowing out of any plant or other works used for treating, stabilizing, or holding wastes. Effluent is "disposed" of. Electrodialysis Dialysis that is conducted with the aid of an electromotive force applied to electrodes adjacent to both sides of the membrane. Elevation The height in feet above mean sea level according to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. May also be expressed in feet above mean sea level as reference datum. Environmental impact statement Required under United States environmental law by the National Environmental Policy Act for federal government agency actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." It evaluates the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed agency action. Estuary The part of the wide lower course of a river where the current is met by ocean tides or an arm of the sea at the lower end of a river where fresh water and salt water meet. Evapotranspiration (ET) The total loss of water to the atmosphere by evaporation from land and water surfaces and by transpiration from plants. Exceedance The violation of the pollutant levels permitted by environmental protection standards. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 271 Existing legal use of water A water use authorized under a SFWMD water use permit or existing and exempt from permit requirements. Fallow Land left unneeded during a growing season. The act of plowing land and leaving it unneeded. The condition or period of being unneeded. Finished water Water that completed a purification or treatment process; water that passed through all the processes in a water treatment plant and is ready to be delivered to consumers. Finished water demand (see Net water demand) Fiscal Year (FY) SFWMD's fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 the following year. Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) The Florida Administrative Code is the official compilation of the administrative rules and regulations of state agencies. Florida -Friendly Landscaping Quality landscapes that conserve water, protect the environment, are adaptable to local conditions, and are drought tolerant. The principles of such landscaping include planting the right plant in the right place, efficient watering, appropriate fertilization, mulching, attraction of wildlife, responsible management of yard pests, recycling yard waste, reduction of stormwater runoff, and waterfront protection. Additional components include practices such as landscape planning and design, soil analysis, the appropriate use of solid waste compost, minimizing the use of irrigation, and proper maintenance. Florida Statutes (F.S.) The Florida Statutes are a permanent collection of state laws organized by subject area into a code made up of titles, chapters, parts, and sections. The Florida Statutes are updated annually by laws that create, amend, or repeal statutory material. Floridan aquifer system (FAS) A highly used aquifer system composed of the upper Floridan and lower Floridan aquifers. It is the principal source of water supply north of Lake Okeechobee. The upper Floridan aquifer is used for drinking water supply in parts of Martin and St. Lucie counties. From Jupiter to southern Miami, water from the FAS is mineralized (total dissolved solids are greater than 1,000 milligrams per liter) along coastal areas. Flow The actual amount of water flowing by a particular point over some specified time. In the context of water supply, flow represents the amount of water being treated, moved, or reused. Flow is frequently expressed in millions of gallons per day. Flow equalization basin (FEB) A constructed storage feature used to capture and store peak stormwater flows. They provide a more steady flow of water to stormwater treatment areas, helping to maintain desired water levels needed to achieve optimal water quality treatment performance. 272 1 Glossary Fresh water An aqueous solution with a chloride concentration less than or equal to 250 milligrams per liter (Basis of Review, SFWMD 2012b). Geophysical log A record of the structure and composition of the earth with depth encountered when drilling a well or similar type of test or boring hole. Gross irrigation demand or gross irrigation requirement (AFSIRS model) The amount of water that must be withdrawn from the source in order to be delivered to the plant's root zone. Gross irrigation demand includes both the net irrigation requirement and the losses incurred irrigating the plant's root zone. Gross water demand (or raw water demand) is the amount of water withdrawn from the water resource to meet a particular need of a water user or customer. Gross demand is the amount of water allocated in a water use permit. Gross or raw water demands are nearly always higher than net or user/customer water demands. Groundwater Water beneath the surface of the ground, whether or not flowing through known and definite channels. Specifically, that part of the subsurface water in the saturated zone, where the water is under pressure greater than the atmosphere. Harm As defined in Chapter 40E-8, Florida Administrative Code, the temporary loss of water resource functions that result from a change in surface or groundwater hydrology and takes a period of one to two years of average rainfall conditions to recover. Headwaters (1) Water that is typically of higher elevation (with respect to tailwater) or on the controlled side of a structure. (2) The waters at the highest upstream point of a natural system that are considered the major source waters of the system. Hydrogeology The geology of groundwater, with particular emphasis on the chemistry and movement of water. Hydrologic condition The state of an area pertaining to the amount and form of water present. Hydrology The scientific study of the properties, distribution, and effects of water on the earth's surface, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere. Hypersaline Salinity conditions that are above what is typical of open marine conditions. Salinity conditions in excess of typical marine conditions. Impoundment Any lake, reservoir, or other containment of surface water occupying a depression or bed in the earth's surface and having a discernible shoreline. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 273 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Self -Supply Water used by industrial, commercial, or institutional operations withdrawing a water quantity of 100,000 gallons per day or greater from individual, on-site wells. Infiltration The movement of water through the soil surface into the soil under the forces of gravity and capillarity. Inflow (1) The act or process of flowing in or into. (2) The measured quantity of water that moved into a specific location. Injection well Refers to a well constructed to inject treated wastewater directly into the ground. Wastewater is generally forced (pumped) into the well for dispersal or storage in a designated aquifer. Injection wells are generally drilled below freshwater levels, or into unused aquifers or aquifers that do not deliver drinking water. Intermediate aquifer system This aquifer system consists of five zones of alternating confining and producing units. The producing zones include the Sandstone and Mid -Hawthorn aquifers. Irrigation efficiency (AFSIRS model) (1) A measure of the effectiveness of an irrigation system in delivering water to a plant for irrigation and freeze protection purposes. It is expressed as the ratio of the volume of water used for supplemental plant evapotranspiration to the volume pumped or delivered for use. (2) The average percent of total water pumped for use that is delivered to the root zone of a plant. (3) As a modeled factor, irrigation efficiency refers to the average percent of total delivered water applied to the plant's root zone. Irrigation water use Uses of water for supplemental irrigation purposes, including agricultural lands, as well as golf courses, nurseries, recreational areas, and landscapes. Landscape irrigation The outside watering of shrubbery, trees, lawns, grass, ground covers, vines, gardens, and other such flora, not intended for resale, which are planted and are situated in such diverse locations as residential and recreational areas, cemeteries, public, commercial and industrial establishments, and public medians and rights-of-way. Leak detection Systematic method to survey the distribution system and pinpoint the exact locations of hidden underground leaks. Level of certainty A water supply planning goal to assure at least a 90 percent probability during any given year that all the needs of reasonable -beneficial water uses will be met, while sustaining water resources and related natural systems during a 1 -in -10 year drought event. Marsh A frequently or continually inundated unforested wetland characterized by emergent herbaceous vegetation adapted to saturated soil conditions. 274 1 Glossary Maximum developable limit Maximum developable limit water use permitting criteria provide reasonable assurances that the proposed water use does not cause harmful drawdowns to semi - confined freshwater aquifers in the Lower West Coast Planning Area. The potentiometric head within the Lower Tamiami aquifer, Sandstone aquifer, and Mid -Hawthorn aquifer shall not be allowed to drop to less than 20 feet above the top of the uppermost geologic strata that comprises the aquifer at any point during a 1 -in -10 year drought condition. Micro irrigation The application of small quantities of water on or below the soil surface as drops or tiny streams of spray through emitters or applicators placed along a water delivery line. Micro irrigation includes a number of methods or concepts, such as bubbler, drip, trickle, mist or micro spray, and subsurface irrigation. Million gallons per day (MGD) A rate of flow of water equal to 133,680.56 cubic feet per day, or 1.5472 cubic feet per second, or 3.0689 acre-feet per day. A flow of one million gallons per day for one year equals 1,120 acre-feet (365 million gallons). To hold one million gallons of water, a swimming pool approximately 267 feet long (almost as long as a football field), 50 feet wide, and 10 feet deep would be needed. Minimum flows and levels (MFL) The point at which further withdrawals would cause significant harm to the water resources or natural systems. An MFL is established by water management districts pursuant to Sections 373.042 and 373.0421, Florida Statues, for a given water body and set forth in Parts II and III of Chapter 373. Mobile irrigation laboratory A vehicle furnished with irrigation evaluation equipment that is used to carry out on-site evaluations of irrigation systems and to provide recommendations on improving irrigation efficiency. Model A computer model is a representation of a system and its operations, and provides a cost- effective way to evaluate future system changes, summarize data, and help understand interactions in complex systems. Hydrologic models are used for evaluating, planning, and simulating the implementation of operations within SFWMD's water management system under different climatic and hydrologic conditions. Water quality and ecological models are also used to evaluate other processes vital to the health of ecosystems. MODFLOW A modular, three-dimensional, finite -difference groundwater modeling code created by the United States Geological Survey, which is used to simulate the flow of groundwater through aquifers. SFWMD uses it for subregional groundwater modeling. Monitor well Any human -made excavation by any method to monitor fluctuations in groundwater levels, quality of underground waters, or the concentration of contaminants in underground waters. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 275 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) A geodetic datum derived from a network of information collected in the United States and Canada. It was formerly called the "Sea Level Datum of 1929" or "mean sea level." Although the datum was derived from the average sea level over a period of many years at 26 tide stations along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific coasts, it does not necessarily represent local mean sea level at any particular place. Natural system A self-sustaining living system that supports an interdependent network of aquatic, wetland -dependent, and upland living resources. Net irrigation demand or net irrigation requirement (AFSIRS Model) The amount of water the plant needs in addition to anticipated rainfall. This is an estimate of the amount of water (expressed in inches per year) that should be delivered to the plant's root zone. Net water demand (or user/customer water demand) is the water demand of the end user after accounting for treatment and process losses, and inefficiencies. When discussing Public Water Supply, the term "finished water demand" is commonly used to denote net demand. Nutrient loading Discharging of nutrients from the watershed (basin) into a receiving water body, such as a lake, stream, or wetland. Expressed usually as mass per unit area per unit time kilograms per hectare per year or pounds per acre per year. Outflow (1) The act or process of flowing out of. (2) The measured quantity of water that left an area or water body during a certain period of time. Outlet An opening through which water can be freely discharged from a reservoir. Overland flow The flow of rainfall or snowmelt over the land surface toward stream channels. After overland flow enters a watercourse it becomes runoff. Per capita use (1) The average amount of water used per person during a standard time period, generally per day. (2) Total use divided by the total population served. Performance measure A scientifically measurable indicator or condition that can be used as a target for meeting water resource management goals. Performance measures quantify how well or how poorly an alternative meets a specific objective. Good performance measures are quantifiable, have a specific target, indicate when a target has been reached, and measure the degree to which the goal has been met. Permeability The capacity of a porous rock, sediment, or soil for transmitting a fluid. Planning Area The South Florida Water Management District is divided into four areas within which planning activities are focused: Kissimmee Basin, Upper East Coast, Lower West Coast, and Lower East Coast. 276 1 Glossary Potable water Water that is safe for human consumption. Potentiometric surface A surface that represents the hydraulic head in an aquifer and is defined by the level to which water will rise above a datum plane in wells that penetrate the aquifer. Power Generation (PWR) Self -Supply The difference in the amount of water withdrawn by electric power generating facilities for cooling purposes and the water returned to the hydrologic system near the point of withdrawal. Process water Water used for nonpotable industrial usage, e.g., mixing cement. Public Water Supply (PWS) Water supplied by water treatment facilities for potable use (drinking quality) with projected average pumpages greater than 0.1 million gallons per day. Public Water Supply (PWS) demand All potable (drinking quality) water supplied by water treatment facilities with projected average pumpages of 0.1 million gallons per day or greater to all types of customers, not just residential. Rapid infiltration basin A wastewater treatment method by which wastewater is applied in deep and permeable deposits of highly porous soils for percolation through deep and highly porous soil. Ratoon A shoot sprouting from a plant base, as in banana, pineapple, or sugarcane. Raw water (1) Water that is direct from the source—groundwater or surface water—without any treatment. (2) Untreated water, usually that entering the first unit of a water treatment plant. Raw water demand (see Gross water demand) Reasonable -beneficial use Use of water in such quantity as is needed for economic and efficient use for a purpose, which is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. Recharge (groundwater) The natural or intentional infiltration of surface water into the ground to raise groundwater levels. Recharge (hydrologic) The downward movement of water through soil to groundwater; the process by which water is added to the zone of saturation; or the introduction of surface water or groundwater to groundwater storage, such as an aquifer. Recharge or replenishment of groundwater supplies consists of three types: 1) natural recharge, which consists of precipitation or other natural surface flows making their way into groundwater supplies; 2) artificial or induced recharge, which includes actions specifically designed to increase supplies in groundwater reservoirs through various methods, such as water spreading (flooding), ditches, and pumping techniques; 3) incidental recharge, which consists of actions, such as irrigation and water diversion, which add to groundwater supplies, but are intended for other purposes. Recharge may also refer to the amount of water so added. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 277 Reclaimed water Water that received at least secondary treatment and basic disinfection and is reused after flowing out of a domestic wastewater treatment facility (Rule 62-610.200, Florida Administrative Code) Recreational/Landscape (REC) Self -Supply Water used for landscape and golf course irrigation. The landscape subcategory includes water used for parks, cemeteries, and other irrigation applications of 0.1 million gallons per day or greater. The golf course subcategory includes those operations not supplied by a Public Water Supply or regional reuse facility. Regional Simulation Model A regional hydrologic model developed principally for application in South Florida. It is developed on a sound conceptual and mathematical framework that allows it to be applied generically to a wide range of hydrologic situations. It simulates the coupled movement and distribution of groundwater and surface water throughout the model domain using a hydrologic simulation engine to simulate the natural hydrology and a management simulation engine to provide a wide range of operational capability. Water supply plan Detailed water supply plan developed by the South Florida Water Management District under Section 373.709, Florida Statues, providing an evaluation of available water supply and projected demands at the regional scale. The planning process projects future demand for 20 years and recommends projects to meet identified needs. Restricted allocation areas Areas designated within the South Florida Water Management District boundaries for which allocation restrictions are applied with regard to the use of specific sources of water. The water resources in these areas are managed in response to specific sources of water in the area for which there is a lack of water availability to meet the projected needs of the region from that specific source of water (Basis of Review, SFWMD 2012b). Retention The prevention of stormwater runoff from direct discharge into receiving waters; included as examples are systems that discharge through percolation, exfiltration, filtered bleed - down, and evaporation processes. Retrofit (1) Indoor: the replacement of existing water fixtures, appliances, and devices with more efficient fixtures, appliances, and devices for the purpose of water conservation. (2) Outdoor: the replacement or changing out of an existing irrigation system with a different irrigation system, such as a conversion from an overhead sprinkler system to a micro irrigation system (Basis of Review, SFWMD 2012b). Reuse The deliberate application of reclaimed water for a beneficial purpose. Criteria used to classify projects as "reuse" or "effluent disposal" are contained in Rule 62-610.810, Florida Administrative Code. The term "reuse" is synonymous with "water reuse." Reverse osmosis (RO) A membrane process for desalting water using applied pressure to drive the feed water (source water) through a semipermeable membrane. 278 1 Glossary Runoff That component of rainfall, which is not absorbed by soil, intercepted and stored by surface water bodies, evaporated to the atmosphere, transpired and stored by plants, or infiltrated to groundwater, but which flows to a watercourse as surface water flow. Saline water (1) An aqueous solution with a chloride concentration greater than 250 mg/L and less than that of seawater (Basis of Review). (2) Water containing significant amounts or concentrations of dissolved salts or total dissolved solids. The concentration is the amount (by weight) of salt in water, expressed in parts per million or milligrams per liter (mg/L) (-1 mg/L total dissolved solids = 0.5 mg/L of chlorides). The terms fresh, brackish, saline, and brine are used to describe the quality of the water. Any water that contains more than 500 mg/L of total dissolved solids is considered saline water. This may be brackish water (500 to 15,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids), seawater (15,000 to 40,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids), or brine (more than 40,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids). It is common in the literature to define coastal water that is very brackish simply as saline water. Salinity Of or relating to chemical salts usually measured in parts per thousand, milligrams per liter, or practical salinity units. Salt water (see Seawater or salt water) Saltwater interface The hypothetical surface of chloride concentration between fresh water and seawater where the chloride concentration is 250 milligrams per liter at each point on the surface. Saltwater intrusion The invasion of a body of fresh water by a body of salt water due to its greater density. It can occur either in surface water or groundwater bodies. The term is applied to the flooding of freshwater marshes by seawater, the upward migration of seawater into rivers and navigation channels, and the movement of seawater into freshwater aquifers along coastal regions. SEAWAT A program developed to simulate three-dimensional, variable -density, transient groundwater flow in porous media. The source code for SEAWAT was developed by combining MODFLOW and MT3DMS into a single program that solves the coupled flow and solute - transport equations. Seawater or salt water Water with a chloride concentration at or above 19,000 milligrams per liter (Basis of Review, SFWMD 2012b). Sedimentation The action or process of forming or depositing sediment. Seepage irrigation Irrigation that conveys water through open ditches. Water is either applied to the soil surface (possibly in furrows) and held for a period of time to allow infiltration, or is applied to the soil subsurface by raising the water table to wet the root zone. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 279 Seepage irrigation system A means to artificially supply water for plant growth that relies primarily on gravity to move the water over and through the soil, and does not rely on emitters, sprinklers, or any other type of device to deliver water to the vicinity of expected plant use. Self -supplied The water used to satisfy a water need, not supplied by a Public Water Supply utility. Semi -confined aquifer A completely saturated aquifer that is bounded above by a semi -pervious layer, which has a low, though measurable permeability, and below by a layer that is either impervious or semi -pervious. Serious harm As defined in Chapter 40E-8, Florida Administrative Code, the long-term, irreversible, or permanent loss of water resource functions resulting from a change in surface water or groundwater hydrology. Service area The geographical region in which a water supplier has the ability and the legal right to distribute water for use. Significant harm As defined in Chapter 40E-8, Florida Administrative Code, the temporary loss of water resource functions that result from a change in surface water or groundwater hydrology and takes more than two years to recover, but which is considered less severe than serious harm. Storm water Water that does not infiltrate, but accumulates on land as a result of storm runoff, snowmelt runoff, irrigation runoff, or drainage from areas, such as roads and roofs. Stormwater discharge Precipitation and snowmelt runoff from roadways, parking lots, and roof drains. A major source of nonpoint source pollution to water bodies and a challenge to sewage treatment plants in municipalities where the storm water is combined with the flow of domestic wastewater (sewage) before entering the wastewater treatment plant. Stormwater treatment area (STA) A system of constructed water quality treatment wetlands that use natural biological processes to reduce levels of nutrients and pollutants from surface water runoff. Submersed aquatic vegetation Aquatic plants that exist completely below the water surface. Substrate The physical surface upon which an organism lives. The natural or artificial surface upon which an organism grows or to which it is attached. Surface water Water above the soil or substrate surface, whether contained in bounds, created naturally or artificially, or diffused. Water from natural springs is classified as surface water when it exits from the spring onto the earth's surface. 280 1 Glossary Surficial aquifer system (SAS) Often the principal source of water for urban uses within certain areas of South Florida. This aquifer is unconfined, consisting of varying amounts of limestone and sediments that extend from the land surface to the top of an intermediate confining unit. Tailwater Water that is typically of lower elevation or on the discharge side of the structure. Time series A statistical process analogous to the taking of data at intervals of time. Treatment facility Any facility or other works used for the purpose of treating, stabilizing, or holding water or wastewater. Turbidity The measure of water clarity caused by suspended material in a liquid. Unconfined aquifer (1) A permeable geologic unit or units only partly filled with water and overlying a relatively impervious layer. Its upper boundary is formed by a free water table or phreatic surface under atmospheric pressure. Also referred to as water table aquifer. (2) An aquifer containing water that is not under pressure; the water level in a well is the same as the water table outside the well. Upconing Process by which saline water underlying fresh water in an aquifer rises upward into the freshwater zone as a result of pumping water from the freshwater zone. Uplands Nonwetlands. An area with a hydrologic regime that is not sufficiently wet to support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Upland soils are nonhydric soils. Utility Any legal entity responsible for supplying potable water for a defined service area. Wastewater The combination of liquid and water carried pollutants from residences, commercial buildings, industrial plants, and institutions together with any groundwater, surface runoff, or leachate that may be present. Water budget An accounting of total water use or projected water use for a given location or activity. Water conservation The permanent, long-term reduction of daily water use. Permanent water use reduction requires the implementation of water saving technologies and measures that reduce water use while satisfying consumer needs. Water conservation is considered a water source option because it reduces the need for future expansion of the water supply infrastructure (see Demand management). Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) Part of the original Everglades ecosystem that is now diked and hydrologically controlled for flood control and water supply purposes. These are located in the western portions of Miami -Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, and preserve over 1,350 square miles, or about 50 percent of the original Everglades. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 281 Water conservation rate structure A water rate structure designed to conserve water. Examples of conservation rate structures include, but are not limited to, increasing block rates, seasonal rates, and quantity -based surcharges. Water quality (1) A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose. (2) The physical, chemical, and biological condition of water as applied to a specific use. Federal and state guidelines set water quality standards based on the water's intended use, whether it is for recreation, fishing, drinking, navigation, shellfish harvesting, or agriculture. Water reservation A legal mechanism to set aside water for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety from consumptive water use. The reservation is composed of a quantification of the water to be protected, which includes a seasonal and a location component. Water Resources Advisory Commission A commission of the South Florida Water Management District that serves as an advisory body to the Governing Board. The WRAC is the primary forum for conducting workshops, presenting information, and receiving public input on water resource issues affecting Central and South Florida. Water resource development The formulation and implementation of regional water resource management strategies, including collection and evaluation of surface water and groundwater data; structural and nonstructural programs to protect and manage the water resources; development of regional water resource implementation programs; construction, operation and maintenance of major public works facilities to provide for flood control, surface and groundwater storage, and groundwater recharge augmentation; and related technical assistance to local governments and to government-owned and privately owned water utilities (Section 373.019, Florida Statutes). Watershed A region or area bounded peripherally by a water parting and draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water. Watersheds conform to federal hydrologic unit code standards and can be divided into subwatersheds and further divided into catchments, the smallest water management unit recognized by South Florida Water Management District operations. Unlike drainage basins, which are defined by rule, watersheds are continuously evolving as the drainage network evolves. Water Shortage Plan This effort includes provisions in Chapters 40E-21 and 40E-22, Florida Administrative Code, and identifies how water supplies are allocated to users during declared water shortages. The plan allows for supply allotments and cutbacks to be identified on a weekly basis based on the water level within Lake Okeechobee, demands, time of year, and rainfall forecasts. Water supply development The planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of public or private facilities for water collection, production, treatment, transmission, or distribution for sale, resale, or end use. (Section 373.019, Florida Statues) 282 1 Glossary Water table The surface of a body of unconfined groundwater at which the pressure is equal to that of the atmosphere; defined by the level where water within an unconfined aquifer stands in a well. Water use Any use of water that reduces the supply from which it is withdrawn or diverted. Water use permitting The issuance of permits by the South Florida Water Management District, under the authority of Chapter 40E-2, Florida Administrative Code, allowing withdrawal of water for consumptive use. Wellfield One or more wells producing water from a subsurface source. A tract of land that contains a number of wells for supplying a large municipality or irrigation district. Wetland An area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater with vegetation adapted for life under those soil conditions (e.g., swamps, bogs, and marshes). Wild and Scenic River A river as designated under the authority of the of Public Law 90-542, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, is a means to preserve selected free-flowing rivers in their natural condition and protect the water quality of such rivers. A portion of the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River was federally designated as the first Wild and Scenic River in Florida on May 17, 1985. Withdrawal Water removed from a groundwater or surface water source for use. Yield The quantity of water (expressed as rate of flow or total quantity per year) that can be collected for a given use from surface or groundwater sources. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 283 284 1 Glossary Abtew, W., L. Cadavid and V. Ciuca. 2013. Chapter 2: South Florida Hydrology and Water Management. In: 2013 South Florida Environmental Report — Volume I, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. Alexander, T.R. and A.G. Crook. 1973. South Florida Ecological Study, Appendix G: Recent and Long- term Vegetation Changes and Patterns in South Florida. University of Miami, Miami, FL. Alleman, R. 2011. Chapter 12: Coastal Ecosystems. In: 2011 South Florida Environmental Report, Volume I. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. Alleman, R. 2012. Chapter 10: Coastal Priorities. In: 2012 South Florida Environmental Report, Volume I. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. BEBR. 2011. Projections of Florida Population by County, 2010-2040. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, Florida Population Studies Volume 44, Bulletin 159. (Authors: S.K. Smith and S. Rayer) Bloetscher, F., D.H. Meeroff and B.N. Heimlich. 2009. Improving the Resilience of a Municipal Water Utility Against the Likely Impacts of Climate Change - A Case Study: City of Pompano Beach Water Utility. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. Bromwell G., S. Vick, G. Leslie and R. Dean. 2006. Report of Expert Review Panel Technical Evaluation of Herbert Hoover Dike Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Prepared by BCI Engineers and Scientists, Inc., Lakeland, FL for South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Browder, J., M. Robblee, G. Liehr, D. Johnson, E. Buck and T. Jackson. 2011. Epifaunal Communities of Mainland Nearshore South Biscayne Bay. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, FL. Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2009. Water Desalination Concentrate Management and Piloting. Prepared by Carollo Engineers, Inc., Sunrise, FL, for South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. December 2009. CDM. 2006. Alternative Water Sources Sub -Regional Feasibility Study: Fort Lauderdale, Sunrise, and Miami -Dade County. Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., Naples, FL, for South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. December 2006. CDM. 2007a. Water Supply Cost Estimation Study. Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., Naples, FL, for South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 285 CDM. 2007b. Water Supply Cost Estimation Study -Phase II Addendum. Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., Naples, FL, for South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Chastant J. and D. Gawlik. 2011. Wading Bird Colony Size, Location and Timing on Lake Okeechobee. Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton FL. Chiu, T., J. Van de Kreeke and R. Dean. 1970. Residence Time of Waters Behind Barrier Islands. Completion Report to the Office of Water Resources Research, United States Department of Interior, Denver, CO. Conserve Florida Water Clearinghouse. 2009. EZ Guide, Version 1.1. Conserve Florida Water Clearinghouse, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Available at www.conservefloridawater.org/ezguidedescription.asl2. Cook, M.I. and M. Kobza. 2012. Appendix 6-1: South Florida Wading Bird Report. 2012 South Florida Environmental Report - Volume I. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. DCFB. 2012. Agriculture: The Lifeblood of South Dade. Dade County Farm Bureau, www.dade- agriculture.org/. Doering, P. and R. Alleman. 2010. Chapter 12: Management and Restoration of Coastal Ecosystems. In: 2010 South Florida Environmental Report, Volume I, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. Duever, M.J., D.P. Spangler, R.L. Myers, T.R. Alexander and L.A. Riopelle. 1986. The Big Cypress National Preserve. National Audubon Society, New York, NY. FDEP. 2006. Canal Recharge: A Report to the Legislature and Governor. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. December 2006. Available at www.del2.state.fl.us/water/wgssl2/docs/CanalRechargeRel2ort.12df. FDEP. 2011. 2010 Reuse Inventory. FDEP Water Reuse Program. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Available at www.del2.state.fl.us/water/reuse/inventor,,. FDEP. 2012. 2011 Reuse Inventory. FDEP Water Reuse Program. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Available at www.del2.state.fl.us/water/reuse/inventor,,. Fourqurean, J.W. and M.B. Robblee. 1999. Florida Bay: A history of recent ecological changes. Estuaries 99:345-357. Golder Associates. 2008. East Coast Floridan Aquifer System (ECFAS) Phase II Project Southeastern Florida (Model Documentation Report). Golder Associates, Boca Raton, FL. 286 1 References Havens, K.E., K. Jin, A.J. Rodusky, B. Sharfstein, M.A. Brady, T.L. East, N. Iricanin, R.T. James, M.C. Harwell and A.D. Steinman. 2001. Hurricane effects on a shallow lake ecosystem and its response to controlled manipulation of water level. The Scientific World 1:44-70. Hazen and Sawyer. 2008. City of Plantation Final Report Advanced Wastewater Treatment Pilot Project. Submitted to the City of Plantation, Plantation, FL. HydroGeoLogic, Inc. 2006. Development of a Density -Dependent Saltwater Intrusion Model for the Lower East Coast ProjectArea. HydroGeoLogic, Inc., Reston, VA. Janzen, J., S. Sunderland, S. Krupa and C. Gefvert. 2008. Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands, Aquifer Salinity Investigation. Technical Publication WS -26, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. September 2008. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg grp tech pubs/PORTLET tech pubs/ws- 26 bbcw aquifer salinity investigation.pdf. Jawitz, J.W., R. Munoz-Carpena, S. Muller, K.A. Grace and A.I. James. 2008. Development, Testing, and Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses of a Transport and Reaction Simulation Engine (TaRSE) for Spatially Distributed Modeling of Phosphorous in South Florida Peat Marsh Wetlands. Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5029, Florida Integrated Science Center, United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Available at pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5029/pdf/sir2008-5029.pdf. Kitchens, W.M. et al. In press. 2013 Annual Snail Kite Report. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Lake Worth Drainage District, Palm Beach County, Broward County and South Florida Water Management District. 2013. C-51 Reservoir - Preliminary Design and Cost Estimate - Final Report. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. February 2013. Langevin, C.D. 2001. Simulation of Ground -Water Discharge to Biscayne Bay, Southeastern Florida. Water Resources Report 00-425, United States Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Available at fl.water.usgs.gov/PDF files/wri00 4251 langevin.pdf. Marshall, F., W. Nuttle and B. Crosby. 2008. Final Report: Biscayne Bay Freshwater Budget and the Relationship of Inflow to Salinity. Environmental Consulting and Technology, Inc. Prepared for South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Martin, P. 2012. Chapter 5A: Five -Year Water Resource Development Work Program. In 2012 South Florida Environmental Report - Volume II, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. Martin, P. 2013. Chapter 5A: Five -Year Water Resource Development Work Program. In 2013 South Florida Environmental Report - Volume II, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. McVoy, C.W., W.A. Park, J. Obeysekera, J.A. VanArman and T.W. Dreschel. 2011. Landscapes and Hydrology of the Pre -drainage Everglades. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 287 Medellin, D. 2013. Chapter 3: 2013 Priority Water Bodies List and Schedule. In: 2013 South Florida Environmental Report - Volume IL South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. Metcalf & Eddy. 2006. Technical and Economic Feasibility of Co -located Desalination Facilities. Prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield, MA, for South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Miami -Dade County. 2007. Miami -Dade County Water Use Efficiency 20 -Year Plan. Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department, Miami, FL. Migliaccio, K. 2008. Biscayne Bay and Watershed Water Quality Data Analysis, Task 5: Final Report. Submitted to South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Migliaccio, K. 2009. Storm Event Sampling in the Biscayne Bay Watershed: Final Project Report. Submitted to South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. MWH Global, Inc. 2008. Southwest Wastewater Treatment Facility Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) and Ruse Pilot Texting Program Final Report. Submitted to City of Sunrise, Sunrise, FL. Montagna, P., N. Smith, M. Peterson and C. Stevenson. 2008. Peer Review of Adequacy of Technical Information to Support Minimum Inflow Needs for Biscayne Bay. Submitted to South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. PBCDERM. 2008. Lake Worth Lagoon Management Plan Revision. Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.co.palm- beach.fl.us/erm/lakes/estuarine/lake-worth-lagoon /pdf/LWLMP.12df. RECOVER. 2007a. Final Draft 2006 System Status Report, Pilot Assessment System -wide Report. Restoration Coordination and Verification Program, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. February 2007. Available at www.evergladesl2lan.org/12m/recover/assess team ssr 2006.aspx. RECOVER. 2007b. Final 2007 System Status Report. Restoration Coordination and Verification Program, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. November 2007. Available at www.evergladesplan.org/pm/recover/assess team ssr 2007.aspx. RECOVER. 2009. 2009 System Status Report. Restoration Coordination and Verification Program, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. September 2010. Available at www.evergladesl2lan.org/12m/ssr 2009/ssr main.aspx. RECOVER. 2012. 2012 System Status Report. Restoration Coordination and Verification Program, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. December 2012. Available at www.evergladesplan.org/pm/ssr 2012/ssr main 2012.aspx. 288 1 References Reese, R.S. and E. Richardson. 2007. Synthesis of the Hydrogeologic Framework of the Floridan Aquifer System, Delineation of a Major Avon Park Permeable Zone in Central and Southern Florida. Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5207, United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Available at 12ubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5207/. Rudnick, D.T., P.B. Ortner, J.A. Browder and S.M. Davis. 2005. A conceptual model of Florida Bay. Wetlands 25(4):870-883. Rudolph, H.D. 1998. Freshwater Discharges to the Lake Worth Lagoon - Recommendations for Maximum and Minimum Discharges to Maintain Optimum Salinity Ranges for the Lake Worth Lagoon's Ecosystem. Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management. West Palm Beach, FL. Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger and J.G. Titus. 2002. Climate change impacts on U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25:149-164. SFWMD. 2000. 2000 Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/watersg-p it . SFWMD. 2002. Northern Palm Beach County Comprehensive Water Management Plan. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. SFWMD. 2007. 2005-2006 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/watersuRply. SFWMD. 2006. Draft Technical Documentation to Support Development of Minimum Flows and Levels for Florida Bay. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. March 6, 2006. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/mfls. SFWMD. 2008. Water Conservation: A Comprehensive Program for South Florida. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.govlportal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository pdf/waterconservationll an.pdf. SFWMD. 2009a. Adequacy of Technical Information to Support Minimum Inflow Needs for Biscayne Bay including Final Peer Review Report. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository Vdf/bb minimum flow r eport 2009.pdf. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 289 SFWMD. 2009b. Climate Change and Water Management in South Florida. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository Vdf/climate change and water management in sflorida 12nov2009.pdf. SFWMD. 2010. Final Adaptive Protocols for Lake Okeechobee Operations. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository Vdf/ap to final 2010091 "df. SFWMD. 2011a. L-8 Reservoir Pilot Test Water Quality Results. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. June 3, 2011. SFWMD. 2011b. Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan Update. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository pdf/lope update 2011.p df. SFWMD. 2012a. 2012 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/watersuRply. SFWMD. 2012b. Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Application within the South Florida Water Management District. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/portal/12age/portal/xreposito1y_/sfwmd repository ndf/bor wu.pdf. SFWMD. 2013a. 2011-2013 Water Supply Plan Support Document. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/watersupply. SFWMD. 2013b. Water Efficiency and Self -Conducted Water Audits at Commercial and Institutional Facilities, A Guide for Facility Managers. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. June 2013. Available at issuu.com/southfloridawatermanagement/docs/water efficiency improvement guide?e=4207 603/1241437. SFWMD, FDEP and FDACS. 2008. Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase 2 Technical Plan. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL; Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL; and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL. February 2008. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd repository pdf/ne lakeo watershed 12hase2 summarypdf. SFWMD, FDEP FPS District 5, LRD and LRIT. 2006. Restoration Plan for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL; Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Park Service, District 5, Hobe Sound, FL; Loxahatchee River District, Jupiter, FL; and Loxahatchee River Interagency Team. April 12, 2006. Also published as Appendix 12-2 in 2007 South Florida Environmental Report - Volume I, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. 290 1 References SFWMD, FDEP FPS District 5, LRD and LRIT. 2010. Loxahatchee River Science Plan. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL; Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Park Service, District 5, Hobe Sound, FL; Loxahatchee River District, Jupiter, FL; and Loxahatchee River Interagency Team. Final Draft, July 12, 2010. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/12ortal/xrel2ository/sfwmd repositorypdf/lr science plan 2010 .pdf• SFWMD and USACE. 2008. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Program Interim Report 2008. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL, and United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. June 5, 2008. Available at www.evergladesplan.org/pm/projects/pdp 32 33 34 44 asr combined.aspx. Shoemaker, W.B., C.D. Lopez and M.J. Duever. 2011. Evapotranspiration over Spatially Extensive Plant Communities in Big Cypress National Preserve, Southern Florida, 2007-2010. Scientific Investigative Report 2011-5212, United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Available online at 12ubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5Z12�. Smajstrla, A.G. 1990. Technical Manual, Agricultural Field Scale Irrigation Requirements Simulation (AFSIRS) Model, Version 5.5. Prepared by Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, for the St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL. Special Publication SJ2008-SP17. Smith, E.P. South Miami -Dade -Statistical Data Analyses. Prepared for the South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov[12ortal[12age/12ortal/xrel2ository/sfwmd repositoryndf/south miami- dade statistical data analysis.pdf. Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. 2012a. A Region Responds to a Changing Climate. Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Miami -Dade County, Miami, FL; Monroe County, Key West, FL; and Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, FL. October 2012. Available at southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/ndf/Regional%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20FINAL %20ADA%20Compliant.pdf. Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. 2012b. Regional Climate Action Framework. Implementation Guide. Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Miami -Dade County, Miami, FL; Monroe County, Key West, FL; and Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, FL. October 2012. Available at southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/pdf/Implementation%20Guide.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census. United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Washington, DC. Available at www.census.gov/2010census j. USACE. 1994. Canal 111 (C111) South Dade County, Florida, Final Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 291 USACE. 1995. Master Water Control Manual, East Coast Canals, Volume 5. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. March 1995. USACE. 1996. Master Water Control Manual -Water Conservation Areas, Everglades National Park, and ENP -South Dade Conveyance System. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. USACE. 1999. 1998 Emergency Deviation from Test 7 of the Environmental Program of Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park to Protect the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes Final Environmental Assessment. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. USACE. 2000a. Final Environmental Assessment, Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Interim Structural and Operational Plan (ISOP), Emergency Deviation from Test 7 of the Experimental Program of Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park for Protection of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, Dade County, Florida. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. USACE. 2000b. Herbert Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Report. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. USACE. 2002. Interim Operational Plan for Protection of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Miami -Dade County, Florida. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. USACE. 2006. Interim Operational Plan for Protection of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Miami -Dade County, Florida. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. USACE. 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement Including Appendices A through G - Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. USACE. 2008. Central and Southern Florida Project Water Control Plan for Lake Okeechobee and Everglades Agricultural Area. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. USACE. 2009. Water Resource Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sea -Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs. Department of the Army Engineering Circular 1165-2- 212, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. July 2009. Available at 140.194.76.129/publications/eng-circulars/index.html. USACE. 2011. Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. Available at www.evergladesl2lan.org/12m/12rogram docs/ertp.aspx. 292 1 References USACE. 2012. Record of Decision Central and Southern Florida Project Everglades Restoration Transition Plan. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. October 19, 2012. Available at www.evergladesplan.org/pm/program docs/ertp.aspx. USACE and SFWMD. 1999. Central and Southern Florida Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. USACE and SFWMD. 2005. North Palm Beach County - Part 1 Project Management Plan. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. USACE and SFWMD. 2009. C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project Draft Project Implementation Report (PIR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Annex E (Draft Project Monitoring Plan). United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.evergladesplan.org/nm[projects[proj 29 c111.aspx. USACE and SFWMD. 2012. Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. USACE and SFWMD. 2013. Central Everglades Planning Project Draft Integrated Project Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. August 2013. USDA -MASS. 2007.2007 Census of Agriculture for Florida. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Available at www.nass.usda.gov/fll. USEPA. 2011. WaterSense/Outdoor, Smart Outdoor Practices. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at www.epa.gov/WaterSense/outdoor/. USEPA. 2012. National Water Program 2012 Strategy: Response to Climate Change. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at water.epa.gov/scitech/climatechange/2012-National-Water-Program-Strategy.cfm. USFWS. 2010a. Draft Multi -Species Transition Strategy for Water Conservation Area 3A. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, FL. USFWS. 2010b. National Wetlands Inventory. National Wetlands Inventory Program, Branch of Resource and Mapping Support, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Available at wetlands.fws.gov. 2013 LEC Water Supply Plan Update 1 293 Water Utility Climate Alliance. 2010. Decision Support Planning Methods: Incorporating Climate Change Uncertainties into Water Planning. Water Utility Climate Alliance, San Francisco, CA. January 2010. Wingard, G.L., T.M. Cronin, C.W. Holmes, D.A. Willard, G. Dwyer, S.E. Isman, W. Orem, C.P. Williams, J. Albietz, C.E. Bernhardt, C.A. Budet, B. Landacre, T. Lerch, M. Marot and R.E. Ortiz. 2004. Ecosystem History of Southern and Central Biscayne Bay: Summary Report on Sediment Core Analyses - Year Two. Open File Report 2004-1312, United States Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Available at sofia.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/2004-1312/. Zhang J. and B. Sharfstein. 2012. Chapter 8. Lake Okeechobee Protection Program. In: 2012 South Florida Environmental Report - Volume I. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. Zhang J. and B. Sharfstein. 2013. Chapter 8. Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Program. In: 2013 South Florida Environmental Report - Volume I, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Available at www.sfwmd.gov/sfer. 294 1 References Meeting South Florida's Water supply needs while safeguarding its natural systems requires innovative solutions, cohesive planning, and a shared vision. � jSR South Florida Water Management District a° 3301 Gun Club Road • West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 w # c �y 561-686-8800 • FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 • www.sfwmd.gov MAILING ADDRESS: P.D. Box 24680 • West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 VF'7 Ac- s t