Sec 1 WPB310127161227 final · sion programs through 2025. This Master Plan includes...

GNV31013363605.DOC/061650022 II WB122005005DFB

Contents

Section Page

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................ES-1 1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose of a Strategic 20-Year Master Plan........................................................1-2 1.2 Background .............................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Service Area and Customer Base .........................................................................1-2 1.4 Report Organization ............................................................................................1-10

2 Population and Water Demand Forecast Summary.....................................................2-1

2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Projected Population..............................................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Permanent Population ..............................................................................2-1 2.2.2 Seasonal Population ..................................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Functional Population ..............................................................................2-2

2.3 Historic Water Production ....................................................................................2-5 2.3.1 Swimming Pool Construction Permits ...................................................2-7 2.3.2 Current Homeowner Versus Former Homeowner Water Use...........2-8

2.4 Projected Finished Water Demand ......................................................................2-9 2.4.1 Peak Hour Demands...............................................................................2-10

2.5 Demand by Service Type.....................................................................................2-11 2.5.1 Demand by Service Type .......................................................................2-11 2.5.2 Unmetered Water ....................................................................................2-14

2.6 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................2-14

3 Water Supply System ........................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Water Supply Wells................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Raw Water Quality.................................................................................................3-2

3.2.1 Biscayne Aquifer........................................................................................3-2 3.2.2 Floridan Aquifer ........................................................................................3-3 3.2.3 Additional Raw Water Facilities .............................................................3-4

3.3 Water Supply Permitting.......................................................................................3-4 3.3.1 Saline Water Intrusion ..............................................................................3-5

3.4 Wastewater Reuse ..................................................................................................3-5 3.4.1 Feasibility of Implementing Wastewater Reuse ...................................3-5

3.5 Water Supply Recommendations.........................................................................3-6 3.5.1 Aquifer Storage and Recovery.................................................................3-6

CONTENTS, CONTINUED

GNV31013363605.DOC/061650022 III WB122005005DFB

Section Page

3.5.2 Low-Pressure Reverse Osmosis ..............................................................3-6 3.5.3 Desalination................................................................................................3-7 3.5.4 Wastewater Reuse .....................................................................................3-7 3.5.5 Water Supply Summary ...........................................................................3-8

3.5 Construction Cost Estimates for the Water Supply System..............................3-8

4 Water Treatment System...................................................................................................4-1 4.1 J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant ................................................................4-1

4.1.1 General Description ..................................................................................4-1 4.1.2 Treatment Facilities ...................................................................................4-4 4.1.3 Summary ..................................................................................................4-13

4.2 Kermit H. Lewin Seawater Desalination Facility at Stock Island..................4-13 4.3 Marathon RO Emergency Facility, Marathon, Florida....................................4-15 4.4 Drinking Water Standards and Water Quality ................................................4-15

4.4.1 General......................................................................................................4-15 4.4.2 Recent Drinking Water Regulatory Changes ......................................4-15 4.4.3 Water Quality Data .................................................................................4-17 4.4.4 Conclusion................................................................................................4-19

4.5 Evaluation of Water Treatment Facilities..........................................................4-21 4.5.1 Water Demand and Treatment Capacity .............................................4-21 4.5.2 J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant .................................................4-25 4.5.3 Kermit H. Lewin RO Seawater Desalination Facility, Stock

Island, Florida ..........................................................................................4-39 4.5.4 Marathon Island RO Seawater Desalination Facility, Marathon

Island, Florida ..........................................................................................4-39 4.6 Water Treatment System Recommendations ...................................................4-39

4.6.1 J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant, Florida City, Florida ...........4-39 4.6.2 New LPRO Facility at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant,

Florida City, Florida................................................................................4-40 4.6.3 Kermit H. Lewin RO Emergency Facility, Stock Island, Florida ......4-40 4.6.4 Marathon RO Desalination Facility, Marathon, Florida ....................4-41 4.6.5 Proposed Ocean Reef RO Facility, Ocean Reef, Florida.....................4-41

4.7 Construction Cost Estimates for the Water Treatment System .....................4-41 4.7.1 New LPRO Facility at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant,

Florida City, Florida..................................................................................4-1 4.7.2 Kermit H. Lewin RO Desalination Facility, Stock Island, Florida....4-43 4.7.3 Marathon RO Desalination Facility, Marathon, Florida ....................4-43 4.7.4 Ocean Reef LPRO Treatment Plant, Ocean Reef, Florida ..................4-43

5 Water Transmission System.............................................................................................5-1 5.1 Existing Transmission System ..............................................................................5-1 5.2 Evaluation of Existing Transmission System .....................................................5-2

5.2.1 Transmission System Mains ....................................................................5-2 5.2.2 Transmission System Booster Pump Stations and Storage

Facilities ......................................................................................................5-5

CONTENTS, CONTINUED

GNV31013363605.DOC/061650022 IV WB122005005DFB

Section Page

5.3 Transmission System Recommendations............................................................5-8 5.3.1 Transmission System Mains ....................................................................5-8 5.3.2 Transmission System Pump Stations and Storage Facilities .............5-10

5.4 Construction Cost Estimates for the Transmission System............................5-13

6 Water Distribution System...............................................................................................6-1 6.1 Existing Distribution Systems...............................................................................6-1 6.2 Evaluation of Distribution Systems .....................................................................6-2

6.2.1 Distribution Piping....................................................................................6-2 6.2.2 Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities ...............................6-3

6.3 Recommended Improvements and Upgrades to Distribution Systems.........6-9 6.3.1 Distribution Piping..................................................................................6-11 6.3.2 Existing Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities..............6-11 6.3.3 Proposed Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities ...........6-17

6.4 Construction Cost Estimates for the Distribution System..............................6-18 7 Capital Improvement Program ........................................................................................7-1

7.1 20-Year Water System Infrastructure Program..................................................7-1 7.1.1 20-Year Water System Capital Improvement Program Mission ........7-1 7.1.2 20-Year Water System Capital Improvement Program Goals and

Objectives....................................................................................................7-2 7.2 Water Infrastructure System.................................................................................7-3

7.2.1 Major System Upgrades ...........................................................................7-3 7.2.2 Basis of Project Cost Estimates ................................................................7-3

8 Strategic Financial Plan.....................................................................................................8-1

8.1 Capital Improvement Funding Strategy .............................................................8-1 8.2 Existing Debt and Bond Covenants .....................................................................8-1 8.3 Five-Year Capital Improvement Funding...........................................................8-2 8.4 Twenty-Year Capital Improvement Funding.....................................................8-9

9 Works Cited.........................................................................................................................9-1

Appendix

A Justification for Projected Per Capita Water Demand in the FKAA Service Area B Drinking Water Regulations Update C Proposed Water Facilities Improvements D Transmission System Capital Cost Estimates E Distribution System Capital Cost Estimates F Wastewater Reuse Background Information

CONTENTS, CONTINUED

GNV31013363605.DOC/061650022 V WB122005005DFB

Exhibit Page

1-1 FKAA Existing Water Facilities .........................................................................................1-3

2-1 Sources of Population Projection Data .............................................................................2-3 2-2 Monroe County Historic and Projected Population Projections...................................2-4 2-3 5-Year Historic and Projected Percent Changes in Functional Population.................2-5 2-4 Historic Raw Water Production ........................................................................................2-6 2-5 Historic Finished Water Production .................................................................................2-6 2-6 5-Year Historic Percent Changes in Functional Population, Raw Water Demand,

and Per Capita Water Demand..........................................................................................2-7 2-7 Annual Swimming Pool Construction Permits Issued by Monroe County................2-7 2-8 FKAA Service Area Projected 2005–2025 Population and

Finished Water Demands...................................................................................................2-9 2-9 Graphic Representation of FKAA Service Area Projected 2005–2025 Population and

Finished Water Demands.................................................................................................2-10 2-10 Projected Peak Hour Demands........................................................................................2-11 2-11 Average Monthly Water Use by Category, million gallons, October 2003–

September 2005 ..................................................................................................................2-12 2-12 Graphic Summary of Average Monthly Water Use by Category, million gallons,

October 2003–September 2005 .........................................................................................2-13 2-13 U.S. Navy Water Usage from 1996 to 2005 ....................................................................2-13

3-1 Raw Water Wells and Pipelines, J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant....................3-1 3-2 FKAA Water Supply Wells ................................................................................................3-2 3-3 Average Biscayne Aquifer Water Quality, 2000–2005....................................................3-2 3-4 Average Monthly Biscayne Aquifer Raw Water Quality ..............................................3-3 3-5 Floridan Aquifer Raw Water Quality and Pumpage .....................................................3-4 3-6 Water Use Permitting..........................................................................................................3-5 3-7 Water Supply Construction Cost Opinion ......................................................................3-9

4-1 WTP Flows (Average Monthly).........................................................................................4-2 4-2 Maximum Daily Month Treated Flows for the Period from

January 2000 to June 2005...................................................................................................4-3 4-3 Existing Process Flow Schematic, J. Robert Dean WTP .................................................4-5 4-4 Existing Facilities at J. Robert Dean WTP ........................................................................4-6 4-5 Lime Dose (Monthly Average) ..........................................................................................4-9 4-6 IDSE and Stage 2 Compliance Dates ..............................................................................4-17 4-7 Typical Treatment Facility Water Quality Data and Associated Water FDEP

Standards ............................................................................................................................4-18 4-8 Yearly Average Values: J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant.................................4-20 4-9 Water Treatment Capacities To Meet Maximum Day Demands ...............................4-23 4-10 Preliminary Design Water Quality at J. Robert Dean WTP.........................................4-26 4-11 Process Flow Diagram ......................................................................................................4-29 4-12 Preliminary Mass Balance (Phase 1) ...............................................................................4-30 4-13 Preliminary Mass Balance (Phase 2) ...............................................................................4-32 4-14 Preliminary Major Equipment List and Design Criteria Summary ...........................4-36 4-15 J. Robert Dean WTP Phase I and Phase II RO Facility

Construction Cost Opinion ..............................................................................................4-42

CONTENTS, CONTINUED

GNV31013363605.DOC/061650022 VI WB122005005DFB

Exhibit Page

4-16 Kermit H. Lewin RO Desalination WTP Membrane Replacement and Plant Upgrades, Stock Island Construction Cost Opinion ....................................................4-43

4-17 Marathon RO Desalination WTP Membrane Replacement and Plant Upgrades, Marathon, Construction Cost Opinion...........................................................................4-44

5-1 Characteristics of Transmission System Booster Pump Stations and Storage Facilities ................................................................................................................................5-6 5-2 Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates for Proposed Transmission Main

Improvement Projects.........................................................................................................5-9

6-1 Approximate Maximum Flow Through Various Size Taps ..........................................6-2 6-2 Characteristics of Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities..........................6-5 6-3 Distribution Pump Station System Sizing Criteria .........................................................6-8 6-4 Fire Protection Parameters for Selected Distribution Systems

throughout the Keys ...........................................................................................................6-9 6-5 Distribution System Pumping Capacity and Storage Requirements for Selected

Distribution Systems throughout the Keys....................................................................6-10 6-6 Approximate Site Size Required for Distribution Pump Stations with

Various Size Ground Storage Tanks ...............................................................................6-18 6-7 Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates for Proposed Distribution

Pipeline Improvements ....................................................................................................6-19 6-8 Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates of Proposed Distribution Pump

Station System Improvements and for Proposed New Distribution Pump Station Systems ...............................................................................................................................6-20

7-1 20-Year Water Infrastructure Capital Improvement - Order of Magnitude Cost Summary...............................................................................................................................7-3

7-2 20-Year Water Infrastructure Capital Improvement - Detailed Cost Summary.........7-4 8-1 Existing Water Revenue Bonds .........................................................................................8-2 8-2 Five-Year Capital Improvement Funding Plan...............................................................8-3 8-3 Five-Year Capital Funding Sources ..................................................................................8-6 8-4 Issuance of Additional Revenue Bonds............................................................................8-6 8-5 Estimated Future Aggregate Debt Service.......................................................................8-7 8-6 Projected Water Rate Adjustments ...................................................................................8-8 8-7 Projected Debt Service Coverage ......................................................................................8-9

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-1 WB122005005DFB

Executive Summary

The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) faces ever-increasing water demands from population growth in the Florida Keys, more stringent environmental protection requirements, and higher customer service expectations. To help address these issues for a 20-year period (from 2006 through 2025), FKAA has prepared this comprehensive strategic Master Plan.

The purpose of the Master Plan is to provide FKAA with guidance and recommendations on water system capital improvements and expan-sion programs through 2025. This Master Plan includes recommenda-tions for new facilities or upgrades to existing facilities in water treat-ment, water supply, transmission, water storage, pumping stations, and distribution. In addition, the Master Plan includes a capital improve-ment program and a financial analysis to help prioritize and sequence the improvements to have as minimal impact on water rates as possible.

The goals and objectives of this strategic plan are focused around the following:

• Improve water supply and treatment reliability − Optimize existing and future treatment to meet current and

future regulatory limits

− Evaluate and implement alternative water supplies: Floridan aquifer, seawater, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), and reuse

• Improve transmission and distribution infrastructure − Additional storage capacity for distribution systems

− Replace small-diameter galvanized mains

− Provide more interconnects between distribution system and transmission main

− Loop distribution piping where possible

− Reduce system water losses

• Provide a long-range financial plan − Identify long-term financing options

− Phase and develop cash flow and investment program

− Incorporate impact of increased operations and maintenance (O&M) and debt service

− Quantify impact on rates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-2 WB122005005DFB

Service Area and Customer Base The service area of FKAA includes all of Monroe County plus that area in Miami-Dade County within 1 mile of the transmission pipeline. The service area includes a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential zonings that typify the land uses of a suburban area. Minimal service exists in Miami-Dade County, consisting of service to only a ranger station just outside of the treatment plant. FKAA does not expect that the distribution facilities of the System will be significantly expanded in Miami-Dade County.

The Florida Keys are comprised of a chain of more than 800 individual islands located at the southern tip of Florida. FKAA is the only potable water purveyor within the Florida Keys. There are no other competing utilities. However, FKAA is presently precluded by its rules from serving anyone in certain environmentally sensitive areas. Excluded areas are limited to National Wildlife Refuges and certain hardwood hammock lands. Additionally, FKAA is under contract with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to provide up to 2.4 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water to DoD facilities located at Key West, Boca Chica, and throughout the Keys.

Population and Water Demand Forecast FKAA serves three distinct populations: permanent residents, seasonal residents (those residing in the Keys for 6 months or less), and day visitors. The term “functional population” is a concept that incorporates these three elements of population. Because of the unique nature of the Keys, which has an economy based on seasonal tourism, it is appro-priate to use one “population” number that incorporates these three separate population components. For this Plan, the functional popula-tion value is used in all per capita calculations and estimates. There are approximately 3.6 people per customer account within FKAA’s service area using functional population as the basis.

Population projections developed by the Monroe County Planning Department (MCPD) indicate that the permanent population for the

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-3 WB122005005DFB

Florida Keys in 2005 was 81,701, and the seasonal population was 73,737. The term “functional population” is a concept that incorporates permanent residents, seasonal residents, and day visitors. The func-tional population for Monroe County in the year 2005 was 155,438. By 2025, Monroe County is expected to have a permanent population of 84,603, a seasonal population of 75,071, and a functional population of 159,674.

Projected Water Demand The maximum day projected finished water demands in the FKAA service area are expected to increase from 22.39 mgd in 2005 to 25.09 mgd in 2010, 27.60 mgd in 2015, 29.26 mgd in 2020, and 29.85 mgd in 2025. Projected maximum-day and peak hour demand were also calculated using peaking factors of 1.25 and 1.35, respectively.

Water Supply Recommendations Because of recent regulatory trends, it is unlikely that FKAA will be able to rely on the Biscayne Aquifer, its historical source of potable water, to meet its future needs for additional water. The South Florida Water Management District’s (SFWMD’s) Lower East Coast (LEC) Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) (SFWMD, 2005) advocates the use of the Floridan aquifer as an alternative water supply, either for ASR or for direct withdrawals for blending or reverse osmosis (RO).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-4 WB122005005DFB

Water Supply Summary FKAA’s projected 2025 average-day finished water demand is 23.88 mgd, and the projected 2025 maximum-day finished water demand is 29.85 mgd. Assuming that Biscayne Aquifer withdrawals are limited to 17.0 mgd during the dry season, 6 mgd can be provided by a new Low Pressure Reverse Osmosis (LPRO) water treatment plant (WTP) at Florida City, and 1 mgd of Floridan aquifer water can be blended at Florida City, which totals approximately 24 mgd. The additional treatment capacity to meet the 29.85 mgd projected demand would need to come from additional LPRO at Florida City, seawater desalination facilities in the lower Keys and Ocean Reef, or potentially subsidized wastewater reuse. Construction cost estimates for Floridan aquifer supply wells and deep injection well (DIW) for FKAA’s cost share of the Ocean Reef 4.5-mgd RO WTP facility are included in the construction cost estimate for water treatment provided in Section 4.

FKAA should continue its plans to construct its ASR system as a short-term solution to comply with a consent order with SFWMD. ASR can provide a short-term “bridge” to provide FKAA with additional water until an LPRO WTP utilizing the Floridan aquifer as a supply well for the LPRO treatment system is constructed. The ASR well will be con-structed with a stainless-steel casing so as to minimize the likelihood of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-5 WB122005005DFB

deterioration should it be used to withdraw brackish water on a long-term basis.

The total estimated cost for the water supply improvement is $11,575,000. This includes $10,575,000 to design and construct five Floridan aquifer supply wells for the new 6-mgd LPRO WTP (Phase I and Phase II) at the J. Robert Dean WTP. In addition, $1 million is already allocated to the ongoing ASR well (cost per FKAA for FY 2007 only). The detailed cost breakdown and discussion can be found in Section 3.

Water Treatment System Recommendations New Water Treatment Facilities LPRO Facility at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant, Florida City To meet increased demand, FKAA is proposing to expand capacity by installing new LPRO capacity at the J. Robert Dean WTP site. A Preliminary Design Report for a brackish water RO expansion at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant has been completed by CH2M HILL on January 19, 2006. Revision 1 of the Preliminary Design Report was completed on August 28, 2006. The design includes a build-ing to accommodate four RO trains, which when installed would pro-duce a maximum total of 6.576 mgd finished water. This includes an RO permeate flow of 6 mgd combined with a maximum Floridan bypass blend flow of 0.576 mgd.

Phase I will include three trains totaling 4.5 mgd of capacity of the LPRO WTP, which will meet the projected demands for 2009 through 2013. With the installation of the fourth train as Phase II of the project, bringing the new plant to a total of 6.576 mgd (maximum), projected demands for 2013 through 2018 will be met. Meeting the projected maximum day water demand of 2018 and beyond will require either utilizing finished water storage or an expansion of the facilities at Florida City or elsewhere.

One DIW for the proposed RO desalting plant’s concentrate disposal will be required. The DIW is currently under design with a disposal capacity adequate for 6 mgd of RO capacity.

The estimated cost for Phase I (4.5 mgd) is $25,223,399, with Phase II adding another 1.5 mgd of capacity at a cost of $1,836,400. The total project cost (both phases) for a new 6 mgd capacity WTP is $27,059,799. Detailed costs and discussions can be found in Section 4.

Proposed Ocean Reef RO Facility, Ocean Reef, Florida FKAA is also considering construction of an LPRO brackish water plant at Ocean Reef to offset the costs to replace or expand the 65,000 feet of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-6 WB122005005DFB

transmission main from Key Largo to Ocean Reef. The capacity of the facility is expected to be approximately 4.5 mgd, which will provide irrigation and potable water supply to the Ocean Reef community. Approximately 1.5 mgd of the capacity will be utilized to offset current FKAA demands and will reduce the capacity needs at the Florida City Dean WTP by 1.5 mgd. The benefits of a facility would be the elimination of the high capital costs to replace the 65,000-foot transmission pipeline, elimination of booster pumping costs at the new Key Largo Pump Station, high quality water for one of FKAA’s better customers, and a joint public/private project that benefits both Ocean Reef and FKAA.

The cost share for FKAA is estimated to be $8,350,000 (per FKAA).

Existing Water Treatment Facilities Upgrades J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant, Florida City, Florida Overall, the lime-softening WTP is in good condition, and no major repairs are anticipated in the future. Minor improvement items include:

• Add extra filter anthracite media to compensate for media loss and maintain filter performance.

• Investigate visible surface cracks on the recently installed 5 million gallon (MG) storage tank onsite. The cracks are probably superficial in nature. An investigation is pending by Crom, the tank manufacturer.

• Evaluate seepage problems and discoloration on the outside of the sludge thickener tank. Repairs may be needed.

• Add two new chlorinators to the existing chlorinator facility for use under the following circumstances:

− One chlorinator will be dedicated to feed chlorine to the new clearwell and paced to maintain a desirable chlorine concentration based on total RO permeate flow. The second chlorinator will be dedicated to feed chlorine to the scrubber system recirculation line to maintain the desired ORP set point.

− The second chlorinator will be dedicated to feed chlorine to the scrubber system recirculation line to maintain the desired ORP set point.

Kermit H. Lewin RO Emergency Facility, Stock Island, Florida The following improvement items are proposed at the Kermit H. Lewin RO facility to increase production capacity to 2.5 mgd:

• Retrofit two trains with existing DuPont permeators with Toyobo modules

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-7 WB122005005DFB

• Install new carbon dioxide storage and feed system for raw water

• Replace existing feed piping (downstream of the feed throttling valve), the concentrate piping, and permeate piping

• Install a limited-size bypass line around the energy recovery units to lessen the concentrate backpressure

• Refurbish and seal the clearwell under the degasifiers

• Install an elevated walkway and platform on the north side of the building connecting the second story stairway platform to the diesel fuel storage tank system

The estimated cost for these improvements is $3,817,566. A detailed cost breakdown and discussion can be found in Section 4.

Marathon RO Desalination Facility, Marathon, Florida The following improvement items are proposed at the Marathon RO emergency facility to provide 1.25 mgd of production capacity:





• Upgrade components that are affected by corrosion

The estimated cost for these improvements is $2,659,003. A detailed cost breakdown and discussion can be found in Section 4.

The locations of all water treatment improvements including new facilities are shown in Appendix C.

Transmission System Recommendations FKAA has a unique water system that extends some 130 miles from Florida City to Key West and is only approximately 3 miles wide at its widest point. The water transmission system begins at the high-service pumps at the J. Robert Dean WTP in Florida City. This plant pumps water into the transmission main at an operating pressure of 250 pounds per square inch (psi) to transmit water through the entire Keys service area. The proposed improvements for the different components of the transmission system are briefly described below.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-8 WB122005005DFB

Transmission System Mains Improvements • Jewfish Creek Bridge 36-Inch Transmission Main Relocation

• C-111 Canal Bridge 36-Inch Transmission Main Relocation

• Other U.S. 1 8-Mile Stretch Highway Improvements that may Impact 36-Inch Transmission Main

• 12-Inch Ocean Reef Transmission Main (22,000 feet of the main to be replaced)

• 36-Inch Transmission Main, Key Largo, MM 93 to MM 98

• 18-Inch Transmission, MM 92-93

• Phase II Cathodic Protection System Improvements

• Transmission Main Improvements, North Roosevelt Boulevard Highway Improvements

• Transmission System Pump Stations and Storage Facilities

• High-Service Pumping and Storage Facilities at the J. Robert Dean WTP

• Key Largo Booster Pump Station

• Plantation Key Booster Pump Station

• Marathon Booster Pump Station and Storage Facilities

The locations of these improvements including new facilities are shown in Appendix C.

The total estimated cost for all transmission system mains, booster pump stations, and storage facilities is $58,899,034. Detailed cost estimates and project descriptions can be found in Section 5.

Distribution Systems Recommendations The proposed improvements for the distribution system includes distribution main, pumping stations, and storage facilities. When these improvements are initiated, this will be the first time since the early 1980s that any new distribution system tankage has been built. The proposed distribution pump station pump sizes and storage volumes and all distribution system piping sizes were determined without verification through hydraulic modeling. Before final design of any system begins, the system component sizes should be verified through hydraulic modeling.

The recommended improvements to both existing and new facilities are briefly described below.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-9 WB122005005DFB

• Distribution Piping − Replace Old Galvanized Mains − Upsize Small-Diameter Mains to 4-Inch Minimum − Install Additional Tap on Little Torch Key − Cudjoe Key-Additional Distribution Main Header to

Interconnect System Taps

• Improvements to Existing Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities − Ocean Reef – 1 MG of storage, plus standby power − Rock Harbor – Replace and upsize pump and increase storage by

1 MG − Tavernier – Upsize pump station and increase storage by 1 MG − Islamorada – Install a distribution main header − Crawl Key, Marathon – 1 MG of additional storage and two new

pumps. − Vaca Cut, Marathon – Install new 0.5 MG storage tank − 33rd Street, Marathon – Replace existing pump station and 0.5

MG storage − Summerland Key – Replace pump station and 0.5 MG storage

tank − Stock Island Distribution Pump Station - Replace Pump station

• Proposed New Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities

− Lake Surprise, between Adams Cut and Lake Surprise – New pump station and 0.75 MG storage tank

− Plantation Key – New pump station and 1.0 MG storage tank

− Lower Matecumbe Key – New pump station and 0.5 MG storage tank

− Duck Key/Grassy Key - New pump station and 0.75 MG storage tank

− Ramrod Key - New pump station and 0.5 MG storage tank

− Cudjoe Key (under design; two 940 gpm @ 397 feet and one 1.0 MG storage tank)

− Lower Sugarloaf Key - New pump station and 0.5 MG storage tank

The locations of these improvements including new facilities are shown in Appendix C.

The total estimated cost for all distribution main upgrades is $47,500,000. For the pump station and storage facilities upgrades, the

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-10 WB122005005DFB

20-Year Water Infrastructure Order-of-Magnitude Cost Summary

estimated cost is $33,546,000. Detailed cost estimates and project descriptions can be found in Section 6.

Capital Improvement Program FKAA’s Water Infrastructure Capital Improvement Program (CIP) involves upgrades to existing facilities as well as proposed new infrastructure for FKAA’s Water System through the investment of approximately $208.6 million (in 2006 dollars) in capital improvements. This cost estimate includes project construction costs for improvements over a 20-year period and also includes additional cost for contingency and consulting/administrative/ legal costs.

The CIP identifies many short-term and long-term improvements to the water transmission system, raw water supply system, the water storage and distribution system, and the WTPs. Upgrades to the Water System will increase capacity, and improve flows and pressures to meet anti-cipated water demands. Significant upgrades to the WTPs are planned to improve the reliability and quality of FKAA’s drinking water. A specific goal is to provide high quality water that continues to meets regulatory standards to the entire service area.

Major improvements to the water system include a new Floridan aquifer wellfield that will serve a new LPRO treatment facility at the J Robert Dean WTP in Florida City, multiple rehabilitation or upgrade projects at both the Kermit H. Lewin Desalination WTP and the Marathon Desalination WTP facility to increase reliability and capacity to meet emergency and peak day flows, and various transmission/ distribution line replacements, distribution pump station upgrades, and additional water storage tank capacity to improve storage and delivery

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-11 WB122005005DFB

capacity of the system. Detailed cost estimates and listing of the entire CIP can be found in Section 7.

Financial Strategy Funding for the Capital Improvement Program outlined in Section 7 will be accommodated by various sources of revenue available from the Water System together with potential grants from either the SFWMD, the State of Florida, and/or federal grant programs. It is expected that the majority of the funding will arise from leveraging the water revenues from the rate payers as a source of repayment on long term bond issues utilizing sound financial practices and financing tools to protect the financial integrity of the system as well as reduce interest costs thereby having the least impact upon ratepayers.

The projects outlined in Section 7 will be detailed in a rolling 5-year capital funding program, which will be presented to the FKAA Governing Board annually as part of the budget process. FKAA will maintain the integrity of the existing System’s credit ratings in the bond market by maintaining or improving the ratings that currently exist on the outstanding bonds. Implicit in maintaining the System’s bond ratings is strict adherence to the bond covenants under FKAA’s Master Bond Resolution. The overall capital improvement funding strategy will strive to minimize and spread out on an intergenerational basis the impact of rate adjustments required to amortize the proposed bond issues with a fair allocation of costs to current and future beneficiaries or users.

More than 40 percent of the 20-year capital improvements are scheduled within the next 5 years (that is, by Fiscal Year 2011). Because financial forecasting is less reliable beyond a 5-year period, a detailed funding analysis has not been completed past Fiscal Year 2011. As future projects

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GNV31013363604.DOC/061650021 ES-12 WB122005005DFB

move within the 5-year planning horizon, specific capital strategies will be developed. Such capital funding will likely include additional borrowing as well as cash funding from rates. The underlying objective will be to continue to fund necessary capital improvements, minimize future water rate adjustments, and maintain the creditworthiness of the FKAA Water System.

Five-Year Capital Funding Sources

Funding Source Five-Year Amount % of Total

Operating Reserves $8,774,000 7.5%

System Development Charges $5,062,000 4.3%

Series 2006 Bonds – Remaining Funds $23,162,000 19.9%

Series 2007 Bonds $53,368,500 45.8%

Series 2009 Bonds $25,539,000 21.9%

Grants $500,000 0.4%

Total1 $116,405,500 100.0%

Note: 1Project amounts obtained from the Water Master Plan as of September 2006, with adjustments obtained from FKAA staff regarding FY2006 project carryovers as of October 2006.

A detailed discussion and financing plan can be found in Section 8.

WPB310127161227.DOC/061640015 1-1 WD122005005DFB

SECTION 1

Introduction

1.1 Purpose of a Strategic 20-Year Master Plan The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) faces ever-increasing water demands from population growth in the Florida Keys, more stringent environmental protection requirements, and higher customer service expectations. To help address these issues for a 20-year period (from 2006 through 2025), FKAA has prepared this comprehensive strategic Master Plan that includes a list of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) during this 20-year planning period. Specific strategic goals and objectives for this plan were defined early on in the Master Plan process and included:

• Developing a long-range strategic facilities plan

• Improving system reliability

• Providing financial forecasting tool

• Developing cash flow and investment program in conjunction with phasing all CIP plans

• Developing long-term financing plan to match CIP

• Determining rate impact of increased operations and maintenance (O&M) and debt service

• Optimizing water treatment (reverse osmosis [RO], lime softening, raw) to meet future compliance issues and water quality goals

• Meeting future water supply needs by using alternative water supplies: Biscayne, seawater, Floridan aquifer, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)

• Improving production reliability of J. Robert Dean WTP

• Improving reliability of all desalination facilities

• Improving storage capabilities throughout the Keys

• Eliminating all galvanized water mains

• Connecting Distribution Systems along U.S. 1 to interconnect with more taps where possible

• Reducing as much as possible the dependency of taps as the primary means of maintaining distribution system pressures, particularly for the larger, more concentrated distribution systems

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

WPB310127161227.DOC/061640015 1-2 WD122005005DFB

• Looping all distribution where possible

• Increasing storage to reduce difficulty in maintaining needed water levels

• Address Regulatory Requirements: − Water treatment – Disinfectant/Disinfection By-product (D/ DBP) Rule − Permitting - Future Biscayne water use allocation from the South Florida Water

Management District (SFWMD)

• Reduce system water losses (as much as 12 percent at present)

• Clearly develop strategy on transmission vs. distribution operation From these strategic goals and objectives, the Master Plan was created to provide FKAA with guidance and recommendations on strategic water system capital improvements and expansion programs through 2025. This Master Plan includes recommendations for new facilities or upgrades to existing facilities in water treatment, water supply, transmission, water storage, pumping stations, and distribution. In addition, the Master Plan includes a capital improvement program and a financial analysis to help prioritize and sequence the improvements to have as minimal impact on water rates as possible.

1.2 Background FKAA was created in 1937 by the State of Florida to be the sole provider of potable water for all of the residents of the Florida Keys. FKAA presently serves more than 44,000 customers within Monroe County. Potable water is transported to the Keys through a 130-mile-long transmission pipeline, with an additional 649 miles of distribution pipelines that deliver water to the customer’s property.

In 1998 and 2002, FKAA’s Enabling Legislation was amended to redefine the primary purpose of FKAA to include collecting, treating, and disposing of wastewater in certain areas of the Florida Keys. FKAA’s activities relating to provision of wastewater services are accounted for separately from the water service and are not included in this document. However, this Master Plan document does take into consideration the impact of wastewater reuse and the need to consider reuse to offset increased water demand and its impact on per capita cost.

1.3 Service Area and Customer Base The service area of FKAA includes all of Monroe County plus that area in Miami-Dade County within 1 mile of the transmission pipeline. The FKAA existing Water System overview is presented in Exhibit 1-1, which shows transmission mains, pumping facilities, ground storage tanks, and water treatment facilities. The service area includes a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential zonings that typify the land uses of a suburban area. Minimal service exists in Miami-Dade County, consisting of service to only a ranger station just outside of the treatment plant. FKAA does not expect that the distribution facilities of the System will be significantly expanded in Miami-Dade County per FKAA Statute 48-201.024 – Provision of Water Service Within Miami-Dade County.

EXHIBIT 1-1

FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY

WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT MASTER PLAN

00nc101f_334709.dgn 22-FEB-2006

N

0

SYSTEM MAP KEY PLANKEY WEST

ROCKLAND KEY

RAMROD KEY

BIG PINE KEY

MARATHON

UPPER

MATECUMBE KEY

TAVERNIER

KEY LARGO

OCEAN REEF

FLORIDA CITY

SYSTEM MAP 1

SYSTEM MAP 2SYSTEM MAP 3

SYSTEM MAP 4

SYSTEM M

AP 5

SYSTEM

MA

P 6

SY

STEM

MA

P 7

SY

ST

EM

MA

P 8

SYSTEM MAP 9

1"= 8 MILES

4 8 12

(EXISTING WATER FACILITIES)

2.0 MGDR.O. PLANT

N

OVERSEAS HWY / U.S. 1

00nc102f_334709.dgn 14-MAR-2006

0 1 ‰

1"= 1 MILE

EXHIBIT 1-1

SYSTEM MAP 2FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY


DIST

.2 MG

BOOSTER PUMP

STATION

MA

TC

HL

INE

- S

EE

SY

ST

EM

MA

P 1

MA

TC

HL

INE

- S

EE

SY

ST

EM

MA

P 3

‰ 1

DISTRIBUTION

PUMP

STATION

RAMROD KEY

EXISTING 24" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN

EXISTING 24" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN

EXISTING 18" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN

EXISTING 18" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN


SUMMERLAND KEY

VACA KEY

1.0 MGDR.O. PLANT

GRASSY KEY

NO NAME KEY

00nc101f_334709.dgn 14-MAR-2006

0 1 ‰

1"= 1 MILE

N

0 1 ‰

1"= 1 MILE

N

EXHIBIT 1-1SYSTEM MAP 5

EXHIBIT 1-1

SYSTEM MAP 6FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY


BOOSTER PUMP

STATION

DIST

1 MG

DIST

.5 MG

DIST

.5 MG

MA

TC

HL

INE

- S

EE

SY

ST

EM

MA

P 7

MA

TC

HL

INE

- S

EE

SY

ST

EM

MA

P 6

MA

TC

HL

INE

- S

EE

SY

ST

EM

MA

P 5

MA

TC

HL

INE

- S

EE

SY

ST

EM

MA

P 4

‰ 1

‰ 1

LONG KEY

ISLAMORADA

DISTRIBUTION

PUMP

STATION

TAVERNIER

DISTRIBUTION

PUMP

STATION

EXISTING 30" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN

EXISTING 18" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN

EXISTING 30" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN

EXISTING 18" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN

EXISTING 30" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN

EXISTING 18" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAINEXISTING 30" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN

EXISTING 18" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN

EXISTING 18" WATER

TRANSMISSION MAIN



FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY


12” TRANSMISSION MAIN

KEY LARGO BOOSTER PUMP STATION

12” TRANSMISSION MAIN

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

WPB310127161227.DOC/061640015 1-10 WD122005005DFB

FKAA is the only potable water purveyor within the Florida Keys. There are no other competing utilities. However, FKAA is presently precluded by its rules from serving anyone in certain environmentally sensitive areas. Excluded areas are limited to National Wildlife Refuges and certain hardwood hammock lands. Additionally, FKAA is under contract with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to provide up to 2.4 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water to DoD facilities located at Key West, Boca Chica, and throughout the Keys.

1.4 Report Organization The Master Plan includes nine sections, which are organized as follows:

• Executive Summary, presents key issues and final capital improvement recommendations including a 20-year financial strategy (2006 through 2025).

• Section 1, Introduction, presents a brief purpose of the Master Plan and a summary of existing water infrastructure.

• Section 2, Population and Water Demand Forecast Summary, presents population and water demand forecasts for the planning period (2006–2025).

• Section 3, Water Supply System, describes FKAA’s water supply system, and presents recommendations for water supply options to meet projected demands.

• Section 4, Water Treatment System, discusses the current facilities for water treatment and the impact of current or anticipated drinking water standards. This section also presents recommendations for water treatment options to meet projected demands.

• Section 5, Water Transmission System, describes FKAA’s current transmission main and booster pump station system and recommended improvements.

• Section 6, Water Distribution System, presents a discussion of the FKAA distribution mains, ground storage, and pumping system network and proposed improvements.

• Section 7, Capital Improvement Program, presents a detailed layout of proposed improvements and new projects.

• Section 8, Strategic Financial Plan, presents a 20-year financial strategic model.

• Section 9, Works Cited, provides complete references for documents cited in this Master Plan.

• Appendix A, Justification for Projected Per Capita Water Demand in the FKAA Service Area

• Appendix B, Drinking Water Regulations Update

• Appendix C, Proposed Water Facilities Improvements

• Appendix D, Transmission System Capital Cost Estimates

• Appendix E, Distribution System Capital Cost Estimates

• Appendix F, Wastewater Reuse Background Information

GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-1 WB122005005DFB

SECTION 2

Population and Water Demand Forecast Summary

2.1 Introduction The development of accurate population projections and water use demands for the Florida Keys is challenging because of the high number of seasonal residents (those residing in the Keys for 6 months or less), and day visitors (from cruise ships docking in Key West or visitors from the mainland). The population projections developed by the Monroe County Planning Department (MCPD) and used in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (USACE, 2003) are used as the basis for the majority of population projections developed by other agencies, and were also used for this analysis.

The MCPD permanent and seasonal population projections were used to develop a functional population (permanent plus seasonal) for FKAA’s service area through 2025. The projected population was then multiplied by FKAA’s projected per capita demand to project customer demand in the service area. The per capita demand is projected to in-crease as the changing demographics of the Keys result in higher indivi-dual water use (for example, redevelopment of existing property usual-ly involves some level of irrigation or other water-consuming amenities where none previously existed).

2.2 Projected Population 2.2.1 Permanent Population The MCPD permanent population projections include the most appro-priate and applicable information and are viewed as the basis of future projections in this Plan. From 1990 through 1995, the permanent popula-tion of Monroe County increased from 78,856 to 79,200 (0.4 percent); from 1995 through 2000, it increased from 79,200 to 79,589 (0.5 percent); and from 2000 through 2005, it increased from 79,589 to 81,701 (2.7 percent).

SECTION 2 - POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND FORECAST SUMMARY

GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-2 WB122005005DFB

The MCPD data in the USACE Carrying Capacity Study (USACE, 2003) project a permanent population of 79,589 for 2000; 81,701 in 2005; 83,400 in 2010; 83,799 in 2015; 84,200 in 2020; and 84,603 in 2025. Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the MCPD permanent population projections. The permanent population is projected to grow at an overall average rate of 1.2 percent for each 5-year period from 2005 through 2025, with a higher rate (2.1 percent from 2005 to 2010) and a lower rate (0.5 percent) thereafter as Monroe County nears build-out.

2.2.2 Seasonal Population The MCPD seasonal population projections in the USACE Carrying Capacity Study (USACE, 2003) also were used to project the seasonal population for Monroe County. Although there are no exact counts of the seasonal population, the MCPD developed historical seasonal population projections for 1990, 1995, and 2000. The MCPD projected that the 1990 seasonal population of 70,493 increased by 1.1 percent to a 1995 population of 71,266, and further in-creased by 3.1 percent to a 2000 seasonal population of 73,491.The MCPD continues these seasonal population projections in 5-year increments starting with a seasonal population of 73,737 in 2005; 74,533 in 2010; 74,712 in 2015; 74,891 in 2020; and 75,071 in 2025. The seasonal population is projected to increase at an overall average rate of 0.4 percent for each 5-year period from 2005 through 2025, with a 1.1 percent increase between 2005 and 2010 and a 0.24 percent increase from 2010 through 2025.

2.2.3 Functional Population The term “functional population” is a concept that incorporates three elements of popula-tion: permanent residents, seasonal visitors, and day visitors. Because of the unique nature of the Keys, which has an economy based on seasonal tourism, it is appropriate to use one “population” number that incorporates these three separate population components.

In 2004 and 2005, CH2M HILL developed population projections for the FKAA service area. The population projections were based on those developed by the Monroe County Planning Department, and combined the permanent population with the seasonal population to form a “functional population” that was used to estimate water demand.

As part of this effort, CH2M HILL contacted the agencies or municipalities listed in Exhibit 2-1 to determine if they could provide data that could be used to develop population projections for the FKAA service area. Ultimately, it was decided to use the functional population projections developed by Monroe County.

Exhibit 2-2 presents the MCPD permanent, seasonal, and functional populations between 1990 and 2025. For this Plan, the functional population value is used in all per capita calcula-tions and estimates. There are approximately 3.6 people per customer account within FKAA’s service area using functional population as the basis.

Exhibit 2-3 summarizes the percent change in the functional population in 5-year intervals, starting in 1990.


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-3 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 2-1 Sources of Population Projection Data

Agency or Municipality

Type of Data

Contact Person

Data Source

Comments

University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR)

Permanent Population Projections

N/A 2003 Annual Report Projections for the entire state of Florida by county from 2000 through 2025.

Monroe County Planning Department

Permanent and Seasonal Population Projections

N/A 2004 Comprehensive Plan and Facilities Capacity Assessment

Seasonal and permanent population projections were based off 1990 US Census and updated with the 2000 US Census numbers for the entire county.

Monroe County Tourist Development Council (TDC)

Hotel, Cruise Ship, and Airline Data

Jessica Mazzola, Director of Market Research

Three Penny Revenue Report, Call Counts, Trend Report and Airline Passenger Data Report FY 2004

The most detailed seasonal data, but did not account for the “day trip” visitor.

Islamorada Permanent Population Projections

Patrick Small, Principal Planner

2003 Comprehensive Plan

Developed based on the US Census.

Key Colony Beach Permanent and Seasonal Population Projections

Clyde Burnett, Mayor



Key West Permanent and Seasonal Population Projections

Ty Symrowski, City Planner



Layton Permanent and Seasonal Population Projections

Norm Anderson, City Council

N/A Developed based on the US Census.

Marathon Permanent and Seasonal Population Projections

Katie Parker, Planner



U.S. Census Permanent Population Estimates

N/A 2000 Census Estimates

Permanent population estimates for 2000 by county.

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)

Population and Water Demand Projections

N/A Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan (LEC RWSP) (2003)

Draft data from November 2003.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Permanent and Seasonal Population Projections

N/A Carrying Capacity Study (2003)

Included constraints on growth and environmental factors.

Note: N/A = not applicable


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-4 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 2-2 Monroe County Historic and Projected Population Projections

Year

Permanent Population

Seasonal Population

Functional Population (Permanent + Seasonal + Day Visitors)

1990 78,856 70,493 149,349

1991 78,925 70,648 149,572

1992 78,994 70,802 149,796

1993 79,062 70,957 150,019

1994 79,131 71,111 150,243

1995 79,200 71,266 150,466

1996 79,278 71,421 150,698

1997 79,356 71,575 150,931

1998 79,433 71,730 151,163

1999 79,511 71,884 151,396

2000 79,589 73,491 153,080

2001 80,011 73,540 153,552

2002 80,434 73,589 154,023

2003 80,856 73,639 154,495

2004 81,279 73,688 154,966

2005 81,701 73,737 155,438

2006 82,041 73,896 155,937

2007 82,381 74,055 156,436

2008 82,720 74,215 156,935

2009 83,060 74,374 157,434

2010 83,400 74,533 157,933

2011 83,480 74,569 158,049

2012 83,560 74,605 158,164

2013 83,639 74,640 158,280

2014 83,719 74,676 158,395

2015 83,799 74,712 158,511

2016 83,879 74,748 158,627

2017 83,959 74,784 158,743

2018 84,040 74,819 158,859

2019 84,120 74,855 158,975

2020 84,200 74,891 159,091

2021 84,281 74,927 159,208

2022 84,361 74,963 159,324

2023 84,442 74,999 159,441

2024 84,522 75,035 159,557

2025 84,603 75,071 159,674


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-5 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 2-3 5-Year Historic and Projected Percent Changes in Functional Population

5-Year Period Percent Change in

Functional Population

1990–1995 0.75

1995–2000 1.74

2000–2005 1.54

2005–2010 1.61

2010–2015 0.37

2015–2020 0.37%

2020–2025 0.37%

2.3 Historic Water Production CH2M HILL reviewed the raw water pumpage records from the FKAA’s Florida City well-field from 1990 through 2005. These data, obtained from the FKAA’s previous water use permit (WUP) applications, Monthly Operating Reports (MORs), and Monthly Production Reports (MPRs), are summarized in Exhibit 2-4. Exhibit 2-5 summarizes the same data for finished water; however, because of limited continuous annual historic data, a summary from 2000 to 2005 is presented.

Unlike population growth, which increased less than 2 percent for each 5-year period from 1990 through 2005 (Exhibit 2-3), the average-day raw water demand for the FKAA service area increased much more rapidly. From 1990 to 1995, the average-day raw water demand for the service area increased from 12.06 mgd to 14.07 mgd, an increase of 16.7 percent. From 1995 to 2000, the average-day demand increased by 21.2 percent, from 14.07 mgd to 17.06 mgd. From 2000 to 2005, average-day demand increased by only 4.0 percent, from 17.06 mgd to 17.73 mgd.

As seen in Exhibits 2-4 and 2-5, the 2000 drought with water restrictions resulted in significantly lower demands in 2001 (the year in which water restrictions were fully implemented). It is also possible that reduction in travel following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks resulted in less tourism.


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-6 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 2-4 Historic Raw Water Production

Year Annual

Demand (MG) Average Daily Demand (mgd)

Max Day Demand (mgd)

Average Monthly Demand (MG)

Per Capita Demand (gpcd)

1990 4,404 12.06 14.89 367.01 80.74

1991 4,290 11.75 14.87 357.53 78.53

1992 4,742 12.98 15.9 395.16 86.67

1993 5,163 14.14 16.76 430.29 94.23

1994 5,076 13.90 16.88 423.01 92.50

1995 5,140 14.07 16.49 428.37 93.53

1996 5,273 14.44 17.82 439.40 95.80

1997 5,357 14.67 18.36 446.38 97.17

1998 5,622 15.39 18.29 468.49 101.82

1999 5,953 16.30 20.24 496.06 107.65

2000 6,230 17.06 20.79 519.15 111.42

2001 5,627 15.41 19.15 468.89 100.32

2002 6,191 16.95 20.46 515.93 110.05

2003 6,288 17.22 22.20 524.01 111.43

2004 6,383 17.48 22.00 531.92 112.77

2005 6,477 17.73 22.39 539.75 114.10

Notes: MG=million gallons mgd=million gallons per day gpcd=gallons per capita per day per capita=functional population

EXHIBIT 2-5 Historic Finished Water Production

Year

Annual Demand (MG)

Average Daily Demand (mgd)

Max Day Demand (mgd)

Average Monthly

Demand (MG) Per Capita Demand

(gpcd)

2000 6,116 16.76 20.46 510 109.46

2001a 5,558 15.23 19.24 463 99.17

2002 6,031 16.52 19.95 503 107.28

2003 6,248 17.12 20.43 521 110.80

2004 6,347 17.39 20.43 529 112.22

2005 6,338 17.36 22.30 528 111.71

Notes: a2001 maximum day for historic finished water was higher than maximum day for raw water (Exhibit 2-3) because of higher pumpage from storage tanks at Florida City during peak hours. MG=million gallons mgd=million gallons per day gpcd=gallons per capita per day per capita=functional population


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-7 WB122005005DFB

Exhibit 2-6 compares the changes in population, raw water demand, and per capita use for the 5-year periods from 1990 through 2005.

EXHIBIT 2-6 5-Year Historic Percent Changes in Functional Population, Raw Water Demand, and Per Capita Water Demand

5-Year Period Percent Change in

Functional Population Percent Change in Average Day

Raw Water Demand Percent Change in per Capita Water Demand

1990–1995 0.75 16.72 15.85

1995–2000 1.74 21.19 19.12

2000–2005 1.54 3.97 2.39

The high rate of growth in raw water demand, along with an increasing per capita demand over time, as seen in Exhibit 2-4, is primarily the result of a strong shift in demographics seen in the FKAA service area. The Keys as a whole are seeing an increasing number of affluent customers moving into the area who are then displacing the lower-income demo-graphic group. These new customers are either improving existing homes or tearing them down and building larger, more expensive homes that use more water. Thus, new cus-tomers are consuming more water on a per capita basis and resulting in a higher per capita and average-day demand for the FKAA service area. This hypothesis was explored by investigating two issues believed to possibly contribute to this trend:

• Swimming pool construction permits, and • Differences in water use following a home sale.

2.3.1 Swimming Pool Construction Permits Homes constructed or redeveloped by higher-income residents typically have swimming pools, which further increase the water demand for that residence. CH2M HILL obtained the annual number of swimming pool construction permits issued by Monroe County from 1995 through 2004, as shown in Exhibit 2-7.

EXHIBIT 2-7 Annual Swimming Pool Construction Permits Issued by Monroe County

Year Number of New Swimming Pool

Construction Permits Issued Percent Annual Increase

1995 65 N/A

1996 82 26

1997 88 7

1998 98 11

1999 88 -10

2000 96 9

2001 88 -8

2002 111 26

2003 195 76

2004 153 -22

Annual Average 106 13


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-8 WB122005005DFB

The rate of swimming pool permit issuance increased, on average, by 13 percent annually from 1995 through 2004, which included both the drought year and recovery of 2001 as well as 2004, which had multiple hurricanes. In the past 3 years (2002 through 2004), pool permit issuance increased by an average of 27 percent annually (except 2004). Since 1995, the number of permits issued annually has increased by more than 250 percent.

2.3.2 Current Homeowner Versus Former Homeowner Water Use In a trend that has become commonplace across Florida, higher-income residents are dis-placing lower-income residents and substantially improving their “new” homes. Many of these improvements involve upgrading the landscaping with lush foliage that typically requires substantially more irrigation than the previous landscaping. In addition, many times smaller homes are replaced with larger homes with more bathrooms. As a result of these changes, many of these residences show large increases in water use without a cor-responding increase in population. Additionally, higher-income residents are typically less sensitive to increases in their water bill and are less likely to decrease their water use in response to the increased cost. Combined, these factors can result in an increased per capita water use by new residents.

CH2M HILL analyzed residential home sales prices to determine if the increase in home sales prices could be correlated with increasing per capita water demand. Individual account data were only available from 2000 through 2004, and to compare a full year of usage for each customer, only home sales occurring between 2002 and 2003 were used, which allowed for at least one full year of usage data before and after the sale. Water use in 2001 was excluded because of the impact of the water restrictions in effect at this time.

The FKAA service area is made up of several municipalities that are going through re-development and changes in demographics at different paces. To substantiate the correla-tion between increased home values and water use, CH2M HILL examined the home sale data for each separate municipality and for Monroe County as a whole.

1. CH2M HILL analyzed 2002 and 2003 home sale data provided by the Monroe County Property Appraiser to identify transactions in which the previous sale price was $150,000 or less. In 2002, 163 sales met this criterion; 268 purchases met this criterion in 2003.

2. The annual water use for each group of residential accounts was summed for 2000 through 2004.

3. For homes sold in 2002, their 2003 and 2004 water use was compared to their water use in 2000. Data from 2001 were excluded because of the drought, and data from 2002 (the sale year) were not included because of homes being sold at different times during the year and the lack of a full year’s worth of water use under either the old or new home-owners.

4. The water use in homes sold in 2004 was compared against their 2002 water use. Data from 2001 and 2003 were excluded as noted above.

For the 2002 home sales in Monroe County, water use increased by 13.4 percent in 2003 and 21.1 percent in 2004 when compared to water use in 2000. For the 2003 home sales, water use increased by 11.4 percent in 2004 when compared to 2002 water use.


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-9 WB122005005DFB

A technical memorandum documenting the projected change in per capita use, prepared for the South Florida Water Management District as part of the FKAA’s water use permitting process is included as Appendix A.

2.4 Projected Finished Water Demand The projected finished water demands for the FKAA service area from 2005 through 2025 are shown in tabular form in Exhibit 2-8 and in graphical form in Exhibit 2-9.

EXHIBIT 2-8 FKAA Service Area Projected 2005–2025 Population and Finished Water Demands

Population Finished Water Demands

Year Permanent Seasonal Functional per capita

(gpcd)

Avg. Day

(mgd)

Max. Day

(mgd) Annual (MG)

Avg. Mo.

(MG)

Max. Mo.

(MG)

2005 (Actual) 81,701 73,737 155,438 114.08 17.73 22.39 6477 539.74 597.15

2006 82,041 73,896 155,937 119.15 18.58 23.23 6786 565.53 625.69

2007 82,381 74,055 156,436 119.99 18.77 23.46 6856 571.31 632.08

2008 82,720 74,215 156,935 122.34 19.2 24.00 7013 584.40 646.56

2009 83,060 74,374 157,434 124.75 19.64 24.55 7174 597.79 661.38

2010 83,400 74,533 157,933 127.08 20.07 25.09 7331 610.88 675.86

2011 83,480 74,569 158,049 129.58 20.48 25.60 7480 623.36 689.67

2012 83,560 74,605 158,164 132.01 20.88 26.10 7626 635.54 703.14

2013 83,639 74,640 158,280 134.45 21.28 26.60 7773 647.71 716.61

2014 83,719 74,676 158,395 136.87 21.68 27.10 7919 659.89 730.08

2015 83,799 74,712 158,511 139.30 22.08 27.60 8065 672.06 743.55

2016 83,879 74,748 158,627 140.90 22.35 27.94 8163 680.28 752.64

2017 83,959 74,784 158,743 142.43 22.61 28.26 8258 688.19 761.40

2018 84,040 74,819 158,859 144.03 22.88 28.60 8357 696.41 770.49

2019 84,120 74,855 158,975 145.56 23.14 28.93 8452 704.32 779.24

2020 84,200 74,891 159,091 147.15 23.41 29.26 8551 712.54 788.34

2021 84,281 74,927 159,208 147.61 23.5 29.38 8583 715.28 791.37

2022 84,361 74,963 159,324 148.13 23.6 29.50 8620 718.33 794.73

2023 84,442 74,999 159,441 148.64 23.7 29.63 8656 721.37 798.10

2024 84,522 75,035 159,557 149.04 23.78 29.73 8686 723.80 800.80

2025 84,603 75,071 159,674 149.55 23.88 29.85 8722 726.85 804.16

Notes: Population data based on Monroe County Planning Department data in the USACE Carrying Capacity Study (2003). Maximum-day demand based on maximum-day to average-day ratio of 1.25 (2002–2005 average). Maximum-month demand based on maximum-month to average-month ratio of 1.11 (2002–2005 average). The projections include the U.S. Navy’s historic use of 1.05 mgd out of their contract for 2.4 mgd.


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-10 WB122005005DFB

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Fini

shed

Wat

er D

eman

d (m

gd)

125,000

150,000

175,000

200,000

225,000

250,000

Popu

latio

n

Historic Average Day Demand Projected Average Day DemandHistoric Maximum Day Demand Projected Maximum Day DemandHistoric Functional Population (Estimated) Projected Functional Population

EXHIBIT 2-9 Graphic Representation of FKAA Service Area Projected 2005–2025 Population and Finished Water Demands

Including the existing U.S. Navy’s historic demand of 1.05 mgd, the projected average-day finished water demand for the FKAA service area is expected to be 20.07 mgd in 2010, 22.08 mgd in 2015, 23.41 mgd in 2020, and 23.88 mgd in 2025. Maximum-day demands to be used to determine treatment plant capacity needs are expected to be 25.09 mgd in 2010, 27.60 mgd in 2015, 29.26 mgd in 2020, and 29.85 mgd in 2025 (see Exhibit 2-8).

In comparing FKAA’s finished water demands and per capita water use to other large utilities across South Florida, as listed in the SFWMD Lower East Coast (LEC) Water Supply Plan (Chapter 5 – Table 59), both FKAA’s existing (2005) per capita water use (114.08 gpcd) and projected (2025) per capita water use (149.55 gpcd) are well below the LEC Water Supply Plan’s calculated average of 172 gpcd.

2.4.1 Peak Hour Demands FKAA provided daily log sheets from the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant (WTP) for selected periods in 2004 and 2005 with above-normal demand, such as Spring Break, Memorial Day, and July 4th.

The highest hourly flow rate (23.9 mgd) occurred on March 25, 2005. The 2005 average daily flow rate was 17.73 mgd; therefore, the peak hour demand peaking factor is the peak hour


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-11 WB122005005DFB

(23.9 mgd) divided by the average daily flow for the year (17.73 mgd), or 1.35. This is significantly lower than the typical utility’s 3.0 to 6.0 average-day to peak-hour demand ratio reported by Haestad Methods (2003). This discrepancy is attributed to the buffering capacity of the nearly 45 MG of storage in FKAA’s distribution and transmission system.

This peaking factor was used in conjunction with the average-day demands in Exhibit 2-8 to develop peak hour demands for the FKAA service area. Exhibit 2-10 presents the projected peak hour demand for the FKAA service area through 2025.

EXHIBIT 2-10 Projected Peak Hour Demands

Year Average Day Demand (mgd) Peak Hour Demand (mgd)

2006 18.58 25.08

2007 18.77 25.34

2008 19.2 25.92

2009 19.64 26.51

2010 20.07 27.09

2011 20.48 27.65

2012 20.88 28.19

2013 21.28 28.73

2014 21.68 29.27

2015 22.08 29.81

2016 22.35 30.17

2017 22.61 30.52

2018 22.88 30.89

2019 23.14 31.24

2020 23.41 31.60

2021 23.5 31.73

2022 23.6 31.86

2023 23.7 32.00

2024 23.78 32.10

2025 23.88 32.24

Notes: Peak hour demand based on the 2005 peak hour to average hour ratio of 1.35.

2.5 Demand by Service Type 2.5.1 Demand by Service Type FKAA records water usage in the following general categories: residential, commercial, government, Navy, and Key West municipal government use. FKAA provided water use


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-12 WB122005005DFB

information for each of these service categories from October 2003 through September 2005. Exhibits 2-11 and 2-12 present tabular and graphical summaries, respectively, of the average monthly water use for each service category.

Nearly half (56 percent) of the water produced by the FKAA is used by residential customers. Commercial customers are the next-largest category, with an average use of 32 percent. No large commercial customers (that is, those using 40 percent or more of the water sold in the commercial category) have been identified.

The U.S. Navy is FKAA’s largest single customer, accounting for 7 percent of its monthly production. Government, senior citizen, and Key West municipal use makes up another 5 percent.

EXHIBIT 2-11 Average Monthly Water Use by Category, million gallons, October 2003–September 2005

Month Residential Commercial Navy Government Key West Municipal

Senior Citizen Total

Jan 273 153 29 16 3 2 476

Feb 236 136 29 15 3 2 421

Mar 241 141 27 14 3 2 428

Apr 291 167 28 17 4 2 509

May 262 152 30 16 4 2 466

Jun 268 149 31 18 4 2 472

Jul 273 158 28 17 4 2 482

Aug 248 143 30 14 3 2 440

Sep 242 136 24 16 3 2 423

Oct 194 113 30 15 3 2 357

Nov 229 136 29 15 3 2 414

Dec 223 129 29 15 4 2 402

Average 248 143 29 15 3 2 441

Percent 56% 32% 7% 3 % 1% 1%


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-13 WB122005005DFB

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

mgd

EXHIBIT 2-13 U.S. Navy Water Usage from 1996 to 2005

FKAA’s contract with the DoD calls for supplying the U.S. Navy with up to 2.4 mgd of water. From 2000 to 2004, deliveries to the U.S. Navy have averaged 1.05 mgd (see Exhibit 2-13).

Demand By Service Type

56%32%

7%

3%

1%

1%

ResidentialCommercialNavy (DoD)GovernmentKey West MunicipalSenior Citizen

EXHIBIT 2-12 Graphic Summary of Average Monthly Water Use by Category, million gallons, October 2003–September 2005


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-14 WB122005005DFB

2.5.2 Unmetered Water FKAA provided master tap readings for its distribution system (excluding Key West and the Navy) for the period December 2002 through December 2005. The data included the month-ly total for each master tap, the total customer sales for each master tap, and the difference unaccounted-for-water (UAW).

FKAA’s transmission and distribution system has certain specified maintenance require-ments and activities that result in water being un-metered. These include regular flushing activities to maintain water quality, extensive flushing required during change of chlorine residuals twice per year, water loss resulting from transmission and distribution main break, and draining of potable water storage tanks for maintenance.

Exhibit 2-11 does not include UAW, which has historically averaged 10 to 12 percent. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends that UAW should not exceed 5 percent, and that a goal of less than 10 percent is desirable. A total of 4 months with UAW (March, May, October, and December) contribute to the high overall average UAW. FKAA is not aware of any particular events (maintenance, line breaks, etc.) that may have contributed to the high UAW in those months. If UAW in those months could be reduced, FKAA’s UAW would be significantly less.

To summarize data from the annual UAW reports that are provided to the SFWMD, the following percentages were recorded:

Year Percentage

UAW

2003 10.5

2004 9.71

2005 14.93

2006 (Year To Date June 2006) 11.45

FKAA should set a goal of 10 percent or less UAW in their system based on the uniqueness and operating pressures that FKAA experiences in their system. FKAA should continue to correlate transmission and distribution meter reads so that the data are correlated accurately and so that the actual losses in the transmission mains and the distribution system can be assessed. After this task is complete, identifying and locating potential losses throughout the system may be needed.

2.6 Conclusions Population projections developed by the MCPD were used to develop water demand pro-jections for the FKAA service area through 2025. FKAA’s average daily raw water demand is expected to increase from 17.73 mgd in 2005 to 20.07 mgd in 2010, 22.08 mgd in 2015, 23.41 mgd in 2020, and 23.88 mgd in 2025. Maximum-day and peak hour demand were calculated using peaking factors of 1.25 and 1.35, respectively.


GNV31013363600.DOC/061640008 2-15 WB122005005DFB

Residential (nearly half) and commercial (more than one-quarter) account for nearly three- quarters of the FKAA’s water demand. UAW comprises approximately 12 percent of FKAA’s total production; the remaining water is used primarily by the U.S. Navy and state and local governments.

UAW in the FKAA service area is higher than other water systems, and may be the result of FKAA’s metering and accounting system, along with system leaks. Additionally, UAW is not distributed evenly throughout the service area, but varies considerably from key to key. Converting the 160 or so master meters along the transmission mains to automatic meter reading may help in identifying the largest areas of UAW. Additional tasks that FKAA could implement include a formal water audit and more specific investigations of water leaks in areas suspected of having UAW.

GNV31013363601.DOC/061640009 3-1 WB122005005DFB

SECTION 3

Water Supply System

3.1 Water Supply Wells FKAA withdraws the bulk of its water from its ten Biscayne Aquifer wells at the J. Robert Dean WTP. A Floridan aquifer exploratory well at the WTP is used for blending purposes, up to a maximum of 4 percent of the Biscayne Aquifer flow. Exhibit 3-1 shows the locations of the raw water supply wells at the WTP. Exhibit 3-2 provides information about the construction of each well and the pumps.

EXHIBIT 3-1 Raw Water Wells and Pipelines, J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant

SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

GNV31013363601.DOC/061640009 3-2 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 3-2 FKAA Water Supply Wells

Well Construction Information Pump Information

Planar Coordinates

Well Easting Northing

Well Diameter (inches)

Well Depth Below Land

Surface (feet)

Casing Depth Below Land

Surface (feet)

Year Drilled

Pump Depth Below Land

Surface (feet)

Pump Capacity

(gpm) Year

Installed

7 818625 402390 20 60 20 1981 20 2,100 1981

8 818530 402282 24 60 20 1981 35 1,400 1985

9 818387 402406 24 60 24 1981 35 1,400 1985

10 818340 402095 24 57 37 1986 20 2,000 1986

11 818250 402030 24 57 37 1986 20 2,000 1986

12 818075 402145 24 56 36 1987 20 2,000 1987

13 818295 402210 24 56 36 1981 20 2,000 1981

14 818484 402530 24 56 36 1981 20 2,000 1981

15 818124 402407 24 60 35 1981 20 2,000 1981

16 818329 402609 24 60 35 1986 20 2,000 1986

F-1 818375 402110 8 1350 880 2003 700 2003

Notes: Planar coordinates are Florida State Plane East gpm=gallons per minute F-1=Floridan well

3.2 Raw Water Quality 3.2.1 Biscayne Aquifer The water quality of the Biscayne Aquifer is excellent, as almost all regulated water quality parameters meet drinking water standards prior to any treatment. Exhibit 3-3 summarizes the average Biscayne Aquifer raw water quality parameters recorded at the J. Robert Dean WTP on a regular basis.

EXHIBIT 3-3 Average Biscayne Aquifer Water Quality, 2000–2005

Parameter 2000–2005 Average Value

pH 7.2

Chloride (mg/L) 37.0

Methyl-orange Alkalinity 198.5

Total Hardness 278.5

Calcium Hardness 261.0

Fluoride 0.1

Color 7.0


GNV31013363601.DOC/061640009 3-3 WB122005005DFB

Exhibit 3-4 presents monthly water quality data in a time-series format. The chloride and total hardness peaks observed in late 2004 and early 2005 are the result of blending of Floridan aquifer water and do not indicate any change in the water quality of the Biscayne Aquifer. The early 2001 change in alkalinity likely indicates a change in laboratory equip-ment or procedure rather than an actual change in water quality, as none of the other water quality parameters show a similar shift.

3.2.2 Floridan Aquifer Water from the Floridan aquifer blending well is periodically sampled for chloride con-centration. Exhibit 3-5 presents a time-series plot of chloride concentration and well pump-age. In 2005, chloride concentrations ranged from 2,150 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 3,189 mg/L. Exhibit 3-5 shows an inverse relationship between chloride concentration and pumpage, indicating that the pumping of the Floridan aquifer well at the rates indicated do not appear to induce any upconing of poorer water quality from depths below the base of the well. This probably results from the apparent layer of confining material located just below the bottom of the well, which would inhibit the upward movement of the poorer water quality. Otherwise, chloride concentrations would likely increase with continued withdrawals, which has not been demonstrated.

FKAA Raw Water Quality

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05

Chl

orid

es, A

lkal

inity

, Har

dnes

s, C

olor

(CU

)

ChloridesMethyl-orange AlkalinityTotal HardnessCalcium HardnessColor

EXHIBIT 3-4 Average Monthly Biscayne Aquifer Raw Water Quality


GNV31013363601.DOC/061640009 3-4 WB122005005DFB

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Nov-04 Dec-04 Feb-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jul-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Dec-05 Feb-06

Chl

orid

e co

ncen

trat

ion,

mg/

L

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Flor

idan

mon

thly

pum

page

, 100

0 ga

llons

ChloridesPumpage

EXHIBIT 3-5 Floridan Aquifer Raw Water Quality and Pumpage

3.2.3 Additional Raw Water Facilities Raw water from each Biscayne Aquifer well at the J. Robert Dean WTP is initially conveyed from each well through a 12-inch-diameter ductile iron pipeline. Further downstream, the pipe size increases to 24 inches at the raw water metering facility. The raw water pipelines were installed in phases as the wells were installed. The Floridan aquifer blending well (installed in 2003) is tied into an existing raw water pipeline. The total length of the raw water pipelines at the J. Robert Dean WTP is approximately 2,100 feet. Exhibit 3-1 depicts the locations, diameters, and lengths of the raw water pipelines at the J. Robert Dean WTP.

3.3 Water Supply Permitting FKAA’s groundwater withdrawals are regulated by its WUP (13-00005-W) issued by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). FKAA has an annual allocation of 7,274 MG (19.93 mgd) through October 2007. This represents the increase in FKAA’s pro-jected water demands from 2002 through 2007 (see Section 2). FKAA also has an annual allocation of 6,442 MG (17.65 mgd) through September 2025. This represents a 20-year allo-cation for FKAA’s current use. Exhibit 3-6 summarizes FKAA’s recent water use permitting activities.


GNV31013363601.DOC/061640009 3-5 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 3-6 Water Use Permitting

Date Activity

October 2002 SFWMD's water use permit 13-00005-W renewed. Limiting Condition #30 requires that a renewal application be submitted by March 30, 2005. Limiting Condition #33 limits dry-season (December through May) withdrawals to an average of 17 mgd.

October 2003 SFWMD changes its rules to allow issuance of a 20-year permit for a user's current water use.

December 2004 FKAA applies for a 20-year allocation based on its current (2004) use.

March 2005 Renewal and modification application submitted to SFWMD, pursuant to Limiting Condition #30, requesting 25.82 mgd from the Floridan aquifer and the Biscayne Aquifer for a duration of 20 years. Note: a 20-year allocation was requested for the amount of water that could be pumped from each aquifer; the SFWMD typically issues 5-year allocations for future water use.

September 2005 SFWMD approves FKAA's 20-year allocation of 6,442 MG or 17.65 mgd, for current water use. Remaining amount of FKAA's allocation of 19.93 MGD through 2007 is unchanged.

3.3.1 Saline Water Intrusion Limiting Condition #27 of FKAA’s WUP requires the implementation of a saline water intrusion monitoring program to protect the Biscayne Aquifer from saltwater intrusion that may be the result of FKAA’s pumpage. FKAA has collected data for approximately 10 years, and has been required to install additional monitoring wells from time to time. There is no evidence that FKAA’s withdrawals are causing increased saline water intrusion. The growth of other users in south Miami-Dade County, along with climatic changes and regional water supply management decisions made by SFWMD, appear to play a greater role in the move-ment of the saltwater front, which is inherently dynamic in nature. Groundwater modeling conducted by CH2M HILL as part of the 2002 WUP negotiations indicated that withdrawals at FKAA’s current allocation would not cause an adverse impact (CH2M HILL, 2002). The withdrawal of additional Biscayne Aquifer water during the wet season is unlikely to con-tribute to saline water intrusion from the high water levels and precipitation that occurs during this time of the year.

3.4 Wastewater Reuse 3.4.1 Feasibility of Implementing Wastewater Reuse Another alternative supply that was considered to offset increased water demands is wastewater reuse. The advantage to wastewater reuse is that it will offset increasing water demands, but the cost associated with the lack of large-volume Keys irrigation users (such as golf courses) and the limited availability of other smaller Keys irrigation users who have suitable areas to irrigate make this alternative a challenge to implement in the Keys. Wastewater reuse will need to be subsidized for reuse to be a viable alternative water supply source to help offset increasing Keys potable water demands. If wastewater reuse is subsidized to provide a reuse rate of $3.20/1,000 gallons (75 percent of the lowest FKAA potable water consumption block rate of $4.26/1,000 gallons), wastewater reuse from


GNV31013363601.DOC/061640009 3-6 WB122005005DFB

residential connections alone could potentially help to offset increasing potable water demands by at least 1.25 mgd. Commercial wastewater reuse (reuse from resorts, parks, and municipal complexes) will increase the wastewater reuse amount even more. Although subsidized wastewater reuse is considered to have great potential to help offset increasing potable water demands, wastewater reuse is not currently included in this Master Plan as an alternative water supply source because actual quantities of reuse water have not been fully evaluated.

3.5 Water Supply Recommendations Because of recent regulatory trends, it is unlikely that FKAA will be able to rely on the Biscayne Aquifer to meet its future needs for additional water. SFWMD’s Lower East Coast (LEC) Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) (SFWMD, 2005) advocates the use of the Floridan aquifer as an alternative water supply, either for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) or for direct withdrawals for blending or RO.

Approximately 17 mgd to 20 mgd of the FKAA’s future water supply will be provided by the Biscayne Aquifer, with other alternative supplies (RO, desalination, and potentially wastewater reuse) providing an additional 10 to 15 mgd. FKAA has already made decisions to augment the Biscayne Aquifer water supply to include an ultimate 6 mgd Low Pressure Reverse Osmosis using the Floridan aquifer at the J. Robert Dean site, an ASR well at the same site is already under construction, and upgrades to the two existing desalination plants are in the planning stages. The following sections address each alternative source.

3.5.1 Aquifer Storage and Recovery The implementation of an ASR system is dependent on the availability of water for storage. A typical South Florida ASR system stores water during the wet season and recovers this water during the dry season. While this seasonal breakdown coincides well with FKAA’s seasonal demands, FKAA’s wet-season Biscayne Aquifer withdrawals are expected to remain limited to 23.8 mgd, as there is no reason for an increase. To meet its future water demands with ASR, wet-season withdrawals would have to increase; therefore, ASR will not be a viable long-term solution for FKAA.

FKAA should continue its plans to construct its ASR system as a short-term solution to comply with the consent order with SFWMD. ASR can provide a short-term “bridge” to provide FKAA with additional water until an RO WTP utilizing the Florida aquifer as a supply well for the RO treatment system is constructed. The ASR well will be constructed with a stainless-steel casing to minimize the likelihood of deterioration to accommodate the ultimate use of the ASR well as a Floridan aquifer production well.

3.5.2 Low-Pressure Reverse Osmosis The brackish water of the Floridan aquifer can be treated with a low pressure reverse-osmosis (LPRO) WTP. Although more expensive than the expansion of FKAA’s existing lime-softening and filtration WTP, LPRO can produce a high-quality finished product that can be blended with water from the lime softening WTP prior to distribution. RO has several advantages over continued Biscayne Aquifer withdrawals or ASR, namely:


GNV31013363601.DOC/061640009 3-7 WB122005005DFB

• Limited permitting ability of Biscayne Aquifer

• LPRO produces high-quality water that meets current and anticipated future regulations

• A new LPRO WTP is relatively compact and modular, so it is easily expandable or constructed in stages

• Limited by-product

FKAA is in the process of designing a 4.5 mgd LPRO WTP (expandable to 6 mgd by 2013) to be located at its Florida City facility. In a partnership with North Key Largo Utility Authority, FKAA is also considering construction of another 4.5 mgd brackish water RO plant at Ocean Reef. Of the total plant capacity of 4.5 mgd, FKAA will share a portion of the cost and receive 1.5 mgd of finished water to offset the facilities at the J. Robert Dean plant in Florida City and serve the Ocean Reef community with the other 3.0 mgd for potable and irrigation purposes.. Currently, the transmission line from Florida City WTP to Ocean Reef is a relatively old 12-inch-diameter line, and high pressure is required to supply Ocean Reef from the main transmission line. Constructing a RO brackish WTP at Ocean Reef would eliminate the costs of expanding approximately 65,000 feet of the existing transmission line from Key Largo to Ocean Reef and would allow pressure to be reduced on the main trans-mission line as well. It is recommended that a further economic cost analysis be conducted to verify benefits.

3.5.3 Desalination As seawater desalination treatment costs become more economical, FKAA will need to consider converting the emergency seawater desalination treatment facilities into peak production facilities to supply water to the middle and lower Keys on a maximum day demand basis to meet peak flows during the dry season. FKAA owns and operates seawater RO desalination facilities in Marathon and Stock Island. These are currently used on an emergency basis; however, upgrades to both plants are currently being implemented to increase Stock Island to 2.5 mgd and Marathon to 1.25 mgd capacity so both plants could be used in the future to help meet peak demands.

3.5.4 Wastewater Reuse FKAA is currently—and will in the future—evaluating the feasibility of implementing wastewater reuse to offset some of the increasing potable water demands. However, the cost associated with the lack of large-volume Keys irrigation users (such as golf courses), and the limited availability of other smaller Keys irrigation users who have suitable areas to irrigate make this alternative a challenge to implement in the Keys. Wastewater reuse will need to be subsidized for reuse to be a viable alternative water supply source to help offset increasing Keys potable water demands. If wastewater reuse is subsidized to provide a reuse rate of $3.20/1,000 gallons (75 percent of the lowest FKAA potable water consumption block rate of $4.26/1,000 gallons), wastewater reuse from residential connections alone could potentially help to offset increasing potable water demands by at least 1.25 mgd. Commercial wastewater reuse (reuse from resorts, parks, and municipal complexes) will increase the wastewater reuse amount even more. Although subsidized wastewater reuse is considered to have great potential to help offset increasing potable water demands, waste-


GNV31013363601.DOC/061640009 3-8 WB122005005DFB

water reuse is not currently included in this Master Plan as an alternative water supply source because actual quantities of reuse water have not been fully evaluated.

3.5.5 Water Supply Summary FKAA’s projected 2025 average-day finished water demand is 23.88 mgd, and the projected 2025 maximum-day finished water demand is 29.85 mgd. Assuming that Biscayne Aquifer withdrawals are limited to 17.0 mgd during the dry season, 6 mgd can be provided by an LPRO WTP at Florida City; 1 mgd of Floridan aquifer water can be blended at Florida City, which totals approximately 24 mgd. The additional treatment capacity to meet the 29.85 mgd projected demand would need to come from additional LPRO at Florida City, seawater desalination facilities in the lower Keys and Ocean Reef, or potentially subsidized wastewater reuse.

3.6 Construction Cost Estimates for the Water Supply System Construction cost options for Floridan aquifer supply wells at the J. Robert Dean WTP Phase I and Phase II RO facility are shown in Exhibit 3-7. Construction cost estimates for Floridan aquifer supply wells and deep injection well (DIW) for FKAA’s cost share of the Ocean Reef 4.5-mgd RO WTP facility are included in the construction cost estimate for water treatment provided in Section 4.


GNV31013363601.DOC/061640009 3-9 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 3-7 Water Supply Construction Cost Opinion

Project Construction

Cost2

Total Construction

Cost2

Consulting, Administrative,

Legal Fees3 Contingency4

Total Project

Cost Suggested

Timing

J. Robert Dean WTP Phase I and Phase II RO Facility, Floridan Wells Construction Cost

Floridan Water Supply Well - Phase I 4.5 mgd WTP - Three 2mgd wells and one standby1 $5,913,044 $5,913,044 $1,182,609 $1,064,348 $8,160,000 2007–2009

Floridan Water Supply Well - Phase II adding 1.5 mgd for a total of 6 mgd WTP - One additional 2 mgd well $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $350,000 $315,000 $2,415,000 2013

ASR (Cost per FKAA for FY 2007 only) $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 2007

Project Total $11,575,000

Notes: 1Includes costs to convert existing ASR well to be used as a supply well. 2These are order-of-magnitude cost opinions (in April 2006 dollars) made without detailed engineering design. It is normally expected that estimates of this type are accurate within -30% to +50%. 3Consulting, administrative, legal fees equal 20 percent of construction cost. 4Contingency (15 percent of subtotal costs for all items).

WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-1 WB122005005DFB

SECTION 4

Water Treatment System

FKAA operates three water treatment facilities to meet its water supply needs. Groundwater from the Biscayne and Floridan aquifers is lime-softened at the J. Robert Dean WTP in Florida City. Seawater from wells is desalted using RO membrane technology at two emergency water supply plants, the Kermit H. Lewin Seawater Desalination Facility at Stock Island and the Marathon Seawater Desalination Facility at Marathon.

4.1 J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant 4.1.1 General Description The permitted maximum day capacity of the J. Robert Dean WTP is 23.8 mgd; however, plant production is currently limited by source water constraints. Exhibit 4-1 presents the average monthly raw and finished (treated) water flows from the plant from January 2000 through January 2006. The average treated water pumpage has been increasing and in 2005 was 17.73 mgd. The maximum day pumpage during the 5-year period (January 2000 to January 2005) was 22.39 mgd, or 94 per-cent of the plant treatment capacity. Exhibit 4-2 shows the annual and monthly maximum daily treated flows from 2000 through 2005. This data will be used with our flow projections to establish the timing for future treatment capacity needs.

The lime softening facility at Florida City draws its primary source water from the Biscayne aquifer. Additionally, up to 4 percent of the raw water supply is Floridan aquifer brackish water from an onsite “blend well” (at 17 mgd lime plant flow, 4 percent bypass equals 0.68 mgd [472 gpm]). Increased demands on the Biscayne Aquifer, primarily from increased surficial aquifer withdrawal in South Florida, has caused SFWMD to place greater limitations on Biscayne Aquifer withdrawals.

FKAA’s consumptive use permit (CUP # 13-00005-W) allows the withdrawal from the Biscayne aquifer of 7,274 MG on an annual basis (equivalent to 19.93 mgd) and 723.21 MG on a maximum-month basis (equivalent to 23.8 mgd). Pumpage may be increased up to 26.65 mgd for “special events” with proper notice to SFWMD. However, during the dry season of each year (December 1 through April 30), withdrawals from the Biscayne Aquifer are limited to an average daily quantity of 17 mgd (or 2,584 MG for the 5-month period). Withdrawals can exceed 17 mgd, but must be balanced with lower withdrawals during the

SECTION 4 – WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM

WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-2 WB122005005DFB

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20Ja

n-00

Apr

-00

Jul-0

0

Oct

-00

Jan-

01

Apr

-01

Jul-0

1

Oct

-01

Jan-

02

Apr

-02

Jul-0

2

Oct

-02

Jan-

03

Apr

-03

Jul-0

3

Oct

-03

Jan-

04

Apr

-04

Jul-0

4

Oct

-04

Jan-

05

Apr

-05

Jul-0

5

Oct

-05

Jan-

06

MG

D

Raw Water PumpedWTP Finished Production

EXHIBIT 4-1 WTP Flows (Average Monthly)


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-3 WB122005005DFB

Florida Keys Aqueduct AuthorityMaximum-Day Treated Water

0

5

10

15

20

25

Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05

Trea

ted

Wat

er, m

gd

EXHIBIT 4-2 Maximum Daily Month Treated Flows for the Period from January 2000 to June 2005


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-4 WB122005005DFB

5-month period so that no more than 2,584 MG is withdrawn. This limitation restricts the treatment plant production rate during the dry season to an average daily production rate of 17 mgd because of limited raw water supply. The CUP states that the withdrawal limit of 17 mgd will go into effect upon completion and operation of the raw Biscayne Aquifer ASR system, per Limiting Condition #31 of the CUP. The ASR well is currently being constructed as discussed in Section 3, Water Supply Facilities. The permit allows up to 3 mgd recovery of stored fresh water using ASR.

Exhibit 4-3 shows the general flow schematic of the existing lime softening process at the J. Robert Dean WTP. Lime and polymer are added to the blended Biscayne Aquifer and Floridan aquifer water in the lime softening reactor-clarifiers. Carbon dioxide and sodium hexametaphosphate are added to the softened water for pH adjustment and scaling control. Additionally chlorine and ammonia are added for disinfection (chloramination). After the softened water chemical addition, the water is filtered with gravity media filters and passes to the transfer pump station. Prior to the transfer pump station clearwell, fluoride is added for consumer dental protection and additional chloramine disinfectant chemicals are fed as needed to maintain the target chlorine residual. The treated water is pumped to the ground storage tanks by the transfer pumps. From the storage tanks, “finished” water is pumped to the transmission system by the high-service pumps (see Section 5, Water Transmission Facilities).

The granular media filters are backwashed with finished water using dedicated backwash pumps and the “spent” backwash water is discharged to a washwater recovery basin. The supernatant from this basin is pumped back to the raw water stream upstream of the lime softening reactors and the sludge is periodically pumped to the sludge thickener.

Sludge generated at the lime softening reactors is also pumped to the sludge thickeners. The thickened sludge is then pumped to the vacuum filter where it is dewatered to a cake and trucked to the onsite storage area. The dried sludge is then transported off site for beneficial use by an outside contractor. The sludge thickener decant stream is recycled and combined with the raw water upstream of the lime reactors. Filtrate from the vacuum filter is transferred back to the sludge thickener influent.

4.1.2 Treatment Facilities Exhibit 4-4 summarizes the process facilities and design criteria. The raw water supply system is described in Section 3. The other process facilities are described below.

4.1.2.1 Lime Softening Three lime softening Infilco Degremount Accelator™ reactor-clarifiers are used to soften the raw water. Two reactor-clarifiers are rated at 11 mgd each, but operate satisfactorily at flows as high as 16 mgd. The third reactor-clarifier has a maximum capacity of 6 mgd. For the two larger reactors, operational experience has shown that softened water turbidity increases when the process flow is less than 9 mgd; thus, flow turndown can sometimes be a problem. With the exception of the 6-mgd reactor-clarifier, no major repairs or replacements are anticipated in future. The drive unit on the 6 mgd unit is currently not working properly and an investigation is in progress.

Lime and polymer are added to the raw water in the lime reactors. Lime is dosed based on a target pH of 10.5 measured continuously from a pH probe in each reactor-clarifier. The lime


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-5 WB122005005DFB

SHMPPolymer CO2 Cl2 NH3 Fluoride

Cl NH3 Thickener decant

Backwash return

Thickener Decant

Cake to On-Site Storage

Vacuum Filter

Filter Backwash

Washwater Recovery basin

High Service Pumps

Floridan aquifer Blend well

Sludge Thickener

Biscayne aquifer wells

Storage Tanks

Bac

kwas

h

Transfer Pump StationLS Reactor

Lime

Filters

Emergency Lagoon

Bac

kwas

h so

lids

Filtr

ate

EXHIBIT 4-3 Existing Process Flow Schematic, J. Robert Dean WTP

EXHIBIT 4-4Existing Facilities at J. Robert Dean WTP

RAW WATER WELLS Biscayne Aquifer wells 8 Vertical turbine 2,100 gpm each Floridan Aquifer well 1 Vertical turbine 1,400 gpmLIME SOFTENING SYSTEM Lime reactor-clarifiers 2 Infilco Accelator 11 mgd (16 mgd max) 72 ft 18.5 ft 2.25

1 Infilco Accelator 6 mgd max 54 15.42 ft 1.69 Sludge blowdown pumps 2 Wet pit centrifugal 300 gpm In service (sludge solids content 3 to 8%)

1 Wet pit centrifugal 300 gpm Standby (sludge solids content 3 to 8%)

Sludge recycle pumps 2 Centrifugal 20 gpm Sludge concentration: 3 to 8 % (dry solids)

FILTRATION SYSTEM

Filters 4 1 Gravity 5.95 mgd 620 ft2 each 6.66 Rate control is via influent flow split. Surface wash type: Rotary

Variable declining rate Backwash rate: 20 to 25 gpm/ft2Influent flow split Surface wash rate: 0.7 gpm/ft2

Wash water recovery basin 1 475,000 gal 90 ft 10 ft Backwash return pumps 1 1 Submersible centrifugal 430 gpm Backwash solids return pump 1 1 Air operated diaphragm 100 gpm Dry solids concentration: 1 to 3 %TRANSFER PUMPS 2 1 Vertical mixed flow 7,750 gpmGROUND STORAGE TANKS 2 Ground storage 5 MG Recirculating pumps used as needed.

2 Ground storage 1 MG HIGH SERVICE PUMPS (HSPs)

Electric-motor driven pumps 3 Vertical turbine 4,170 gpm @ 580 ft TDH, 800 HP

2 Vertical turbine 2,780 gpm @ 580 ft TDH, 500 HP

Diesel-engine "emergency" pumps 4 Horizontal split case centrifugal2,710 gpm 580 ft TDH (2

ea); 3,574 gpm 578 ft TDH (2 ea)

2 pumps per diesel on a common shaft

Emergency HSP engine drives 2 Turbo-charged diesel engines

SLUDGE HANDLINGSludge Thickening

Sludge Thickener 1 Gravity 50 ft 12 600 gpd/ft2 Influent and effluent dry solids concentration are 5.0 and 20 to 40%, respectively.

Decant pumps 1 1 Wet pit centrifugal 800 gpm Solids: 40 lb/day/ft2

Thickened sludge pumps 2 Air operated diaphragm 100 gpm Sludge dry solids concentration: 20 to 40 %Sludge Dewatering 1 Rotary drum Vacuum Filter Drum: 8 ft L x 8 ft diameter

Filter area: 200 ft2Drum submergence: 60 %Loading rate: 40 lb/hr/ft2

Cake dry solids: 50 to 60 % Vacuum pump 1 Centrifugal 820 cfm Filtrate pump 1 Centrifugal 200 cfmSludge Lagoons

Max. depth: 5 ft 700,000 galMax. freeboard: 1 ft

Chemical dose (mg/L) CommentsCapacity each Diameter/Are

a (ft/ft2)Sidewater depth (ft)

Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)Equipment Number in

serviceNumber in

standby Type

WPB31012716136.xls/061990016 1 of 3





serviceNumber in

standby Type

LIME SYSTEMLime Storage Lime silo 1 Bifurcated 200 tons

Lime (chemical) Pebble lime (90%) 166 mg/L as CaO, avg since July 2002

Lime Slakers 1 1 RDP Tekkem batch-type SS'T with screw feeders 2,000 lb/hr each Water reqd each: 2gpm; Slurry dry solids conc

as % Ca(OH)2 is 10 to 15

Slurry aging tanks 1 1 RDP Tekkem SS'T Slurry dry solids conc as % Ca(OH)2 is 10 to 15

Lime slurry pumps 2 2 Centrifugal 50 gpmPumps to recirculation loop to the 3 reactor-clarifiers; each with flow control pinch valve & magnetic flow meter

POLYMER SYSTEM

Polymer Liquid Anionic, Clarifloc A 210P 0.2 to 0.4 mg/L neat

Storage container 55 gal drums30 days capacity

Transfer pumps 1 Gear pump 5 gpm Solution tanks 1 1 1200 gal

Metering pumps 2 1 Diaphragm chem metering pumps 30 gph

DISINFECTION SYSTEMChlorine 4.5 to 5 mg/L Containers 2 12 28,000 lbs total Chlorinators 2 1 2,000 lbs / dayAmmonia Storage tank 1 2000 gal total

Ammoniators 1 1 One for main dose. Other used for fine tuning

CO2 SYSTEM Storage 1 5,000 gal

xxx days capacity CO2 Vapor Heater 1 71 lbs/hr 20 to 25 mg/LSHMP SYSTEM

Chemical Sodium Hexametaphosphate powder form 0.5 to 2 mg/L

Container 100 lb bags 4 pallets30 days storage

Mixing tank 1 1000 gal Transfer pumps 1 1 Centrifugal 50 gpm Feed tank 1 1100 gal Metering pumps 1 1 Diaphragm chemical 83 gph

metering pumpsFLUORIDATION SYSTEM Storage tank 1 1 2500 gal

30 days storage Chemical Liquid hydrofluosilicic acid 1.0 mg/L

22 to 30 % Transfer pumps 1 1 Centrifugal 50 gpm Day Tank 1 125 gal Metering pumps 1 1 Diaphragm chemical 6 gph

Metering pumps

WPB31012716136.xls/061990016 2 of 3





serviceNumber in

standby Type

MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMSLow Pressure Air System Jockey Low pressure air compressor 1 Reciprocating 8 scfm Lead Lag low pressure air compressor 2 Reciprocating 78 scfm Low pressure air receiver 1 Vertical 660 galHigh Pressure Air System High pressure air compressor 2 Reciprocating 1@50 scfm; 1@35scfm High pressure air receivers 3 Vertical 200 galSurge Control System Surge tank 1 1336 cu.ft Surge tank compressor 1 Reciprocating 22 scfm Surge tank air receiver 1 Vertical 60 galFuelling System Diesel storage tank 3 Coated steel 14,000 gal Waste oil storage tank 1 Coated steel 550 gal Waste oil transfer pumps 2 Gear 2 gpmStandby Diesel Engine Generators 2 Turbo charged diesels 800 kw (continuous) 480 V

3-phase

WPB31012716136.xls/061990016 3 of 3


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-9 WB122005005DFB

is fed from a lime slurry recirculation system with flow control pinch valve and magnetic flow meter at each treatment unit. The lime slurry is prepared with dual 2,000 lb/hr (one service and one standby) RDP Technologies Tekken batch-type slaker systems installed in 2001. The lime feed system consists of a lime storage silo, two lime slakers and lime slurry pumps. Exhibit 4-5 shows average monthly lime dose values from January 2000 through January 2006. The lime dose was increased in the summer of 2002 to increase the treated and finished water pH and currently averages approximately 160 to 170 mg/L as CaCO3.

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Jan-

00

Apr

-00

Jul-0

0

Oct

-00

Jan-

01

Apr

-01

Jul-0

1

Oct

-01

Jan-

02

Apr

-02

Jul-0

2

Oct

-02

Jan-

03

Apr

-03

Jul-0

3

Oct

-03

Jan-

04

Apr

-04

Jul-0

4

Oct

-04

Jan-

05

Apr

-05

Jul-0

5

Oct

-05

Dec

-05

Lim

e do

se, m

g/L

as C

aCO

3

EXHIBIT 4-5 Lime Dose (Monthly Average)

Polymer (Clarifloc A 210P) is also added as a flocculent aid to improve settling of the calcium carbonate formed after lime addition. A Dynablend system is used to effectively blend the polymer with finished water used as “make-up water” prior to dosing at the lime reactors. The polymer flocculant aid system consists of storage, transfer pumps, solution tanks, and metering pumps. The average polymer dose is approximately 0.25 mg/L.

The lime sludge (3 to 8 percent dry solids content) produced by the reactor-clarifiers is pumped to the sludge thickener via the sludge blowdown pumps. There is one sludge blowdown station that serves the two large reactor-clarifiers and a second blowdown station that services the smaller treatment unit.

No additions or major modifications are anticipated for the lime softening system. Indivi-dual components will be replaced as necessary, such as if a reactor-clarifier drive unit fails and repair is too costly to be justified.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-10 WB122005005DFB

4.1.2.2 Filters Five gravity filter units are used for filtering the lime-softened water. Dual media with anthracite coal and silica sand is used. The design is based on one filter being in standby at peak production.

It has been several years since the filter media has been replaced. The operations staff believe that additional anthracite may be required to replace media loss, which occurs over time and is needed to maintain filter performance. This replacement should be done as conditions dictate.

Two filter backwash pumps (one service and one standby pump) are used for filter back-washing using plant finished water. Each filter is backwashed approximately every 60 hours. Each backwash (water only) has duration of approximately 15 minutes.

Spent filter backwash is collected in the wash water recovery basin. Periodically, the back-wash solids are flushed manually with water jets to the collection area and pumped to the sludge thickener via the sludge return pumps. The wash water recovery basin supernatant is pumped to the raw water line and blends with the incoming groundwater via the back-wash return pumps.

No additions or major modifications are anticipated for the filter system. However, the system will need periodic media addition and replacement.

4.1.2.3 Transfer Pump Station Three transfer pumps (one spare) are used to transfer filtered water to the finished water ground storage tanks. Each pump has a rated capacity of 11 mgd. This transfer pump station will be changed to a back-up system, once the new clearwell product transfer pump system (associated with the proposed new brackish water RO facility; discussed later in this section) is constructed and put into service.

No additions or major modifications are anticipated to the transfer pump system.

4.1.2.4 Ground Storage Tanks Four ground storage tanks provide a total storage capacity of 12 MG. Two tanks have 5 MG capacity each and two tanks are 1 MG each. The tanks are arranged such that there are two parallel pairs of tanks in series, each made up of one 5 MG and one 1 MG. The effective water residence time through the storage tanks is calculated based on available volume in one 5 MG tank and one 1 MG tank. The storage tanks have recirculating pumps that can be used if desired when “turnover” is low. These pumps can be used to facilitate mixing and help maintain water quality.

There are visible cracks on the surface of the recently installed 5 MG tank. Operations staff believe the cracks are superficial in nature. However, an investigation is pending by Crom Corp., the tank manufacturer/contractor.

One additional 5 MG tank is planned with the proposed new brackish water RO facility.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-11 WB122005005DFB

4.1.2.5 High-Service Pump Station There currently are five electric-motor-driven high-service pumps (one standby) with a firm capacity of 20 mgd. This pumping facility is currently being expanded to a firm capacity of 32 mgd. There are also four diesel-engine-driven emergency pumps with a total and firm capacity of 18.1 mgd and 13 mgd, respectively. Section 5, Water Transmission Facilities, presents the discussion of this pumping system.

4.1.2.6 Emergency Lagoon If the filter backwash wash water recovery basin or sludge handling facilities are out of service, an emergency lagoon is available for temporary storage. The lagoon has a maximum volume of 700,000 gallons.

No additions or major modifications are anticipated.

4.1.2.7 Disinfection Prior to filtration, the lime-softened water is dosed with chlorine and ammonia. Chlorine is normally dosed at approximately 4.5 mg/L. Ammonia is fed approximately 15 seconds downstream of the chlorine dosing point (at design flows) based on a chlorine to ammonia ratio of 5:1. This chloramination prior to filtration reduces microbial/algal growth in the filters and provides a residual through the remainder of the treatment works. Chlorine and ammonia can also be added at the transfer pump station. Additionally, chlorine can be added at the high-service pump station as needed. Two 1-ton chlorine gas cylinders are kept online with 12 cylinders stored as spares.

There are three chlorinators, two are used for softened water disinfection before the filters or at the transfer pump station. The other chlorinator can be used for raw water chlorination, but is no longer used for that purpose and acts as an extra (standby) unit. When additional chlorine is dosed at the high-service pump station, the standby chlorinator can be used.

There is one anhydrous ammonia storage tank and two ammonia gas feeders (ammonia-tors). One ammoniator is used for meeting the primary dosing demand and adds the ammonia to the filter influent channel. The second ammoniator is used as a backup unit or for fine-tuning the dose and supplies ammonia to the filter effluent near the transfer pump station.

It is planned that the chlorine and ammonia gas lines at the transfer pump station will be modified during the proposed LPRO facility project. The modifications will allow addition at the existing points or at the new proposed product water transfer pump station. It is also planned that the unused raw water chlorinator will be used for the proposed LPRO facility project. The chlorinator will be used at the proposed sulfide scrubber system that removes hydrogen sulfide from the proposed degasifier off-gas.

No additions are anticipated in the chlorine or disinfection system other than the modifica-tions associated with the new LPRO facility (described in more detail later in this section).

4.1.2.8 Carbonation Prior to filtration, the lime-softened water is dosed with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is dosed to reduce pH (to meet the finished water pH need) and elevate the carbonate


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-12 WB122005005DFB

alkalinity level to around 35 mg/L prior to filtration. The current CO2 dose is based on a target finished water pH of 9.2 to 9.4, which has been established to minimize nitrification episodes in the distribution system. The addition of carbon dioxide helps to control calcium carbonate precipitation in the filters (along with the sodium hexametaphosphate addition) and to provide adequate alkalinity in the finished water to minimize iron and lead corrosion in the distribution system.

Pressurized CO2 passes through a vapor heater and is mixed with finished water (make up water). The high-concentration carbonated water is fed in the reactor-clarifier discharge piping as it passes to the filtration system. The current CO2 dose range is 20 mg/L to 30 mg/L.

The existing CO2 system works well, and no additions are planned. However, consideration will be given to the possibility of decreasing the CO2 feed rate or potentially even discon-tinuing its use when the proposed LPRO system becomes operational. The LPRO system product water, after post-treatment, may provide adequate carbonate alkalinity at the target pH without the need for CO2 dosing at the current levels.

4.1.2.9 Fluoridation Liquid hydrofluosilicic acid is dosed at the transfer pump station to achieve a target fluoride dose of 0.7 mg/L to 0.8 mg/L to meet a target finished water 1 mg/L concentration. The fluoridation system consists of a storage tank, transfer pumps, day tank, and metering pumps.

No additions are anticipated to the fluoridation system. However, it is planned that the fluoridation discharge line will be modified during the proposed RO facility project to allow addition at the existing location or at the new proposed product water transfer pump station.

4.1.2.10 Phosphate (SHMP) Dosing Sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) is made into a solution and dosed at approximately 0.5 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L upstream of the filtration system (immediately after the ammonia dosing point). The phosphate dosing system consists of a mixing tank, transfer pumps, feed tank, and metering pumps. SHMP helps control calcium carbonate precipitation in the filters to minimize scaling and to maintain filter performance. An additional benefit is that it also helps to control corrosion in the transmission and distribution system.

No additions are anticipated to this system.

4.1.2.11 Sludge Thickening System The sludge thickener converts the 3 percent to 8 percent (dry solids) sludge from the reactor-clarifiers to approximately 20 percent to 40 percent. The thickened sludge is transferred with thickened sludge pumps to the vacuum filter. The sludge thickener supernatant is pumped to the raw water line by the thickener decant pumps.

No additions are anticipated to the sludge thickener system. However, the thickener tank currently has minor seepage problems and consequent discoloration and is in need of re-pairs.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-13 WB122005005DFB

4.1.2.12 Vacuum Filtration System The sludge dewatering system consists of the vacuum filter, vacuum pump, and filtrate pump. The vacuum filter dewaters the thickened sludge to a dry cake with approximately 50 percent to 60 percent solids concentration. The vacuum filter filtrate is pumped back to the thickener influent line.

When vacuum filter is in operation, the dewatered cake drops by gravity into a truck and is transported to a sludge storage area near the emergency lagoon. An outside contractor periodically (approximately every 1 to 2 weeks) loads and hauls the dry sludge from the site for ultimate disposal (beneficial use) as sub-base material or for use as clean fill.

The vacuum filter works well, and no additions or modifications are planned.

4.1.3 Summary The existing treatment process facilities at the J. Robert Dean WTP have adequate capacity and are in good operating condition so major additions or modifications are not planned. Regular preventive maintenance and routine repairs and replacement should keep these facilities functional throughout the planning period. There are, however, several chemical feed system modifications that, although relatively minor, will be needed as part of the planned brackish water LPRO system at the plant site.

4.2 Kermit H. Lewin Seawater Desalination Facility at Stock Island

The Stock Island seawater RO facility was originally constructed in the early 1980s with a capacity of 3 mgd and operated for a few years, until a major new transmission line was installed from Florida City to Key West and made operational. In the late 1990s, after years of inoperation, FKAA decided to upgrade the facility as an emergency water production facility in the event the main transmission line was disrupted or during other emergency periods. The upgrade included the Stock Island facility and relocation of 1 mgd of its RO process equipment to Marathon for construction of a second emergency treatment facility. Today, the Stock Island desalting facility has a nominal capacity of 2 mgd, consisting of four parallel RO membrane trains. Generally, each train is operated approximately 4 hours per month to keep them in operational condition and to allow operations staff the opportunity to remain up-to-date with operational procedures.

Because of the frequency of recent hurricanes and transmission line breaks, the FKAA has begun to use the emergency desalination plants more frequently. One of the options avail-able to FKAA is to use the Stock Island and Marathon plants as peaking plants to meet maximum day production levels, which would provide several benefits. First, it would reduce the capital cost of expanding the LPRO plant in Florida City to its ultimate capacity and would reduce the future operating pressures on the transmission main, which should also reduce the number of line breaks that occur in the system. For these reasons, this plan looks at using the two desalination facilities as not only an emergency facility but also as a facility to meet peak production daily demands in the future and are included in the alterna-tives analysis later in this section. This would require these facilities to possibly operate for up to 7 days at a time and possibly up to 10 to 20 days per year during high flow events.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-14 WB122005005DFB

The Stock Island RO plant has two seawater supply wells approximately 100 feet deep. Each well has a vertical turbine well pump set at approximately 30-foot depth with a capacity of approximately 3,500 gpm. Scale inhibitor is added to the raw seawater at approximately 1 mg/L as a scale preventative (primarily calcium carbonate [CaCO3]). After scale inhibitor addition, the water passes through a bank of five parallel cartridge filters, nominally rated at 5 microns. The cartridge filter effluent then passes (under well pump pressure) to the RO high-pressure feed pumps and RO membrane trains.

There is one RO feed pump for each RO train. Each process train of RO membranes (perme-ators) is fed by a dedicated feed pump (with energy recovery turbines) with an operating pressure of 800 to 1,000 psig and flow rate of 1,160 gpm. The membrane trains are designed for a permeate (product water) flow rate of 0.5 mgd each at a recovery rate of 30 percent. The design concentrate (reject brine) flow rate from each train is approximate 810 gpm and passes through energy recovery turbines before discharge to the concentrate injection well. The energy recovery turbine device for each feed pump is mounted on the pump shaft and reduces the total power consumption by approximately 25 percent.

The permeate flow stream from all the trains is collected in a header pipe and flows at low pressure to a drawback tank. Permeate enters the bottom of the drawback tank and exits at the top. The tank provides an immediately available supply of water back to the permeators at loss of RO membrane feed pressure, which prevents possible damage to the permeators and piping should there be a power failure. The drawback tank also provides chlorine-free permeate water to the flush pump for flushing the salt water from the feed pumps, permea-tors, and piping upon system shutdown and start-up.

After the product exits the drawback tank, it passes to the top of the degasifiers where it falls by gravity through a packing material to a clearwell located below. Blowers force air up through the packing, stripping the (minimal) amount of hydrogen sulfide and carbon diox-ide in the permeate, and discharging the gasses to the atmosphere.

In the clearwell, sodium hydroxide is fed to raise the pH to near-neutral. Product water transfer pumps are used to transport the finished water to an offsite, nearby ground storage and (high-service) pumping facility. Chlorine and ammonia (chloramines) are added to the product transfer pump discharge line for disinfection.

Currently two trains at the plant contain DuPont B10 permeators (which are no longer commercially available) and the other two trains contain “new” Toyobo membranes, which replaced the original DuPont permeators. (Toyobo is the only company that manufactures hollow-fiber membrane replacements for DuPont permeators.) FKAA plans to retrofit the remaining two trains with Toyobo modules in the near future. This upgrade will increase the recovery rate to 33 percent to 35 percent.

Unlike DuPont permeators containing polyamide (PA) membranes, Toyobo modules contain cellulosic (CA) membranes. CA membranes hydrolyze over time and lose perfor-mance capability. The rate of hydrolysis can be minimized by keeping the feed water and storage solution pH below 6.0. Toyobo recommends a pH of 5.8. The current RO facility does not have provisions for adding acid or carbon dioxide to the raw seawater. Installation of a carbon dioxide storage and feed system is proposed.

Currently, FKAA plans to intermittently operate the RO trains for short durations (relatively often; several times per month) for testing. Additionally, FKAA plans to replace all of the


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-15 WB122005005DFB

DuPont B10 permeators (which are not chlorine-tolerant) with Toyobo cellulosic (which can tolerate limited chlorine) membranes in the future. However, at this time both DuPont and Toyobo membranes are installed at the facility. FKAA desires to upgrade the potable water granular activated carbon (GAC) dechlorination system to ensure it is operationally ready and reliable. A second GAC column will be added and, with the existing GAC unit, will be configured into a lead-lag system with instrumentation.

4.3 Marathon RO Emergency Facility, Marathon, Florida Similar to the Stock Island RO facility, the Marathon RO plant provides an alternative source of water for the Lower and Middle Keys. It serves as an emergency water supply in the event that the major transmission pipeline from the Florida mainland is out of service.

The existing RO seawater desalting plant has a capacity of 1 mgd. There are two 0.5-mgd process trains that were refurbished and relocated from the original desalination plant at Stock Island. These trains, however, contain old DuPont membranes and currently produce only approximately 0.9 mgd at a total dissolved solids (TDS) of between 500 and 1,000 mg/L TDS. They are only used as an emergency water supply water source. However, upgrades to the trains similar to the Kermit H. Lewin facility is recommended. Replacing the old DuPont membranes to TYOBO membranes will increase the recovery rate efficiency to 33 percent to 35 percent.

The basic treatment process at the Marathon RO facility is similar to that at the Stock Island RO facility.

4.4 Drinking Water Standards and Water Quality 4.4.1 General This section provides a summary of recent and upcoming changes in the state and federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulations associated with the production and distribu-tion of potable water. A detailed description of the various SDWA and Florida state regula-tions can be found in Appendix B. Based on the current operating information, the treat-ment facilities operated by FKAA should not be significantly impacted by anticipated or recent changes to the SDWA applicable regulations.

4.4.2 Recent Drinking Water Regulatory Changes The following revisions to the SDWA regulations will require the FKAA to perform studies or document the water system is in compliance with the new regulations. It is anticipated that FKAA will be in compliance with each new regulatory requirement but the studies will need to be performed and verified to the state.

4.4.2.1 Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Stage 2 Disinfectants/ Disinfection By-Products Rule

In January 2006 the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) and Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) were promulgated. The LT2ESWTR is applicable to systems using surface water or ground water under the in-


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-16 WB122005005DFB

fluence of surface water as a water source. The Stage 2 DBPR applies to all public water systems that are community water systems or non-transient non-community water systems that add a primary or residual disinfectant other than ultraviolet (UV) light or deliver water that has been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than UV.

The final Stage 2 DBPR is population based instead of plant based for report submittal and sampling requirements. Also, the final rule will reflect a single phased implementation ap-proach as opposed to a two-phased approach that was originally proposed (which contained interim compliance thresholds). Final compliance thresholds (MCLs) are set at 0.080 mg/L for total trihalomethane (TTHM) and 0.060 mg/L for haloacetic acid (HAA5), which are similar to the Stage 1 MCLs, but now must be met using a locational running annual average (LRAA) instead of a running annual average (RAA).

Compliance monitoring will be preceded by an initial distribution system evaluation (IDSE) with the purpose of selecting site-specific optimal sample points for capturing peaks of TTHMs and HAA5s. Water systems will then recommend new or revised monitoring sites based on the IDSE study. All water systems regulated under the Stage 2 DBPR are required to conduct an IDSE. The number of monitoring points and frequency of sampling is determined based on the source water and number of customers served by the system.

There are three possible approaches to fulfill the IDSE requirements:

1. Standard monitoring program: The standard monitoring program requires 1 year of monitoring on a specified schedule. A monitoring program must be prepared prior to implementing the program. The frequency and number of samples is determined based upon source water type, number of treatment plants, and system size.

2. System-specific study: A system-specific study may be used based on earlier monitoring studies if they provide equivalent or better information than the standard monitoring program.

3. 40/30 Certification: Systems may certify to their primacy agency that all required Stage 1 compliance samples were collected and analyzed properly during eight consecutive quarters prior to the applicable 40/30 certification due date and the system has no TTHM or HAA5 monitoring violations. All compliance samples must have been less than or equal to 0.040 mg/L for TTHM and 0.030 mg/L for HAA5. Samples must be in compliance with Stage 1 requirements.

The required submittal and compliance dates associated with Stage 2 DBPR are shown in Exhibit 4-6.

4.4.2.2 Groundwater Disinfection for Virus Inactivation As of December 31, 2005 (in accordance with 62-555.320 (12)(b), FAC), groundwater systems with a source that is not under the direct influence of surface water and is exposed to the atmosphere during treatment must provide at least 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses before the first customer at all flow rates. The virus inactivation/removal requirement is not applicable if aerators and other facilities are protected against contamination from birds, insects, wind-borne debris, rainfall, and drainage.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-17 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 4-6 IDSE and Stage 2 Compliance Dates

Retail Population Served

Requirement 100,000 50,000-99,999

Submit IDSE plan/certification October 1, 2006 April 1, 2007

Complete Study/monitoring if required

September 30, 2008 March 31, 2009

Submit IDSE Report if required January 1, 2009 July 1, 2009

Begin Compliance Monitoring April 1, 2012 October 1, 2012

4.4.2.3 Arsenic As of January 23, 2006, in accordance with EPA’s Arsenic Rule promulgated in January 2001, all drinking water systems are required to be in compliance with the arsenic MCL of 0.010 mg/L.

The revised maximum contaminant level of 0.010 mg/L for arsenic became effective January 1, 2005. All community and non-transient non-community water systems are required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to demonstrate compliance with the revised maximum contaminant level by December 31, 2007.

4.4.2.4 Ground Water Rule EPA proposed the Ground Water Rule (GWR) in 2000 and has a planned promulgation in August of 2006. This rule will require sanitary surveys performed by the state, hydrogeo-logical sensitivity assessments for systems not disinfecting (not providing 4-log removal/ inactivation of viruses), source water microbial monitoring for non-disinfecting systems in hydrogeologically sensitive aquifers or that have detected fecal indicators in the distribu-tions system, and corrective action for systems with significant deficiencies or positive microbial samples indicating fecal contamination. Corrective actions, such as determining source water alternatives and requiring 4-log inactivation/removal of viruses, could be enforced.

4.4.2.5 Contaminant Candidate List In February 2005 the second Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 2) was promulgated. Nine of the 60 contaminants were removed with no other contaminants being added. The CCL 2 list can be found in Appendix B. The draft CCL 3 should be issued in the winter of 2006 and is anticipated to be promulgated in 2008.

4.4.3 Water Quality Data Typical water quality data for the finished water from the Florida City, Stock Island, and Marathon WTPs are shown in Exhibit 4-7. Raw water quality data as well as the associated standards are also shown in the exhibit. Water quality data reviewed indicates that the FKAA water treatment systems are meeting the current drinking water standards. Analytical results show compliance with the arsenic MCL and the required 4-log


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-18 WB122005005DFB

removal/inactivation of viruses required for plants which have treatment processes that are open to the atmosphere is being met.

EXHIBIT 4-7 Typical Treatment Facility Water Quality Data and Associated Water FDEP Standards

Inorganic Contaminants Florida City WTP Stock

Island WTP Marathon

WTP

Contaminant Units FDEP MCL BDL Value

Raw Water1

Finished Water2

Finished Water2

Finished Water3

Antimony mg/L 0.006 0.0025 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Arsenic mg/L 0.01 0.00023 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Barium mg/L 2 0.000491 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Beryllium mg/L 0.004 0.0000945 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Cadmium mg/L 0.005 0.000356 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Chromium mg/L 0.1 0.0216 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Cyanide mg/L 0.2 0.00373 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Fluoride mg/L 4 0.23 0.87 BDL BDL

Lead mg/L 0.015 0.00176 BDL BDL BDL

Mercury mg/L 0.002 0.0000162 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Nickel mg/L 0.1 0.000997 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Nitrate (as N) mg/L 10 0.0201 1.71 1.8 BDL BDL

Nitrite (as N) mg/L 1 0.0118 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Total Nitrate and Nitrite (as N)

mg/L 10 1.71 1.8 BDL BDL

Selenium mg/L 0.05 0.0021 BDL BDL BDL

Sodium mg/L 160 0.0227 16.2 12.1 71 149

Thallium mg/L 0.002 0.00254 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Aluminum mg/L 0.2 0.035 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Chloride mg/L 250 0.2 27.3 25.8 124 232

Copper mg/L 1 0.00117 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Fluoride mg/L 2 0.23 0.87 BDL BDL

Iron mg/L 0.3 0.0167 BDL BDL

Manganese mg/L 0.05 0.000167 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Silver mg/L 0.1 0.000472 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Sulfate mg/L 250 0.5 86.9 59.5 9.2 21.2

Zinc mg/L 5 0.000409 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Color (APHA) 15 N/A BDL BDL BDL BDL

Odor (TON) 3 N/A BDL BDL BDL BDL

pH 6.5–8.5 N/A 7.47 9.25 8.75 7.44

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L

500 mg/L 0.5 330 204 230 366


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-19 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 4-7 Typical Treatment Facility Water Quality Data and Associated Water FDEP Standards

Inorganic Contaminants Florida City WTP Stock

Island WTP Marathon

WTP

Contaminant Units FDEP MCL BDL Value

Raw Water1

Finished Water2

Finished Water2

Finished Water3

Disinfection Byproducts Florida City WTP

Contaminant Units FDEP MCL BDL Value Finished Water4

Haloacetic acid (HAA)5 (RAA) (µg/L) 60 6.7

Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) (RAA)

(µg/L) 80 2.7

Notes: BDL=below detection limits MCL= maximum contaminant level 1Data compiled from raw water sample results from 2002 and 2003. 2Data Compiled from finished water sample results from September 2005. 3Data compiled from finished water sample results from December 2005. 4Data from the Disinfection Byproducts Report submitted to the Miami-Dade County Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for the 4th quarter of 2005.

Exhibit 4-8 shows the historic and average yearly raw and finished water quality data for selected inorganic parameters for the J. Robert Dean WTP.

Raw water at the Stock Island RO Plant and the Marathon RO Emergency Facility has TDS and chloride concentrations of approximately 37,000 mg/L and 21,000 mg/L, respectively. Currently, only scale inhibitor and cartridge filtration facilities are provided in the pre-treatment process. Therefore, the membrane feed water quality is essentially the same as the raw water quality.

4.4.4 Conclusion Because the J. Robert Dean WTP is currently providing at least 4-log virus inactivation/ removal required action in the event that the GWR is promulgated as it is currently written, the regulation should have minimal effects on plant operation. Based on 2005 DBP analytical results, the current concentrations of DBP in the FKAA distribution system is well below the MCLs. If previous DBP concentrations are similar to those from 2005, the required actions from FKAA to meet the Stage 2 DBPR should be minimal. Based on the supplied analytical results, the recent and expected changes in potable water regulations should not cause significant changes to the operation of FKAA’s treatment system unless the classification of the ground water source changes to a “ground water under the direct influence of surface water”. That reclassification is not anticipated for the Biscayne Aquifer except in site-specific areas that the FKAA system is not a part of.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-20 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 4-8 Yearly Average Values: J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant Data from Water Treatment Plant Monthly Reports Supplied by FKAA

Raw Water Finished Water

Year Chloride

(ppm)

MO Alkalinity

(ppm)

Total Hardness

(ppm)

Ca Hardness

(ppm)

Apparent Color (units) pH

P Alkalinity

(ppm)

MO Alkalinity

(ppm)

Tot. Hardness

(ppm)

Ca Hardness

(ppm)

Apparent Color (units) pH

Turbidity (NTU)

WTP Tot. Hardness Removal

2000 32.86 210.36 277.22 261.31 7 7.16 5.11 37.88 115.08 100.68 <5 8.76 0.13 58%

2001 41.08 196.36 276.72 261.31 7 7.23 3.08 30.12 109.14 93.11 <5 8.68 0.13 61%

2002 39.03 194.63 279.72 261.68 7 7.07 4.39 61.52 140.72 125.1 <5 8.4 0.13 50%

2003 38.88 196.34 277.2 260.51 7 7.17 4.59 35.99 109.76 94.17 <5 8.67 0.07 60%

2004 33.65 196.86 277.02 260.43 7 7.16 9.18 35.81 106.69 93.06 <5 9.32 0.09 61%

2005 72.6 197.48 286.7 260.89 7 7.2 7.55 33.3 115.2 94.25 <5 9.2 0.09 60%


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-21 WB122005005DFB

4.5 Evaluation of Water Treatment Facilities 4.5.1 Water Demand and Treatment Capacity Water supply systems must be designed to meet maximum day and peak flow demands. In many systems, water treatment production capacity is sized to meet projected maximum daily demands, and storage is used to meet peak hourly flows, including assumed fire flow events. FKAA‘s CUP (#13-00005-W) includes a special dry season Biscayne Aquifer with-drawal limit of 17 mgd on an average day basis from December 1 through April 30. This groundwater withdrawal restriction essentially limits water production at the J. Robert Dean WTP to 17 mgd, although the plant can exceed this amount as long as the plant pumps an equal amount less than 17 mgd on another day during the dry season. FKAA is limited to not pumping more than 2,584 MG during this 5-month period, or an average day produc-tion of 17 mgd. This limiting condition of the CUP goes into effect upon completion and operation of the raw Biscayne Aquifer ASR system per Limiting Condition #31 of the CUP as discussed in Section 3, Water Supply System.

Typically, FKAA’s annual maximum day flow (MDF) occurs in the dry season or during the month of May (1 month after the “dry season”). As such, this limiting condition is a key factor in this Water System Master Plan and impacts the timing of when new treatment capacity is required. For this Master Plan, it is assumed that the plant cannot produce more than 17 mgd during this 5-month period to meet maximum day demands.

The largest historical MDF observed was approximately 22.4 mgd, which occurred on March 25, 2005. The second and third largest pumpage days (from 2000 to 2005) were 22.3 mgd on May 30, 2005, and 22.2 mgd on May 18, 2003. From January 2000 through December 2005, 24 days with pumpage within 5 percent of the historical MDF were re-corded, and 110 days within 90 percent of the historical MDF were recorded. The maximum daily averages for the peak 2-, 3-, and 4-day periods from 2000 through 2005 are 21.8 mgd, 21.1 mgd, and 21.3 mgd, respectively.

The evaluation of when WTP expansions (without storage) are needed to meet projected annual MDFs and what capacity each expansion should be requires a number of assump-tions, as noted below:

• Expansions are constructed to keep the projected annual MDF within approximately 90 to 95 (maximum) percent of the available total treated firm water supply.

• The existing emergency RO plants at Stock Island and Marathon will be retrofitted and upgraded to serve as peak production plants to offset production capacity at Florida City LPRO facility

• Each expansion with LPRO uses 1.5-mgd trains, and each expansion increment will be large enough that another train addition will not be needed for at least 2 years.

• The projected annual MDFs will occur during the dry season (December to April), and the maximum withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer will be 17 mgd.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-22 WB122005005DFB

• Biscayne Aquifer water supply will be lime-softened, although some limited amount may be filtered and blended without softening while still meeting the finished water quality goals.

• Brackish Floridan Aquifer water will be available for LPRO desalting treatment at the J. Robert Dean WTP and possibly, a new RO desalination facility at Ocean Reef, if FKAA decides to construct a facility at that location.

• A limited amount of brackish Floridan aquifer water (approximately 0.68 mgd maximum blended with 17 mgd Biscayne Aquifer or 4 percent of the total combined flow from lime-softened or other treated waters) may be filtered and blended with other product waters while still meeting the finished water quality goals after the LPRO system at Florida City is operational. For this analysis, the existing average blend rate of 0.68 mgd was used when only 17 mgd of treated water can be provided. As LPRO capacity is increased or when additional withdrawals can be taken from the Biscayne aquifer, it is assumed that the amount of Floridan aquifer water that can be blended will increase and the amount will be limited to 4 percent of the combined Biscayne aquifer pumpage plus the treated LPRO flow.

• It is assumed that the existing Stock Island and Marathon seawater RO facilities will be upgraded to operate at their 2.0 mgd and 1.0 mgd permitted capacities, respectively. Two trains at Stock Island that are equipped with Toyobo membranes have been shown that each train can produce approximately 0.625 mgd with the new membranes. The remaining two trains at Stock Island and the two trains at Marathon with the “old” DuPont B10 permeators will need to be replaced with new Toyobo membranes, and the permits modified for the increased production to 2.0 and 1.0 mgd, respectively, in 2009 and 2010. FKAA will also need to decide that these seawater RO treatment units will be used to meet peak demands rather than just be limited to emergency supply only. Our analysis assumes that 3 mgd of water can be used from these facilities to meet peak day demands.

• “Firm” WTP production capacities (or capacities with the largest unit process or pump out of service) are used for the analysis.

Exhibit 4-9 presents the projected maximum day demands from 2006 through 2025 (from Section 2, Population and Water Demand Forecast Summary), and the required treatment plant expansions needed to meet these demands.

Assuming that water withdrawals from the Biscayne Aquifer cannot exceed 17 mgd during the dry season when peak demands typically occur, then brackish water LPRO facilities totaling 4.5 mgd are needed as soon as possible (assumed to be operational in 2009). In addition, it will be necessary for FKAA to change the operational policy for the Stock Island and Marathon saltwater RO (SWRO) plants so that they can be operated as peaking plants to meet peak day demands several times during the year rather than just during emer-gencies. Additionally, improvements to the two SWRO facilities will allow the Stock Island and Marathon SWRO plants to produce 2 mgd and 1 mgd, respectively. The third additional water supply source will be a new brackish water LPRO plant at Ocean Reef that will provide 1.5 mgd of potable water that will be used to reduce the demands at the Florida City Dean WTP.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-23 WB122005005DFB

Exhibit 4-9 Water Treatment Capacities To Meet Maximum Day Demands (All values shown are in mgd)

Average Day

Demand

Maximum Day Dry Season Demand

J. Robert Dean WTP Biscayne Aquifer ASR

Floridan Aquifer Bypass

Stock Island SWRO

Marathon SWRO

Florida City

Dean WTP

LPRO

Ocean Reef

LPRO WTP

Total Dry Season

Production Capacity

Avg Day Demand vs. Dry Season

Capacity

Max Day Dry Season Demand vs. Dry Season

Capacity 2006 18.58 23.23 17 0 0.7 1.5 0.5 0 0 19.7 1.12 -3.53 2007 18.77 23.46 17 0 0.7 1.5 0.5 0 0 19.7 0.93 -3.76 2008 19.2 24 17 3 0 1.5 0.5 0 0 22 2.8 -2 2009 19.64 24.55 17 3 0 2.5 0.5 0 0 23 3.36 -1.55 2010 20.07 25.09 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 4.5 1.5 27.65 7.58 2.56 2011 20.48 25.6 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 4.5 1.5 27.65 7.17 2.05 2012 20.88 26.1 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 4.5 1.5 27.65 6.77 1.55 2013 21.28 26.6 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 7.87 2.55 2014 21.68 27.1 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 7.47 2.05 2015 22.08 27.6 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 7.07 1.55 2016 22.35 27.94 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 6.8 1.21 2017 22.61 28.26 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 6.54 0.89 2018 22.88 28.6 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 6.27 0.55 2019 23.14 28.93 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 6.01 0.22 2020 23.41 29.26 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 5.74 -0.11 2021 23.5 29.38 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 5.65 -0.23 2022 23.6 29.5 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 5.55 -0.35 2023 23.7 29.63 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 5.45 -0.48 2024 23.78 29.73 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 5.37 -0.58 2025 23.88 29.85 17 0 0.9 2.5 1.25 6 1.5 29.15 5.27 -0.7 Notes: SWRO=Seawater reverse osmosis desalting BWRO=Brackish water reverse osmosis desalting Note 1: Biscayne Aquifer flow during dry season limited to 17 mgd; total of lime-softened flows Note 2: Florida aquifer maximum bypass/blend flow rate ranges from approximately 0.68 to 1.0 mgd depending upon Biscayne and Floridan aquifer raw water qualities and product water quality and quantity from each operating treatment unit. It is assumed that the Floridan aquifer blend is 4 percent of combined Biscayne and LPRO treated water produced.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-24 WB122005005DFB

Exhibit 4-9 Water Treatment Capacities To Meet Maximum Day Demands (All values shown are in mgd)

Average Day

Demand

Maximum Day Dry Season Demand

J. Robert Dean WTP Biscayne Aquifer ASR

Floridan Aquifer Bypass

Stock Island SWRO

Marathon SWRO

Florida City

Dean WTP

LPRO

Ocean Reef

LPRO WTP

Total Dry Season

Production Capacity

Avg Day Demand vs. Dry Season

Capacity

Max Day Dry Season Demand vs. Dry Season

Capacity

Note 3: It is assumed that the Stock Island SWRO system is limited to 1.525 mgd and that the Marathon SWRO system is limited to 0.45 mgd, which is based on operation of the "old" DuPont B10 permeators and existing firm capacity limitations. Improvements to each of these stations will result in the capacity of the Stock Island and Marathon SWRO systems to be increased to 2.5 mgd and 1.25 mgd, respectively, by 2009 and 2010. FKAA will also need to designate these two SWRO facilities as peak demand facilities and not just emergency water supply facilities. Need to purchase spare motor and impeller for HP pump in order to meet redundancy requirements of firm capacity of FDEP.

Note 4: The RO permeate Phase 2 capacity is 6 mgd without any Floridan bypass blend added to permeate. The RO plant is designed to allow for a max of 0.576 mgd Floridan bypass to blend with the permeate prior to the degasifier. This will bring the total max finished water capacity of the RO plant to 6.576 mgd.

Note 5: It is assumed that the Ocean Reef LPRO "brackish" water plant will be sized for 4.5 mgd in capacity; 1.5 mgd of this capacity can be utilized to offset Florida City Dean WTP Production requirements. This facility is planned to be online by 2010.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-25 WB122005005DFB

With these additional treatment facilities, one additional 1.5-mgd LPRO expansion will be needed in 2013 at the Florida City Dean WTP to meet projected annual MDFs.

FKAA’s projected MDFs could also be met by using treatment plant production and the considerable storage volume FKAA has available because of its unique transmission and distribution system. FKAA currently has 44 MG of storage in the system, including 12 MG of storage at the J. Robert Dean WTP. Even if the existing finished water storage volume is not considered in meeting the projected MDFs, the existing storage capacity at Florida City could possibly lessen the needed RO capacities projected for 2017 and still meet the projected MDF demands. There is a possibility that consecutive days could occur where demands are at or near the MDF values. The existing storage in the system can be used as needed to meet the needs during these potential high demand periods. If 3 MG of the 44 MG storage capacity could be reserved to help alleviate peak day flow events, it could serve as a buffer to meet MDFs as long as the maximum day demand did not occur more than 2 or 3 consecutive days. It would have to be assumed that if storage was used to meet these peak flow events, mandatory water restrictions and other conservation measures would be in place to minimize the odds for a maximum day flow to occur more than 1 or 2 days before a significant drop off in demand is observed.

If storage capacity can be effectively utilized to meet peak day flows, then the additional 1.5 mgd projected for 2017 could be deferred indefinitely.

4.5.2 J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant 4.5.2.1 Treatment Capacity The facility currently has regulatory approval to treat Biscayne Aquifer water at a maximum day flow of 23.8 mgd. However, as discussed previously, during the dry season of each year (December to April), average daily withdrawals are limited to 17 mgd during the 5-month period, which limits the treatment plant production rate. Outside of the dry season, the J. Robert Dean WTP can withdraw and treat 23.8 mgd of Biscayne Aquifer water.

The existing J. Robert Dean lime softening WTP is in good condition, and no major replace-ments and repairs are expected in the future. To reliably meet its existing peak demands and to increase the available capacity of the J. Robert Dean WTP, FKAA has decided to move forward with the design of an LPRO facility, which will desalt brackish water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer. The initial treatment capacity will be 4.5 mgd with an ultimate capacity of 6.0 mgd depending on several operational and policy factors that need to be ad-dressed by FKAA (such as the amount of capacity that can be dependably obtained from the Ocean Reef and lower Keys SWRO plants and the extent that transmission and pumping improvements are made to the transmission system).

4.5.2.2 Proposed LPRO WTP The Preliminary Design Report (Revision 1) for FKAA’s planned expansion of the J. Robert Dean WTP with LPRO membrane technology treating Floridan aquifer brackish ground-water supply was published (CH2M HILL, August 2006). The initial (Phase 1) LPRO capacity was proposed to be 4.5 mgd produced from three 1.5-mgd process trains installed in a building sized for 6 mgd LPRO. In the future (Phase 2), one additional LPRO train will


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-26 WB122005005DFB

be added. Expansion beyond 6 mgd LPRO will require a building expansion (or new build-ing adjacent to the initial facility) as well other facilities.

As an option in Phase 1, FKAA will ask bidders to propose a fourth RO train as an additive alternate. If the price is favorable enough, FKAA may elect to install all 6.0 mgd RO capacity in Phase 1. However, this Preliminary Design Report (Revision 1) assumes that Phase 1 capacity will be 4.5 mgd and Phase 2 capacity will be 6 mgd.

The LPRO product water (permeate) will be combined (blended) with existing lime soften-ing plant product and a limited amount of cartridge-filtered Biscayne Aquifer LPRO bypass water. The blended product water will receive chemical addition and will be transferred to existing finished water storage facilities and pumped to distribution with existing high-service pumps. The treatment facilities will also include degasification for hydrogen sulfide removal and off-gas odor control facilities. The Preliminary Design Report includes the option for a limited amount (up to 0.144mgd per RO train) of cartridge filtered Floridan aquifer water to be blended with the LPRO permeate prior to degasification.

Exhibit 4-10 presents the preliminary design water qualities for the LPRO facility. While these water quality data provide a basis for preliminary design, more raw water sampling is recommended. Water quality data should include additional Floridan aquifer samples as well as samples from the new production wells once constructed. The exhibit also shows typical Biscayne Aquifer water quality and lime-softened plant product water. The current design assumes that both of these waters, as well as acidified cartridge-filtered Floridan aquifer water, will be blended with LPRO membrane permeate (product water) before being pumped to distribution as finished water.

EXHIBIT 4-10 Preliminary Design Water Quality at J. Robert Dean WTP

Floridan Aquifera

Parameter 5,000 mg/L TDS 8,000 mg/L TDS Biscayne Aquifer Lime Softening Plant Product

Calcium (mg/L) 152b 193 104 38.4

Magnesium (mg/L) 141b 248 5 4.6

Sodium (mg/L) 1430 2333 19 19

Potassium (mg/L) 92 126 5 5

Barium (mg/L) 0.03 0.04 0.1 0

Strontium (mg/L) 8.38 9.89 5 0

Iron (mg/L) 0.10 0.12 0.1 0

Manganese (mg/L) 0.01 0.03 0.005 0

Aluminum (mg/L) NDc NDc

Bicarbonate (mg/L) 230 255 306 47.7

Sulfate (mg/L) 462 695 50 50

Chloride (mg/L) 2498 4120 30 30


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-27 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 4-10 Preliminary Design Water Quality at J. Robert Dean WTP

Floridan Aquifera

Parameter 5,000 mg/L TDS 8,000 mg/L TDS Biscayne Aquifer Lime Softening Plant Product

Fluoride (mg/L) 1.3 1.5 0.5 1

Silica, Reactive (mg/L) 10.5 11.7 15 5

Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L as N) <0.3 <0.3

Total Phosphorus (mg/L as P) 0.05 0.06

Boron (mg/L) 0.96 1.05

pH (units) 7.4b 7.42 7.3 9.4

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 188 209 250 39

Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 960 1500 281 115

Hydrogen Sulfide (mg/L) 6.2 6.2

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 1.0 1.0

Total Ions + Silica (mg/L) 5,026 8,000 540 201

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 4,909 7,870 384 176

Temperature (C) 25.5b 25.5 26.4 26

Notes: aThe design 8,000 mg/L TDS water quality was developed using available data from: i) the existing Floridan Aquifer with concentrations of all parameters, except pH and temp., increased by 15% (Chloride adjusted for ion balance) and ii) typical sea water quality. bCalcium, magnesium, pH, and temperature based on sampling of the on-site Floridan blend well & testing results by FKAA on June 22 & 23, 2006. All other Floridan Aquifer parameters based on Floridan blend well sampling on May 17, 2005, and testing by CH2M HILL ASL laboratory. cND=non-detectable. Aluminum was non-detectable based on a sample from the existing Floridan Blend Well on December 16, 2005.

Finished water will be a combination of degasified LPRO permeate (blended with limited Floridan aquifer cartridge filtered blend) from the new LPRO system, lime-softened Biscayne Aquifer water, unsoftened Biscayne Aquifer blend water, and brackish Floridan aquifer blend water. The LPRO facility will be designed to meet applicable drinking water standards and FKAA’s finished water quality goals. Some of the primary finished water quality goals are as follows:

• Total hardness: ~120 mg/L as CaCO3 (150 mg/L maximum) • Alkalinity: >30 mg/L as CaCO3 • TDS: <500 mg/L • Chloride: <250 mg/L • Sodium: <160 mg/L • Color: <5 color units • pH: 9.3–9.4 units • Langelier Saturation Index (LSI): 0.0 to +1.2 [with adequate sequesterant residual]


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-28 WB122005005DFB

Water hardness is not a regulated drinking water standard, although softening has definite benefits to the consumer (for example, less soap usage for washing). FKAA has softened Biscayne Aquifer water at the J. Robert Dean WTP for many years and plans to continue to do so. However, FKAA also realizes that the cost of water treatment at the facility can be reduced by having a less restrictive total hardness goal. In the current design, Biscayne and Floridan aquifer bypass-blend flow streams can be used to increase finished water output at elevated hardness levels if desired, while meeting all drinking water standards at reduced costs. The design allows for controlled bypass-blend flow streams to provide FKAA flexi-bility in the operation of the facility. The maximum design bypass-blend flow rates will be determined during final design but likely will be in the 0 to 3 mgd range for the Biscayne Aquifer and 0.44 mgd to 1.2 mgd (maximum) for the Floridan aquifer.

The relatively high target pH is needed to prevent nitrification in the distribution system and. The high LSI results from the treatment processes at the plant and the target pH. A sequesterant is added prior to the lime softening plant filters to control calcium carbonate scaling of the filter media and precipitation in the distribution system.

Exhibit 4-11 shows a simplified process flow diagram for the LPRO facility and lime softening plant. The design is based on taking a portion of the Biscayne Aquifer source water, passing it through cartridge filtration (housed in the LPRO facility) and blending with other streams at the clearwell. The remaining Biscayne Aquifer source water supply would be lime softened in the existing facilities. The three waters (degasified RO permeate, filtered Biscayne Aquifer water, and lime-softened Biscayne Aquifer water) would be blended in a new clearwell/product water pump station. The blended water would receive post-treatment chemical addition and be transferred to finished water storage and high service pumping.

Exhibits 4-12A and 4-12B present the preliminary mass balance diagram for the 5,000 mg/L TDS Floridan aquifer raw water at Phase 1 RO dry “season” and Phase 2 RO wet “season” design flow rates, respectively. Exhibit 4-13A and 4-13B present the preliminary mass balance diagram for the 8,000 mg/L TDS Floridan aquifer raw water at Phase 1 RO dry “season” and Phase 2 RO wet “season” design flow rates, respectively. For the exhibits, the 5,000 mg/L TDS and 8,000 mg/L TDS Floridan aquifer waters are evaluated at 80 percent and 75 percent recovery, respectively. The estimated LPRO permeate water quality in Exhibits 4-12A through 4-13B is based on the two brackish water qualities (Exhibit 4-10) and computer-based RO membrane projections.

The plant will be designed for a recovery range of 65 percent to 85 percent. Better source aquifer water quality allows for higher recovery values and vice versa. RO projections are evaluated for the 5,000 mg/L TDS Floridan aquifer water at recovery values of 65, 75, 80, and 85 percent. For the 8,000 mg/L TDS Floridan water, RO projections are evaluated at 75 percent recovery. The permeate water quality used in Exhibits 4-12A through 4-13B, correspond to the new membrane condition (Fouling Factor = 1).


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-29 WB122005005DFB

Exhibit 4-11 Process Flow Diagram


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-30 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 4-12A Preliminary Mass Balance

Phase 1: Initial RO Capacity of 4.5 mgd, 80% Membrane Recovery1, Membrane Fouling Factor 1.0, Target Finished Hardness of 120 mg/L as CaCO3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Parameter Units Raw Floridan RO Feed

RO Feed Bypass Blend4 RO Permeate

RO Blended Permeate

Degasifier Influent

Degasifier Effluent

Biscayne Cartridge

Filter Water to Clearwell

Influent to Lime Plant

Lime Plant Product

Combined Finished

Water RO

Concentrate

Flow mgd 5.9 5.6 0.3 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.8 15.2 15.2 21.8 1.13

TDS mg/L 4,911 4,918 4,918 108 409 411 411 384 384 176 253 24,166

pH Units 7.4 6.9 6.9 5.5 6.0 5.8 6.6 7.3 7 9.4 9.3 7.3

Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 190 172 172 5 15 11 11 251 251 39 58 841

Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 961 961 961 11 70 70 70 281 281 115 119 4,762

Cl mg/L 2,498 2,498 2,498 59 212 212 212 30 30 30 70 12,258

SO4 mg/L 462 480 480 4.2 34 38 38 50 50 50 47 2,383

Ca mg/L 152 152 152 1.7 11 11 11 104 104 38 38 753

Mg mg/L 141 141 141 1.6 10.4 10.4 10.4 5.0 5.0 4.6 5.9 699

Na mg/L 1430 1430 1430 36 123 123 123 19 19 19 45 7,014

LSI2 0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -4.9 -3.2 -3.5 -2.7 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.6

Ryzner Index3 6.7 7.3 7.3 15.4 12.4 12.9 12.0 6.7 6.7 7.1 6.8 4.2

Notes: 1The plant is designed for a recovery range of 65% to 85%. Better source aquifer water quality allows for higher recovery values and vice versa. 2The LSI is the difference between the measured pH in water and the hypothetical pH the water would have if it were in equilibrium with solid CaCO3 at the existing concentration of bicarbonate ion and calcium ion. Positive values represent oversaturation and negative values represent undersaturation. 3Ryzner Index (RI) uses the pHs to produce a stability index. The RI yield only positive values; the larger the value, the more corrosive the water for steel piping. A value of 6.5 to 7.0 indicates the water is in equilibrium with solid CaCO3 4RO Feed Bypass Blend Stream flow rate is governed by the blended permeate water meeting 85% to 90% of the drinking water quality standards for Na, Cl and TDS.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-31 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 4-12B Preliminary Mass Balance

Phase 2: RO Capacity of 6.0 mgd, 80% Membrane Recovery1, Membrane Fouling Factor 1.0, Target Finished Hardness of 120 mg/L as CaCO3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12



RO Blended Permeate

Degasifier Influent

Degasifier Effluent

Biscayne Cartridge



Lime Plant Product

Combined Finished

Water RO

Concentrate

Flow2 mgd 7.9 7.5 0.4 6.0 6.4 6.4 6.4 2.4 21.4 21.4 30.2 1.50

TDS mg/L 4,911 4,918 4,918 108 409 411 411 384 384 176 250 24,166

pH Units 7.4 6.9 6.9 5.5 6.0 5.8 6.6 7.3 7 9.4 9.3 7.3


Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 961 961 961 11 70 70 70 281 281 115 119 4,762

Cl mg/L 2,498 2,498 2,498 59 212 212 212 30 30 30 68 12,258

SO4 mg/L 462 480 480 4.2 34 38 38 50 50 50 47 2,383

Ca mg/L 152 152 152 1.7 11 11 11 104 104 38 38 753

Mg mg/L 141 141 141 1.6 10.4 10.4 10.4 5.0 5.0 4.6 5.9 699

Na mg/L 1430 1430 1430 36 123 123 123 19 19 19 44 7,014

LSI3 0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -4.9 -3.2 -3.5 -2.7 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.6

Ryzner Index4 6.7 7.3 7.3 15.4 12.4 12.9 12.0 6.7 6.7 7.1 6.9 4.2

Notes: 1The plant is designed for a recovery range of 65% to 85%. Better source aquifer water quality allows for higher recovery values and vice versa. 2All flows are dry season Biscayne Aquifer max. 3The LSI is the difference between the measured pH in water and the hypothetical pH the water would have if it were in equilibrium with solid CaCO3 at the existing concentration of bicarbonate ion and calcium ion. Positive values represent oversaturation and negative values represent undersaturation. 4Ryzner Index (RI) uses the pHs to produce a stability index. The RI yield only positive values; the larger the value, the more corrosive the water for steel piping. A value of 6.5 to 7.0 indicates the water is in equilibrium with solid CaCO3 5RO Feed Bypass Blend Stream flow rate is governed by the blended permeate water meeting 85% to 90% of the drinking water quality standards for Na, Cl and TDS.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-32 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 4-13A Preliminary Mass Balance

Phase 1: Initial RO Capacity of 4.5 mgd, 75% Membrane Recovery1, Membrane Fouling Factor 1.0, Target Finished Hardness of 120 mg/L as CaCO3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12



RO Blended Permeate

Degasifier Influent

Degasifier Effluent

Biscayne Cartridge



Lime Plant Product

Combined Finished

Water RO

Concentrate

Flow2 mgd 5.8 5.6 0.2 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.7 1.8 15.2 15.2 21.7 1.50

TDS mg/L 7,868 7,875 7,875 153 408 408 408 384 384 176 251 31,029

pH Units 7.42 6.9 6.9 5.5 5.8 5.8 6.6 7.3 7.3 9.4 9.3 7.2


Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 1,504 1,504 1,504 15 64 64 64 281 281 115 118 5,969

Cl mg/L 4,120 4,120 4,120 85 218 218 218 30 30 30 70 16,218

SO4 mg/L 695 714 714 5.4 29 29 29 50 50 50 45 2,837

Ca mg/L 193 193 193 1.9 8 8 8 104 104 38 37 766

Mg mg/L 248 248 248 2.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 5.0 5.0 4.6 5.9 984

Na mg/L 2334 2334 2334 51 127 127 127 19 19 19 46 9,181

LSI3 0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -4.9 -3.6 -3.6 -2.8 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.4

Ryzner Index4 6.4 7.0 7.0 15.3 13.1 13.1 12.3 6.7 6.7 7.1 6.9 4.3



WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-33 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 4-13B Preliminary Mass Balance

Phase 2: RO Capacity of 6.0 mgd, 75% Membrane Recovery1, Membrane Fouling Factor 1.0, Target Finished Hardness of 120 mg/L as CaCO3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12



RO Blended Permeate

Degasifier Influent

Degasifier Effluent

Biscayne Cartridge



Lime Plant Product

Combined Finished

Water RO

Concentrate

Flow2 mgd 7.7 7.5 0.2 6.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 2.6 21.2 21.2 30.0 2.00

TDS mg/L 7,868 7,875 7,875 153 408 408 408 384 384 176 250 31,029

pH Units 7.42 6.9 6.9 5.5 5.8 5.8 6.6 7.3 7.3 9.4 9.3 7.2


Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 1,504 1,504 1,504 15 64 64 64 281 281 115 119 5,969

Cl mg/L 4,120 4,120 4,120 85 218 218 218 30 30 30 69 16,218

SO4 mg/L 695 714 714 5.4 29 29 29 50 50 50 46 2,837

Ca mg/L 193 193 193 1.9 8 8 8 104 104 38 38 766

Mg mg/L 248 248 248 2.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 5.0 5.0 4.6 5.9 984

Na mg/L 2334 2334 2334 51 127 127 127 19 19 19 45 9,181

LSI3 0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -4.9 -3.6 -3.6 -2.8 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.4

Ryzner Index4 6.4 7.0 7.0 15.3 13.1 13.1 12.3 6.7 6.7 7.1 6.8 4.3



WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-34 WB122005005DFB

The mass balance with RO treating 5,000 mg/L TDS Floridan aquifer (Exhibit 4-12A) water shows that the plant can achieve a finished water for distribution that meets the water quality goals by blending 4.5 mgd RO permeate water (blended with 0.3 mgd Floridan feed bypass), 15.2 mgd of lime-softened water, and 1.8 mgd of filtered Biscayne water bypass (17 mgd total Biscayne Aquifer water pumpage). The final hardness is approximately 119 mg/L as CaCO3. Although not shown in the table, the blended degasified RO permeate, filtered Biscayne Aquifer bypass, and lime -softened product water has a pH of approxi-mately 7.5 and an LSI of approximately -0.6. To raise the pH to the target 9.3 value, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) addition is assumed. During final design, potential chemical feed adjustments in the existing lime softening facility may also be considered that could de-crease the potential caustic soda feed rate.

Because the pH 9.4 lime-softened water will be blending with lower pH waters, approxi-mately 12 mg/L of caustic soda (50 percent wt. concentration) is needed to increase the blended pH to 9.3. The finished water has the following corrosion indices:

• LSI of 1.2, which indicates a tendency for calcium carbonate deposition (controlled by sequesterant addition)

• Ryzner Index of 6.8, which indicates the water is approximately at calcium carbonate saturation

The mass balance for RO treating 5,000 mg/L TDS Floridan aquifer water (Exhibit 4-12B) shows that the plant can achieve a finished water for distribution by blending 6 mgd of RO permeate water (blended with 0.4 mgd Floridan feed bypass), 21.4 mgd of lime-softened water, and 2.4 mgd of filtered Biscayne water bypass (23.8 mgd total Biscayne Aquifer pumpage). This combination requires a 50 percent concentration caustic dosage of approxi-mately 12 mg/L to achieve the 9.3 finished water pH. The finished water has the following corrosion indices:



The mass balance with RO treating 8,000 mg/L TDS Floridan aquifer water (Exhibit 4-13A) shows that the plant can achieve a finished water for distribution that meets the water quality goals by blending 4.5 mgd RO permeate water (blended with 0.2 mgd Floridan feed bypass), 15.2 mgd of lime-softened water, and 1.8 mgd of filtered Biscayne water bypass (17 mgd total Biscayne Aquifer water pumpage). The final hardness is approximately 118 mg/L as CaCO3. Although not shown in the table, the blended degasified RO permeate, filtered Biscayne Aquifer bypass, and lime-softened product water has a pH of approxi-mately 7.5 and an LSI of approximately -0.6. To raise the pH to the target 9.3 value, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) addition is assumed. During final design, potential chemical feed adjustments in the existing lime softening facility may also be considered that could de-crease the potential caustic soda feed rate.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-35 WB122005005DFB

Because the pH 9.4 lime softened water will be blending with lower pH waters, approxi-mately 12 mg/L of caustic soda (50 percent wt. concentration) is needed to increase the blended pH to 9.3. The finished water has the following corrosion indices:



The mass balance for RO treating 8,000 mg/L TDS Floridan aquifer water (Exhibit 4-13B) shows that the plant can achieve a finished water for distribution by blending 6 mgd of RO permeate water (blended with 0.2 mgd Floridan feed bypass), 21.2 mgd of lime-softened water, and 2.6 mgd of filtered Biscayne water bypass (23.8 mgd total Biscayne Aquifer pumpage). This combination requires a 50 percent concentration caustic dosage of approxi-mately 12 mg/L to achieve the 9.3 finished water pH. The finished water has the following corrosion indices:



Other flow combinations are possible and still meet the water quality goals but the post-treatment chemical dosages would need to be adjusted. Generally, the RO permeate flow rate will be constant through each process train (1.5 mgd per train as described in this section) so the permeate flow rate will change in steps depending on how many trains are in service. Each train is also designed to allow a maximum Floridan aquifer feed bypass blend of 100 gpm. This Floridan feed bypass blend will blend with the RO permeate prior to the degasifier. The Biscayne bypass and lime-softened water flow rates may be varied (within limits) as desired.

Exhibit 4-14 presents the assumed major equipment list and design criteria for the proposed new facilities at the plant.

4.5.2.3 Proposed Deep Injection Well for LPRO WTP Concentrate Disposal One deep injection well (DIW) for the proposed RO desalting plant’s concentrate disposal will be required. The DIW is currently under design and permitting (by LBF&H) with a disposal capacity of 5.04 mgd and 10 feet/second velocity, which would be adequate for the 6 mgd ultimate RO capacity. No backup DIW is anticipated to be required because FKAA has operational flexibility that will allow Mechanical Integrity Testing (MIT) to be scheduled during the wet season (every 5 years). During the MIT, the RO plant will be shut down for approximately 1 week, and the J. Robert Dean lime-softening plant will be used to meet all production requirements.

EXHIBIT 4-14Preliminary Major Equipment List and Design Criteria Summary

Sheet Unit Process Design Criteria Tag No. Facility Location

Quantity (Phase 1)

Quantity (Phase 2) Size Electrical

Requirement Description/Comment

I-1 Raw Water WellsWells Assumes 1.6 mgd per well. Phase 1 and 2 "firm" capacities

are 4 mgd and 8 mgd, respectively. Assumes 3 mgd RO permeate and 75% recovery for Phase 1.

Floridan Aquifer Well Field

4 6 1.6 mgd each (1,110 gpm)

NA Number of wells and well yields estimated. Actual values to be determined (TBD).

Pumps Well pumps to deliver raw water pressure of 40 psi to cartridge filters. Assumes 3 mgd permeate and 75-85% recovery range.

Floridan Aquifer Well Field

4 6 1,110 gpm each at 231 ft TDH

250 hp (ea), VFDs

Submersible vertical turbine. 316L stainless steel (SST) construction. TDH and HP estimated. Actual TBD.

I-2 RO Pretreatment Static Mixer Provide mixing for scale inhibitor at Phase 1 and Phase 2

flows. Raw water flow range of 1,225 gpm (1 RO train @85% recovery) to 5,655 gpm (4 RO Trains @75% recovery).

Membrane Process Building

1 1 5,655 gpm; 24" diameter

NA 316L SST Construction; multiple elements; one injection nozzle

Cartridge Filters (Membrane Pretreatment)

Designed to protect membranes from incidents of sand and turbidity. Filters rated at 5-microns nominal. Designed to accommodate loading rates of <4.5 gpm/10" filter length. No additional needed for Phase 2.


3 3 2,780 gpm ea.; 412 10-inch equivalents; Phase 1: 3.4

gpm/10" (w/spare); Phase 2: 4.5 gpm/10"

(no spare)

NA Horizontal vessel; 316L SST construction

Cartridge Filters (Biscayne Aquifer Bypass)

Designed to provide filtration for Biscayne Aquifer Bypass. Designed to accommodate loading rates of <4.5 gpm/10" filter length. No spare. Add 1 additional in Phase 2.


1 2 1,740 gpm; 412 10-inch

equivalents; Phase 1: 4.2 gpm/10" (no

spare)


RO Feed Pumps Vertical turbine can-type pump; 1 per RO train plus 1 spare. Assumes 1,225 to 1,390 gpm per pump and pressure of 250-375 psi.


3 5 1,390 gpm @ 860 ft TDH (ea)

400 hp (ea); VFDs

316L SST multistage vertical turbine can pump with VFD

I-3 RO SystemRO Trains 1.5 mgd permeate capacity per skid. Two stage configuration

with approx. 26 vessels in Stg 1 and 12 vessels in Stg 2 (26:12 array). Seven (7) 8" dia x 40" long PA spiral wound RO membrane elements in each pressure vessel.


2 4 1.5 mgd permeate

capacity each train

NA HP piping: 316L SST; FRP pressure vessels, multi-port type

Interstage Boost Pumps Assumes each train has an interstage boost pump which increases Stage 1 concentrate pressure feeding Stage 2.


2 4 390-625 gpm @ 325 ft TDH (ea)

100 hp (ea); VFDs

316L SST multistage centrifugal pump with VFD; The potential use of energy recovery turbochargers will also be considered in the final design which may reduce or eliminate the interstage boosting requirements.

I-4Static Mixer Provide mixing for sodium hydroxide, chlorine, ammonia.

Treated water flow rate of 15-32 mgdProduct

Transfer Pump Station

1 1 22,250 gpm; 42" diameter

NA 304L SST Construction; multiple elements

Degasifier Tower Circular packed tower with Jaeger packing media. Designed to achieve 97% removal of H2S. No spare.

Product Transfer Pump

Station

1 2 13'-diameter; 14' packing depth;

2,100 gpm; inlet H2S = 6.2 mg/L

NA FRP tower with Jaeger packing for increased air/water interface.

Product Transfer Pump and Post Treatment

WPB31012716136.xls/061990016 1 of 3



Quantity (Phase 1)



Degasifier Blower Provide 2 blowers (1 spare in Phase 1, no spare in Phase 2). Product Transfer Pump

Station

2 2 Air flow approx. 20,000 acfm at 12" W.C. each.

50 hp (ea), C.S. Blower with FRP fan and internals

Product Transfer Pumps Pumps sized for full flow from existing lime softening plant and the new membrane plant with Biscayne blend flow. Assumes Phase 1 RO plant (3 mgd permeate) total pumped flow range from 15 to 30 mgd and Phase 2 RO plant (6 mgd permeate) pumped flow from 17 to 32 mgd. Also includes 1 spare pump.


Station

7 7 3,705 gpm @ 40' TDH (ea)

75 hp (ea); VFDs 304 SST vertical turbine pumps

I-5 H2S Scrubber SystemH2S Scrubber Two stage scrubber with packing media designed for 98%

sulfide removal from air flow stream and 12 mgd (future) RO plant. System includes 3 recirculation pumps (one spare), 2 NaOH metering pumps (1 spare) and a day tank; and 1 Cl2 eductor.


Station

1 system (2 towers)

1 system (2 towers)

11'-diameter; 10' packing depth;

40,000 acfm; inlet H2S 115 ppm

3 recirculation pumps, 15 hp (ea) (1 spare)

C.S.; [See sodium hydroxide

chemical feed pumps & chlorine

feed system (below)]

Unit designed for future RO flow of 12 mgd. If decided to only design for 6 mgd RO, the component sizes will be reduced

I-6 RO Cleaning SystemCartridge Filter Designed to remove particulates in the recirculated cleaning

solution. Filter rated at 20-microns nominal. Designed to accommodate loading rates of 5.0 gpm/10" filter length at 40 gpm per pressure vessel..


1 1 1,040 gpm; 258 10-inch

equivalents; 5.0 gpm/10" (no

spare)


Cleaning Tank Sized to store enough cleaning solution for a 3 minute detention time at 40 gpm/pressure vessel cleaning flowrate. Tank construction appropriate to handle acid and base cleaning solutions.


1 1 4,000 gallons (nominal); 10 ft

dia x ~7 ft height

NA Fiberglass reinforced plastic tank; top with hinged opening for chemical addition

Membrane Cleaning Pump

Designed at 40 gpm/pressure vessel. 26 vessel stage 1 @ 65 psi. Materials of construction appropriate for acid and base chemical cleaning solutions.


1 1 1,040 gpm @ 150 ft TDH

75-100 hp; CS End suction centrifugal pump; 316L SST

Permeate Make-up Supply Pump

Provides degasifier effluent (without chlorine) to the membrane cleaning tank to make up cleaning and storage solutions.


1 1 300 gpm @ 35 ft TDH

5 hp; CS 316L SST vertical turbine pumps

I-7 Sulfuric Acid SystemBulk Storage Tank Store 30 days minimum average usage; sized to receive a full

truckload of chemical (4000 gallons)Chemical Storage

1 1 4,000 gallons NA Phenolic lined carbon steel tank; circular with dome top

Day Tank Sized for 1 day storage at 8 mgd max feed flow at assumed maximum dosage.


1 1 120 gallons NA Phenolic lined carbon steel tank; absorbent dryer on vent

Transfer Pumps Fill day tank in 5 minutes ( 1 spare) Chemical Storage

2 2 24 gpm max 1.5 hp (ea); CS Magnetic drive pumps

Pretreatment Feed Pumps

Sized to run at 80% at max flow and dosage. Membrane Process Building

2 2 6.1 gph max 120 V single phase

Teflon diaphragm

WPB31012716136.xls/061990016 2 of 3



Quantity (Phase 1)



I-8 Scale Inhibitor System

Bulk Storage Store 30 days minimum average usage; assumed that delivery from supplier is in 275 gallon totes

Chemical Storage

2 2 275 gallon (min.) totes from

chemical supplier

NA Totes from chemical supplier

Pretreatment Feed Pumps

Sized to run at 80% at max flow and dosage. One spare. Membrane Process Building

2 2 1.4 gph max 120 V single phase

Teflon diaphragm

I-9Bulk Storage Tank 15 days storage at max dose and flow for pretreatment and

max usage for sulfide scrubber system. Chemical Storage

2 2 8,000 gallons each

NA HDPE tank; circular with dome top

Day Tank Sized for 1 day storage at max flow. Membrane Process Building

1 1 700 gallons NA HDPE tank; circular with dome top

Transfer Pumps Fill day tank in 10 minutes. (1 spare) Chemical Storage

2 2 70 gpm max 3 hp (ea); CS Magnetic drive pumps

Post-Treatment Feed Pumps

Sized to run at 80% at max flow and dosage. One spare. Membrane Process Building

2 2 33 gph max 120 V single phase

Teflon diaphragm

Scrubber System Feed Pumps & Day Tank

Sized to run at 80% at max flow and dosage. Chemical Storage

2 2 ~19 gph 1/3 hp (ea); CS Solenoid diaphragm metering pumps with integral controls; ~500 gal tank

Cleaning System Transfer Pump

Provide sodium hydroxide to cleaning system at X gpm. Chemical Storage

1 1 15 gpm max 1/2 hp (ea); CS Magnetic drive pumps

N/APost-Treatment Disinfection Eductor

Sized for 4 days storage at max usage Clearwell/Product Transfer

Pumps

1 1 Up to 5 ppm at max flow

NA Existing chlorinator feeding the existing transfer pump station will be used. The vacuum line will be extended, with manual isolation valves, to the new eductor. The design will allow the existing system to be put back into service, if/when desired.

H2S Scrubber System Eductor

Sized to run at 80% at max flow and dosage. One spare. Sulfide Scrubber

1 1 Based on max scrubber design

criteria

NA

Sodium Hydroxide System

Chlorine Feed System

WPB31012716136.xls/061990016 3 of 3


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-39 WB122005005DFB

4.5.3 Kermit H. Lewin RO Seawater Desalination Facility, Stock Island, Florida 4.5.3.1 Treatment Capacity No new process RO trains are proposed for this facility, however, when new Toyobo membranes replace the old DuPont B10 permeators, train production can be increased from a nominal 0.5 mgd to approximately 0.625 mgd. It is possible that maximum production could increase to 2.5 mgd, or possibly greater, if a more detailed study (not in this scope of work) indicates that the maximum production is greater when all four trains have new Toyobo membranes and are operating peak production capability.

It also is planned that the plant will be upgraded for use during peak demand periods (and not just emergency events) and potentially may have electric motor drives installed on the RO high-pressure feed pumps.

4.5.4 Marathon Island RO Seawater Desalination Facility, Marathon Island, Florida 4.5.4.1 Treatment Capacity No new process RO trains are proposed for the Marathon SWRO facility; however, new Toyobo membranes are recommended to replace the old DuPont B10 permeators, which will increase water production so that the Marathon facility can produce 1.25 mgd of potable water. It is recommended that a permit application be submitted to FDEP to increase the plant’s maximum permitted production to 1.25 mgd. In addition, it is planned that the plant will be upgraded for use during peak demand periods (and not just emergency events) and potentially may have electric motor drives installed on the RO high-pressure feed pumps.

4.6 Water Treatment System Recommendations This section discusses the recommendations for major upgrades to the water treatment facilities as well as potential repairs or upgrades with respect to malfunctioning equipment and/or capacity additions to the existing infrastructure.

4.6.1 J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant, Florida City, Florida Overall, the lime-softening WTP is in good condition, and no major repairs are anticipated in the future. Minor improvement items include:

• Add extra filter anthracite media to compensate for media loss and maintain filter performance.

• Investigate visible surface cracks on the recently installed 5 MG storage tank onsite. The cracks are probably superficial in nature. An investigation is pending by Crom, the tank manufacturer.

• Evaluate seepage problems and discoloration on the outside of the sludge thickener tank. Repairs may be needed.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-40 WB122005005DFB

• Add two new chlorinators to the existing chlorinator facility for use under the following circumstances:

− One chlorinator will be dedicated to feed chlorine to the new clear well and paced to maintain a desirable Cl2 concentration based on total RO permeate flow. The second chlorinator will be dedicated to feed chlorine to the scrubber system recirculation line to maintain the desired ORP set point.

− The second chlorinator will be dedicated to feed chlorine to the scrubber system recirculation line to maintain the desired ORP set point.

4.6.2 New LPRO Facility at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant, Florida City To meet increased demand, FKAA is proposing to expand capacity by installing new LPRO capacity as discussed in Section 4.5.2. A Preliminary Design Report for a brackish water reverse osmosis expansion at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant has been completed by CH2M HILL on January 19, 2006. Revision 1 of the Preliminary Design Report was completed on August 28, 2006. The design includes a building designed to accommodate four RO trains, which when installed would produce a maximum total of 6.576 mgd finished water. This includes a RO permeate flow of 6 mgd combined with a maximum Floridan bypass blend flow of 0.576 mgd.

Phase 1 will include three trains totaling 4.5 mgd of capacity of the LPRO WTP which will meet the projected demands for 2009 through 2013. With the installation of the fourth train as Phase 2 of the project, bringing the new plant to a total of 6.576 mgd (maximum), pro-jected demands for 2013 through 2018 will be met. Meeting the projected maximum day water demand of 2018 and beyond will require either utilizing finished water storage or an expansion of the facilities at Florida City or elsewhere.

One DIW for the proposed RO desalting plant’s concentrate disposal will be required. The DIW is currently under design with a disposal capacity adequate for 6 mgd of RO capacity. No backup DIW is anticipated to be required because FKAA has operational flexibility, which will allow MIT to be scheduled during the wet season (every 5 years).

4.6.3 Kermit H. Lewin RO Emergency Facility, Stock Island, Florida The following improvement items are proposed at the Kermit H. Lewin RO facility to increase production capacity to 2.5 mgd:




• Install a limited-size bypass line around the energy recovery units to lessen the concentrate backpressure



WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-41 WB122005005DFB

• Install an elevated walkway and platform on the north side of the building connecting the second story stairway platform to the diesel fuel storage tank system

4.6.4 Marathon RO Desalination Facility, Marathon, Florida The following improvement items are proposed at the Marathon RO emergency facility to provide 1.25 mgd of production capacity:





• Upgrade components that are affected by corrosion

4.6.5 Proposed Ocean Reef RO Facility, Ocean Reef, Florida FKAA is also considering construction of an LPRO brackish water plant at Ocean Reef to offset the costs to replace or expand the 65,000 feet of transmission main from Key Largo to Ocean Reef. The capacity of the facility is expected to be approximately 4.5 mgd, which will provide irrigation and potable water supply to the Ocean Reef community. Approximately 1.5 mgd of the capacity will be utilized to offset current FKAA demands and will reduce the capacity needs at the Florida City Dean WTP by 1.5 mgd. The benefits of a facility would be the elimination of the high capital costs to replace the 65,000-foot transmission pipeline, elimination of booster pumping costs at the new Key Largo Pump Station, high quality water for one of FKAA’s better customers, and a joint public/private project that benefits both Ocean Reef and FKAA.

4.7 Construction Cost Estimates for the Water Treatment System Cost estimates were prepared using the CH2M HILL Parametric Cost Estimating System (CPES). The estimates were developed using 60 percent design documents (CH2M HILL, September 2006). All estimates are in 2006 dollars.

4.7.1 New LPRO Facility at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant, Florida City, Florida

A cost estimate to build a new LPRO facility is shown in Exhibit 4-15. The design includes a building designed to accommodate four RO trains, which when installed would produce a total of 6 mgd finished water.

Phase 1 will include three trains totaling 4.5 mgd of capacity and Phase 2 includes adding one additional train of 1.5 mgd of capacity, bringing the new plant to a total of 6 mgd.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-42 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 4-15 J. Robert Dean WTP Phase I and Phase II RO Facility Construction Cost Opinion1

Phase 1 based on 60% design cost estimate and Phase 2 based on 60% estimate line item cost

Construction

Cost

Total Construction

Cost

Total Project

Cost Suggested

Timing

Phase I

4.5 mgd RO piping and electrical to supply wells and concentrate injection well2 $1,829,721 $1,829,721 $1,829,721 2007–2009

4.5 mgd RO membrane system3 $5,439,072 $5,439,072 $5,439,072 2007–2009

4.5 mgd RO degasifier/scrubber system $1,248,204 $1,248,204 $1,248,204 2007–2009

4.5 mgd RO product transfer pump station4 $3,123,766 $3,123,766 $3,123,766 2007–2009

4.5 mgd RO chemical storage and feed system $760,706 $760,706 $760,706 2007–2009

4.5 mgd RO site work $795,946 $795,946 $795,946 2007–2009

4.5 mgd RO yard piping $1,026,337 $1,026,337 $1,026,337 2007–2009

4.5 mgd RO electrical and I&C $1,863,390 $1,863,390 $1,863,390 2007–2009

4.5 mgd RO building $2,236,257 $2,236,257 $2,236,257 2007–2009

One Concentrate Disposal DIW5 $6,900,000 $6,900,000 $6,900,000 2007–2009

Phase II

1.5 mgd addition (total 6.0 mgd RO) RO membrane system $1,290,000 $1,290,000 $1,290,000 2013

1.5 mgd addition (total 6.0 mgd RO) Well piping, pump, electrical $546,400 $546,400 $546,400 2013

1.5 mgd addition (total 6.0 mgd RO) Site work -- -- -- 2013

1.5 mgd addition (total 6.0 mgd RO) Yard piping -- -- -- 2013

1.5 mgd addition (total 6.0 mgd RO) Yard electrical -- -- -- 2013

1.5 mgd addition (total 6.0 mgd RO) Plant computer system and programming -- -- -- 2013

Project Total $27,059,799 $27,059,799 $27,059,799

Note: 1These are cost opinions (in 2006 dollars) from the 60 percent design documents (CH2M HILL, September 2006) 2Assumes local powerline drop at each well head (supply wells, well pumps, and wellhead facilities included in Section 3, Cost Estimate for Water Supply. 3Includes RO pretreatment and membrane cleaning system. 4Includes clearwell and product transfer pumps. 5Standby DIW not required, as FKAA has flexibility to perform the 5-year MIT during the wet season and can shut down the RO WTP during that time.


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-43 WB122005005DFB

As part of Phase 1, construction of one DIW for the new LPRO’s concentrate disposal needs is included in the cost estimate. The DIW is currently under design with a disposal capacity adequate for 6 mgd of RO capacity. No backup DIW is anticipated to be required because FKAA has operational flexibility, which will allow MIT to be scheduled during the wet season (every 5 years).

4.7.2 Kermit H. Lewin RO Desalination Facility, Stock Island, Florida A cost estimate to perform the membrane replacement and plant upgrades described herein is shown in Exhibit 4-16. The upgraded total finished water capacity would be 2.5 mgd. This cost opinion represents the estimated order-of-magnitude costs in 2006 dollars.

EXHIBIT 4-16 Kermit H. Lewin RO Desalination WTP Membrane Replacement and Plant Upgrades, Stock Island Construction Cost Opinion1 Based on 60% Design Cost Estimate

Construction

Cost

Total Construction

Cost

Total Project

Cost Suggested

Timing

CO2 pretreatment storage and feed system $826,851 $826,851 $826,851 2007–2009 Elevated walkway and platform $143,403 $143,403 $143,403 2007–2009 14" Auger cast piles $88,532 $88,532 $88,532 2007–2009 Clearwell rehabilitation $37,898 $37,898 $37,898 2007–2009 Relocate injection well piping $16,788 $16,788 $16,788 2007–2009 RO train piping upgrade $1,379,755 $1,379,755 $1,379,755 2007–2009 Electrical and I&C $66,839 $66,839 $66,839 2007–2009 Toyobo RO membrane/pressure vessels $1,257,500 $1,257,500 $1,257,500 2007–2009 Project Total $3,817,566 $3,817,566 $3,817,566 Notes: 1These are cost opinions (in 2006 dollars) from the 60 percent design documents (CH2M HILL, September 2006)

4.7.3 Marathon RO Desalination Facility, Marathon, Florida Although no upgrades or additions are planned for the Marathon RO Emergency Facility, upgrades and membrane replacement similar to that recommended for the Kermit H. Lewin RO Emergency Facility could be done. This would increase the total capacity of the emer-gency supply capabilities to 1.25 mgd. The estimated order-of-magnitude costs for these upgrades are shown in Exhibit 4-17.

4.7.4 Ocean Reef LPRO Treatment Plant, Ocean Reef, Florida The construction of an LPRO brackish water plant at Ocean Reef to offset the costs to replace or expand the 65,000 feet of transmission main from Key Largo to Ocean Reef is under discussions with the North Key Largo Utility Authority. The capacity of the facility is expected to be approximately 4.5 mgd, which will provide irrigation and potable water supply to the Ocean Reef community. Approximately 1.5 mgd of the capacity will be utilized to offset current FKAA demands and will reduce the capacity needs at the Florida City Dean WTP by 1.5 mgd. The cost share for FKAA for this facility (supply wells, DIW, WTP, piping, stand-by power) is estimated to be $8,350,000 (per FKAA).


WPB310127161226.DOC/061640013 4-44 WB122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 4-17 Marathon RO Desalination WTP Membrane Replacement and Plant Upgrades, Marathon, Construction Cost Opinion1 Based on Stock Island 60% line item estimate

Construction

Cost

Total Construction

Cost

Total Project

Cost Suggested

Timing

CO2 pretreatment storage and feed system $413,400 $413,400 $413,400 2007–2009

14" Auger cast piles $88,000 $88,000 $88,000 2007–2009

RO train piping upgrade $689,900 $689,900 $689,900 2007–2009

Elevated walkway and platform $143,403 $143,403 $143,403 2007–2009

Electrical and I&C $66,800 $66,800 $66,800 2007–2009

Toyobo RO membrane/pressure vessels $1,257,500 $1,257,500 $1,257,500 2007–2009

Project Total $2,659,003 $2,659,003 $2,659,003

Ocean Reef 1.5 mgd new RO WTP2 $8,350,000 $8,350,000 $8,350,000 2007–2009

Notes: 1These are cost opinions (in 2006 dollars) from the 60% design report (CH2M HILL September 2006) 2Cost provided by FKAA

WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-1 WB122005005DFB

SECTION 5

Water Transmission System

FKAA has a unique water system that extends some 130 miles from Florida City to Key West and is only approximately 3 miles wide at its widest point. Exhibit 1-1 shows transmission mains, pumping facilities, ground storage tanks, and water treatment facilities.

5.1 Existing Transmission System The original transmission main was an 18-inch-diameter steel pipeline that was constructed by the U.S. Navy in the early 1940s to transport potable water from the WTP at Florida City to the Naval Facilities in Key West. This transmission main served as the sole pipeline to trans-port potable water to the Keys until the early 1980s when increasing water demands required upgrades to the transmission system.

The current transmission system in the Middle and Upper Keys consists of 36-inch- and 30-inch-diameter transmission mains along U.S. 1 and a 12-inch-diameter transmission main along Route 905 to Ocean Reef. These transmission mains were constructed in the early 1980s. The current transmission system continues with 24-inch-diameter trans-mission mains that were constructed in the Lower Keys in the late 1980s and mid-1990s. Approximately 52 miles of the original 18-inch-diameter transmission main are still in service and supplement the newer 36-inch- to 24-inch-diameter transmission mains to meet the increasing water demands of the Florida Keys.

The water transmission system begins at the high-service pumps at the J. Robert Dean WTP in Florida City. This plant pumps water into the transmission main at an operating pressure of 250 pounds per square inch (psi) to transmit it approximately 130 miles through the Keys to Key West. The transmission operating pressure of 250 psi is maintained in the transmission system by using booster pump stations in Key Largo (under construction), Long Key, Marathon, and Ramrod Key. The water transmission system supplies water to all of the many distribution systems throughout the Keys (see Section 6). The high-pressure trans-mission system terminates at the four 5 MG ground storage tanks on Stock Island. However, the transmission system continues on through Key West at a lower operating pressure of between 50 and 75 psi to supply water to the Key West Distribution Pump Station. The trans-mission system between Stock Island and the Key West Distribution Pump station is the original 18-inch-diameter steel transmission main.

SECTION 5 – WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-2 WB122005005DFB

Because of the length and uniqueness of its water system, FKAA has a large amount of water storage capacity, both transmission storage and distribution storage (see Exhibit 1-1 for storage facility locations).

The Stock Island Backpump Station with its 20 MG storage facilities, which is considered part of the transmission system, and the Marathon Booster Pump Station, with its 3 MG storage facilities, provide FKAA with the ability to back-pump into the transmission main. In the event of an emergency along the transmission route from pipeline rupture or other failure, FKAA uses the Stock Island Backpump Station, the Marathon Booster Pump Station with its storage facilities, and the emergency RO treatment plants at Stock Island and Marathon to backpump water up the Keys toward the Florida City WTP and maintain pressures until the emergency situation is resolved.

5.2 Evaluation of Existing Transmission System The condition of the existing transmission system and the need for improvements were determined through knowledge of the transmission system and meetings and discussions with FKAA staff. A site visit was also conducted at the following facilities:

• High-service pumping and storage facilities at the J. Robert Dean WTP in Florida City • Each of the four booster pump stations • The Stock Island Backpump Station

The purpose of these site visits was to assess the condition and performance of major equipment and facilities, and to provide a condition assessment of these six pumping facilities and storage facilities, where applicable.

5.2.1 Transmission System Mains Based on the evaluation of the existing transmission system mains and the coordination with other projects in the Keys that could impact the existing transmission mains, the fol-lowing segments of transmission mains will require improvements and upgrades during the planning period.

5.2.1.1 Jewfish Creek Bridge 36-inch Transmission Main Relocation The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is upgrading the 18-Mile Stretch portion of U.S. 1 between Key Largo in the Florida Keys and Florida City on the mainland. The first segment of this project is the Jewfish Creek segment, which will include an elevated high-way over the Lake Surprise area and a fixed span bridge over Jewfish Creek (65 feet mini-mum clearance from the Jewfish Creek water surface). Because of the elevated highway over Lake Surprise and the bridge over Jewfish Creek, approximately 9,000 feet of FKAA’s 36-inch-diameter steel transmission main must be relocated to provide easy access for main-tenance and repair. The transmission main relocation is expected to be complete during Fiscal Year 2008.

5.2.1.2 C-111 Canal Bridge 36-Inch Transmission Main Relocation The second segment of the 18-Mile Stretch Highway Improvements project is the C-111 Canal Bridge segment. This segment was to include a new elevated bridge over the C-111


WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-3 WB122005005DFB

Canal (20 feet clearance from the C-111 Canal water surface), with a required relocation of approximately 2,300 feet of 36-inch-diameter water transmission main. However, the new bridge has been deleted from this highway project, and consequently, no transmission main relocation will be required. There may, however, be some work still required to protect the transmission main either during construction or from surface water flow through box cul-verts after the highway construction is complete. This highway segment is expected to be complete during Fiscal Year 2009.

5.2.1.3 Other U.S. 1 18-Mile Stretch Highway Improvements that may Impact 36-Inch Transmission Main

The last two segments of the 18-Mile Stretch Highway Improvements Projects, which are currently in the design stage, will upgrade U.S. 1 to Florida City. No significant new bridges are anticipated in these last two highway segments, and no transmission main relocation is anticipated. There may, however, be some work required to protect the transmission main either during construction or from surface water flow through box culverts after the high-way construction is complete. This work could involve concrete encasement or riprap pro-tection to some parts of the transmission main. These last two segments are not expected to be complete until at least 2007; the highway improvements are not expected to be complete before Fiscal Year 2010.

5.2.1.4 12-Inch Ocean Reef Transmission Main The 12-inch-diameter transmission main to Ocean Reef and other North Key Largo customers comes directly off the 36-inch-diameter transmission main at the Key Largo Booster Pump Station without any pressure reduction. This 12-inch-diameter main supplies water to all North Key Largo customers through taps on this main, including the 8-inch-diameter Ocean Reef tap and the adjacent 2-inch-diameter Anglers Club tap. The Anglers Club distribution system normally is supplied from the 2-inch-diameter tap and is in-dependent of the Ocean Reef pump station distribution system. However, the Anglers Club distribution system does have an emergency interconnect with the Ocean Reef system; the interconnect valve is normally closed.

This 12-inch-diameter Ocean Reef transmission main is old ductile iron pipe that was in-stalled in the early 1980s and overall is approximately 65,000 feet long. Because of recurring leaks in the upper part of this transmission main, where the main is submerged, this part of the transmission main requires continuous maintenance (an average of two to three major leaks per year have occurred during the past 10 years). With the proposed 1.5-mgd potable water allocation from the proposed RO facility at Ocean Reef, the 12-inch-diameter main size should be adequate. However, the problem portion of this 12-inch-diameter main, which is approximately one-third of the total length (approximately 22,000 feet), should be replaced to reduce UAW and to reduce annual maintenance costs.

5.2.1.5 36-Inch Transmission Main, Key Largo, MM 93 to 98 Between May 1997 and November 2002 (5½ years), there were ten transmission main breaks within the approximately 26,000 feet of 36-inch-diameter transmission main between mile marker (MM) 93 and MM 98 in Key Largo. The frequency of breaks had been anywhere from 20 months apart to 5 months apart. (The last two breaks in 2002 were 5 months apart.)


WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-4 WB122005005DFB

Repair of the breaks requires shut down of the transmission system and the interruption of transporting potable water to fill downstream storage tanks in the Lower Keys.

After the break in November 2002, in an attempt to minimize breaks in this transmission main segment, FKAA established a policy to limit the maximum pressure in this segment to 190 psi. Since that policy was established, there were no further transmission main breaks for 3½ years, until two additional breaks occurred in May 2006 and one additional break occurred in July 2006.

As has already been experienced, limiting pressure in this segment will decrease suction pressure at the Long Key Booster Pump Station and will impact the capacity of Long Key to pump adequate volumes of water downstream to Marathon and in turn to the Lower Keys.

5.2.1.6 18-Inch Transmission Main, Key Largo MM 92–93 A portion of the original 18-inch-diameter transmission main (approximately 1,400 feet that parallels the new 36-inch-diameter main) that is in a swampy area on Key Largo began to leak. To minimize UAW, the main was capped on each end of the swampy area, which has somewhat reduced the volume of water that can be transported downstream through the transmission system, which now is only the 36-inch-diameter transmission main, and not the 18-inch-diameter transmission main.

5.2.1.7 Other Segments of Original 18-Inch Transmission Main FKAA maintenance staff have reported an occurrence of more frequent leaks at some other segments of the original 18-inch-diameter steel transmission main, such as at MM 38, MM 47.5, MM 50, MM 50.5, and MM 53.4. The more frequent leaks are confined to small, 100- to 200-foot segments, which should also be replaced.

More frequent leaks should eventually subside once the following Phase II Cathodic Protection System Project is complete. However, maintenance staff should be aware that some leaks may continue for a time after the new cathodic protection systems are put in service because the same cathodic protection reactions that protect the non-corroded pipeline also tend to “soften” areas where corrosion has progressed to the point where a leak is imminent.

5.2.1.8 Phase II Cathodic Protection System Improvements This project does not involve installing new pipelines but protecting the existing steel pipelines that are in FKAA’s transmission system from corrosion so that additional capital is not required to replace corroded pipelines. The project will not only upgrade facilities to protect the pipelines from corrosion but will also replace facilities to monitor the condition of the corrosion protection systems. The project will protect approximately 65 miles of steel transmission mains throughout the Keys, ranging in size from 18 inches to 36 inches. The majority (80 percent) of the steel mains in this project is the original 18-inch-diameter main that was installed by the Navy during the early 1940s and remains part of FKAA’s trans-mission system.

5.2.1.9 Transmission Main improvements, North Roosevelt Boulevard Highway Improvements The transmission main from Cow Key Channel into Key West to the Key West Distribution Pump Station (Key West Plant) is the original 18-inch-diameter steel transmission main. A


WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-5 WB122005005DFB

portion of this transmission main—between Cow Key Channel and Eisenhower Drive in Key West—is within the North Roosevelt Boulevard (U.S. 1) right-of-way. FDOT is planning to upgrade this portion of highway within the next few years. When this portion of highway is upgraded, FKAA plans to replace the old 18-inch-diameter steel transmission main with a new 18-inch-diameter ductile iron transmission main. This transmission main replacement project will involve the replacement of approximately 15,500 feet of 18-inch-diameter trans-mission main along with the replacement of all appurtenances. It is expected that the new transmission main replacement will not be complete until at least Fiscal Year 2010.

5.2.2 Transmission System Booster Pump Stations and Storage Facilities Exhibit 5-1 summarizes the condition of the high-service pumping and storage facilities at the J. Robert Dean WTP at Florida City, the four booster pump stations and storage facilities, where applicable, and the Stock Island Backpump Station.

Additional discussion for each of these pump stations follows.

5.2.2.1 High-Service Pumping and Storage Facilities at the J. Robert Dean WTP The existing high-service pumps were constructed in 1982 and consist of two 2,780 gpm at 580-foot pumps and three 4,170 gpm at 580-foot pumps. (The third 4,170 gpm at 580-foot pump was installed in 1985.) The firm capacity of these electric pumps is 20 mgd.

The Phase II High Service Pump Station project, which is currently under construction, is designed to provide a firm transmission system pumping capacity of 32 mgd from the Florida City WTP. The project consists of two 4, 170 gpm at 580 foot electric pumps. This pumping capacity is necessary so that downstream water storage tanks can be filled more quickly after periods of high demand or after transmission system pumping has been inter-rupted from a line break or other interruption of service. This project is expected to be complete by October/November 2006.

Four diesel-driven pumps are provided for emergency backup during utility power outages (see Exhibit 5-1). The total pumping capacity of these four pumps is 18.1 mgd, with a firm pumping capacity of 13.0 mgd. Pump Nos. 1 and 2 each have a capacity of 2,710 gpm at 580 feet, and were installed in 1987. Pump Nos. 3 and 4 each have a capacity of 3,574 gpm at 578 feet, and were installed in 1999. These four diesel-driven pumps are adequate to meet emergency pumping requirements under the current water demands. However, as water demands increase in the future, the emergency pumping capacity will need to be increased.

A total of 12 MG of transmission storage in four ground storage tanks is currently provided at the J. Robert Dean WTP for the high-service pumping facilities (see Exhibit 5-1). The two 5 MG storage tanks have baffle walls to improve water distribution and minimize short-circuiting in the tanks. During the wet season, with the WTP producing the permitted treat-ment capacity of 23.8 mgd (also the permitted Biscayne Aquifer maximum wet season withdrawal rate), this 12 MG of storage will allow the high-service pumping facilities to pump at the firm pumping capacity of 32 mgd for approximately 36 hours (1½ days) before all storage is depleted. However, during the dry season, with the average dry season with-drawal rate from the Biscayne Aquifer, and treatment capacity limited to 17 mgd, this 12 MG of storage will allow the high-service pumping facilities to pump at the firm pump-ing capacity of 32 mgd for only approximately 19 hours before all storage is depleted.

EXHIBIT 5-1

General Pump Station Condition

Pump StationPump Type2

xxx gpm @ yyy feet

Motor HP Y/N xxx gpm @ yyy

feetEngine

HP Y/N Capacity (KW)

Number and

Capacity (MG)

Condition Remarks

Florida City High Service Pumps1

VTVTVT

2 - 2,780 gpm @ 580 ft3 - 4,170 gpm @ 580 ft2 - 4,170 gpm @ 580 ft.

500800800

Y2 - 2,170 gpm @ 580 ft 2 - 3,574 gpm @ 578 ft

1,000 1,000 Y 3 - 800 32.0 2 - 5 MG

2 - 1 MG Good3

Good3 Good

2 - 500 hp (Nos. 1 & 2) and 2-800 hp (Nos. 3 & 4) pumps installed in 1982. No. 5 800 hp pump installed in 1985.

New pump station housing 2 - 4,170 gpm pumps under construction. Construction complete about August 2006. Diesel-driven Pump Nos. 1 & 2 (2,170 gpm @ 580 ft) installed in 1987; Pump Nos. 3 & 4 (3,574 gpm @ 578 ft) installed in 1999.

Key Largo Booster Pump Station1

VTHSC

1 - 2,000 gpm @ 231 ft.2 - 5,550 gpm @ 291 ft.

150700 Y 1 - 16,660 gpm @

291 ft. 1,700 Y 1 - 200 8.0 (@ 291 ft) None Good Under construction. Construction complete about November 2006. Space provided for a third equivalent HSC electric pump.

Long Key Booster Pump Station1 HSC 2 - 9,600 gpm @

210 ft. 600 Y 1 - 9,600 gpm @ 210 ft. 715 Y 1 - 300 14.0 None Good All pumps began operating in 1999. Concern of considerable check valve vibration at middle pump

under certain conditions, depending on which pumps are running. No other improvements required.

Marathon Booster Pump Station1 HSC 2 - 5,500 gpm @

280 ft. 500 Y 1 - 5,500 gpm @ 280 ft. 685 Y 8 1 - 3 MG Good4 Good

Station constructed in 1986. Pumps are at end of useful life. Project currently being bid to replace the 2 existing electric pumps with 2 new 5,500 gpm electric pumps. Existing VFD's will be used. The 2 existingdiesel driven pumps will be replaced with 1 - 5,500 gpm diesel driven pump. Pump capacities shown are for new pumps.

Ramrod Key Booster Pump Station1 HSC 1 - 9,600 gpm @

210 ft. 600 Y 1 - 6,700 gpm @ 255 ft. 960 Y 1 - 300 10 None Good Pump station upgraded in 1999. Other than repair of spauling concrete, no improvements required.

Stock Island Back Pump Station1 HSC 1 - 3,500 gpm @

397 ft. 685 Y 1 - 3,500 gpm @ 397 ft. N 5 None Good5 Good

Began operation in 1988. Both backpump station suction and Stock Island distribution pump station suction are from the 3-5 MG tanks. This station is designed so it cannot be operated remotely from anywhere; must operate from station. Backpumping capacity meets needs for foreseeable future. No improvements required.

Notes:1Onsite inspection and condition assessment performed on these stations.

3Tank No. 3 (1 MG steel) installed in 1964, Tank No. 2 (1 MG concrete) installed in 1981, Tank No. 1 (5MG concrete installed in 1987, Tank No. 4 (5 MG concrete) installed in 2002. Exterior of Tank No. 3 (steel) painted within past 2 to 3 years. No record of exteriors of other 3 tanks nor interior of Tank No. 3 (steel) being re-painted since installed.4This tank was constructed in 1974. Last time exterior was repainted was about 5 years ago. Crom is to perform a complete tank inspection this year5All 3 tanks are steel. Tank Nos. 1 & 2 were constructed in 1956; interiors of these 2 tanks re-painted in 1988. Tank No.3 was constructed in 1973; interior of this tank re-painted in 1989. Interiors of all 3 tanks are currently being re-painted as part of the tank mixing improvements project. Exteriors of all three tanks were re-painted 3 to 4 years ago.

2VT = Vertical Turbine HSC = Horizontal Split Case

Characteristics of Transmission System Booster Pump Stations and Storage Facilities (Includes Stock Island Backpump Station)Standby Pumping Capacity

Number and Capacity of Pumps Number and Capacity of Diesel-Driven Pumps Standby Generator Total Firm

Design Pumping Capacity

(mgd)

Ground Storage Tanks

WPB31012716136.xls/061990016


WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-7 WB122005005DFB

When all planned RO treatment capacity (6.0 mgd Florida City plus 1.5 mgd Ocean Reef) is online, 7.5 mgd of RO capacity will supplement the 17 mgd limited treatment capacity from the Biscayne Aquifer during the dry season, to give a total dry season treatment capacity of 24.5 mgd. With this dry-season treatment capacity, the existing 12 MG of storage will allow the high-service pumping facilities to pump at the firm pumping capacity of 32 mgd for approximately 38 hours (approximately 1½ days) before all storage is depleted.

Another 5.0 MG of storage is planned for some time within the 20-year planning period, to give a total storage capacity of 17.0 MG at Florida City. With the 24.5 mgd total dry-season treatment capacity, the planned 17 MG of storage will allow the high-service pumping facil-ities to pump at the firm pumping capacity of 32 mgd for approximately 54 hours (approxi-mately 2¼ days) before all storage is depleted.

As noted in Exhibit 5-1, no record of re-painting any of the tanks since installation is available, except for the painting of the exterior of the 1 MG steel tank within the past 2 to 3 years.

5.2.2.2 Key Largo Booster Pump Station This new booster pump station, which is located at MM 106, is the first booster pump station downstream of Florida City and is necessary to boost pressures in the transmission system so that 100 psi (desired; 70 psi minimum) suction pressure can be maintained at the Long Key Booster Pump Station. A 100-psi suction pressure is desired to allow this pump station to pump adequate volumes of water downstream to the Marathon Booster Pump Station and in turn to the Lower Keys. Besides the two new electric transmission main pumps, space for a future third equivalent electric transmission main pump is provided. This pump station also has a dedicated electric vertical turbine pump to boost pressures in the 12-inch-diameter Ocean Reef distribution main. The standby diesel-driven pump serves as a backup to both the two electric-driven transmission main pumps (and the third future electric pump) and the electric-driven Ocean Reef pump. This project is expected to be com-plete in November 2006.

Until the 36-inch-diameter transmission main segment between MM 93 and MM 98 is replaced, the Key Largo Booster Pump Station will not be able to boost transmission main pressures much because the maximum operating pressure in the MM 93 to MM 98 segment is limited to 190 psi (approximately 200 psi at Key Largo). The station’s primary function will be limited to boosting pressure in the 12-inch-diameter Ocean Reef distribution main and to boost transmission main pressure to approximately 200 psi discharge pressure.

5.2.2.3 Long Key Booster Pump Station This facility was one of the original booster pump stations constructed by the U.S. Navy in the 1940s. Once the new transmission mains became operational in the early 1980s, this facility was no longer necessary, and was decommissioned. However, because of increasing water demands in the Middle and Lower Keys, this booster pump station was reactivated and upgraded in the late 1990s, and began operation again in 1999. This facility contains two electric 9,600-gpm pumps and one 9,600-gpm diesel-driven pump. The overall facility is in good condition. The only concern at this facility is vibration of the check valve at the middle pump and discharge header under certain flow conditions, depending on which pumps are running. This vibration causes the mechanical components of the check valve to wear out prematurely.


WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-8 WB122005005DFB

5.2.2.4 Marathon Booster Pump Station and Storage Facilities This booster pump station and 3.0 MG storage tank and the Marathon 33rd Street distribu-tion pump station and 0.5 MG storage tank are on the same site. The distribution pump station and recommended improvements are discussed in Section 6. The two storage tanks are interconnected. Normal flow is from the 3.0 MG tank to the 0.5 MG tank. Booster pump suction is from the 3.0 MG storage tank and distribution pump suction is from the 0.5 MG storage tank. Yard piping and valving provide flexibility so that the 0.5 MG tank can be fed directly, or the 0.5 MG tank can be bypassed so distribution pump suction could come directly from the 3.0 MG tank.

As noted in Exhibit 5-1, this booster pump station will be upgraded this year, at which time it will have a firm pumping capacity of 7.9 mgd. To evaluate the source of minor exterior seepage, a complete tank inspection was performed recently by Crom Tank. Crom has provided a report that recommends minor repairs to the tank exterior (Crom, 2006). To provide stronger capability for backpumping, FKAA is considering adding another 3.0 MG storage tank.

5.2.2.5 Ramrod Booster Pump Station This facility was also one of the original booster pump stations constructed by the U.S. Navy. However, this station has been kept in service with upgrades over the years, with the most recent upgrade in 1999. With the exception of some spauling concrete at the bottom of a concrete slab adjacent to the pumps, this station is in good condition and no other im-provements are necessary.

5.2.2.6 Stock Island Backpump Station and Storage Facilities Since this facility began operation in 1988, it has served FKAA well. Backpumping capabil-ities are adequate, and no improvements are required.

5.3 Transmission System Recommendations This section describes the proposed improvements for the different components of the transmission system that are described in Section 5.2. The locations of these improvements are shown in Appendix C. The recommended timing for all water system improvements is discussed in Section 7, Capital Improvement Program, and in Section 8, Strategic Financial Plan.

5.3.1 Transmission System Mains 5.3.1.1 Jewfish Creek Bridge 36-Inch Transmission Main Relocation Because the FKAA transmission main is within the highway right-of-way, FDOT considers that FKAA, and any other utility that has facilities within the highway right-of-way, is there for the utility’s convenience, and the utility is responsible for all costs to relocate their utilities to avoid conflict with the highway improvements or to provide easy access for maintenance and repair.

The funding for this project has already been expended, even though the transmission main is not yet relocated. FDOT requires a Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with FKAA, and all


WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-9 WB122005005DFB

utilities, whereby FDOT requires the utility to provide to them up front the estimated cost to relocate the utilities. These funds are maintained in an escrow account, and gain interest until funds are withdrawn to pay for the construction. Additional funds will only be needed if the construction cost exceeds the funds in the JPA.

5.3.1.2 C-111 Canal Bridge 36-Inch Transmission Main Relocation With the elimination of the C-111 Canal Bridge from this highway project, only minimal work relating to protection of the transmission main is anticipated, similar to what is described below for the other 18-Mile Stretch segments below. While $100,000 in Fiscal Year 2008 is anticipated for protection of the transmission main, no CIP funding has been allocated, as FDOT must reimburse FKAA for JPA funding that was already submitted to FDOT.

5.3.1.3 Other U.S. 1 8-Mile Stretch Highway Improvements that may Impact 36-Inch Transmission Main

As noted previously, no transmission main relocation is anticipated for the last two seg-ments of this highway improvements project. It is anticipated that any work related to the transmission main will be minimal and will involve such items as concrete encasement and riprap placement to protect the existing transmission main during construction or after the highway construction is complete.

5.3.1.4 12-Inch Ocean Reef Transmission Main The CIP considers that 22,000 feet of 12-inch-diameter main will have to be replaced.

5.3.1.5 36-Inch Transmission Main, Key Largo, MM 93 to MM 98 This segment of transmission main limits the effectiveness of the Key Largo Booster Pump Station to boost transmission main pressure so that adequate suction pressure can be main-tained at the Long Key Booster Pump Station. It is, therefore, recommended that this segment of transmission main should be replaced as soon as possible, with design scheduled in Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 and construction scheduled in Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008.

Consideration should be given to upsizing the segments of main that are replaced to 42-inch-diameter. It is estimated that approximately 80 percent of the pipe between MM 93 and MM 98 will require replacement. The advantage to upsizing is that the incremental cost to upsize should be relatively small (cost of pipe material plus a little wider trench) while the lesser pressure loss in the 20,000-foot segments will improve suction pressure at Long Key by the amount of pressure losses saved with the larger pipe.

For example, the estimated additional project cost to install 42-inch-diameter pipe instead of 36-inch-diameter pipe is $1.5 million (includes 15 percent contingency) above the $13.7 million (includes 15 percent contingency) estimated project cost for the 36-inch-diameter main. During 2010 average day flow conditions, it is estimated that the upsized pipe will provide another 7 psi of suction pressure at Long Key. During 2010 maximum day flow conditions, it is estimated that the upsized pipe will provide another 11 psi of suction pressure at Long Key. This additional suction pressure at Long Key could delay the required Plantation Key Booster Pump Station by a year or more. During 2025 average day flow conditions, it is estimated that the upsized pipe will provide another 10 psi of suction


WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-10 WB122005005DFB

pressure at Long Key, and during 2025 maximum day flow conditions it is estimated that the upsized pipe will provide another 15 psi of suction pressure at Long Key.

The estimated additional pressure available at Long Key for the various flow conditions should be confirmed during the completion of the Transmission System Hydraulic Model being conducted by others. The decision to upsize to 42-inch pipe should be based on the completed Transmission System Hydraulic Model analyses, if the analyses are complete before the transmission system design is at or less than approximately 30 percent complete.

5.3.1.6 18-Inch Transmission, MM 92-93 FKAA intends to replace and relocate the 1,400 foot segment of 18-inch-diameter trans-mission main that was capped. This restoration of the 18-inch-diameter transmission main capacity will restore the volume of water that can be transported downstream through the total transmission system (36-inch-diameter main plus 18-inch-diameter main). The estimated cost of this project is $284,000.

5.3.1.7 Other Segments on Original 18-Inch Transmission Main As described in Section 5.2.1.6, repair of leaks on the original 18-inch-diameter transmission main may be required for a time after the new cathodic protection systems are put into service. This continued maintenance function is considered as annual maintenance, and no capital budget has been included in the CIP. However, the small isolated segments of the 18-inch-diameter transmission main experiencing frequent leaks should be replaced. The cost to repair these segments is considered a capital expenditure.

5.3.1.8 Phase II Cathodic Protection System Improvements The estimated cost of this cathodic protection system improvements project, based on the actual bid price that was awarded in January 2006, is $4,235,000. This cathodic protection system improvements project began in May 2006 and is expected to be complete during Fiscal Year 2007.

5.3.1.9 Transmission Main Improvements, North Roosevelt Boulevard Highway Improvements As noted in Section 5.2.1.8, this transmission main replacement project will be constructed in conjunction with the North Roosevelt Boulevard Highway Improvements project and will replace approximately 15,500 feet of the original 18-inch-diameter steel transmission main, along with all appurtenances, with ductile pipe.

5.3.2 Transmission System Pump Stations and Storage Facilities 5.3.2.1 High-Service Pumping and Storage Facilities at the J. Robert Dean WTP With the completion of the Phase II High Service Pump Station in approximately August 2006 at an estimated cost of $2,397,000, the electric high-service pumping capacity should be adequate for the foreseeable future. The 32-mgd firm high-service pumping capacity is approximately the maximum flow rate that can be discharged through the transmission main from Florida City to Key Largo without an intermediate booster pump station. Currently, storage capacity is adequate. However, another 5 MG of storage is planned for some time within the 20-year planning period, to give a total storage capacity of 17 MG. The additional storage requirement will be confirmed during the design of the RO facilities.


WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-11 WB122005005DFB

As noted in Section 5.2.2.1, the existing diesel-driven pumps are adequate to meet emer-gency pumping requirements under the current water demands, but will need to be in-creased in the future as water demands increase. Additional emergency pumping capacity can be provided by replacing Diesel Pump Nos. 1 and 2 with pumps that have the same capacity as Pump Nos. 3 and 4 (3,574 gpm at 578 feet). This upgrade to a higher emergency pumping capacity should be online by approximately 2010. When complete, the total emer-gency pumping capacity of all four pumps will increase to 20.6 mgd, with a firm pumping capacity of 15.4 mgd. All four existing diesel engine drives are 1,000 hp. Therefore, no upgrades to the diesel drives are necessary.

It appears that neither of the two 1 MG ground storage tank interiors has been inspected since they were built. These two tanks should be drained and inspected, and repaired and re-painted where the inspections indicate it is necessary. These inspections and repairs should begin immediately and be complete in approximately 1 year. Corrosion of the steel tank interior and corrosion or appearance of the tank exteriors will dictate when the tanks should be painted.

5.3.2.2 Key Largo Booster Pump Station As this is a new booster pump station, the only capital cost anticipated during the planning period would be to install the third electric transmission main pump in the space provided when increasing water demands dictate, which has been established to be during the 2015 to 2020 period.

5.3.2.3 Plantation Key Booster Pump Station As the Keys water demands continue to increase, the 250 psi maximum discharge pressure from the Key Largo Booster Pump Station will not be adequate to maintain a 100 psi mini-mum suction pressure at the Long Key Booster Pump Station, and a new booster pump station between Key Largo and Long Key will be required. It is anticipated that this new booster pump station will be required by 2011 to 2013. A parcel of land between at least 1¼ to 1½ acres will be required for this booster pump station.

A previous preliminary evaluation of the need for future booster pump stations (CDM, 2003) identified Plantation Key as a potential location. Also, based on a surge analysis of the transmission main system through the Long Key Booster Pump Station (CH2M HILL, April 2006) for FKAA for another project, it appears that this Plantation Key facility would have to go online by 2013 to maintain the 70 psi minimum suction pressure at Long Key during the projected maximum day flow condition, based on the flow projections outlined in Section 2. During 2013 average day flow conditions, Long Key suction pressure is projected to be at least 100 psi. If maintaining 100-psi minimum suction pressure at Long Key during the projected maximum day flow condition were desired, this facility would have to go online by 2011.

Evaluation of these improvements will be updated upon completion of the Transmission System Hydraulic Model being conducted by others.

5.3.2.4 Marathon Booster Pump Station and Storage Facilities With the upgrade of the booster pumps in 2006, only two capital projects should be required for this facility within the planning period:


WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-12 WB122005005DFB

1. The addition of a second 3.0 MG storage tank. Though this additional storage will increase overall storage tank detention time, the anticipated larger distribution pump station system demand from the service area will somewhat mitigate the longer detention time, and should help to maintain overall storage tank chlorine residual.

2. Addition of a third electric pump (space is already available). Without a hydraulic evaluation of the transmission system, it is assumed that this capital improvement will not be required until the end of the planning period.

5.3.2.5 Other Potential Booster Pump Stations The previous preliminary evaluation cited above (CDM, 2003) also identified the need for other future booster pump stations at the following potential locations, in addition to the Plantation Key Booster Pump Station:

1. Lower Keys Booster PS #1 2. Lower Keys Booster PS #2

As with the Plantation Booster Pump Station, a parcel of land between at least 1¼ to 1½ acres will be required for each of these booster pump stations.

Because of the preliminary nature of this evaluation, there was no definition of the time frame in which these stations would be needed. Without an updated hydraulic evaluation of the transmission system, it is assumed that these capital improvements will not be required until near the end of the planning period (around 2020 to 2025).

Also, locating a booster pump station on either of these two keys is impractical because these keys are basically wetlands with no buildable lots. As such, the specific locations will have to be relocated to adjacent keys that provide buildable lots. The new location of these two proposed booster pump stations should be addressed in the Transmission System Hydraulic Model being conducted by others.

In addition, the preliminary evaluation cited above identified the following additional power requirements at the following existing booster pump stations.

• Florida City: 600 HP. The new pump station under construction provides at least this additional power requirement.

• Key Largo: 600 HP. The new pump station under construction provides at least this additional power requirement by providing space for the third pump.

• Long Key: No additional power requirement.

• Marathon: 500 HP. Space is available to add a third pump. The hydraulic evaluation of the transmission main system currently being conducted by others should define when this third pump would be necessary.

• Ramrod: 400 HP. Additional pumping capacity will have to be added at some time in the future, if in-depth hydraulic evaluation of the transmission system indicates so.

The evaluation of other booster pump station sites, including the Plantation Key site, and the additional power requirements of the existing booster pump stations, will be updated upon completion of the Transmission System Hydraulic Model being conducted by others.


WPB310127161228.DOC/061640016 5-13 WB122005005DFB

5.3.2.6 Ramrod Booster Pump Station The addition of more pumping capacity at some time in the future is considered as a capital improvement, and should be included in the CIP. For this Master Plan, without a hydraulic evaluation of the transmission system, it is assumed that this capital improvement will not be required until the latter half of this planning period (2016–2025). This should be con-firmed upon completion of the Transmission System Hydraulic Model being conducted by others.

5.3.2.7 Stock Island Backpump Station and Storage Facilities With no Transmission System Hydraulic Model, no required improvements are anticipated at the present time. However, the evaluation of improvements will be updated upon completion of the Transmission System Hydraulic Model being conducted by others.

5.4 Construction Cost Estimates for the Transmission System Cost estimates were prepared using CPES. The estimates are considered order-of-magnitude cost opinions without detailed engineering or consideration of site-specific conditions. Estimates of this type are normally considered accurate to within -30 percent to +50 percent. The estimates also include 20 percent for consulting, legal, and administration plus a 15 percent contingency. All estimates are in 2006 dollars.

Exhibit 5-2 summarizes estimated order-of-magnitude (+50/-30 percent) capital costs for all proposed transmission system improvements and a suggested time frame for implementa-tion of some projects. These capital costs, as well as capital costs for all proposed water system improvements, are also summarized in Exhibit 7-2. The basis for estimating costs, and detailed construction and project cost estimates for the proposed transmission system improvements are provided in Appendix D.

Exhibit 5-2Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates for Proposed Transmission Main Improvement Projects

Project Size (inches) Size (inches)Construction

Costa

Total Construction

Costa


Legal Feesb ContingencycTotal Project

Cost Suggested Timing RemarksReplace 36-inch Transmission MainJewfish Creek FY2008 Contingency, only needed if construction

costs exceed funds in JPAC-111, Protect 36-inch $0 With elimination of C-111 Canal Bridge

FDOT owes money to FKAAOther 18-mile stretch segments, Protect 36-inch

$ 144,928 $ 144,928 $28,986 $26,087 $200,000 FY2008/2009 For protection of transmission main during highway construction

MM 93-98d 36 21,120 $ 13,662,000 $ 13,662,000 $13,662,000

Replace Other Transmission Mains12-inch Ocean Reef Transmission Main 12 22,000 $2,310,145 $2,310,145 $462,029 $415,826 $3,188,000 At FKAA discretion Worst segments done first

Replace 18-inch Main, Key Largo MM 92-93e 18 1,400

$ 1,086,957 $ 1,086,957 $217,391 $195,652 $1,500,000

Marathon 18- inch Main Replacements 18 1,000 $ 217,391 $ 217,391 $43,478 $39,130 $300,00018-inch Main Replacement, N. Roosevelt 18 15,500 $ 2,278,261 $ 2,278,261 $455,652 $410,087 $3,144,000

Phase II Cathodic Protection $ 1,613,696 $ 1,613,696 $228,334 $276,304 $2,118,334 FY2006/2007 Based on bid price and contingency allowance (includes engineering SDC)

J. Robert Dean WTPUpsize diesel driven pumps 1 and 2 218840.5 218840.5 $43,768 $39,391 $302,000 FY2010Install new 5MG storage tank 3518116 3518116 $703,623 $633,261 $4,855,000 At FKAA discretionPaint interior of 1MG steel tank (maintenance) $0 $0 $0 FY2007

Paint exterior of 1MG concrete tank (maintenance) $0 $0 $0 At FKAA discretion


Key Largo Booster PSInstall 3rd electric transmission pump (maintenance)

182500 $182,500 $36,500 $32,850 $251,850 At FKAA discretion

Plantation Key Booster PS 6100000 $6,100,000 $1,220,000 $1,098,000 $8,418,000 FY2010 and 2011 On line by 2011

FY2007 and 2008If 36" at MM 93-97 replacement is delayed, property acquisition and design should begin immediately

Marathon Booster PSEngine & Pumps 1075 657246.5 657246.5 $131,449 $118,304 $907,000 FY2006 and 2007 Ready to go out to bidRepairs to 3MG tank exterior (maintenance)

0 0 $0 $0 $0 FY2007

Add a second 3MG storage tank 2073188.5 2073188.5 $414,638 $373,174 $2,861,000 At FKAA discretionInstall 3rd electric pump (maintenance) 182500 182500 $36,500 $32,850 $251,850 At FKAA discretion

Lower Keys Booster Pump Station #1 6100000 $6,100,000 $1,220,000 $1,098,000 $8,418,000 At FKAA discretion

Implementation at the end of master plan planning period. Depends on results of transmission system hydraulic evaluation and what increasing water demands dictate



Pipeline

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 1 of 2

Exhibit 5-2Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates for Proposed Transmission Main Improvement Projects


Costa

Total Construction

Costa



Cost Suggested Timing Remarks

Pipeline

Ramrod Booster PS

75362 75362

$15,072 $13,565 $104,000 At FKAA discretion


Transmission SCADA Upgrade 0 0 $0 $0 At FKAA discretion Being implemented

Project Total $58,899,034Notes:aThese are order-of-magnitude cost opinions (in April 2006 dollars) made without detailed engineering design. It is normally expected that estimates of this type are accurate within -30% to +50%.bConsulting, administrative, legal fees equal 20 percent of construction cost.cContingency (15 percent of subtotal costs for all items).dConstruction Cost from Exhibit D-2, with 20 percent contingency removed from that estimate.eUnit Price Construction Cost from Exhibit D-1, with 20 percent contingency removed from that estimate.

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 2 of 2

WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-1 WB122005005DFB

SECTION 6

Water Distribution System

6.1 Existing Distribution Systems The FKAA distribution system network consists of multiple individual distribution systems of varying sizes. (There are approximately 75 in-dividual systems throughout the Keys.) Distribution system operating pressures generally are maintained between 45 psi and 55 psi.

All of the distribution systems are supplied with water from the trans-mission system (Section 5) by what are termed “taps”, which are con-nections (generally 2-inch-, 3-inch-, or 4-inch-diameter) to the high-pressure transmission mains.

Taps consist of:

• The specific diameter high-pressure pipe connection to the trans-mission main, along with a high-pressure shutoff valve.

• A pressure-reducing valve, flow meter, and a low-pressure distribution shutoff valve, all within a vault.

Exhibit 6-1 shows the approximate maximum flow that can pass through a given size tap, assuming that the feed line from the tap to the system is of adequate diameter. As noted in the exhibit, tap size is based on meter size; a high-pressure pipe size larger than the meter size will not significantly increase the maximum flow.

Individual distribution systems throughout the Keys are supplied in one of two ways:

• Only by taps from the transmission main. Individual distribution systems can have one or more taps that feed that system. Generally, small or medium individual distribution systems are supplied in this manner.

By a tap from the transmission main that supplies water to storage tanks and a distribution pump station system. Additional taps to the transmission main also supplement the distribution pump station systems. The pressures at these supplemental taps are set a little less than the distribution system pressure normally maintained by the pumps. Therefore, if the distribution pump station is out of service (for example, from a power failure or during maintenance), or does not maintain normal operating pressure, the supplemental taps will open at the pre-set pressure and supply water to the

SECTION 6 – WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-2 WB122005005DFB

distribution system. This provides a complete backup to all individual distribution systems from the transmission main system.

Most distribution pump stations are on timers that shut off the pumps during night-time periods of low water consumption. At these times, the transmission taps supply water and maintain distribution system pressure.

All distribution pump stations constructed within the last 3 years have been designed to provide opportunities for fire protection; and all future distribution pump stations or up-grades to existing distribution pump stations also will be designed to provide opportunities for fire protection.

EXHIBIT 6-1 Approximate Maximum Flow Through Various Size Taps

Tap Size1 (in) Maximum Flow gpm

1 1/2 120

2 160

3 350

4 1,000

6 2,000

8 3,500

10 5,500

Note: 1Tap size is based on flow meter size, not on size of high-pressure pipe from main to tap vault.

6.2 Evaluation of Distribution Systems 6.2.1 Distribution Piping Required improvements to the distribution system piping were addressed through meetings and discussions with FKAA staff. This section will address the distribution system piping where improvements are proposed, except where the distribution system piping is associ-ated with the efficiency of a distribution pump station. In these situations, the distribution piping improvements will be discussed under the respective distribution system pump stations.

6.2.1.1 Replace Old Galvanized Mains Only approximately 3,600 feet (400 feet of 4-inch-diameter, and 3,200 feet of 6-inch-diameter) of old galvanized pipes still exist in the FKAA distribution system. All of these mains are in the Upper Keys at Craig Key, Seven Acres, and Pamela Villa. These old gal-vanized mains should be replaced with new properly sized (4-inch- or 6-inch-diameter) PVC mains within the first year.


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-3 WB122005005DFB

6.2.1.2 Upsize Small-Diameter Mains to 4-Inch Minimum There is a considerable quantity of small-diameter thin-walled PVC pipe throughout the FKAA distribution systems. This pipe is susceptible to line breaks and requires continuous maintenance, and probably contributes to portions of the unaccounted-for-water. The quantity of this pipe distributed throughout the Keys is as follows:

Area 1 (Key West through Key Haven): 10,600 feet

Area 2 (Key Haven to 7 Mile Bridge): 134,900 feet

Area 3 (7 Mile Bridge to Long Key): 82,200 feet

Area 4 (Long Key to Tavernier): 60,400 feet

Area 5 (Tavernier to Ocean Reef): 81,800 feet

Total 369,900 feet

All of these 70 miles of small-diameter, thin-walled pipe should be replaced with 4-inch-diameter (minimum) PVC pipe as early in the planning period as possible.

6.2.1.3 Install Additional Tap on Little Torch Key All of the current annual average day water demand of 115,000 gpd (80 gpm) comes through one tap (#88) for Little Torch Key. If this tap were to malfunction, this distribution system would be without water. Maintenance has, therefore, requested that a second tap be installed to also serve this system and to serve as a backup.

6.2.1.4 Cudjoe Key-Additional Distribution Main Header to Interconnect System Taps FKAA’s goal is to have the smaller distribution systems that are served by several taps to be interconnected so backup to this distribution system is available should a tap malfunction that serves the adjacent area. Approximately 6,000 feet of distribution main (assumed to be 8-inch-diameter) should be installed to interconnect all three taps on this distribution system.

6.2.2 Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities Of the 14 distribution pump station systems, 5 systems are either new or require only minor repairs or upgrades. For these five systems (Key West, Big Coppit, Big Pine, Islamorada, and Stock Island Desal), required improvements were addressed through meetings and dis-cussions with FKAA staff.

The remaining nine distribution pump station systems will, in the future, require significant upgrades or replacement for different reasons, such as being undersized for the area served, reaching the useful life of different equipment, etc. For these systems, the Master Plan scope of work included a site visit to assess the condition and performance of major equipment and facilities, in addition to meetings and discussions with FKAA staff, and to provide a condition assessment of each of these distribution system pumping and storage facilities. These nine distribution systems are:

1. Ocean Reef 2. Rock Harbor


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-4 WB122005005DFB

3. Tavernier 4. Crawl Key, Marathon 5. Vaca Cut, Marathon 6. 69th Street, Marathon 7. 33rd Street, Marathon 8. Summerland Key 9. Stock Island Distribution

6.2.2.1 Condition Assessment of Selected Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities Exhibit 6-2 summarizes the condition of the nine pump stations and storage facilities that were visited, as well as the condition of the other five distribution pump stations and storage facilities.

Additional discussion for each of the selected pump stations follows.

Ocean Reef. The distribution pump station and potable water ground storage tanks are located within the North Key Largo Utilities’ wastewater treatment and irrigation RO water complex, with no space for expansion. There is no standby power provided at this pump station. If the station is out of service for maintenance or because of a utility power outage, backup for providing water at some pressure is from the Key Largo Booster Pump Station through the 12-inch-diameter Ocean Reef distribution main. A check valve downstream of the 8-inch-diameter Ocean Reef tap is interconnected with the Ocean Reef distribution system. When the Ocean Reef distribution system pressure falls below the 12-inch-diameter distribution main pressure, the check valve will open and supply water to the distribution system. FKAA may want to consider providing permanent standby power to the distribu-tion pump station as a more reliable means of providing adequate distribution pressure to the Ocean Reef distribution system.

Rock Harbor. The existing Rock Harbor distribution pump station system is undersized for the intended service area size. This facility was at one time an RO plant (built in approxi-mately 1976). The property is approximately 320 feet by 75 feet and contains slightly more than 0.5 acres. Besides the pump station and storage tank, this site also contains a small garage, the old RO building, and a fuel-dispensing station for fueling maintenance vehicles. The garage has been converted to a shop and office for the Upper Keys maintenance mechanics. The RO building has been converted to offices and a staging area for the 11-man Upper Keys distribution system maintenance crew. Both the old garage and old RO build-ing roofs leak significantly, and the old RO building is showing signs of concrete spalling and other deterioration just because of its age. If all facilities and functions are to remain at this site, there is no room for expansion.

Tavernier. This facility, which is undersized for the service area, is on a small parcel of land that is only approximately 100 feet by 104 feet and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The only facilities on this site are the pump station and a 0.5-MG ground storage tank. This site is small and has no room for expansion.

Crawl Key, Marathon. This facility consists of a 0.5-MG steel ground storage tank and two 400-gpm pumps in the distribution pump station on a site approximately 100 feet by 155 feet. With this small site, there is no room for expansion while the existing station remains in operation. Two new 30-hp pump motors were recently installed because of

EXHIBIT 6-2

Pump StationPump Type2

xxx gpm @ yyy feet

Motor HP Y/N

xxx gpm @ yyy feet Motor HP Y/N

Capacity (KW)

Number and

Capacity (MG) Condition Land Needed

Ocean Reef1 VT 2 - 1,400 gpm @ 154 ft. 75 N N 2.00 1 - 1 MG

2 - 0.5 MG Good5 0 Good YES11 New station; installed in 2003. Distribution pressure 53 psi. Would like another 1.0 MG storage tank but no available space.

Rock Harbor1,3,4 HSC 1 - 400 gpm @ 160 ft. 30 N N 0.00 1 - 0.5 MG Good7 OK YES12

Station is undersized for service area. Distribution pressure 56 psi. One single pump, no standby. Equipment is approaching useful life (installed 1989); needs upgraded. Would like another 0.5 MG of storage. No room for expansion if current functions are maintained at site. See Notes 3 and 4.

Tavernier1,3,4 HSC 2 - 400 gpm @ 160 ft. 30 N N 0.58 1 - 0.5 MG Good7 OK NO

Station is undersized for service area. Distribution pressure 53 psi. The only station where GST fills from distribution instead of from a metered interconnect to transmission main; this GST fill mode creates operational problems. See Notes 3 and 4.

Islamorada3,4 VT 2 - 940 gpm @ 240 ft. 75 N N 1.35 1 - 1 MG

1 - 0.5 MG Good6 Good NONew station; installed in 2005. Distribution pressure 60 psi. Pumps could be more effective if distribution main header were installed along U.S. 1 to feed the smaller distribution pipe within the service area. Would like another 0.5 MG of storage. See Notes 3 and 4.

Crawl Key1,3,4 HSC 2 - 400 gpm @ 160 ft. 30 N N 0.58 1 - 0.5 MG OK7 0 OK NO13

Pump station and steel tank installed in 1958. Two new pumps recently installed as previous pumps were damaged by storm surge from Hurricane Wilma. Distribution pressure 62 psi. Tank exterior starting to rust and will need re-painted soon.

Vaca Cut1,3,4 VT 2 - 940 gpm @ 240 ft. 75 N N 1.35 1 - 0.5 MG OK7 0 Good NO New station; installed in 2005. See Notes 3 and 4. Steel tank installed in 1958.

69th St. Marathon1,3,4 HSC 2 - 400 gpm @ 160 ft. 30 N N 0.58 1 - 0.5 MG OK7 0 OK NO

Pump station and steel tank installed in 1958. Two new pumps recently installed as previous pumps were damaged by storm surge from Hurricane Wilma. Distribution pressure 58 psi. Pump station building in fairly good condition.

33rd St. Marathon3,4 HSC 2 - 500 gpm @ 142 ft. 40 N N 0.72 1 - 0.5 MG Good7 0 OK NO Distribution pressure 57 psi. See Notes 3 and 4.

Big Pine Key3,4 VT 2 - 940 gpm @ 240 ft. 75 N N 1.35 1 - 0.5 MG Good7 0 Good NO New station; installed in 2005. See Notes 3 and 4.

Summerland Key1,3,4 HSC 2 - 400 gpm @ 160 ft. 30 N N 0.58 1 - 0.2 MG Good7 0 OK NO Pump building is a metal shed. Pumps are from old Big Coppitt station, and are approximately 17 years

old. Distribution pressure 58 psi.

Big Coppitt Key3 VT 2 - 800 gpm @ 240 ft. 75 N N 1.15 1 - 1 MG Good 0 Good NO New station; installed in 2003. See Note 3. 1.0 MG tank installed in 2001.

Stock Island Desal.3 HSC

1 - 1,600 gpm @ 62 ft.2 - 2,000 gpm @ 162 ft.

40125 N Y 5.20 1 - 5 MG Good8 0 Good NO The 1,600 gpm pump transfers water to the 3 - 5 MG tanks at the Stock Island Distribution facility.

Emergency power for all pumps is provided by the adjacent Stock Island RO generator.

Stock Island Distribution1 HSC 1 - 5,000 gpm @

162 ft. 300 Y 1 - 5,000 gpm @ 162 ft. 320 Y 1 - 160 7.20 3 - 5 MG Good9 0 OK NO

Both back pump station suction and distribution station suction are from the 3-5 MG tanks. This station is manned 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Pump building structure is deteriorating due to high chlorides in the concrete when originally built. All 3 tanks are steel. Tank Nos. 1 & 2 were installed in 1956; Tank No. 3 was installed in 1973.

Key West HSC 1 - 4,000 gpm @ 162 ft. 250 Y 1 - 4,000 gpm @

162 ft. 250 Y 1- 200 5.76 2 - 1 MG Good10 0 Good NO New station under construction. Construction complete about December 2006. Pump capacities are for new station.

Notes:8Tank interior is currently being re-painted as part of the tank mixing improvements project; tank exterior re-painted 5 years ago.9Only tank 1 and 2 steel tank interiors are currently being re-painted as part of the tank mixing improvements project (interior of tank 3 should be repainted in the near future). Exteriors of all three tanks were re-painted 3 to 4 years ago.

3If the distribution pump station is out of service (e.g. power failure or maintenance), the interconnect to the transmission main opens at a set minimum distribution pressure and supplies water to distribution. 10Construction contract requires painting both GST's, both inside and outside.4The station is on a timer and is online from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM. When pumps are off, distribution pressure is maintained through interconnects to the transmission main. 11See remarks.

5Exterior of tanks re-painted 2 years ago.

12If current functions (maintenance mechanics facilities and Upper Keys distribution system maintenance crew facilities) are not relocated to another site.

6Interior of both tanks re-painted about 3 years ago. Exterior of both tanks re-painted about 7 years ago. Floor of 1.0 MG tank refurbished in 2005.

13If land could be purchased, the existing station could be kept operational while new facilities are constructed. Otherwise, the existing station will have to be taken out of service, the existing facilities demolished, and new facilities constructed. During this entire demolition and construction period, the existing distribution system will have to be supplied from existing and new taps.

7Tank interior re-painted about 3 years ago; tank exterior re-painted about 7 years ago.

Characteristics of Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities

Ground Storage Tanks

Standby Pumping Capacity

Total Firm Design Pumping Capacity

(Excludes Standby Pumps)

(MGD)

Number and Capacity of Diesel-Driven Pumps Standby Generator

General Pump Station Condition Remarks

1Onsite inspection and condition assessment performed on these stations.

Number and Capacity of Pumps

Remaining Galvanized Distribution

Main (ft)

2VT=Vertical Turbine; HSC=Horizontal Split Case; GST=Ground Storage Tank

WPB31012716136.xls/061990016


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-6 WB122005005DFB

damage to the previous pumps caused by the storm surge during Hurricane Wilma. The facility was built in 1958, but is still providing reasonable service. The interior of the storage tank was painted approximately 1 year ago, and the exterior was painted approximately 6 years ago. The exterior is rusting and will have to be re-painted soon.

Vaca Cut, Marathon. This facility consists of a 0.5-MG steel ground storage tank and a new 940-gpm distribution pump station. This new pump station easily meets the peak demands of the service area, but the storage capacity is limited for the new pumping capacity that is necessary to meet the service area demands. The new pumps will quickly deplete the exist-ing 0.5-MG storage tank capacity.

The storage tank was built in 1958 and is showing signs of quickly approaching its useful life, with corrosion at most of its exterior circumference at the top and on the side wall surfaces. The tank exterior was painted only approximately 7 years ago. When the tank interior was re-painted 2 years ago, the same corrosion existed on the interior. In reality, this tank has just about reached its useful life. The tank exterior should be re-painted soon as a short-term improvement, but it is extremely important that a second storage tank for this system be given top priority.

Space is available on this existing site to construct a new 0.5-MG (minimum) storage tank.

Tap No. 114 supplies water to this distribution pump station facility. The high-pressure line from the transmission main to the tap vault is 3-inch-diameter. The meter in the vault is also 3-inch-diameter, which classifies this tap as a 3-inch-diameter tap. The feed line from the tap vault to the storage tank is 6-inch-diameter. The flow through the tap was measured using the 3-inch-diameter flow meter during the site visit on January 10, 2006, and a flow of 338 gpm was calculated. This measured flow compares well with the 350 gpm flow estimated for a 3-inch-diameter tap in Exhibit 6- 1.

69th Street, Marathon. This facility was built in 1958 on a small 75-foot by 100-foot (0.17-acre) site and consists of a 0.5-MG steel ground storage tank and a distribution pump station with two 400-gpm elevated pumps. Two new 30-hp pump motors were recently installed because of damage to the previous pump motors caused by the storm surge during Hurricane Wilma. The steel tank interior was re-painted 2 years ago, and the exterior was re-painted approximately 7 years ago. The tank exterior is beginning to rust in places and will require re-painting soon.

33rd Street, Marathon. This distribution pump station system and the Marathon Booster Pump Station (Section 5) are on the same site. The distribution system portion of this facility was built in the 1950s, and has a 0.5-MG steel ground storage tank and two 500-gpm pumps in the pump station building. The current pumps are 25 to 30 years old. As noted in Section 5.2.2.4, this 0.5 MG distribution storage tank and the 3.0 MG storage tank for the backpump station are interconnected, so distribution pump suction can come from either the 0.5-MG tank or the 3.0-MG tank. Although the exterior of this storage tank was re-painted at the same time as the tanks at 69th Street, Vaca Cut, and Crawl Key, this tank exterior is in better condition than the others, and should not require re-painting for several years.

Summerland Key. This facility consists of a 0.2-MG steel ground storage tank and a distri-bution pump station with two 400-gpm pumps on a portion (approximately 120 feet x 120 feet, or ⅓ acre) of a 1-acre parcel owned by FKAA. The original facilities were built in


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-7 WB122005005DFB

1958. Given its age, this steel storage tank will eventually need to be replaced. The existing pump station is a metal building. The two pumps currently in this facility were rebuilt and transferred from the old Big Coppitt distribution pump station when it was upgraded to a new facility in 2003. These pumps are approximately 17 years old.

The additional property in this 1-acre parcel lies to the north and west of the existing facilities but may have environmentally sensitive wetlands, and may not be suitable for expansion of the existing facilities. The ⅓ acre, where the existing facilities are located, has no room for expansion while still maintaining pump station operation.

Stock Island Distribution. This distribution pump station service area extends from the west side of the Boca Chica Bridge through approximately one-half of Key West (approximately White Street). When the Key West Distribution Pump Station shuts down at night, this station also maintains pressure throughout all of Key West. This station is manned 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

This concrete pump station was built in 1956 along with the first two 5-MG steel ground storage tanks. A third 5-MG steel ground storage tank was built in 1973. The pump station contains one 5,000-gpm electric pump and one 5,000-gpm diesel-driven emergency pump.

The original pump station building was built with concrete that had a relatively high chloride content. As a result, this building has had a continuing problem with spalling concrete. In the pump station upgrade approximately 10 years ago, all spalling concrete was repaired. These repairs extended the life of this building another 10 to 15 years, but ad-ditional concrete spalling is occurring in other areas of the building. This pump station will, therefore, need to be replaced relatively early within the planning period.

The three steel storage tanks provide water to both this Stock Island Distribution Pump Station and to the Stock Island Backpump Station (see Section 5). Two of the three tank interiors are currently being re-painted as part of the tank mixing improvements project.

6.2.2.2 Needs Assessment for Additional and Upgraded Distribution Pump Station Systems A goal of FKAA is to reduce as much as possible the dependence on transmission mains as the primary means of maintaining distribution system pressures and to provide opportun-ities for fire protection, particularly for the larger, more concentrated distribution systems as well as increased storage capacity for emergencies. This will require the addition of several new distribution pump station systems throughout the Keys. Adding additional distribu-tion pump station systems will then allow FKAA to use the transmission system as intend-ed: to transport water and to fill storage tanks throughout the Keys.

Taps would continue to supply water and maintain pressure in the smaller distribution systems where it would not be economical to provide a distribution pump station system. Taps would also continue to supply water and maintain pressure at night when demands are low at all distribution systems that are currently served in this manner and at all new distribution pump station systems. Taps would also continue to serve as a backup should the distribution pump stations be out of service (for example, power failure or maintenance).

Potential additional distribution pump station systems were identified through meetings and discussions with FKAA and through a review of the historical water demands of potential distribution pump station system areas. The following areas that could require a distribution pump station system within the planning period were identified:


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-8 WB122005005DFB

1. Lake Surprise, between Adams Cut and Lake Surprise.

2. Plantation Key

3. Lower Matecumbe Key

4. Duck Key/Grassy Key

5. Ramrod Key

6. Cudjoe Key (under design)

7. Upper Sugarloaf

8. Lower Sugarloaf

Design Criteria. Exhibit 6-3 summarizes the design criteria used for sizing major facilities for new or upgraded distribution pump station systems. The design criteria are typical for residential/commercial communities, but have been adjusted for Keys conditions.

EXHIBIT 6-3 Distribution Pump Station System Sizing Criteria Item Flow Parameters Average Day Flow (ADF) From historical water use records for the service area, adjusted to meet

projected end of planning period flows. Maximum Day Flow (MDF) 1.5 x ADF Maximum Hour Flow (MHF) 4 x ADF Fire Flow (FF) All systems are to be designed to provide opportunities for fire protection; fire

protection parameters are identified in Exhibit 6-4. System Pumping Capacity 1. The potable water system must be capable of meeting peak demands that typically occur under two events, whichever is greater:

• PHF • MDF plus FF 2. Each pump station will contain 2 pumps minimum. Standby pump will be used to satisfy a part of the required system pumping capacity. Should one pump fail, the taps to the transmission system will provide emergency backup to maintain flow and pressure in the distribution system. Potable Water Storage Capacity The largest of the following three conditions will determine storage capacity: 1. The potable water storage tank capacity will be sized for the sum of the following conditions:

• Equalization storage equal to the difference between the peak hour and maximum day potable water demand for 6 hours (assumes peak hour demand occurs over a total of 6 hours in any given day).

• FF Demand Storage 2. Minimum Potable Water Storage Capacity ( Recommended Standards for Water Works-“Ten State Standards”):

• ADF plus FF Note: The FDEP required potable water storage capacity is 0.25 x MDF (MDF=1.5 x ADF), excluding FF demand storage. Based on the flow parameters above, this minimum FDEP storage capacity requirement is 0.375 x ADF, excluding FF demand storage, which is much less stringent than the above requirement. 3. Storage volume based on:

• Maintenance staff experience for the area. • Required emergency storage volume. • Ability to refill tanks quickly after a repair (that is, provide adequate tap size and fill line size to be able

to refill tanks quickly).


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-9 WB122005005DFB

As noted previously, all new or upgraded distribution pump station systems are to be designed to provide opportunities for fire protection. Exhibit 6-4 summarizes fire protection parameters used in this evaluation for new or upgraded distribution pump station systems. Only fire protection parameters for the new or upgraded systems are included in this exhibit.

Based on criteria in Exhibits 6-3 and 6-4 and average day flow data from historical records that have been projected to the end of the planning period, system pumping capacity and system distribution storage requirements were estimated. These results for new or upgraded distribution pump station systems are summarized in Exhibit 6-5.

EXHIBIT 6-4 Fire Protection Parameters for Selected Distribution Systems throughout the Keys

Distribution System Fire Flow Rate for

2-Hour Duration (gpm) Required Storage

Volume (gal)

Lake Surprise - Between Adams Cut and Lake Surprise 1,000 120,000

Rock Harbor 1,000 120,000

Tavernier 500 60,000

Plantation Key 500 60,000

Lower Matecumbe 500 60,000

Duck Key/Grassy Key 750 90,000

Marathon, Crawl Key 1,000 120,000

Marathon, 69th Street 500 60,000

Marathon, Vaca Cut 1,000 120,000

Marathon, 33rd Street 1,000 120,000

Ramrod Key 500 60,000

Summerland Key 500 60,000

Upper Sugarloaf Key 500 60,000

Lower Sugarloaf Key 500 60,000

Stock Island Distribution 1,000 120,000

6.3 Recommended Improvements and Upgrades to Distribution Systems

This section describes the proposed improvements for all recommended distribution system improvements. When these improvements are initiated, this will be the first time since the early 1980s that any new distribution system tankage has been built. The proposed distribu-tion pump station pump sizes and storage volumes and all distribution system piping sizes were determined without verification through hydraulic modeling. Before final design of any system begins, the system component sizes should be verified through hydraulic modeling.

Exhibit 6-5

Distribution System Current Projected 2025 Maximum Hour Flow

Maximum Day Flow + Fire Flow

Recommended Single Pump Capacity

Equalization Storage+ Fire Flow Storage

Minimum Storage Capacity

Maintenance Staff Recommendation

Lake Surprise - Between Adams Cut and Lake Surprise

413,300(287)

580,000(403) 1,611e 1,604 940 490,000 700,000

Rock Harbor 1,007,000(699)

1,410,000(979) 3,916e 2,468 2,200 100,000 1,530,000

Tavernier 566,000 (393)

780,000 (542) 2,168e 1,312 1,200 550,000 850,000

Plantation Key 877,000 (609)

1,200,000 (833) 3,332e 1,750 2,200 750,000 1,200,000

Lower Matecumbe Key 306,000(212)

450,000(312) 1,240e 965 800 340,000 510,000 750,000e

Duck Key/Grassy Key 398,000 (276)

550,000 (382) 1,528e 1,323 940 440,000 640,000

Marathon, Crawl Key

531,000(369)

750,000(521) 2,084e 1,781 1,200 620,000 870,000

Marathon,69th Street

Pump Capacity and Storage Requirements

are in Crawl Key & Vaca Cut

Marathon,Vaca Cut

426,000 (296)

600,000 (417) 1,668e 1,625 940 500,000 720,000 1,000,000e

Marathon,33rd Street

1,028,000 (714)

1,425,000 (990) 3,960e 2,480 2,200 1,010,000 1,600,000

Ramrod Key (Includes Little Torch Key) 198,000 (138)

270,000 (188) 752 782e 600 230,000 330,000

Summerland Key 181,000(126) 696 760e 600 220,000 310,000

Upper Sugarloaf Keyc 96,000 (67)

130,000 (90) 360 635e © 141,000 190,000

Lower Sugarloaf Key 158,000(110)

216,000(150) 600 725e 600 200,000 275,000

Stock Island Distribution 3,500,000(2,430)

4,750,000(3,300) 10,000d,e 5,950 6,000 3,090,000 4,870,000e

Notes:agpm in parenthesesbEach pump station will contain 2 pumps minimum. Standby pump will be used to satisfy a part of the recommended system design pumping capacity.cDistribution pump station not economical. Continue to maintain distribution system through taps.

eRecommended system design pumping capacity and storage requirements.

dBecause of large distribution system, 3 x ADF was used for Max Hour Flow.

Distribution System Pumping Capacity and Storage Requirements for Selected Distribution Systems throughout the KeysAverage Day Flowa (gpd) Distribution Storage (gal)System Pumping Capacityb (gpm)

WPB31012716136.xls/061990016


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-11 WB122005005DFB

The locations of these proposed improvements are shown in Appendix C. Estimated project costs for all proposed distribution system improvements are summarized in Section 6.4. Estimated project costs for all water system improvements are also summarized in Exhibit 7-2. The basis for estimating costs and the detailed construction and project cost estimates are provided in Appendix E. The recommended timing for all water system improvements is discussed in Section 7, Capital Improvement Program, and in Section 8, Strategic Financial Plan.

6.3.1 Distribution Piping 6.3.1.1 Replace Old Galvanized Mains Replacement of these old galvanized mains should occur within the first year as part of the $2.5 million annual allocation for distribution system upgrades.

6.3.1.2 Upsize Small-Diameter Mains to 4-Inch Minimum The capital cost to replace the approximately 370,000 feet (70 miles) of small-diameter mains that must be upsized to 4-inch-diameter (minimum) is $27,000,000. If these small-diameter mains were replaced under the current $2.5 million annual allocation for distribution system upgrades, it would take 11 years just to replace all of these small-diameter mains, while no other distribution mains would be improved.

Given the magnitude of these capital costs, and depending on the maintenance require-ments and the amount of unaccounted-for-water associated with these 270,000 feet of small-diameter mains, FKAA may want to consider one of the following two options:

• Substantially increase the annual allocation for distribution system upgrades until the entire quantity of small-diameter mains is replaced, within the time frame determined by FKAA.

• Consider a separate annual allocation in the CIP for replacing these small-diameter mains until the entire quantity is replaced, within the time frame determined by FKAA.

6.3.1.3 Install Additional Tap on Little Torch Key This tap should be installed as soon as possible. The cost for this work is considered to be a maintenance budget item and will not be considered a capital improvement.

6.3.1.4 Cudjoe Key-Additional Distribution Main Header to Interconnect System Taps The cost to install the 500 feet of 8-inch-diameter pipe would be part of the $2.5 million annual allocation for distribution system upgrades.

6.3.2 Existing Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities 6.3.2.1 Ocean Reef The proposed improvements of an additional 1 MG of storage and providing standby power to the distribution pump station should be coordinated with the LPRO WTP proposed for the Ocean Reef area.


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-12 WB122005005DFB

6.3.2.2 Rock Harbor This distribution system is significantly undersized for the intended service area. Given that there is no room for expansion if all functions are maintained at this distribution pump station system site, either the maintenance mechanics and the Upper Keys distribution system maintenance crew facilities must be relocated to newly acquired facilities or a new pump station site must be acquired and a new distribution pump station system constructed on the new site. In either case, additional property must be acquired.

It appears that the best resolution would be to relocate the maintenance mechanics and the distribution system maintenance crew facilities and personnel to new facilities close to the existing Key Largo Maintenance Facility, and to upgrade and expand the distribution system at the current Rock Harbor location. That way, all maintenance functions and per-sonnel for the Upper Keys will be at one central location, and the existing ground storage tank can be kept as part of the distribution pump station system. If a new pump station distribution system were to be constructed on newly acquired property, the existing storage capacity would be lost, and that storage capacity would have to be replaced with new storage capacity at the new distribution pump station system site.

Demolishing the existing maintenance mechanics building and the distribution maintenance crew building will provide adequate space to construct a new distribution pump station and one or two new storage tanks where the buildings existed. Once the new pump station is operational, the existing storage tank can be re-piped to also supply the new pump station, and the old pump station can be demolished.

Before this distribution pump station can be upgraded, property for the new maintenance facilities must be identified and purchased, the new facilities must be designed and con-structed, and all personnel and equipment must be moved to the new facilities. This process alone will require a minimum of 2½ years. And the old maintenance facilities at the Rock Harbor cannot be demolished until all personnel and equipment have been moved. Thus, it will be at least 3½ to 4 years before an upgraded Rock Harbor distribution pump station will be operational.

Exhibit 6-5 shows that, for the service area size and future water demands of this system, two 2,200-gpm pumps and a total ground storage tank capacity of approximately 1.5 MG should be provided. The pump station will contain vertical turbine pumps and will be simi-lar to those stations recently installed at Islamorada and Vaca Cut. This site with just the distribution pumping and storage function will have adequate space for the recommended facilities.

If expansion of the water facilities at the current Rock Harbor site is not selected, and instead a new distribution pump system is constructed, the estimated water facilities budgets provided herein are still applicable, except that an incremental additional budget of $251,000 for the additional 0.5 MG of storage capacity lost at the Rock Harbor site would have to be budgeted for when the new pump station is constructed (ground storage tank capacity of 1.0 MG instead of 0.5 MG). In either case, FKAA must provide budget under Facilities and Structures either for new maintenance mechanics and distribution system crew facilities at a new site or for renovation of the existing facilities at the Rock Harbor site.


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-13 WB122005005DFB

6.3.2.3 Tavernier As noted previously, this station is undersized for the service area size, and the storage tank fills from the distribution system instead of from a dedicated tap to the transmission main. In addition, existing or new pumps could be more efficient if a distribution main header were constructed along U.S. 1 to feed the smaller distribution pipe within the service area. Additional storage tank capacity is also needed.

The recommended improvements for this facility (in order of priority) are:

1. Install a dedicated fill line that feeds the storage tank from a tap to the transmission main; tap size should be 6-inch-diameter. Fill line size should be adequate to transport a minimum of 1,200 gpm from the tap to the storage tank. Provide, wherever possible, easy connection of this fill line to future new storage tanks or pump station.

2. Install approximately 10,000 feet of 8-inch-diameter distribution main header along both sides of U.S. 1, where required, and connect to the smaller distribution pipe within the service area. Improvements 1 and 2 could be combined into one project, if desired.

3. Install a new larger pump station and a larger storage tank on the site. As noted, this site is small and has no room for expansion. To provide upgraded facilities on this site, the existing pump station and storage tank will have to be taken out of service and de-molished, and the distribution system will have to be supplied from the transmission main through the four taps until the new facilities are complete. Some additional storage capacity should be gained by making the new tank foot print as large as possible and then extending the tank height (but keeping it within the County’s maximum height limit of 35 feet).

Exhibit 6-5 shows that, for the service area size and future water demands of this system, two 1,200-gpm pumps and a ground storage tank of approximately 1.0-MG capacity should be provided. The pump station will contain vertical pumps and will be similar to those stations recently installed at Islamorada and Vaca Cut. Depending on the required setbacks, it may be difficult to provide the full 1.0 MG of storage capacity, but providing 0.75 MG should be possible. The recommended 6-inch-diameter tap on the fill line will provide a flow rate greater than the pumping capacity of one of the pumps, provided the fill line is of adequate size.

6.3.2.4 Islamorada The efficiency of the Islamorada Distribution Pump Station System could be improved by installing a distribution main header along both sides of U.S. 1, where required, and connecting it to the smaller distribution pipe within the service area. Approximately 15,000 feet of 8-inch-diameter pipe is required. These improvements could be combined with Improvements 1 and 2 of the Tavernier improvements to make one project, if desired. It is assumed that the costs associated with this work would be part of the $2.5 million annual allocation for distribution system upgrades.

6.3.2.5 Crawl Key, Marathon This distribution pump station system will be the second largest system in the Marathon area; only the 33rd Street System will be larger. Given the age and condition of this system


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-14 WB122005005DFB

(built in 1958) and the service area size, this Crawl Key System should be the first in the Marathon area to be improved.

Exhibit 6-5 shows that, for the service area size and future water demands of this system, two 1,200-gpm pumps and ground storage tank capacity of approximately 1.0 MG should be provided. The pump station will contain vertical pumps and will be similar to those stations recently installed at Islamorada and Vaca Cut. Depending on the required setbacks, it may be difficult to provide the full 1.0 MG of storage capacity, but providing 0.75 MG should be possible. The recommended 6-inch-diameter tap in Option 2 below will provide a flow rate greater than the pumping capacity of one of the pumps, provided the fill line is of adequate size.

As noted previously, the existing site is small, and there is no room for expansion and still keep the system in operation while the new system is being built. Several options exist for upgrading this system:

1. Attempt to purchase additional adjacent property of adequate size from the boat yard for the improvements.

2. Construct the new distribution pump station on the existing site, while still maintaining distribution system service with the existing pump station and storage tank. When the new pump station is operational, demolish the existing pump station and use the new pump station and existing 0.5 MG storage tank, knowing that the existing storage tank will have to be replaced eventually. If this option is selected, the tap feeding this storage tank should be at least 4-inch-diameter, and preferably 6-inch-diameter (see Exhibit 6-1), so the water volume from the tap can keep pace with the pump pumping capacity. Otherwise, the existing 0.5-MG storage tank will be depleted quickly and the pumping system will shut down. The line from the tap to the storage tank should also have an adequate diameter so that the water capable of passing through the tap can be delivered to the storage tank.

3. Under this option, when the existing storage tank is replaced, the existing pump station and storage tank will have to be taken out of service and the storage tank demolished, and the distribution system will have to be supplied from the transmission main through the existing or added taps until the new larger storage tank is complete, the same as option 4.

4. Construct the new distribution pump station and the larger storage tank on the existing site simultaneously. Because the existing site is small, the existing pump station and storage tank will have to be taken out of service and demolished, and the distribution system will have to be supplied from the transmission main through the existing or added taps until the new facilities are complete.

6.3.2.6 Vaca Cut, Marathon The existing 0.5-MG ground storage tank is quickly approaching the end of its useful life. In addition, a larger storage tank capacity is needed for this site. Experience shows that the new 940-gpm pumps installed in 2005 will quickly deplete the existing 0.5-MG storage tank capacity. Exhibit 6-5 also shows that, based on service area size and future water demands of this system, a total ground storage tank capacity of at least 0.75 MG should be provided.


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-15 WB122005005DFB

Space is available on this existing site to construct a new 0.5 MG (minimum) storage tank. Therefore, a new 0.5-MG ground storage tank should be constructed on this site as soon as possible and interconnected with the existing ground storage tank.

An interim measure, however, that can be implemented immediately by the Maintenance Department to resolve the rapid depletion of the existing 0.5-MG storage tank by the new pumps while the new tank is being designed and constructed is to increase the tap size of Tap 144 to at least a 4-inch-diameter tap (both high-pressure line size and meter size). Based on Exhibit 6-1, a 4-inch-diameter tap should provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm. This flow rate should then keep pace with the new pump pumping capacity of 940 gpm, and the existing storage tank capacity should not be depleted rapidly.

Once the new 0.5-MG storage tank is on line, the existing 0.5-MG storage tank can be demol-ished and a new 0.5-MG storage tank can be constructed either immediately, or approxi-mately 1½ years before the existing 0.5-MG storage tank reaches its useful life (time to allow for design and construction).

6.3.2.7 69th Street, Marathon The advantage of maintaining this distribution pump station system at this time is to keep the 0.5 MG storage capacity online. As the Vaca Cut and 33rd Street distribution pump station systems are upgraded, the 0.5 MG storage capacity of the 69th Street system will become less important because the Vaca Cut and 33rd Street systems have been sized in this Master Plan to provide pumping and storage capacities to serve the future water demands of the two respective service area systems, without consideration of the 69th Street system. This is because the 69th Street system is on a small site with no room for expansion, whereas both the Vaca Cut site and the 33rd Street site both have suitable space for expansion of those system service areas.

The recommendation for this system is to use and maintain this system as the Vaca Cut and 33rd Street systems are being upgraded. The pump motors in this system are new so the pumping system should not need improvements in the near future. If the pumps require replacement, they should be replaced within the same pump station structure. The steel ground storage tank is approaching the end of its useful life (built in 1958, so it is 48 years old). When maintenance of this tank through repairs and re-painting is no longer eco-nomical, this system should be abandoned. Abandonment of this system should be possible as soon as the Vaca Cut system Tap 144 has been increased to at least 4-inch-diameter and the new 0.5-MG ground storage tank is online.

6.3.2.8 33rd Street, Marathon This distribution pump station system will be the largest in the Marathon area, serving approximately 50 percent of the Marathon area. Although this distribution pump station is old, the overall condition of this system is still good and the system maintains current system demands, although the existing 500-gpm pumps are undersized for the service area.

This distribution pump station is the second in the Marathon area that is recommended for improvements. Exhibit 6-5 shows that, for the service area size and future water demands of this system, two 2,200-gpm pumps and a total ground storage tank capacity of approxi-


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-16 WB122005005DFB

mately 1.75 MG are recommended. The pump station will contain vertical pumps and will be similar to those stations recently installed at Vaca Cut and Big Pine.

There is ample space on the existing site to construct the new pump station, as well as the proposed 3.0-MG booster pump station storage tank, while the existing pump station continues to serve the area, and then connect the existing 0.5-MG storage tank to the new pump station. The old pump station would either be demolished, or used it for some other purpose. The additional 1.25 MG of recommended distribution storage can be provided by the new 3.0 MG recommended for the booster pump station. This additional distribution storage requirement should help to maintain proper chlorine residuals in the ultimate combined 6.5 MG of storage capacity on this site.

Recommendations for the 0.5-MG distribution storage tank are to continue to use this tank and maintain it as long as it is economical to do so. When it becomes uneconomical to do so, the existing tank should be demolished and a new 0.5-MG (minimum) storage tank con-structed in its place. While the existing 0.5-MG tank is being demolished and constructed, the distribution pump suction can come from the 3-MG (or 6-MG) booster pump station storage capacity.

6.3.2.9 Summerland Key As noted in Section 6.2.2.1, there is no room for expansion on the cleared ⅓-acre portion of the FKAA property where the existing facilities are located, and the remaining ⅔ acre owned by FKAA may have environmentally sensitive wetlands.

In preparation for upgrading this facility, FKAA should immediately have an environ-mental assessment performed on the remaining ⅔ acre to determine if the entire remaining property is in fact wetlands, and expansion on to this adjacent property is not be possible.

If the environmental assessment concludes that sufficient area for new facilities is available to expand on to the remaining ⅔ acre, FKAA could construct facilities on this adjacent property, and still maintain the existing pump station operation until the new facilities are operational.

On the other hand, if the environmental assessment concludes that the adjacent ⅔ acre can not be developed, or if FKAA chooses not to clear whatever part of the adjacent ⅔ acre they need, because of preference, then the existing pump station and storage tank will have to be taken out of service and demolished to make room for the new facilities. In this case, the distribution system will have to be supplied from the transmission main through the exist-ing or added taps until the new facilities are complete.

6.3.2.10 Stock Island Distribution Pump Station Although the pumping capacity of this distribution pump station is adequate, the building that has housed distribution pumps and other support equipment and all controls since 1956 is deteriorating, and will have to be replaced fairly early in the planning period. Stor-age capacity for this distribution pump station is adequate, as distribution pump suction comes from the three 5.0-MG storage tanks on the site. Capital improvements for these three tanks are described in Exhibit 6-2.


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-17 WB122005005DFB

The new pump station will be a vertical turbine station, similar to the smaller stations recently constructed at Big Pine and Big Coppitt Keys. However, because of the size of this distribution pump station, this station will be a custom designed vertical turbine pump station and will be provided with diesel-driven emergency pumps, similar to the existing station.

The existing distribution pump station must continue to operate while the new pump station is being constructed. Because of limited space on the existing site, the new pump station is proposed to be constructed in the area where the existing Records Storage Building is now located. Because of the age of this building, the CIP calls for this building to be abandoned and a new facility constructed at Stock Island Desal or Rockland Key. Once this Records Storage Building is abandoned, the new distribution pump station can be constructed when deteriorating conditions of the existing pump station building dictate.

6.3.2.11 Key West Distribution Pump Station Additional pumping capacity at the Key West Distribution Pump Station was required to support increased potable water demands within the service area and to provide adequate fire protection. The existing pumps are housed in an historic Fire House structure con-structed in the late 1880s. City of Key West code requirements dictated that the existing Fire House could not be demolished, because of its historic nature, to make room for the new pump station, and the existing structure was too small to support larger pumping units and ancillary equipment. Therefore, a new pump station structure on the site, separate from the existing pump station, had to be constructed. Because of the limited space on the existing site, some functions that were stationed at the Key West Distribution Pump Station had to be relocated to new facilities on Stock Island. This project should be substantially complete in May 2006, and final completion is expected in August 2006.

6.3.3 Proposed Distribution Pump Stations and Storage Facilities In keeping with the goal of FKAA to reduce as much as possible the dependence on taps as the primary means of maintaining distribution system pressures and to provide oppor-tunities for fire protection, Section 6.2.2.2, Needs Assessment for Additional and Upgraded Distribution Pump Station Systems, estimated pumping and storage requirements for new distribution pump station and storage systems, as well as pumping and storage require-ments for existing system improvements that were addressed in the previous section. Exhibit 6-5 summarizes the proposed pumping and storage requirements. Exhibit 6-6 summarizes the approximate site sizes required for new distribution pump stations with various sizes of storage tanks. These approximate sizes are for the pump station (package vertical turbine station) and ground storage tank only; any other functions included at the site would require a larger size parcel.

The following proposed new distribution pump station and storage systems are recommended within the 20-year planning period.

• Lake Surprise, between Adams Cut and Lake Surprise • Plantation Key • Lower Matecumbe Key • Duck Key/Grassy Key


WPB310127161225.DOC/061640011 6-18 WB122005005DFB

• Ramrod Key • Cudjoe Key (under design; two 940 gpm @ 397 feet and one 1.0 MG storage tank) • Lower Sugarloaf Key • Rock Harbor

The locations of these proposed new distribution pump station and storage systems are shown in Appendix C.

EXHIBIT 6-6 Approximate Site Size Required for Distribution Pump Stations with Various Size Ground Storage Tanks

Distribution Pump Stations (Package Vertical Turbine Station Assumed) with Ground Storage Tank Volumes Noted

(MG)

Absolute Minimum Site Size (Acres)

Preferable Site Size1

(Acres)

0.5 0.3 0.5

1 0.5 0.7

1.5 0.6 0.8

Note: 1Should be the indicated size or larger.

6.4 Construction Cost Estimates for the Distribution System Cost estimates were prepared using CPES. The estimates are considered order-of-magnitude cost opinions without detailed engineering or consideration of site-specific conditions. Estimates of this type are normally considered accurate to within -30 percent to +50 percent. The estimates also include 20 percent for consulting, legal, and administration plus a 15 percent contingency. All estimates are in 2006 dollars.

Exhibits 6-7 and 6-8 summarize estimated capital costs for all proposed distribution pipeline and proposed distribution pump station improvements, respectively, and a suggested time frame for implementation of some projects. These capital costs, as well as capital costs (in 2006 dollars) for all proposed water system improvements, are also summarized in Exhibit 7-2. The basis for estimating costs, and detailed construction and project cost estimates for the proposed distribution system improvements, are provided in Appendix E.

EXHIBIT 6-7Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates for Proposed Distribution Pipeline Improvements

Size (inches) Length (foot)4 400 $23,102 6 3,200 $224,000

Subtotal $341,000

Upsize Small-Diameter Mains to 4-inch 4 369,900 $32,408,696 $32,408,696 $6,481,739 $5,833,565 $44,724,000 At FKAA discretion At $2.5 million per year, will take 11 years to

replace all pipe

Subtotal $44,724,000

Cudjoe Key Additional Distribution Main Header 8 6000 $400,000 $400,000 $80,000 $72,000 $552,000 At FKAA discretion Part of $2.5 million annual allocation for

distribution upgrades

Subtotal $552,000

Tavernier Pump StationNew Dedicated 6-inch tap and 8-inch Fill Line

6-inch Tap -- -- FY 2007/2008

8-Inch Fill Line 8 900

Install 8-inch distribution main header along both sides of US 1, where required 8 12,000 $0 $0 $0

At FKAA discretionPart of Tavernier Pump Station Improvements

Subtotal $0

Islamorada Distribution PS

Install distribution main header8 17,500 1,364,493$ 1,364,493$ $272,899 $245,609 $1,883,000

At FKAA discretion Part of $2.5 million annual allocation for distribution upgrades

Subtotal $1,883,000

Crawl KeyInstall New 6-inch tap and 8-inch (assumed) Fill Line

6-inch Tap8-inch Fill Line 8 500

Subtotal $0 $47,500,001

Notes:1Pipeline costs are estimated in Appendix E as follows: 4-inch=$58/LF, 6-inch=$70/LF, 8-inch=$78/LF, 10-inch=$95/LF, 12-inch=$105/LF2These are order-of-magnitude cost opinions (in April 2006 dollars) made without detailed engineering design. It is normally expected that estimates of this type are accurate within -30% to +50%3Consulting, administrative, legal fees equal 20 percent of construction cost.4Contingency (15 percent of subtotal costs for all items).

Installed when pump station installed

Project Total

Part of $2.5 million annual allocation for distribution upgrades

$0 $0 $0 Part of Tavernier pump station improvements

$0 $0

Project Construction CostTotal Construction

Cost2


Legal Fees3

Replace Old Galvanized Mains $247,102 $49,420 $44,478

RemarksPipeline1

Contingency4 Suggested TimingTotal Project Cost

$341,000 FY 2006/2007

At FKAA discretion$0

WPB31012716136.xls 1 of 1

EXHIBIT 6-8Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates of Proposed Distribution Pump Station System Improvements and for Proposed New Distribution Pump Station Systems

Distribution Pump Station System

Pump Station Construction Cost1

Ground Storage Tank Construction Cost1

Total Construction Cost1


Legal Fees2Contingency3 Total Project Cost Suggested Timing and Remarks

Ocean ReefAdditional 1.0 MG Storage -- $1,246,377 $1,246,377 $249,275 $224,348 $1,720,000 If space is available with RO WTPPermanent Standby Power (included in RO WTP) included in RO WTP

Subtotal $1,720,000

Lake SurpriseNew Pump Station and 0.75 MG Storage Tank $1,632,609 $0 $1,632,609 $326,522 $293,870 $2,253,000 Implemented at FKAA's discretion

Subtotal $2,253,000

Rock Harbor

Replace and Upsize Existing Pump Station $779,710 -- $779,710 $155,942 $140,348 $1,076,000Assumes maintenance functions will be relocated and site will be dedicated to distribution pump station system

Install 0.5 MG Storage Tank $ 586,957 $586,957 $117,391 $105,652 $810,000 Within next 5 years

Repaint Tank Exterior (maintenance) -- $0 $0 $0 $0 As corrosion of exterior dictates, probably within 5–10 years

Install a Third 0.5 MG Tank $ 586,957 $586,957 $117,391 $105,652 $810,000 Monitor need for a third 0.5 MG tank; likely will be at end of planning period

Subtotal $2,696,000

Tavernier

New Larger Pump Station and New Larger Storage Tank (1.0 MG) 1910869.5 $1,910,870 $382,174 $343,957 $2,637,000

6-inch tap and 8" fill line 110144.6 $110,145 $22,029 $19,826 $152,000

Install 8-inch distribution main header along both sides of US-1 where required $936,232 $936,232 $187,246 $168,522 $1,292,000

Requires demolition of existing pump station and storage tank before construction begins. As soon as possible; definitely within the next 5 years.

Subtotal $4,081,000Plantation KeyNew Pump Station and 1.0 MG Storage Tank $1,921,015 $1,921,015 $384,203 $345,783 $2,651,000 Implemented at FKAA's discretion

Subtotal $2,651,000

Lower Matecumbe KeyNew Pump Station and 0.5 MG Storage Tank $1,412,319 $1,412,319 $282,464 $254,217 $1,949,000 Implemented at FKAA's discretion

Subtotal $1,949,000

Duck Key/Grassy KeyNew Pump Station and 0.75 MG Storage Tank $1,642,754 $1,642,754 $328,551 $295,696 $2,267,000 Implemented at FKAA's discretion

Subtotal $2,267,000

WPB31012716136.xls/062490010 1 of 3








Crawl Key

Install New and Upgraded Pump Station 789855 $789,855 $157,971 $142,174 $1,090,000Assumes adjacent property could not be purchased. As soon as possible, within next 5 years.

Repaint Existing Exterior Storage Tank (Maintenance) -- $78,986 $78,986 $15,797 $14,217 $109,000 Probably within the next 5–7 years

Replace and Upsize Storage Tank (to 1 MG) -- $1,060,870 $1,060,870 $212,174 $190,957 $1,464,000Assumes tank replacement will occur when existing tank needs replaced. (Estimate between 10–15 years.)

Subtotal $2,663,000

Vaca CutInstall New 0.5 MG Storage Tank -- $586,957 $586,957 $117,391 $105,652 $810,000 Begin immediately

Demolish Existing 0.5 MG Storage Tank and Install New 0.5 MG Storage Tank -- $629,710 $629,710 $125,942 $113,348 $869,000

Assumes existing tank will be used until about end of useful life, probably within the next 7– 10 years

Subtotal $1,679,000

69th Street $824,638 $824,638 $164,928 $148,435 $1,138,000No capital costs; assumes facility will be abandoned when existing tank needs painting

33rd Street $650,000 $650,000 $130,000 $117,000 $897,000

Replace Existing Pump Station -- $0 $0 $0

Replace when pump station cannot meet demands (assumed to be within the next 4–7 years). Proposed new 3 MG storage tank proposed under transmission will accommodate additional distribution storage requirements.

Paint Existing 0.5 MG Storage Tank Exterior (maintenance) -- $0 $0 $0 $0 When corrosion dictates, probably within 7-12

years

Replace Existing 0.5 MG Storage Tank with New 0.5 MG Storage Tank -- $0 $0 $0 $0

When tank has reached its useful life (estimated to be within next 15–20 years). Requires demolition of existing storage tank.

Subtotal $3,714,000

RamrodNew Pump Station and 0.5 MG Storage Tank $ 1,376,812 $1,376,812 $275,362 $247,826 $1,900,000 Longer term improvement. Implemented at

FKAA's discretionSubtotal $1,900,000

WPB31012716136.xls/062490010 2 of 3








Summerland Key

Replace Pump Station and Storage Tank, New 0.5 MG Tank $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $280,000 $252,000 $1,932,000

Assumes FKAA adjacent property has wetlands; must build on existing site. Demolition of pump station and storage tank required. Implemented at FKAA's discretion

Subtotal $1,932,000

Cudjoe Key (4)New Pump Station and 1.0 MG Storage Tank (under design) $1,268,116 $1,268,116 $253,623 $228,261 $1,750,000 Longer term improvement. Implemented at


Lower SugarloafNew Pump Station and 0.5 MG Storage Tank $1,376,812 $1,376,812 $275,362 $247,826 $1,900,000 Longer term improvement. Implemented at


Stock Island DistributionReplace Existing Pump Station

$1,500,000 $1,500,000 $300,000 $270,000 $2,070,000Replace when deteriorating conditions of existing structure dictate, and Records Storage Building is abandoned

Subtotal $2,070,000$33,546,000

Notes:1Land acquisition costs are not included in these are order-of-magnitude cost opinions (in April 2006 dollars), which were made without detailed engineering design. It is normally expected that estimates of this type are accurate within2Consulting, administrative, legal fees equal 20 percent of construction cost.3Contingency (15 percent of subtotal costs for all items). 4. From Bond Report.

Project Total

WPB31012716136.xls/062490010 3 of 3

WPB310127161224.DOC/061640010 7-1 WB122005005DFB

SECTION 7

Capital Improvement Program

For FKAA to meet the future water demands from population growth in the Florida Keys, more stringent environmental protection require-ments, and higher customer service expectations, FKAA has prepared this comprehensive strategic CIP over a 20-year planning period. This section of the Water System Capital Improvement Master Plan discusses the proposed capital improvements for FKAA’s Water Infrastructure System needs from 2006 through 2025.

7.1 20-Year Water System Infrastructure Program FKAA’s Water Infrastructure CIP involves upgrades to existing facilities as well as proposed new infrastructure for FKAA’s Water System through the investment of an order-of-magnitude cost of $227.6 million (in 2006 dollars) in capital improvements. Exhibit 7-1 summarizes the overall order-of-magnitude costs. Exhibit 7-2 shows the cost for each capital improvement project for the Water Infrastructure System from 2006 through 2025. The schedule for their construction is presented in immediate, mid-term, and long-term planning scenarios. This cost estimate includes project construction costs for improvements over a 20-year period and also includes additional cost for contingency and consulting/ administrative/ legal costs. The improvements planned are based on the recommendations presented in Sections 2 through 6 in this Master Plan document.

7.1.1 20-Year Water System Capital Improvement Program Mission The mission for the Capital Improvements Program is to:

• Improve the quality and reliability of drinking water for all customers to maximize the benefits to the community

• Optimize use of financial resources and assure financial viability of the program

• Leave capabilities in place to sustain continued development of the infrastructure

SECTION 7. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

WPB310127161224.DOC/061640010 7-2 WB122005005DFB

7.1.2 20-Year Water System Capital Improvement Program Goals and Objectives To achieve the above mission, a number of goals and objectives for the various projects in-cluded in the CIP have been identified. These were developed in a preliminary workshop with FKAA management and staff and were used as guiding criteria as the Master Plan was developed. The primary goals and objectives of this CIP are to provide:

• A long-range strategic facilities plan

• Improve system reliability

• Provide financial forecasting tool

• Develop cash flow and investment program in conjunction with phasing all CIP plans

• Develop long-term financing plan to match CIP

• Determine rate impact of increased O&M and debt service

• Optimize water treatment (RO, lime softening, raw) to meet future compliance issues and water quality goals

• Meet future water supply needs by using alternative water supplies: Biscayne aquifer, seawater, Floridan aquifer, ASR, and wastewater reuse

• Improve production reliability of J. Robert Dean WTP

• Improve reliability of all desalination facilities

• Improve storage capabilities throughout the Keys

• Eliminate all galvanized water mains

• Connect Distribution Systems along U.S.1 to interconnect with more taps where possible

• Reduce as much as possible the dependency of taps as the primary means of maintain-ing distribution system pressures, particularly for the larger more concentrated distribu-tion systems

• Loop all distribution where possible

• Increase storage to reduce difficulty in maintaining needed water levels

• Address Regulatory Requirements: − Water treatment - D/ DBP rule − Permitting - Future Biscayne Aquifer water use allocation from the SFWMD

• Reduce system water losses

• Clearly develop strategy on transmission vs. distribution operation


WPB310127161224.DOC/061640010 7-3 WB122005005DFB

7.2 Water Infrastructure System 7.2.1 Major System Upgrades The CIP identifies many short- and long-term improvements to the water transmission, distribution, water storage, raw water supply, and the water treatment plants. Upgrades to the Water Infrastructure System will increase water treatment and storage capacities, and improve flows and pressures to meet anticipated water demands. Significant upgrades and proposed new facilities to the water treatment plants are planned to improve the reliability and quality of FKAA’s drinking water. A specific goal is to provide high quality water that will meet future regulatory standards and will be able to meet projected water demands.

Major improvements to the water system include a new Floridan aquifer wellfield that will serve a new LPRO treatment facility at the J Robert Dean WTP in Florida City, multiple rehabilitation or upgrade projects at both the Kermit H. Lewin Desalination WTP and the Marathon Desalination WTP facility to increase reliability and capacity to meet emergency and peak day flows, and various transmission/distribution line replacements, distribution pump station upgrades, and improved water storage tanks to improve delivery capacity of the system.

Exhibit 7-2 shows all planned project improvements from 2006 through 2025 and associated order of magnitude cost estimates. The total estimated cost (in 2006 dollars) of these improvements is $208,606,402 during the next 20 years.

EXHIBIT 7-1 20-Year Water Infrastructure Capital Improvement - Order of Magnitude Cost Summary

Item Amount Including an Annual

3% Inflation

Water Supply Wells $11,575,000 $12,695,000

Water Treatment Plants $41,886,368 $45,224,000

Transmission Mains and Booster Pump Stations $58,899,034 $72,725,000

Distribution Mains $47,500,000 $64,676,000

Distribution Pump Stations and Ground Storage $33,546,000 $43,949,000

Facilities and Structure1 $15,200,000 $16,223,000

20 Year Water Infrastructure Capital Improvement Program - GRAND TOTAL $208,606,402 $255,492,000

Note: 1Facilities and Structures are not included in the detailed discussions in previous sections of this Master Plan document. Only order of magnitude costs included in Section 7 (per FKAA).

7.2.2 Basis of Project Cost Estimates For master planning purposes, planning level cost estimates are order-of-magnitude esti-mates. As defined by the American Association of Cost Engineers, order-of-magnitude cost estimates are believed to be accurate within a range of 30 percent below, to 50 percent above, actual costs.

Exhibit 7-220-Year Capital Improvement Plan 1 2 3 4 5 Immediate 6 7 8 9 10 Mid-term 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Long-termProject Name Project 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 TOTAL 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Subtotal 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Subtotal TotalWater Supply -$ -$ -$ J. Robert Dean WTP Phase 1 RO Facility

For a 4.5 MGD WTP-three 2- mgd wells and ASR mod. to supply $ 1,700,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 2,860,000 $ 8,160,000 $ - $ - $ 8,160,000

J. Robert Dean WTP Phase 2 RO Facility

For an additional 1.5 MGD WTP-One 2 mgd well $ - $ 2,415,000 $ 2,415,000 $ - $ 2,415,000

Ocean Reef WTP 4.5 MGD RO Facility

**Ocean Reef supply wells are included in the water treatment section. $ - $ - $ - $ -

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) 1073 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 Total Project Costs $ - $ 2,700,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 2,860,000 $ - $ - $ 9,160,000 $ - $ 2,415,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,415,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,575,000

Water Treatment -$ -$ -$ J. Robert Dean WTP Phase 1 RO 4.5 MGD RO 400,000$ 8,961,700$ 8,961,699$ 18,323,399$ -$ -$ 18,323,399$ J. Robert Dean WTP Phase 1 RO

1 DIW for Concentrate Disposal 3,450,000$ 3,450,000$ 6,900,000$ 6,900,000$

J. Robert Dean WTP Phase 2 RO

An additional 1.5 MGD RO -$ 1,836,400$ 1,836,400$ -$ 1,836,400$

Kermit H. Lewin RO Desalination WTP Membrane Replacement

Stock island Construction 1082 1,908,783$ 1,908,783$ 3,817,566$ -$ -$ 3,817,566$

Marathon Ro Desalination WTP Membrane replacement and Plant Upgrades

Marathon Construction Cost 1,329,502$ 1,329,501$ 2,659,003$ -$ -$ 2,659,003$

Ocean Reef 4.5 MGD RO Desalination WTP Membrane Plant Construction Cost Option

1.5 MGD (FKAA's cost share component) **Note- cost provided by FKAA 350,000$ 4,200,000$ 3,800,000$ 8,350,000$ -$ -$ 8,350,000$

Total Project Costs -$ 2,658,783$ 19,849,985$ 17,541,200$ -$ -$ 40,049,968$ -$ 1,836,400$ -$ -$ -$ 1,836,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 41,886,368$

Transmission Mains and Booster Pump Stations -$ -$ -$ Replace 36-inch transmission Main

Other 18-mile stretch segments 200,000$ 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$

Replace 36-inch transmission Main

MM 93-98 Replacement 4,554,000$ 9,108,000$ 13,662,000$ -$ -$ 13,662,000$

12-inch Ocean reef Transmission Mains Contract 1 3,188,000$ 3,188,000$ -$ -$ 3,188,000$ Replace 18-inch Main, Key Largo 93 750,000$ 750,000$ 1,500,000$ -$ -$ 1,500,000$

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 1 of 3

Exhibit 7-220-Year Capital Improvement Plan 1 2 3 4 5 Immediate 6 7 8 9 10 Mid-term 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Long-termProject Name Project 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 TOTAL 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Subtotal 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Subtotal Total

Marathon 18-inch Transmission Main Replacements

-$ 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ 300,000$ 18-inch Transmission Main replacement N. Roosevelt 1,572,000$ 1,572,000$ 3,144,000$ -$ -$ 3,144,000$ Phase II Cathodic Protection 2,118,334$ 2,118,334$ -$ -$ 2,118,334$

J. Robert Dean WTP

Upsize diesel driven pumps 1 and 2 302,000$ 302,000$ -$ -$ 302,000$

J. Robert Dean WTP

Install new 5 MG storage tank -$ 4,855,000$ 4,855,000$ -$ 4,855,000$

Key Largo Booster PS

Install 3rd electric transmission pump -$ 251,850$ 251,850$ -$ 251,850$

Plantation Key Booster PS -$ 4,209,000$ 4,209,000$ 8,418,000$ -$ 8,418,000$ Marathon Pump Station Inp.

Engine & Pumps - 1075 907,000$ 907,000$ -$ -$ 907,000$

Marathon Booster PS

Add a second 3 MG storage tank 1,430,500$ 1,430,500$ 2,861,000$ -$ -$ 2,861,000$

Marathon Booster PS

Install 3rd electric pump -$ 251,850$ 251,850$ -$ 251,850$

Lower Keyes Booster Pump Station #1 -$ 4,209,000$ 4,209,000$ 8,418,000$ -$ 8,418,000$ Lower Keyes Booster Pump Station #2 -$ -$ 4,209,000$ 4,209,000$ 8,418,000$ 8,418,000$ Ramrod Booster PS -$ 104,000$ 104,000$ -$ 104,000$ Total Project Costs -$ 7,579,334$ 10,058,000$ 5,510,000$ 3,304,500$ 1,430,500$ 27,882,334$ 9,364,000$ 4,209,000$ -$ 4,816,700$ 4,209,000$ 22,598,700$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,209,000$ 4,209,000$ 8,418,000$ 58,899,034$

Distribution Mains -$ -$ -$ Replace Old Galvanized Mains 341,000$ 341,000$ -$ -$ 341,000$ Upsize Small-Diameter Mains to 4-inch & other upgrades 1,607,000$ 1,558,500$ 1,558,500$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 9,724,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 12,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 22,500,000$ 44,724,000$ Cudjoe Key Additional Distribution Main Header 552,000$ 552,000$ -$ -$ 552,000$ Islamorada Distribution PS

Install distribution main header 941,500$ 941,500$ 1,883,000$ -$ -$ 1,883,000$

Total Distribution Mains Project C -$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 12,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 12,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 22,500,000$ 47,500,000$

Distribution Pump Station and Storage Immediate Mid-term Long-term

Ocean ReefAdditional 1.0 MG Storage -$ 860,000$ 860,000$ 1,720,000$ -$ 1,720,000$

Lake SurpriseNew Pump Station and 0.75 MG Storage tank -$ 1,126,500$ 1,126,500$ 2,253,000$ -$ 2,253,000$

Rock HarborReplace and Upsize existing Pump Station -$ 538,000$ 538,000$ 1,076,000$ -$ 1,076,000$

Rock HarborInstall 0.5 MG Storage Tank -$ 405,000$ 405,000$ 810,000$ -$ 810,000$

Rock HarborInstall a third 0.5 MG Tank -$ -$ 810,000$ 810,000$ 810,000$

Tavernier

New Larger Pump Station and New Larger Storage tank (1.0 MG) 1,318,500$ 1,318,500$ 2,637,000$ -$ -$ 2,637,000$

Tavernier 6-inch tap and 8" fill line 76,000$ 76,000$ 152,000$ -$ -$ 152,000$

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 2 of 3

Exhibit 7-220-Year Capital Improvement Plan 1 2 3 4 5 Immediate 6 7 8 9 10 Mid-term 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Long-termProject Name Project 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 TOTAL 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Subtotal 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Subtotal Total

Tavernier

Install 8-inch distribution main header along both sides of US-1 where required 646,000$ 646,000$ 1,292,000$ -$ -$ 1,292,000$

Plantation KeyNew Pump Station and 1.0 MG Storage tank -$ -$ 1,325,500$ 1,325,500$ 2,651,000$ 2,651,000$

Lower Matecumbe key

New Pump Station and and 0.5 MG Storage tank -$ -$ 974,500$ 974,500$ 1,949,000$ 1,949,000$

Duck Key/Grassy Key

New Pump Station and 0.75 MG Storage tank -$ -$ 1,133,500$ 1,133,500$ 2,267,000$ 2,267,000$

Crawl KeyInstall New and Upgraded Pump Station 1,090,000$ 1,090,000$ -$ -$ 1,090,000$

Crawl KeyInstall New 6-inch tap and 8-inch (assumed) Fill Line 109,000$ 109,000$ -$ -$ 109,000$

Crawl KeyReplace and Upsize Storage Tank (to 1 MG) -$ 1,464,000$ 1,464,000$ -$ 1,464,000$

Vaca CutInstall New 0.5 MG Storage Tank 810,000$ 810,000$ -$ -$ 810,000$

Vaca Cut

Demolish Existing 0.5 MG Storage Tank and Install New 0.5 MG Storage Tank -$ 869,000$ 869,000$ -$ 869,000$

69th Street -$ -$ -$ -$

33rd StreetReplace Existing Pump Station -$ 1,138,000$ 1,138,000$ -$ 1,138,000$

33th Street

Replace Existing 0.5 MG Storage Tank with New 0.5 MG storage tank -$ -$ 897,000$ 897,000$ 897,000$

RamrodNew Pump Station and 0.50 MG Storage Tank -$ -$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$

Cudjoe KeyNew Pump station and 1.0MG Storage Tank 1,750,000$ 1,750,000$ -$ -$ 1,750,000$

Summerland Key

Replace Pump Station and Storage tank, New 0.5 MG tank -$ -$ 1,932,000$ 1,932,000$ 1,932,000$

Lower Sugarloaf

New Pump Station and Storage Tank, New 0.5 MG tank -$ -$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$

Stock Island Distribution

Replace Existing Pump Station -$ 2,070,000$ 2,070,000$ -$ 2,070,000$

-$ 1,750,000$ -$ -$ 3,239,500$ 2,850,500$ 7,840,000$ 4,151,000$ 1,803,000$ 860,000$ 1,126,500$ 3,459,500$ 11,400,000$ 5,157,500$ 2,300,000$ 2,108,000$ 1,943,500$ 2,797,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,306,000$ 33,546,000$

Facilities and Structure -$ Desal Sewall Repairs 3073 750,000$ 3,250,000$ 4,000,000$ -$ -$ 4,000,000$ Rehab Admin Bldg/Garage 3081 400,000$ 3,400,000$ 3,400,000$ 7,200,000$ -$ -$ 7,200,000$ Marathon Central Warehouse 3077 -$ -$ -$ -$ Customer Service/Meter Bldg 3091 425,000$ 425,000$ 850,000$ -$ -$ 850,000$ DESAL/Stock Island/Lower Keys Garage Wastewater 3083 200,000$ 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$ Marathon Customer Service Center 3077 300,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,650,000$ 2,950,000$ -$ -$ 2,950,000$ Total Project Costs -$ 2,075,000$ 8,075,000$ 5,050,000$ -$ -$ 15,200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,200,000$

-$ 19,263,117$ 44,082,985$ 33,461,200$ 9,044,000$ 6,781,000$ 112,632,302$ 16,015,000$ 12,763,400$ 3,360,000$ 8,443,200$ 10,168,500$ 50,750,100$ 7,657,500$ 4,800,000$ 4,608,000$ 4,443,500$ 5,297,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,500,000$ 6,709,000$ 6,709,000$ 45,224,000$ 208,606,402$

Total Distribution Pump Station

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 3 of 3

Exhibit 7-220-Year Capital Improvement Plan (Costs in Inflated Dollars)

1 2 3 4 5 Immediate 6 7 8 9 10 Mid-term 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Long-termProject Name Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Subtotal 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Subtotal 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Subtotal TotalWater Supply -$ -$ -$ J. Robert Dean WTP Phase 1 RO Facility

For a 4.5 MGD WTP-Three 2 mgd wells and one standby $ - $ 1,751,000 $ 3,819,000 $ 3,125,000 $ - $ - $ 8,695,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,695,000

J. Robert Dean WTP Phase 2 RO Facility

For an additional 1.5 MGD WTP-One 2 mgd well $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,970,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,970,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,970,000

Ocean Reef WTP 4.5 MGD RO Facility

**Ocean Reef supply wells are included in the water treatment section. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) 1073 $ - $ 1,030,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,030,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,030,000 Total Project Costs $ - $ 2,781,000 $ 3,819,000 $ 3,125,000 $ - $ - $ 9,725,000 $ - $ 2,970,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,970,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12,695,000

Water Treatment -$ -$ -$ J. Robert Dean WTP Phase 1 RO 4.5 MGD RO $ - $ 412,000 $ 9,507,000 $ 9,793,000 $ - $ - 19,712,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 19,712,000$ J. Robert Dean WTP Phase 1 RO

1 DIW for Concentrate Disposal $ 3,660,000 $ 3,770,000 7,430,000$ 7,430,000$

J. Robert Dean WTP Phase 2 RO

An additional 1.5 MGD RO $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ 2,259,000 $ - $ - $ - 2,259,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 2,259,000$

Kermit H. Lewin RO Desalination WTP Membrane Replacement

Stock island Construction 1082 $ - $ 1,966,000 $ 2,025,000 $ - $ - $ - 3,991,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 3,991,000$

Marathon Ro Desalination WTP Membrane replacement and Plant Upgrades

Marathon Construction Cost $ - $ - $ 1,410,000 $ 1,453,000 $ - $ - 2,863,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 2,863,000$

Ocean Reef 4.5 MGD RO Desalination WTP Membrane Plant Construction Cost Option

1.5 MGD (FKAA's cost share component) **Note- cost provided by FKAA $ - $ 361,000 $ 4,456,000 $ 4,152,000 $ - $ - 8,969,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 8,969,000$

Total Project Costs -$ 2,739,000$ 21,058,000$ 19,168,000$ -$ -$ 42,965,000$ -$ 2,259,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,259,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 45,224,000$

Transmission Mains and Booster Pump Stations -$ -$ -$ Replace 36-inch transmission Main

Other 18-mile stretch segments $ - $ - $ 212,000 $ - $ - $ - 212,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 212,000$

Replace 36-inch transmission Main

MM 93-98 Replacement $ - $ 4,691,000 $ 9,663,000 $ - $ - $ - 14,354,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 14,354,000$

12-inch Ocean reef Transmission Mains Contract 1 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,484,000 $ - $ - 3,484,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 3,484,000$ Replace 18-inch Main, Key Largo 92- $ - $ - $ 796,000 $ 820,000 $ - $ - 1,616,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 1,616,000$

Marathon 18-inch Transmission Main Replacements

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ 358,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 358,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 358,000$

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 1 of 3


1 2 3 4 5 Immediate 6 7 8 9 10 Mid-term 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Long-termProject Name Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Subtotal 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Subtotal 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Subtotal Total18-inch Transmission Main replacement N. Roosevelt $ - $ - $ - $ 1,718,000 $ 1,769,000 $ - 3,487,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 3,487,000$ Phase II Cathodic Protection $ - $ 2,182,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 2,182,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 2,182,000$

J. Robert Dean WTP

Upsize diesel driven pumps 1 and 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 340,000 $ - 340,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 340,000$

J. Robert Dean WTP

Install new 5 MG storage tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ 5,797,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 5,797,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 5,797,000$

Key Largo Booster PS

Install 3rd electric transmission pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ 329,000 $ - 329,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 329,000$

Plantation Key Booster PS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ 5,026,000 $ 5,177,000 $ - $ - $ - 10,203,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 10,203,000$ Marathon Pump Station Inp.

Engine & Pumps - 1075 $ - $ 934,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 934,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 934,000$

Marathon Booster PS

Add a second 3 MG storage tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,610,000 $ 1,658,000 3,268,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 3,268,000$

Marathon Booster PS

Install 3rd electric pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ 329,000 $ - 329,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 329,000$

Lower Keys Booster pump Station # 1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ 5,492,000 $ 5,657,000 11,149,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 11,149,000$ Lower Keys Booster pump Station # 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,166,000 $ 7,381,000 14,547,000$ 14,547,000$ Ramrod Booster PS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ 136,000 $ - 136,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 136,000$ Total Project Costs -$ 7,807,000$ 10,671,000$ 6,022,000$ 3,719,000$ 1,658,000$ 29,877,000$ 11,181,000$ 5,177,000$ -$ 6,286,000$ 5,657,000$ 28,301,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,166,000$ 7,381,000$ 14,547,000$ 72,725,000$

Distribution Mains -$ -$ -$ Replace Old Galvanized Mains $ - $ 351,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 351,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 351,000$ Upsize Small-Diameter Mains to 4-inch & other upgrades $ - $ 1,655,000 $ 1,653,000 $ 1,703,000 $ 2,814,000 $ 2,898,000 10,723,000$ $ 2,985,000 $ 3,075,000 $3,167,000 $ 3,262,000 $ 3,360,000 15,849,000$ $ 3,461,000 $3,564,000 $3,671,000 $ 3,781,000 $3,895,000 $4,012,000 $4,132,000 $ 4,256,000 $ 4,384,000 35,156,000$ 61,728,000$ Cudjoe Key Additional Distribution Main Header $ - $ 569,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 569,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 569,000$ Islamorada Distribution PS

Install distribution main header $ - $ - $ 999,000 $ 1,029,000 $ - $ - 2,028,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 2,028,000$

Total Distribution Mains Project C -$ 2,575,000$ 2,652,000$ 2,732,000$ 2,814,000$ 2,898,000$ 13,671,000$ 2,985,000$ 3,075,000$ 3,167,000$ 3,262,000$ 3,360,000$ 15,849,000$ 3,461,000$ 3,564,000$ 3,671,000$ 3,781,000$ 3,895,000$ 4,012,000$ 4,132,000$ 4,256,000$ 4,384,000$ 35,156,000$ 64,676,000$

Distribution Pump Station and Storage Immediate Mid-term Long-term

Ocean ReefAdditional 1.0 MG Storage $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ 1,058,000 $1,089,000 $ - $ - 2,147,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 2,147,000$

Lake SurpriseNew Pump Station and 0.75 MG Storage tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ 1,470,000 $ 1,514,000 2,984,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 2,984,000$

Rock HarborReplace and Upsize existing Pump Station $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ 642,000 $ 662,000 $ - $ - $ - 1,304,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 1,304,000$

Rock HarborInstall 0.5 MG Storage Tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ 484,000 $ 498,000 $ - $ - $ - 982,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 982,000$

Rock HarborInstall a third 0.5 MG Tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ 1,225,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1,225,000$ 1,225,000$

Tavernier

New Larger Pump Station and New Larger Storage tank (1.0 MG) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,484,000 $ 1,529,000 3,013,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 3,013,000$

Tavernier 6-inch tap and 8" fill line $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 86,000 $ 88,000 174,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 174,000$

Tavernier

Install 8-inch distribution main header along both sides of US-1 where required $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 727,000 $ 749,000 1,476,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 1,476,000$

Plantation KeyNew Pump Station and 1.0 MG Storage tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ 1,835,000 $1,890,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3,725,000$ 3,725,000$

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 2 of 3


1 2 3 4 5 Immediate 6 7 8 9 10 Mid-term 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Long-termProject Name Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Subtotal 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Subtotal 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Subtotal TotalLower Matecumbe key

New Pump Station and and 0.5 MG Storage tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $1,389,000 $1,431,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2,820,000$ 2,820,000$

Duck Key/Grassy Key

New Pump Station and 0.75 MG Storage tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $1,665,000 $ 1,715,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3,380,000$ 3,380,000$

Crawl KeyInstall New and Upgraded Pump Station $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,227,000 $ - 1,227,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 1,227,000$

Crawl KeyInstall New 6-inch tap and 8-inch (assumed) Fill Line $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 123,000 $ - 123,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 123,000$

Crawl KeyReplace and Upsize Storage Tank (to 1 MG) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,967,000 1,967,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 1,967,000$

Vaca CutInstall New 0.5 MG Storage Tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 939,000 939,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 939,000$

Vaca Cut

Demolish Existing 0.5 MG Storage Tank and Install New 0.5 MG Storage Tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,168,000 1,168,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 1,168,000$

69th Street $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ -$

33rd StreetReplace Existing Pump Station $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ 1,359,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 1,359,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 1,359,000$

33th Street

Replace Existing 0.5 MG Storage Tank with New 0.5 MG storage tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $1,397,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 1,397,000$ 1,397,000$

RamrodNew Pump Station and 0.50 MG Storage Tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ 2,630,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2,630,000$ 2,630,000$

Cudjoe KeyNew Pump station and 1.0MG Storage Tank $ - $ 1,803,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 1,803,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 1,803,000$

Summerland Key

Replace Pump Station and Storage tank, New 0.5 MG tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ 2,674,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2,674,000$ 2,674,000$

Lower Sugarloaf

New Pump Station and Storage Tank, New 0.5 MG tank $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $2,960,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 2,960,000$ 2,960,000$

Stock Island Distribution

Replace Existing Pump Station $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ 2,472,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 2,472,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 2,472,000$

-$ 1,803,000$ -$ -$ 3,647,000$ 3,305,000$ 8,755,000$ 4,957,000$ 2,218,000$ 1,089,000$ 1,470,000$ 4,649,000$ 14,383,000$ 7,139,000$ 3,279,000$ 3,096,000$ 2,940,000$ 4,357,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,811,000$ 43,949,000$

Facilities and Structure -$ Desal Sewall Repairs 3073 $ - $ 773,000 $ 3,448,000 $ - $ - $ - 4,221,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 4,221,000$ New Admin Bldg/Garage 3081 $ - $ 412,000 $ 3,607,000 $ 3,715,000 $ - $ - 7,734,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 7,734,000$ Marathon Central Warehouse 3077 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ -$ DESAL Customer Service/Records Bldg 3091 $ - $ 438,000 $ 451,000 $ - $ - $ - 889,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 889,000$ DESAL/Stock Island/Lower Keys Garage Wastewater 3083 $ - $ 206,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 206,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 206,000$ Marathon Customer Service Center 3077 $ - $ 309,000 $ 1,061,000 $ 1,803,000 $ - $ - 3,173,000$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ 3,173,000$ Total Project Costs -$ 2,138,000$ 8,567,000$ 5,518,000$ -$ -$ 16,223,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 16,223,000$ All Project Costs includes Facilitie -$ 19,843,000$ 46,767,000$ 36,565,000$ 10,180,000$ 7,861,000$ 121,216,000$ 19,123,000$ 15,699,000$ 4,256,000$ 11,018,000$ 13,666,000$ 63,762,000$ 10,600,000$ 6,843,000$ 6,767,000$ 6,721,000$ 8,252,000$ 4,012,000$ 4,132,000$ 11,422,000$ 11,765,000$ 70,514,000$ 255,492,000$

Note: Projected Costs assume annual inflation of 3.00%

Total Distribution Pump Station

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 3 of 3

Exhibit 7-2 (continued)Water Supply

J. Robert Dean WTP Phase I and Phase II RO Facility, Floridan Wells Construction Cost Floridan Water Supply Well - Phase I 4.5MGD WTP - Three 2mgd wells and one standby 5,913,044$ 5,913,044$ 1,182,609$ 1,064,348$ 8,160,000$ 2007-2009Floridan Water Supply Well - Phase II adding 1.5MGD for a total of 6MGD WTP - One additional 2mgd well 1,750,000$ 1,750,000$ 350,000$ 315,000$ 2,415,000$ 2013ASR (Cost per FKAA for FY 2007 only) 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 2007

Project Total 11,575,000$ Notes:

bConsulting, administrative, legal fees equal 20 percent of construction cost.cContingency (15 percent of subtotal costs for all items).

aThese are order-of-magnitude cost opinions (in April 2006 dollars) made without detailed engineering design. It is normally expected that estimates of this type are accurate within -30% to +50%.

ProjectConstruction

Costa

Total Construction

Costa

Consulting, Administrative, Legal Feesb

Contingencyc Total Project Cost

Suggested Timing

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 1 of 1

Exhibit 7-2 (cont.)Water Treatment Plant

J. Robert Dean WTP Phase I and Phase II RO Facility Construction Cost Option (Phase 1 based on 60% design cost estimate and Phase 2 based on 60% estimate line item cost)PHASE I - 4.5MGD RO Piping and Electrical to supply wells and concentrate injection well 1,829,721$ 1,829,721$ 1,829,721$ 2007-2009PHASE I - 4.5MGD RO membrane system 5,439,072$ 5,439,072$ 5,439,072$ 2007-2009PHASE I - 4.5MGD RO Degasifier/Scrubber system 1,248,204$ 1,248,204$ 1,248,204$ 2007-2009PHASE I - 4.5MGD RO Product transfer pump station 3,123,766$ 3,123,766$ 3,123,766$ 2007-2009PHASE I - 4.5MGD RO Chemical storage and feed system 760,706$ 760,706$ 760,706$ 2007-2009PHASE I - 4.5MGD RO Site work 795,946$ 795,946$ 795,946$ 2007-2009PHASE I - 4.5MGD RO Yard piping 1,026,337$ 1,026,337$ 1,026,337$ 2007-2009PHASE I - 4.5MGD RO Electrical and I&C 1,863,390$ 1,863,390$ 1,863,390$ 2007-2009PHASE I - 4.5MGD RO Building 2,236,257$ 2,236,257$ 2,236,257$ 2007-2009PHASE I - One Concentrate Disposal DIW1 6,900,000$ 6,900,000$ 6,900,000$ 2007-2009PHASE II - 1.5MGD ADDITION (TOTAL 6.0MGD RO) RO membrane system 1,290,000$ 1,290,000$ 1,290,000$ 2013PHASE II - 1.5MGD ADDITION (TOTAL 6.0MGD RO) Well pipinig, pump, electrical 546,400$ 546,400$ 546,400$ 2013PHASE II - 1.5MGD ADDITION (TOTAL 6.0MGD RO) Site work -$ -$ -$ 2013PHASE II - 1.5MGD ADDITION (TOTAL 6.0MGD RO) Yard piping -$ -$ -$ 2013PHASE II - 1.5MGD ADDITION (TOTAL 6.0MGD RO) Yard electrical -$ -$ -$ 2013PHASE II - 1.5MGD ADDITION (TOTAL 6.0MGD RO) Plant computer system and programm -$ -$ -$ 2013Project Total 27,059,799$ 27,059,799$ 27,059,799$

Kermit H. Lewin RO Desalination WTP Membrane Replacement and Plant Upgrades, Stock Island, Construction Cost Option (Based on 60% Design Cost Estimate)CO2 pretreatment storage and feed system 826,851$ 826,851$ 826,851$ 2007-2009Elevated walkway and platform 143,403$ 143,403$ 143,403$ 2007-200914" Auger cast piles 88,532$ 88,532$ 88,532$ 2007-2009Clearwell rehabilitation 37,898$ 37,898$ 37,898$ 2007-2009Relocate injection well piping 16,788$ 16,788$ 16,788$ 2007-2009RO train piping upgrade 1,379,755$ 1,379,755$ 1,379,755$ 2007-2009Electrical and I&C 66,839$ 66,839$ 66,839$ 2007-2009Toyobo RO membrane/pressure vessels 1,257,500$ 1,257,500$ 1,257,500$ 2007-2009Project Total 3,817,566$ 3,817,566$ 3,817,566$ Marathon RO Desalination WTP Membrane Replacement and Plant Upgrades, Marathon, Construction Cost Option (Based on Stock Island 60% line item estimate)CO2 pretreatment storage and feed system 413,400$ 413,400$ 413,400$ 2007-200914" Auger cast piles 88,000$ 88,000$ 88,000$ 2007-2009RO train piping upgrade 689,900$ 689,900$ 689,900$ 2007-2009Elevated walkway and platform 143,403$ 143,403$ 143,403$ 2007-2009Electrical and I&C 66,800$ 66,800$ 66,800$ 2007-2009Toyobo RO membrane/pressure vessels 1,257,500$ 1,257,500$ 1,257,500$ 2007-2009Project Total 2,659,003$ 2,659,003$ 2,659,003$ OCEAN REEF 1.5MGD NEW RO WTP2 8,350,000$ 8,350,000$ 8,350,000$ 2007-2009

Grand Total 41,886,368$Notes:1Standby DIW not required since FKAA has flexibility to perform the 5 year MIT during the wet season and can shut down the RO WTP during that time2Cost provided by FKAA

ProjectConstruction

Costa

Total Construction

Costa

Total Project Cost

Suggested Timing Remarks

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 1 of 1

Exhibit 7-2 (cont.)Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates for Proposed Transmission Main Improvement Projects


Costa

Total Construction

Costa



Cost Suggested Timing RemarksReplace 36-inch Transmission MainJewfish Creek FY2008 Contingency, only needed if construction

costs exceed funds in JPAC-111, Protect 36-inch $0 With elimination of C-111 Canal Bridge

FDOT owes money to FKAAOther 18-mile stretch segments, Protect 36-inch

$ 144,928 $ 144,928 $28,986 $26,087 $200,000 FY2008/2009 For protection of transmission main during highway construction

MM 93-98d 36 21,120 $ 13,662,000 $ 13,662,000 $13,662,000

Replace Other Transmission Mains12-inch Ocean Reef Transmission Main 12 22,000 $2,310,145 $2,310,145 $462,029 $415,826 $3,188,000 At FKAA discretion Worst segments done first

Replace 18-inch Main, Key Largo MM 92-93e 18 1,400

$ 1,086,957 $ 1,086,957 $217,391 $195,652 $1,500,000

Marathon 18- inch Main Replacements 18 1,000 $ 217,391 $ 217,391 $43,478 $39,130 $300,00018-inch Main Replacement, N. Roosevelt 18 15,500 $ 2,278,261 $ 2,278,261 $455,652 $410,087 $3,144,000

Phase II Cathodic Protection $ 1,613,696 $ 1,613,696 $228,334 $276,304 $2,118,334 FY2006/2007 Based on bid price and contingency allowance (includes engineering SDC)

J. Robert Dean WTPUpsize diesel driven pumps 1 and 2 218840.5 218840.5 $43,768 $39,391 $302,000 FY2010Install new 5MG storage tank 3518116 3518116 $703,623 $633,261 $4,855,000 At FKAA discretionPaint interior of 1MG steel tank (maintenance) $0 $0 $0 FY2007



Key Largo Booster PSInstall 3rd electric transmission pump (maintenance)

182500 $182,500 $36,500 $32,850 $251,850 At FKAA discretion

Plantation Key Booster PS 6100000 $6,100,000 $1,220,000 $1,098,000 $8,418,000 FY2010 and 2011 On line by 2011

FY2007 and 2008If 36" at MM 93-97 replacement is delayed, property acquisition and design should begin immediately

Marathon Booster PSEngine & Pumps 1075 657246.5 657246.5 $131,449 $118,304 $907,000 FY2006 and 2007 Ready to go out to bidRepairs to 3MG tank exterior (maintenance)

0 0 $0 $0 $0 FY2007

Add a second 3MG storage tank 2073188.5 2073188.5 $414,638 $373,174 $2,861,000 At FKAA discretionInstall 3rd electric pump (maintenance) 182500 182500 $36,500 $32,850 $251,850 At FKAA discretion





Pipeline

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 1 of 2

Exhibit 7-2 (cont.)Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates for Proposed Transmission Main Improvement Projects


Costa

Total Construction

Costa



Cost Suggested Timing Remarks

Pipeline

Ramrod Booster PS

75362 75362

$15,072 $13,565 $104,000 At FKAA discretion


Transmission SCADA Upgrade 0 0 $0 $0 At FKAA discretion Being implemented

Project Total $58,899,034Notes:aThese are order-of-magnitude cost opinions (in April 2006 dollars) made without detailed engineering design. It is normally expected that estimates of this type are accurate within -30% to +50%.bConsulting, administrative, legal fees equal 20 percent of construction cost.cContingency (15 percent of subtotal costs for all items).dConstruction Cost from Exhibit D-2, with 20 percent contingency removed from that estimate.eUnit Price Construction Cost from Exhibit D-1, with 20 percent contingency removed from that estimate.

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 2 of 2

Exhibit 7-2 (cont.)Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates for Proposed Distribution Pipeline Improvements

Size (inches) Length (foot)4 400 $23,102 6 3,200 $224,000

Subtotal $341,000

Upsize Small-Diameter Mains to 4-inch 4 369,900 $32,408,696 $32,408,696 $6,481,739 $5,833,565 $44,724,000

At FKAA discretion

At $2.5 million per year, will take 11 years to replace all pipe

Subtotal $44,724,000

Cudjoe Key Additional Distribution Main Header 8 6000 $400,000 $400,000 $80,000 $72,000 $552,000 At FKAA

discretionPart of $2.5 million annual allocation for distribution upgrades

Subtotal $552,000

Tavernier Pump StationNew Dedicated 6-inch tap and 8-inch Fill Line

6-inch Tap -- -- FY 2007/2008

8-Inch Fill Line 8 900

Install 8-inch distribution main header along both sides of US 1, where required

8 12,000 $0 $0 $0 At FKAA discretion Part of Tavernier Pump Station

Improvements

Subtotal $0

Islamorada Distribution PS

Install distribution main header 8 17,500 1,364,493$ 1,364,493$ $272,899 $245,609 $1,883,000 At FKAA discretion


Subtotal $1,883,000

Crawl KeyInstall New 6-inch tap and 8-inch (assumed) Fill Line

6-inch Tap8-inch Fill Line 8 500

Subtotal $0 $47,500,001

Notes:1Pipeline costs are estimated in Appendix E as follows: 4-inch=$58/LF, 6-inch=$70/LF, 8-inch=$78/LF, 10-inch=$95/LF, 12-inch=$105/LF2These are order-of-magnitude cost opinions (in April 2006 dollars) made without detailed engineering design. It is normally expected that estimates of this type are accurate within -30% to +50%3Consulting, administrative, legal fees equal 20 percent of construction cost.4Contingency (15 percent of subtotal costs for all items).

Installed when pump station installed

Project Total


$0 $0 $0 Part of Tavernier pump station improvements

$0 $0

Project Construction Cost

Total Construction

Cost2


Legal Fees3

Replace Old Galvanized Mains $247,102 $49,420 $44,478

RemarksPipeline1

Contingency4 Suggested Timing

Total Project Cost

$341,000 FY 2006/2007

At FKAA discretion$0

GNV3101569546.xls 1 of 1

Exhibit 7-2 (cont.)Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates of Proposed Distribution Pump Station System Improvements and for Proposed New Distribution Pump Station Systems




Total Construction

Cost1


Legal Fees2Contingency3 Total Project

Cost Suggested Timing and Remarks

Ocean ReefAdditional 1.0 MG Storage -- $1,246,377 $1,246,377 $249,275 $224,348 $1,720,000 If space is available with RO WTPPermanent Standby Power (included in RO WTP) included in RO WTP

Subtotal $1,720,000

Lake SurpriseNew Pump Station and 0.75 MG Storage Tank $1,632,609 $0 $1,632,609 $326,522 $293,870 $2,253,000 Implemented at FKAA's discretion

Subtotal $2,253,000

Rock Harbor

Replace and Upsize Existing Pump Station $779,710 -- $779,710 $155,942 $140,348 $1,076,000

Assumes maintenance functions will be relocated and site will be dedicated to distribution pump station system

Install 0.5 MG Storage Tank $ 586,957 $586,957 $117,391 $105,652 $810,000 Within next 5 years

Repaint Tank Exterior (maintenance) -- $0 $0 $0 $0 As corrosion of exterior dictates, probably within 5–10 years

Install a Third 0.5 MG Tank $ 586,957 $586,957 $117,391 $105,652 $810,000 Monitor need for a third 0.5 MG tank; likely will be at end of planning period

Subtotal $2,696,000

Tavernier

New Larger Pump Station and New Larger Storage Tank (1.0 MG) 1910869.5 $1,910,870 $382,174 $343,957 $2,637,000

6-inch tap and 8" fill line 110144.6 $110,145 $22,029 $19,826 $152,000

Install 8-inch distribution main header along both sides of US-1 where required $936,232 $936,232 $187,246 $168,522 $1,292,000

Requires demolition of existing pump station and storage tank before construction begins. As soon as possible; definitely within the next 5 years.

Subtotal $4,081,000Plantation KeyNew Pump Station and 1.0 MG Storage Tank $1,921,015 $1,921,015 $384,203 $345,783 $2,651,000 Implemented at FKAA's discretion

Subtotal $2,651,000

Lower Matecumbe KeyNew Pump Station and 0.5 MG Storage Tank $1,412,319 $1,412,319 $282,464 $254,217 $1,949,000 Implemented at FKAA's discretion

Subtotal $1,949,000

Duck Key/Grassy KeyNew Pump Station and 0.75 MG Storage Tank $1,642,754 $1,642,754 $328,551 $295,696 $2,267,000 Implemented at FKAA's discretion

Subtotal $2,267,000

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 1 of 3





Total Construction

Cost1




Crawl Key

Install New and Upgraded Pump Station 789855 $789,855 $157,971 $142,174 $1,090,000Assumes adjacent property could not be purchased. As soon as possible, within next 5 years.

Repaint Existing Exterior Storage Tank (Maintenance) -- $78,986 $78,986 $15,797 $14,217 $109,000 Probably within the next 5–7 years

Replace and Upsize Storage Tank (to 1 MG) -- $1,060,870 $1,060,870 $212,174 $190,957 $1,464,000

Assumes tank replacement will occur when existing tank needs replaced. (Estimate between 10–15 years.)

Subtotal $2,663,000

Vaca CutInstall New 0.5 MG Storage Tank -- $586,957 $586,957 $117,391 $105,652 $810,000 Begin immediately

Demolish Existing 0.5 MG Storage Tank and Install New 0.5 MG Storage Tank -- $629,710 $629,710 $125,942 $113,348 $869,000

Assumes existing tank will be used until about end of useful life, probably within the next 7– 10 years

Subtotal $1,679,000

69th Street $824,638 $824,638 $164,928 $148,435 $1,138,000No capital costs; assumes facility will be abandoned when existing tank needs painting

33rd Street $650,000 $650,000 $130,000 $117,000 $897,000

Replace Existing Pump Station -- $0 $0 $0

Replace when pump station cannot meet demands (assumed to be within the next 4–7 years). Proposed new 3 MG storage tank proposed under transmission will accommodate additional distribution storage requirements.

Paint Existing 0.5 MG Storage Tank Exterior (maintenance) -- $0 $0 $0 $0 When corrosion dictates, probably within 7-

12 years

Replace Existing 0.5 MG Storage Tank with New 0.5 MG Storage Tank -- $0 $0 $0 $0

When tank has reached its useful life (estimated to be within next 15–20 years). Requires demolition of existing storage tank.

Subtotal $3,714,000

RamrodNew Pump Station and 0.5 MG Storage Tank $ 1,376,812 $1,376,812 $275,362 $247,826 $1,900,000 Longer term improvement. Implemented at


GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 2 of 3





Total Construction

Cost1




Summerland Key

Replace Pump Station and Storage Tank, New 0.5 MG Tank $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $280,000 $252,000 $1,932,000

Assumes FKAA adjacent property has wetlands; must build on existing site. Demolition of pump station and storage tank required. Implemented at FKAA's discretion

Subtotal $1,932,000

Cudjoe Key (4)New Pump Station and 1.0 MG Storage Tank (under design) $1,268,116 $1,268,116 $253,623 $228,261 $1,750,000 Longer term improvement. Implemented at


Lower SugarloafNew Pump Station and 0.5 MG Storage Tank $1,376,812 $1,376,812 $275,362 $247,826 $1,900,000 Longer term improvement. Implemented at


Stock Island DistributionReplace Existing Pump Station

$1,500,000 $1,500,000 $300,000 $270,000 $2,070,000Replace when deteriorating conditions of existing structure dictate, and Records Storage Building is abandoned

Subtotal $2,070,000$33,546,000

Notes:1Land acquisition costs are not included in these are order-of-magnitude cost opinions (in April 2006 dollars), which were made without detailed engineering design. It is normally expected that estimates of this type2Consulting, administrative, legal fees equal 20 percent of construction cost.3Contingency (15 percent of subtotal costs for all items). 4. From Bond Report.

Project Total

GNV3101569546.xls/062490010 3 of 3


WPB310127161224.DOC/061640010 7-18 WB122005005DFB

Project cost estimates reflect April 2006 costs (Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 7,695).

Actual costs for any given project would depend on multiple factors, including, but not limited to, actual material and market costs, competitive market conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, and other variable factors. As FKAA is aware from recent construction projects, prices are also highly subject to variation as a result of shortages resulting from recent natural disasters. As a result, the final project costs will vary from the estimates presented herein.

Because of such factors as limited labor force, high cost of housing, and high cost of goods and services, Keys construction costs are greater than costs for comparable work on the mainland of South Florida. Generally, a 20 percent “Keys Factor” is added to Keys construction cost estimates to account for the Keys market conditions.

Wherever possible, actual construction prices recently received by FKAA for different types of work (that is, distribution system pipelines, distribution pump stations, storage tank painting) have been used to develop cost estimates for this Master Plan, adjusted to April 2006 costs, where noted. These costs already account for Keys market conditions and generally provide the most accurate cost estimates at this planning stage when only a conceptual design is available.

Where actual construction prices for similar types of recent work are not available, standard estimating procedures are used to estimate construction costs.

Other costs, such as consulting and engineering inspection, administration, legal, and financing, are part of any project and must be included with construction costs, so that all capital improvement costs are accounted for. For this Master Plan, these other project costs are estimated as follows:

• An amount of 20 percent of the construction cost was used for consulting and engineering inspection, administration, legal, and financing.

• A contingency of 15 percent of the subtotal of construction cost and the 20 percent cost above was also included as part of the other project costs.

Total project costs are the total of the construction cost and the other project costs. All capital improvement costs addressed in this Master Plan are total project costs, unless otherwise indicated.

Estimated project costs for all proposed water system capital improvements are sum-marized in Exhibit 7-2. The basis for estimating detailed construction costs and total project costs for specific projects is provided in the respective sections of this Master Plan.

SEC_8_GNV31013363781.DOC/063100016 8-1 WD122005005DFB

SECTION 8

Strategic Financial Plan

Funding for the Capital Improvement Program outlined in Section 7 will be accommodated by various sources of revenue available from the Water System together with potential grants from either the SFWMD, the State of Florida, and/or federal grant programs. It is expected that the majority of the funding will arise from leveraging the water rev-enues from the rate payers as a source of repayment on long term bond issues utilizing sound financial practices and financing tools to protect the financial integrity of the system as well as reduce interest costs thereby having the least impact upon ratepayers.

8.1 Capital Improvement Funding Strategy The projects outlined in Section 7 will be detailed in a rolling 5-year capital funding program, which will be presented to the FKAA Governing Board annually as part of the budget process. FKAA will maintain the integrity of the existing System’s credit ratings in the bond market by maintaining or improving the ratings that currently exist on the outstanding bonds as shown in Section 8.2 below. Implicit in maintaining the System’s bond ratings is strict adherence to the bond covenants under FKAA’s Master Bond Resolution. The overall capital improvement funding strategy will strive to minimize and spread out on an intergenerational basis the impact of rate adjustments required to amortize the proposed bond issues with a fair allocation of costs to current and future beneficiaries or users.

8.2 Existing Debt and Bond Covenants As of September 30, 2006, FKAA has outstanding two Series of Water Revenue Bonds in the aggregate principal amounts, interest rates, and bond ratings as shown in Exhibit 8-1.

SECTION 8 – STRATEGIC FINANCIAL PLAN

SEC_8_GNV31013363781.DOC/063100016 8-2 WD122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 8-1 Existing Water Revenue Bonds

Description Interest Rates

and Dates Final

Maturity

Amount Outstanding as of 9/30/06

Bond Ratings2 (Moody’s, S&P, Fitch)

Series 2003 Water Revenue Bonds

2.10% to 5.00%

3/1; 9/1

9/1/2021 $29,110,000 A3; A-; A+

Series 2006 Water Revenue Bonds

Variable rate1

Paid monthly

9/1/2035 $49,700,000 A3; A-; A+

Notes: 1FKAA entered into an Interest Rate Exchange Agreement whereby FKAA pays a fixed rate of 3.832% and receives a variable rate based upon an index of 64.46% of the 3-month London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus .20%. 2Without regard to bond insurance on both the Series 2003 Bonds and Series 2006 Bonds and without regard to a Standby Purchase Agreement on the Series 2006 Bonds, Moody’s, S&P and Fitch ratings, respectively.

FKAA has a Master Bond Resolution authorizing the issuance of future bonds. Both the Master Resolution and Supplemental Series Resolutions have covenant with the bondholders which, in addition to other matters, dictates the funds and accounts to be established together with the flow of funds, establishment of rates and coverage tests for the issuance of additional debt. All outstanding bonds are secured by net revenues of the water system after payment of operation and maintenance expenses. FKAA has covenanted to maintain rates such that net revenues together with impact fees will be adequate to pay 120 percent of annual debt service requirements. FKAA has the ability to pledge assessments as additional security for the payment of bonds but has currently not instituted an assessment program.

8.3 Five-Year Capital Improvement Funding This section represents an update of the 5-year capital funding analysis completed as part of the financial feasibility supporting the Series 2006 Bonds. The 5-year funding analysis reflects specific funding for each project identified during this period, plus additional funding to complete projects underway prior to Fiscal Year 2007. The major funding sources for project funding during the next 5 years includes the use of available water reserves, the use of remaining construction fund monies from the issuance of the Series 2006 Bonds, and funds from the issuance of additional revenue bonds in 2007 and 2009.

Exhibit 8-2 shows the planned funding sources for each water project planned through Fiscal Year 2011. The 5-year estimated total cost to complete the projects identified from Fiscal Years 2007–2011 is $116.4 million, as shown on Exhibit 8-2.


SEC_8_GNV31013363781.DOC/063100016 8-3 WD122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 8-2 Five-Year Capital Improvement Funding Plan

Projected Fiscal Year Ending September 30 Total Line No. Description

Funding Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 – 2011

CAPITAL COSTS – WATER SYSTEM Water Supply 1 Phase I RO Supply Wells (3 Floridan & ASR Conversion) Series 2007 $1,700,000 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,300,000 2 Phase I RO Supply Wells (3 Floridan & ASR Conversion) IF 0 0 2,860,000 0 0 2,860,000 3 ASR Well Series 2006 2,700,000 0 0 0 0 2,700,000 4 ASR Well Grant 500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 5 Total Water Supply $4,900,000 $3,600,000 $2,860,000 $0 $0 $11,360,000 Water Treatment Plant 6 Phase I – RO WTP 4.5 MGD Capacity and DIW Series 2007 $400,000 $8,962,000 $8,962,000 $0 $0 $18,324,000 7 Phase I – RO WTP DIW Series 2007 0 3,450,000 3,450,000 0 0 6,900,000 8 Stock Island RO Improvements Series 2006 1,900,000 1,900,000 0 0 0 3,800,000 9 Marathon RO Improvements Series 2007 0 1,390,000 1,390,000 0 0 2,780,000

10 Ocean Reef Low Pressure RO Facility Series 2007 350,000 4,200,000 3,800,000 0 0 8,350,000

11 Total Water Treatment Plant $2,650,000 $19,902,000 $17,602,000 $0 $0 $40,154,000 Water Transmission System

12 Replace 18-Inch Segments OR $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 13 Replace 36” MM 93-98 Series 2006 4,554,000 9,108,000 0 0 0 13,662,000 14 Replace 12” Ocean Reef 22,000 LF Section Series 2009 0 0 3,188,000 0 0 3,188,000 15 Replace 18” MM92-93 Series 2009 0 750,000 750,000 0 0 1,500,000 16 Replace 18” N. Roosevelt Blvd (JPA w/FDOT) Series 2007 0 0 1,572,000 1,572,000 0 3,144,000 17 Cathodic Protection Series 2006 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 3,000,000 18 JR Dean Upsize Diesel Pumps 1 & 2 IF 0 0 0 302,000 0 302,000 19 Marathon Pump Station Pump Upgrade Series 2007 907,000 0 0 0 0 907,000 20 Marathon Pump Station 3 MG Storage Tank Series 2009 0 0 0 1,430,500 1,430,500 2,861,000

21 Total Water Transmission System $8,461,000 $10,058,000 $5,510,000 $3,304,500 $1,430,500 $28,764,000

Distribution Mains


SEC_8_GNV31013363781.DOC/063100016 8-4 WD122005005DFB



Funding Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 – 2011

22 Replace Galvanized Mains OR 341,000 0 0 0 0 341,000 23 Upsize Small Diameter Mains to 4-Inch Series 2007 2,159,000 1,504,500 0 0 0 3,663,500 24 Upsize Small Diameter Mains to 4-Inch Series 2009 0 0 1,600,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 6,600,000 25 Islamorada PS Distribution Main Header OR 0 941,500 941,500 0 0 1,883,000

26 Total Distribution Mains $2,500,000 $2,446,000 $2,541,500 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $12,487,500 Distribution Pump Station & Storage

27 Tavernier – Pump Station and 1 MG Storage Tank Series 2009 0 0 0 1,318,500 1,318,500 2,637,000 28 Tavernier – 6-inch Tap & 8-inch Fill line Series 2009 0 0 0 76,000 76,000 152,000 29 Tavernier – 8-inch Distribution Main Header Series 2009 0 0 0 646,000 646,000 1,292,000 30 Crawl Key – New Pump Station IF 0 0 0 1,090,000 0 1,090,000 31 Crawl Key – 6-inch Tap & 8-inch Fill line Series 2009 0 0 0 109,000 0 109,000 32 Vaca Cut – New 0.5 MG Storage Tank IF 0 0 0 0 810,000 810,000 33 Cudjoe Key – New Pump Station and 1 MG Storage Tank OR 1,750,000 0 0 0 0 1,750,000 34 Key West Pump Station (Carryover) OR 600,000 0 0 0 0 600,000

35 Total Distribution Pump Station & Storage $2,350,000 $0 $0 $3,239,500 $2,850,500 $8,440,000 Facilities and Structures

36 Desal Seawall Repairs Series 2007 750,000 3,250,000 0 0 0 4,000,000 37 Administration Building Rehabilitation Series 2009 400,000 3,400,000 3,400,000 0 0 7,200,000 38 Customer Service / Records Building OR 425,000 425,000 0 0 0 850,000 39 Stock Island Wastewater Connection OR 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 40 Marathon Customer Service Center OR 300,000 1,000,000 1,650,000 0 0 2,950,000

41 Total Facilities and Structures $2,075,000 $8,075,000 $5,050,000 $0 $0 $15,200,000

42 $22,936,000 $44,081,000 $33,563,500 $9,044,000 $6,781,000 $116,405,500

43 Operating Reserves OR $3,616,000 $2,566,500 $2,591,500 $0 $0 $8,774,000


SEC_8_GNV31013363781.DOC/063100016 8-5 WD122005005DFB



Funding Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 – 2011

44 Rate Revenue – Operating Rev1 0 0 0 0 0 - 45 Rate Revenue – IT Rev2 0 0 0 0 0 - 46 Reimbursement from Wastewater System Reimb 0 0 0 0 0 - 47 Renewals & Replacements (R&R) Account R&R 0 0 0 0 0 - 48 Grants Grant 500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 49 Series 2006 Bonds (Construction Fund) Series 2006 12,154,000 11,008,000 0 0 0 23,162,000 50 Series 2007 Bonds Series 2007 6,266,000 26,356,500 19,174,000 1,572,000 0 53,368,500 51 Series 2009 Bonds Series 2009 400,000 4,150,000 8,938,000 6,080,000 5,971,000 25,539,000 52 Future Revenue Bonds Bond4 0 0 0 0 0 - 53 System Development Fees (Impact Fees) IF 0 0 2,860,000 1,392,000 810,000 5,062,000

54 TOTAL WATER SYSTEM FUNDING SOURCES1 $22,936,000 $44,081,000 $33,563,500 $9,044,000 $6,781,000 $116,405,500


The total five-year funding sources are summarized on Exhibit 8-3.


SEC_8_GNV31013363781.DOC/063100016 8-6 WD122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 8-3 Five-Year Capital Funding Sources

Funding Source Five-Year Amount % of Total

Operating Reserves $8,774,000 7.5%

System Development Charges $5,062,000 4.3%

Series 2006 Bonds – Remaining Funds $23,162,000 19.9%

Series 2007 Bonds $53,368,500 45.8%

Series 2009 Bonds $25,539,000 21.9%

Grants $500,000 0.4%

Total1 $116,405,500 100.0%


As shown above, the capital funding plan through Fiscal Year 2011 is dependent on the issuance of additional revenue bond financing similar to the Series 2006 Bonds issued in April 2006 as summarized in Exhibit 8-4.

EXHIBIT 8-4 Issuance of Additional Revenue Bonds

Series 2007 Bonds

Principal Amount $54,250,000

Project Funds Available $53,368,500

Issuance Date October 2007

Series 2009 Bonds

Principal Amount $26,125,000

Project Funds Available $25,539,000

Issuance Date April 2009

The projected annual debt service associated with the issuance of additional revenue bonds has been obtained from FKAA’s Senior Managing Underwriter as of October 2006. Exhibit 8-5 illustrates the annual debt service for existing and future debt anticipated for FKAA’s water system.

The issuance of additional debt is contingent on the ability of FKAA water revenues to meet the debt service payments and other bond covenants of existing and future debt instru-ments. Previous analyses have indicated the need to increase water rates over a several year period. This process began with an initial water rate adjustment implemented by FKAA effective October 2006. Exhibit 8-6 illustrates future projected water rate adjustments beyond October 2006.


SEC_8_GNV31013363781.DOC/063100016 8-7 WD122005005DFB

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039

(Deb

t Ser

vice

$00

0)

Series 2003 Series 2006 Series 2007 Series 2009

EXHIBIT 8-5 Estimated Future Aggregate Debt Service

Alternative 1 Series 2007 Bond Proceeds: $53,368,500 Series 2009 Bond Proceeds: $25,539,000 $78,907,500

Total Principal: $159,185,000 Total Debt Service: $304,616,066 Max Annual Debt Service: $9,461,074


SEC_8_GNV31013363781.DOC/063100016 8-8 WD122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 8-6 Projected Water Rate Adjustments

Fiscal Year Annual Rate

Indexing1 Additional Rate

Increase2 Cumulative Rate

Adjustment

2007 2.0% 0.0% 2.0%

2008 2.0% 5.0% 9.2%

2009 2.0% 5.0% 17.0%

2010 2.0% 5.0% 25.3%

2011 2.0% 0.0% 27.8%

Notes: 1Amounts reflects projected annual rate indexing as set forth in the FKAA Rules. Annual rate index is implemented in May of each year. 2Additional rate adjustments are calculated based on rates effective October 2006. Additional rate adjustments shown are assumed to become effective in October at the beginning of the fiscal year (e.g., the Fiscal Year 2008 rate adjustment of 5.0% is assumed to become effective October 2007).

As shown above, additional rate adjustments of 5 percent annually are projected for Fiscal Year 2008 through Fiscal Year 2010 (that is, October 2007 through October 2009) in addition to annual rate adjustments set forth in the FKAA Rules. These rate adjustments are con-sistent with previous projections completed prior to issuance of the Series 2006 Bonds. The financial forecast supporting the rate projections will be reviewed prior to the issuance of additional bonds and/or the initiation of the rulemaking process in each year to determine the actual water rate levels necessary.

Based on similar financial assumptions used in the financial feasibility of the Series 2006 Bonds, the projected rates are expected to adequately fund the cash needs of the FKAA Water System and exceed the minimum debt service coverage ratios required to satisfy the revenue bond obligations. The projected debt service coverage under the proposed rates is summarized on Exhibit 8-7.

Other factors that could adversely (or positively) affect the results and financing strategy during the next 5 years include the following:

• Changes in interest rates prior to issuance of additional bonds. • Construction and other cost changes above or below projected levels. • Operating cost increases due to inflation and other factors. • Amount of grant funds or other outside revenue sources available. • Regulatory or other changes to operating conditions. • Changes to customer growth patterns and water demand projections.

In addition to the factors above, FKAA staff will continue to pursue debt reduction strategies, financing alternatives, or other initiatives in order to mitigate future rate adjustments. Such factors have not been quantified as part of the financial forecast used to project future water rates and debt financing.


SEC_8_GNV31013363781.DOC/063100016 8-9 WD122005005DFB

EXHIBIT 8-7 Projected Debt Service Coverage1

Fiscal Year

Debt Service Coverage (without System

Development Charge Revenue)1

Debt Service Coverage (including System Development

Charge Revenue)1

2007 1.56 1.78

2008 1.42 1.57

2009 1.45 1.59

2010 1.54 1.67

2011 1.52 1.64

Minimum Coverage Required 1.10 1.20

Notes: 1Debt service coverage equals Water System net revenues divided by the total Water System annual debt service. Amounts are based on the water rate adjustments projected herein.

8.4 Twenty-Year Capital Improvement Funding More than 40 percent of the capital 20-year capital improvements are scheduled within the next 5 years (that is, by Fiscal Year 2011). The preceding Section 8.3 and exhibits provide the financing plan and projected water rate adjustments needed to fund capital improvements through Fiscal Year 2011. Because financial forecasting is less reliable beyond a 5-year period, a detailed funding analysis has not been completed past Fiscal Year 2011. As future projects move within the 5-year planning horizon, specific capital strategies will be developed. Such capital funding will likely include additional borrowing as well as cash funding from rates. The underlying objective will be to continue to fund necessary capital improvements, minimize future water rate adjustments, and maintain the creditworthiness of the FKAA Water System.

WPB310127161259.DOC/062060013 9-1 WD122005005DFB

SECTION 9

Works Cited

Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM). 2003. Technical Memorandum Draft, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Regional Potable Water Supply Master Plan. February 23, 2003.

CH2M HILL. 2002. Water Use Permit Application Supporting Material.

CH2M HILL. April 2006. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Transmission Main Surge Analysis Memorandum. April 18, 2006.

CH2M HILL. January 2006. Preliminary Design Report, Reverse Osmosis Expansion, J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant. January 19, 2006.

CH2M HILL. September 2006. 60 percent Design Documents, J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis Expansion.

Crom Corp. 2006. Tank Inspection Report, Marathon 3.0 MG Ground Storage Tank. February 28, 2006.

Haestad Methods. 2003. Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management. Haestad Press, Waterbury, CT.

PBS&J. 2005. Strategic Water Supply Plan. February 2005.

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 2005. Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. SFWMD: West Palm Beach, FL.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study. USACE, Jacksonville, FL.

APPENDIX A

Justification for Projected Per Capita Water Demand in the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Service Area

GNV310038511562.DOC/050980001 1

T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M

Justification for Projected Per Capita Water Demand in the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Service Area PREPARED FOR: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL

COPIES: South Florida Water Management District

DATE: April 28, 2005

1.0 Introduction The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is in the process of revising its population and water demand projections to meet the requirements of its Water Use Permit (WUP) and the South Florida Water Management District’s (SFWMD’s) update of the Lower East Coast (LEC) Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP).

As part of this effort, CH2M HILL prepared a technical memorandum (TM) on projected population and water demand in the FKAA service area. The TM concluded that the per capita consumption of water in the FKAA service area would increase in the future, primarily because changing demographics and other factors unique to the Keys.

The SFWMD requested additional data justifying this increasing per capita demand and the population projections. CH2M HILL researched the following types of data to justify the per capita demand projections:

• Traffic counts and projections for U.S. Highway 1 • Swimming pool construction permits • Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) • Real estate and interest rate trends • Residential and commercial building square footage • Types of water use • Water use for new residents versus old residents of the same property • Water sold/pumped/losses reported by FKAA

2.0 Summary of Data 2.1 Traffic Counts and Projections for U.S. Highway 1 Traffic counts and projections for U.S. Highway 1 could be used to estimate the day-trip component of seasonal visitors that is not included in the Monroe County Planning Department’s (MCPD’s) seasonal or functional population projections. Although a quant-itative determination may be difficult (because of resident and commercial traffic), trends in vehicular traffic may be useful in qualitatively demonstrating increasing day-trip visitors.

JUSTIFICATION FOR PROJECTED PER CAPITA WATER DEMAND IN THE FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY SERVICE AREA

GNV310038511562.DOC/050980001 2

CH2M HILL obtained annual traffic counts for the Cow Key Bridge, Vaca Key Bridge, Pine Channel, and Key Largo from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) The traffic counts were analyzed to determine whether there was any significant increase in traffic in one part of the Keys versus another. An increase in traffic could indicate a possible increase in day-trip population and consumption. Although all four areas had slight increases in traffic, none of the increases were significantly larger in any one area than another. Exhibit 1 presents the historical and projected annual number of vehicles as well as the annual in-crease in traffic for each of the four areas. The data support the assumption that the number of day-trip visitors has increased and will continue into the future, which will add to water demand and increase the per capita demand for the FKAA service area.

2.2 Swimming Pool Construction Permits Homes constructed or redeveloped by higher income residents typically have swimming pools, which further increases the water demand for that residence. CH2M HILL obtained the annual number of swimming pool construction permits issued by Monroe County from 1995 through 2004.

The rate of swimming pool permit issuance increased, on average, by 12.9 percent annually from 1995 through 2004, which included both the drought year and recovery of 2001 as well as 2004, which had multiple hurricanes. In the past 3 years (2002 through 2004), pool permit issuance increased by an average of 26.8 percent annually. Exhibit 2 presents the annual increase and number of pool permits issued in Monroe County from 1995 through 2004.

2.3 Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance Plans through Build-out Although the population and per capita water demands of the FKAA service area are expected to increase over the short-term, Monroe County’s ROGO restrictions will eventually result in build-out at some time in the future. At this time, once the Keys are built out and the pace of redevelopment slows, it is expected that the per capita water demand will stabilize.

CH2M HILL reviewed the ROGO regulations and found little data regarding changing demographics other than new homeowners. ROGO is focused on limiting the amount of new development occurring throughout the Keys and, therefore, does not offer much value in determining changes in demographics and ultimately increased per capita demand.

2.4 Real Estate and Interest Rate Trends and Forecasts CH2M HILL contacted several realtor associations and banking/lending organizations to request historical real estate and interest rate trends. The available real estate and interest rate trends were developed by realtor associations or banks and were found to be short-term, and overly optimistic.

2.5 Residential and Commercial Square Footage Annually for Last 10 Years The redevelopment mentioned above is also likely to result in the construction of larger homes, which typically require more water. CH2M HILL intended to compare the average residential home and commercial building area during the last 10 years to per capita water demand. The Monroe County Property Appraiser’s office does not record this data and therefore did not provide CH2M HILL with these data.

GNV310038511562.DOC/050980001 3

EXHIBIT 1 FDOT Annual Traffic Counts

US 1 - E Cow Key Bridge US 1 - N Key Vaca Bridge US 1 - N Pine Channel US 1 - Key Largo

Total Traffic Count

Annual Change

Total Traffic Count

Annual Change

Total Traffic Count

Annual Change

Total Traffic Count

Annual Change

1986 29,594 NA 1986 17,706 1986 NA NA 1986 15,273 1987 31,075 5.0% 1987 17,345 -2.0% 1987 NA NA 1987 18,714 22.5% 1988 33,442 7.6% 1988 18,996 9.5% 1988 NA NA 1988 18,710 0.0% 1989 34,032 1.8% 1989 20,646 8.7% 1989 NA NA 1989 19,409 3.7% 1990 34,846 2.4% 1990 21,177 2.6% 1990 NA NA 1990 19,986 3.0% 1991 34,243 -1.7% 1991 21,419 1.1% 1991 NA NA 1991 20,632 3.2% 1992 34,391 0.4% 1992 21,946 2.5% 1992 NA NA 1992 23,643 14.6% 1993 30,986 -9.9% 1993 22,473 2.4% 1993 14,125 NA 1993 21,110 -10.7% 1994 30,963 -0.1% 1994 23,000 2.3% 1994 15,396 9.0% 1994 20,591 -2.5% 1995 31,696 2.4% 1995 27,000 17.4% 1995 16,182 5.1% 1995 21,332 3.6% 1996 29,256 -7.7% 1996 23,000 -14.8% 1996 16,543 2.2% 1996 22,140 3.8% 1997 29,201 -0.2% 1997 22,500 -2.2% 1997 16,785 1.5% 1997 22,626 2.2% 1998 28,452 -2.6% 1998 25,500 13.3% 1998 17,144 2.1% 1998 23,415 3.5% 1999 29,838 4.9% 1999 29,000 13.7% 1999 17,198 0.3% 1999 24,279 3.7% 2000 35,472 18.9% 2000 24,000 -17.2% 2000 17,482 1.7% 2000 24,222 -0.2% 2001 37,401 5.4% 2001 22,000 -8.3% 2001 17,544 0.4% 2001 24,390 0.7% 2002 37,478 0.2% 2002 24,500 11.4% 2002 17,388 -0.9% 2002 24,488 0.4% 2003 37,403 -0.2% 2003 24,500 0.0% 2003 17,591 1.2% 2003 24,685 0.8% 2004 37,800 1.1% 2004 24,900 1.6% 2004 17,900 1.8% 2004 25,000 1.3% 2005 38,200 1.1% 2005 25,300 1.6% 2005 18,200 1.7% 2005 25,200 0.8% 2006 38,700 1.3% 2006 25,700 1.6% 2006 18,400 1.1% 2006 25,500 1.2% 2007 39,100 1.0% 2007 26,100 1.6% 2007 18,700 1.6% 2007 25,800 1.2% 2008 39,500 1.0% 2008 26,400 1.1% 2008 19,000 1.6% 2008 26,000 0.8% 2009 39,900 1.0% 2009 26,800 1.5% 2009 19,300 1.6% 2009 26,300 1.2% 2010 40,400 1.3% 2010 27,200 1.5% 2010 19,600 1.6% 2010 26,600 1.1% 2011 40,800 1.0% 2011 27,600 1.5% 2011 19,900 1.5% 2011 26,900 1.1% 2012 41,200 1.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA 2012 27,100 0.7% 2013 41,600 1.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA 2013 27,400 1.1%

1995–2004 2.2% 1995–2004 1.5% 1995–2004 1.5% 1995–2004 2.0% 1995 through Forecast 1.7% 1995 through Forecast 1.5% 1995 through Forecast 1.5% 1995 through Forecast 1.5%


GNV310038511562.DOC/050980001 4

EXHIBIT 2 Annual Swimming Pool Construction Permits Issued by Monroe County

Year Number of New Swimming Pool

Construction Permits Issued Annual Increase

1995 65 --

1996 82 26.2%

1997 88 7.3%

1998 98 11.4%

1999 88 -10.2%

2000 96 9.1%

2001 88 -8.3%

2002 111 26.1%

2003 195 75.7%

2004 153 -21.5%

Annual Average 106 12.9%

2.6 New Homeowner Versus Previous Homeowner Water Use In a trend that has become common across Florida, higher income residents are displacing lower income residents and substantially improving their “new” homes. Many of these improvements involve upgrading the landscaping with lush foliage that typically requires substantially more irrigation than the previous landscaping. As a result of this change, many of these residences show large increases in water use without a corresponding increase in population. Additionally, higher income residents are typically less sensitive to increases in their water bill and are less likely to decrease their water use in response to the increased cost. Both of these factors can result in an increased per capita water use by new residents.

CH2M HILL analyzed residential home sales prices from 2002 through 2003 to determine if the increase in home sales prices could be correlated with increasing per capita water de-mand. Individual account data were only available from 2000 through 2004, and to compare a full year of usage for each customer, home sales occurring between 2002 and 2003 were used, which allowed for at least 1 full year of usage data before and after the sale. The FKAA service area is made up of several municipalities that are going through redevelop-ment and changes in demographics at different paces. To substantiate the correlation between increased home values and water use, CH2M HILL compared the home sale data for each municipality separately and for Monroe County as a whole.

CH2M HILL analyzed the property data supplied by the Monroe County Property Appraiser, detailing every home sale from 2002 through 2003. The data listed the year, month, and sale price for the last three sales for each property. Of the homes sold in 2002 and 2003, CH2M HILL randomly selected homes that the previous owner bought for $150,000 or less to display the change in demographics. CH2M HILL identified 163 homes in 2002 and 268 homes in 2003 that sold in Monroe County fitting our criteria. Additionally,


GNV310038511562.DOC/050980001 5

CH2M HILL excluded the 2001 water use for this analysis due to the drought and resulting restrictions occurring that year. For homes sold in 2002, CH2M HILL compared the 2000 water use for the prior owner with the 2003 and 2004 water use for the new owner to deter-mine any changes in consumption resulting from the new owners. CH2M HILL summed the water use for all of the prior homeowners in 2000 and the water use for the new homeowners in 2003 and 2004, and compared the change as a whole. For homes sold in 2003, CH2M HILL compared water use in 2002 for the prior homeowner with water use from 2004 for the new homeowner to determine the resulting changes in consumption. Similar to the 2002 home sales, CH2M HILL summed the water use for all of the prior homeowners in 2002 and the water use for the new homeowners in 2004 and compared the change as a whole.

In both comparisons, the sale year was not analyzed because of the homes being sold at different times of the year (February versus November) and not containing a full year’s worth of water use data for either prior or new homeowner.

For the 2002 home sales in Monroe County, water use increased by 13.4 percent in 2003 and 21.1 percent in 2004 when compared to water use in 2000. For the 2003 home sales, water use increased by 11.4 percent in 2004 when compared to 2002 water use. In both instances, on average, the new homeowners used more water than prior owners, which can be seen in Exhibit 3.

EXHIBIT 3 Change in Water Use with Change in Ownership – Changing Demographics

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

2002 Home Sales Water Use (mgd) 0.050 0.046 0.051 0.057 0.061

Change from 2000 Water Use 13.4% 21.1%

2003 Home Sales Water Use (mgd) 0.048 0.051 0.053 0.051 0.059

Change from 2002 Water Use 11.4%

Note: mgd=million gallons per day

2.7 FKAA Water Production Data FKAA also provided CH2M HILL with water production data from 1995 through 2004. Although data from 1995 through 2002 are important in this analysis, the more recent data are expected to be more representative of future trends. 2001 was a drought year, which reduced the level of demand in 2001. However, it was assumed that the water use by FKAA customers was returning to pre-drought levels in 2003 and 2004, prior to 3rd and 4th quarters of 2004, which were impacted by the four hurricanes that reduced water demand from increased wet weather and by reducing tourism that is typical for the second half of the year.

Water pumped increased by 21.2 percent from 1995 through 2000, but by only 2.5 percent from 2000 through 2004. Excluding 2000–2002, the volume of water pumped increased by 2.08 percent per year from 2002 through 2004 (see Exhibit 4).


GNV310038511562.DOC/050980001 6

EXHIBIT 4 Water Loss for the FKAA Service Area from 1995 through 2004

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Water Pumped (mgd) 14.08 14.44 14.68 15.40 16.29 17.06 15.40 17.00 17.23 17.71

YR/YR Change (Water Pumped)

3% 2% 5% 6% 5% -10% 10% 1% 3%

3.0 Revised Projections The detailed data analyses support an increase in FKAA’s per capita water demand at a rate greater than that of the population for the following reasons:

• There was an observed correlation between changing demographics and water use as displayed in Exhibit 4. Specifically, over the period of most of the redevelopment (2002 through 2004), the annual volume of water pumped grew at an annual rate of 2.08 percent.

• It is assumed that the day-trip visitor population will continue to climb based on FDOT traffic projections for the FKAA service area.

• Pool permitting is increasing based on the number of permits issued each year.

FKAA’s water demand projections were adjusted based on the following revised assump-tions:

• The volume of water pumped will grow at an annual rate of 2.08 percent.

• During the next 10 years (2005–2015), the area most likely will be impacted by at least one hurricane and one drought type weather pattern, if not more, similar to the weather patterns seen in 2003 (recovery of drought) and 2004 (four hurricane evacuations or warnings). Forecasting the specific years that each event will take place is difficult, therefore the 10-year period was averaged to equal the annual increases from 2002–2004, which include these water demand impacting events.

The annual volume pumped is expected to grow by 2.08 percent annually through the projection period of 2014, by 1.33 percent in 2015, by 0.58 percent from 2016–2020 annually, and by 0.08 percent annually for the remainder of the projection period (2021–2025). This compares to projected annual increases in functional population of 1.6 percent from 2005 through 2010 and 0.4 percent for the remaining 5-year periods through 2025. This is primarily from the continued change in demographics, and increase in day-trip visitors. Exhibit 5 summarizes the revised water demand projections.


GNV310038511562.DOC/050980001 7

EXHIBIT 5 Revised Water Demand Projections for the FKAA Service Area

2005 mgd

2010 mgd

2015mgd

2020mgd

2025 mgd

2005 gpcd

2010 gpcd

2015 gpcd

2020 gpcd

2025gpcd

Water Pumped

18.08 20.04 22.05 22.70 22.79 116.33 126.91 139.13 142.70 142.75

Population 155,438 157,933 158,511 159,091 159,674

5-Yr Change Water

Pumped

10.8% 10.0% 2.9% 0.4% 9.1% 9.6% 2.6% 0.0%

5-Yr Change Population

1.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

Note: gpcd=gallon(s) per capita per day

4.0 Conclusions CH2M HILL reviewed a variety of data from various agencies in Monroe County, including:

• Traffic counts and projections for U.S. 1 • Swimming pool construction permits • ROGO plans • Real estate and interest rate trends • Residential and commercial square footage • Type of water use • Water use for new residents versus prior residents of the same property • Water sold/pumped/losses reported by FKAA

The data were analyzed to attempt to justify the population and water demand projections prepared by CH2M HILL in response to a question from the SFWMD regarding FKAA’s projected increasing per capita consumption rate.

The primary conclusions are:

• Water demand in the FKAA service area will continue to increase at a rate higher than that of the MCPD population projections because of changing demographics and assumed increase in day-trip visitors.

• Annual raw water demands are expected to increase from 18.08 mgd in 2005 to 22.79 mgd in 2025.

• Per capita water demand is expected to increase from approximately 116 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in 2005 to 143 gpcd in 2025.

APPENDIX B

Drinking Water Regulations Update

WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-1

APPENDIX B

Drinking Water Regulations Update

B.1 General This appendix summarizes the previous, current, and upcoming changes to the drinking water regulations. The regulations concerning surface water and ground water under the direct influence of surface water are briefly introduced.

B.1.1 Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards Exhibits B-1 through B-6 present applicable primary drinking water standards and associated maximum contaminant level (MCLs) for the state of Florida.

EXHIBIT B-1 Regulated Synthetic Organic Compounds

Contaminant MCL Contaminant MCL

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 3 X 10E-8 mg/L Endrin 0.002 mg/L

2,4-D 0.07 mg/L Ethylene dibromide (EDB) 0.00002 mg/L

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 mg/L Glyphosate 0.7 mg/L

Alachlor 0.002 mg/L Heptachlor 0.0004 mg/L

Atrazine 0.003 mg/L Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002 mg/L

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 mg/L Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 mg/L

Carbofuran 0.04 mg/L Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 mg/L

Chlordane 0.002 mg/L Lindane 0.0002 mg/L

Dalapon 0.2 mg/L Methoxychlor 0.04 mg/L

Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 0.4 mg/L Oxamyl (vydate) 0.2 mg/L

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.006 mg/L Pentachlorophenol 0.001 mg/L

Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) 0.0002 mg/L Picloram 0.5 mg/L

Dinoseb 0.007mg/L Polychlorinated byphenyl (PCB) 0.0005 mg/L

Diquat 0.02mg/L Simazine 0.004 mg/L

Endothall 0.1 mg/L Toxaphene 0.003 mg/L

APPENDIX B. DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS UPDATE

WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-2

EXHIBIT B-2 Regulated Inorganic Contaminants


Antimony 0.006 mg/L Lead 0.015 mg/L

Arsenic 0.01 mg/L Mercury 0.002 mg/L

Asbestos 7 Million fibers per Liter Nickel 0.1 mg/L

Barium 2 mg/L Nitrate 10 mg/L (as N)

Beryllium 0.004 mg/L Nitrite 1 mg/L (as N)

Cadmium 0.005 mg/L Total Nitrate and Nitrite 10 mg/L (As N)

Chromium 0.1 mg/L Selenium 0.05 mg/L

Cyanide 0.2 mg/L Sodium 160 mg/L

Fluoride 4.0 mg/L Thallium 0.002 mg/L

EXHIBIT B-3 Regulated Volatile Organic Compounds


1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007 mg/L Monochlorobenzene 0.1 mg/L

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 mg/L 0-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 mg/L

1,1,2-Tricholoroethane 0.005 mg/L para-Dichlorobenzene 0.075 mg/L

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.003 mg/L Styrene 0.1 mg/L

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 mg/L Tetrachloroethylene 0.003 mg/L

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.07 mg/L Toluene 1 mg/L

Benzene 0.001 mg/L trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1 mg/L

Carbon tetrachloride 0.003 mg/L Trichloroethylene 0.003 mg/L

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07 mg/L Vinyl chloride 0.001 mg/L

Dichloromethane 0.005 mg/L Xylenes (total) 10 mg/L

Ethylbenzene 0.7 mg/L

EXHIBIT B-4 Disinfection Byproducts

Contaminant MCL

Bromate 0.01 mg/L

Chlorite 1.0 mg/L

Haloacetic acid (HAA)5 0.060 mg/L

Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) 0.080 mg/L


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-3

EXHIBIT B-5 Regulated Radionuclides

Contaminant MCL

Alpha particles 15 pCi/L

Beta particles and photon emitters 4 mrem/yr

Radium 226 and Radium 228 (combined) 5pCi/L

Uranium 30 μg/L

The following contaminants and the associated allowed level are the secondary drinking water standards for the state of Florida.

EXHIBIT B-6 Secondary Drinking Water Standards

Contaminant Allowed Level

Aluminum 0.2 mg/L

Chloride 250 mg/L

Copper 1 mg/L

Fluoride 2.0 mg/L

Iron 0.3 mg/L

Manganese 0.05 mg/L

Silver 0.1 mg/L

Sulfate 250 mg/L

Zinc 5 mg/L

Color 15 color units

Odor 3 (threshold odor number)

pH 6.5 - 8.5

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L

Foaming Agents 0.5 mg/L

B.1.2 Microbial Contaminants 1) The maximum contaminant level for coliform bacteria is based on the presence or

absence of total coliforms in a sample, rather than coliform density. For the purpose of the public notice requirements in Rule 62-560.410, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), a violation of the standards in this paragraph poses a non-acute risk to health.

a) For a system which collects at least 40 samples per month, if no more than 5.0 percent of the samples collected during a month are total-coliform-positive, the system is in compliance with the maximum contaminant level for total coliforms.

b) For a system which collects fewer than 40 samples per month, if no more than one sample collected during a month is total-coliform-positive, the system is in compliance with the MCL for total coliforms.


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-4

2) Any fecal-coliform-positive repeat sample or E. coli-positive repeat sample, or any total- coliform-positive repeat sample following a fecal-coliform-positive or E. coli-positive routine sample is a violation of the MCL for total coliforms. For the purposes of the public notification requirements in Rule 62-560.410, FAC, this is a violation that poses an acute risk to health.

For surface water systems using conventional or direct filtration, the turbidity level of representative samples of filtered water taken throughout the day must be less than or equal to 0.5 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) in at least 95 percent of the measurements taken each month. At no time is the turbidity level of the filtered water allowed to exceed 5.0 NTU. In addition to filtration, the water must contain a disinfectant such as chlorine for a predetermined amount of time before it can be used by the public. For more detail on this standard, refer to Chapter 62-555, Part VI, FAC.

B.2 Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule Following the discovery of halogenated hydrocarbons associated with disinfection in potable water distribution systems disinfection by-product (DBP) regulations were established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Starting in 1979 an interim MCL was established at 100 micrograms per liter (μg/L) for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs).

Stage 1 of the Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products Rule (DBPR) was finalized in December 1998. The rule applies to all community and non-transient, non-community water systems that treat their water with a chemical disinfectant. Large systems were required to comply with the rule by January 2002, while small groundwater systems were required to comply by January 2004.

The rule establishes MCLs of 80 μg/L for TTHMs and 60 μg/L for the haloacetic acids (HAA5). Samples for DBPs for most systems consist of at least four samples from the distribution system on a quarterly basis. Under certain conditions, these sampling require-ments can be less. Compliance for DBPs is based on a running annual average of the quarterly averages, computed every 3 months. It should be noted that EPA also sets an MCL goal (MCLG) of zero for DBPs.

The MCL for bromate is 10 μg/L. Samples for systems that use ozonation are required monthly at the entrance to the distribution system. Compliance is based on a running annual average computed quarterly.

The MCL for chlorite for systems that use chlorine dioxide is 1.0 mg/L, with samples required daily at the entrance to the distribution system. If samples at the entrance to the distribution system are above the MCL, this triggers additional distribution system sampling. Compliance is based on a monthly average of distribution system samples. Large surface water systems had to comply with the DBPR by January 1, 2002. Smaller systems (serving less than 10,000 people) and systems using groundwater had until January 1, 2004, to be in compliance.

The DBPR rule also contains maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDL). Chlorine and chloramines are limited to 4.0 mg/L as Cl2 based on a running annual average. Samples for chlorine and chloramines are required to be taken at the same points in the distribution system as samples taken for compliance with the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). Chlorine


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-5

dioxide residual is limited to 0.8 mg/L as ClO2 based on daily samples at the entrance to the distribution system. A summary of the Stage 1 D/DBP disinfectant and contaminant limits and goals are provided in Exhibit B-7.

EXHIBIT B-7 Stage 1 DBPR Limits

Disinfectant Residual MRDLG (mg/L) MRDL (mg/L) Compliance Based on

Chlorine 4.0 (as Cl2) 4.0 (as Cl2) Annual Average

Chloramine 4.0 (as Cl2) 4.0 (as Cl2) Annual Average

Chlorine Dioxide 0.8 (as ClO2) 0.8 (as ClO2) Daily Samples

Disinfection Byproducts MCLG (mg/L) MCL (mg/L) Compliance Based on

Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM)1 N/A 0.080 Annual Average

- Chloroform See note 3

- Bromodichloromethane 0

- Dibromomonochloromethane 0.06

- Bromoform 0

Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5)2 N/A 0.060 Annual Average

- Dichloroacetic acid (DCAA) 0

- Trichloroacetic acid (TCAA) 0.3

Chlorite 0.8 1.0 Monthly Average

Bromate 0 0.010 Annual Average

Notes: N/A=Not applicable because there are individual MCLGs for TTHMs and HAA5s. 1Total trihalomethanes is the sum of the concentrations of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform. 2Haloacetic acids (five) is the sum of the concentrations of mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic acids and mono- and dibromoacetic acids 3USEPA removed the zero MCLG for chloroform from its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, effective May 30, 2000, in accordance with an order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Stage 2 sets the MCLG for chloroform to 0.070 mg/L) In addition to the DBPs discussed above, the DBPR attempts to reduce general DBP formation by requiring specific levels of total organic carbon (TOC) removal by coagulation (termed “enhanced coagulation”). Enhanced coagulation is required for all conventional treatment plants to achieve the TOC percentages listed in Exhibit B-8 unless any one of the alternative compliance criteria listed below is met.

• Source water TOC is <2.0 mg/L or specific ultraviolet (UV) absorbance (SUVA = UV254/dissolved organic carbon (DOC)) < 2.0 L/mg-m; or

• Treated water TOC, prior to the first point of disinfection, is <2 mg/L or SUVA < 2.0 L/mg-m; or

• Source water TOC is <4 mg/L, alkalinity is >60 mg/L as CaCO3, and TTHM/HAA5 levels are no more than 40 μg/L/30 μg/L, (annual average), respectively, and system has made a clear and irrevocable financial commitment to technologies that limit TTHMs and HAA5s to 40/30 μg/L; or


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-6

• TTHM/HAA5 levels are no more than 40/30 μg/L, (annual average), respectively, and system uses only chlorine for disinfection

EXHIBIT B-8 Required TOC Removal Efficiencies Through Enhanced Coagulation1

Source Water Alkalinity, mg/L as CaCO3

Source Water TOC, mg/L 0 - 60 >60 - 120 > 1202

0-2.0 No Action No Action No Action

>2.0-4.0 35.0% 25.0% 15.0%

>4.0-8.0 45.0% 35.0% 25.0%

>8.0 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 1Systems meeting at least one of the alternative compliance criteria in the rule are not required to meet the removals in this table. 2Systems practicing precipitation softening must meet the TOC removal requirements in this column.

If a utility cannot meet the enhanced coagulation guidelines and cannot meet one of the alternative compliance criteria listed previously, then they will be required to conduct bench- and pilot-scale studies to determine the minimum TOC removal required for the plant. There are specific steps and protocols that must be followed for the alternative TOC reduction benchmark methods, which are further explained in the regulation.

Routine monitoring is also required as a part of the enhanced coagulation rules under the Stage 1 DBPR. This includes sampling the following each month at the same time:

• Raw water prior to any treatment for TOC and alkalinity • Treated water (prior to oxidant addition) for TOC

Data must also be collected for plant operations to establish compliance with the regulation. Compliance is determined by a performance ratio approach on a running annual average basis.

B.3 Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Product Rule The Stage 2 DBPR Final Rule was promulgated in January 2006. The rule changes the compliance monitoring provisions to decrease DBP occurrence peaks in the distribution system. The rule will reduce the potential risks of reproductive and developmental health effects and cancer associated with DBPs.

Stage 2 of the DBPR applies to all public water systems that are community or non-transient, non-community water systems that add a primary or residual disinfectant other than UV or deliver water that has been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than UV light. Stage 2 DBPR sets forth requirements for MCLs and MCLGs for DBPs, specifies best available technologies for the proposed MCLs, and provides a risk-based approach to identify monitoring sites that contain high levels of DBPs. The monitoring sites will be identified during the initial distribution system evaluation (IDSE).


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-7

B.3.1 Requirements B.3.1.1 Maximum Contaminant Level Goals With the exception of chloroform, trichloroacetic acid (TCAA), and monochloroacetic acid (MCAA), MCLGs set forth in the Stage 1 DBPR remain in effect for Stage 2 of the rule. Stage 2 DBPR promulgates the MCLG changes shown in Exhibit B-9.

EXHIBIT B-9 Stage 2 DBPR MCLG Changes

Contaminant MCLG

Chloroform 0.07 mg/L based on cancer reference dose (RfD)

TCAA 0.02 mg/L

MCAA 0.03 mg/L

B.3.1.2 Maximum Contaminant Level Determination & Monitoring Requirements Stage 2 DBPR requires the use of locational running annual averages (LRAAs) to determine compliance with the MCLs for TTHMs and HAA5s. The LRAA will be calculated for each monitoring location in the distribution system. This differs from the running annual average (RAA) approach outlined in Stage 1, where compliance was determined by calculating the running annual average of samples from all monitoring locations across the system.

The final rule is population-based instead of plant-based for report submittal and sampling requirements. Also, the final rule will reflect a single phased implementation approach as opposed to a two-phased approach that was originally proposed (which contained interim compliance thresholds). Final compliance thresholds are set at 0.080 mg/L for TTHM and 0.060 mg/L for HAA5 (or 80/60), which are similar to the Stage 1 MCLs, but now must be met using an LRAA instead of an RAA.

Being that the LRAA is a four-quarter average, a system can be in full compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR MCLs but have individual samples that exceed the MCL. The final rule specifies operational evaluation levels that, if exceeded, require the performance of an operational evaluation. The evaluation will include an examination of system treatment and distribution operational practices that contribute to high TTHM and HAA5 concentrations including:

• Changes in sources • Changes in source water quality • Storage tank operations • Excess storage capacities

B.3.1.3 Initial Distribution System Evaluation Compliance monitoring will be preceded by an IDSE with the purpose of selecting site-specific optimal sample points for capturing peaks of TTHMs and HAA5s. Water systems will then recommend new or revised monitoring sites based on the IDSE study. All water systems regulated under the Stage 2 DBPR are required to conduct an IDSE. The number of


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-8

monitoring points and frequency of sampling is determined based on the source water and number of customers served by the system.

There are three possible approaches to fulfill the IDSE requirements:

1. Standard monitoring program: The standard monitoring program requires 1 year of monitoring on a specified schedule. A monitoring program must be prepared prior to implementing the program. The frequency and number of samples is determined based upon source water type, number of treatment plants, and system size.

2. System-specific study: A system-specific study may be used based on earlier monitoring studies if they provide equivalent or better information than the standard monitoring program.

3. 40/30 Certification: Systems may certify to their primacy agency that all required Stage 1 compliance samples were collected and analyzed properly during eight consecutive quarters prior to the applicable 40/30 certification due date and the system has no TTHM or HAA5 monitoring violations. All compliance samples must have been less than or equal to 0.040 mg/L for TTHM and 0.030 mg/L for HAA5. Samples must be in compliance with Stage 1 requirements.

Consecutive systems are also subject to the IDSE requirements. However, the schedule for completion of these requirements is based on the populations of the wholesale system and the procedures for determining monitoring locations are modified. For consecutive systems that purchase finished water and treat water, sampling requirements are consistent with non-consecutive systems with the same population and source water types for each treatment plant (defined as each system entry point). For consecutive systems that purchase all of their water year-round, monitoring is population-based rather than plant-based.

All systems subject to the IDSE requirement must submit a report to the primacy agency. The report must include recommendations for the location and schedule for the Stage 2 monitoring. Generally, a system must recommend locations with the highest LRAAs.

B.3.1.4 Best Available Technologies The Stage 2 DBPR proposes that the best available technology (BAT) for TTHM and HAA5 LRAA MCLs be one of the three following technologies:

1. Granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorbers with at least 10 minutes of empty bed contact time and an annual average reactivation/replacement frequency no greater than 120 days and perform enhanced coagulation or enhanced softening.

2. GAC adsorbers with at least 20 minutes of empty bed contact time and an annual average reactivation/replacement frequency no greater than 240 days.

3. Nanofiltration using a membrane with a molecular weight cut off of 1000 Daltons or less.

It is also recognized that consecutive systems my require treatment to control the formation of DBPs in the distribution system. The proposed BAT for consecutive systems is chloramination with management of hydraulic flow and storage to minimize residence time in the distribution system.


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-9

The BAT for bromate is not being revised from the Stage 1 DBPR. The BAT for bromate is defined as control of ozone treatment processes to reduce production of bromate.

B.3.1.5 Compliance Schedule The compliance schedule for the Stage 2 DBPR varies based on the retail population served and is shown in Exhibit B-10.

EXHIBIT B-10 Compliance Dates for Stage 2 DBPR by Public Water Supply Size (population served).

Compliance Dates by PWS Size (Retail Population Served)

Requirement At least 100,000 50,000–99,999 10,000–49,999

Submit IDSE plan/certification October1, 2006 April 1, 2007 October 1, 2007

Complete IDSE Study/Monitoring September 30, 2008 March 31, 2009 September 30, 2009

Submit IDSE Report January 1, 2009 July 1, 2009 January 1, 2010

Begin Compliance Monitoring April 1, 2012 October 1, 2012 October 1, 2013

B.4 Total Coliform Rule The TCR was promulgated on June 29, 1989, with the primary goal of maintaining microbial quality in finished and distributed drinking water supplies. The rule applies to all public water systems. Compliance was required in June 1993. Total coliforms include both fecal coliforms and E. coli. The MCLG for total coliforms was set to zero. Compliance with the MCL is based on the presence or absence of total coliforms in a sample and not on the density of coliforms. For systems that collect more than 40 samples per month, no more than 5 percent of the samples may be total-coliform-positive. If 5 percent of the samples are tested total-coliform-positive, then a set of samples must be collected and tested for fecal coliforms or E. coli. For systems that collect fewer than 40 samples per month, no more than one sample may be total-coliform-positive. If one sample is tested as total-coliform-positive, then a set of samples must be collected and tested for fecal coliforms or E. coli.

The number of samples taken each month for a specific water system depends on the population served. A water system may choose to collect fewer than 40 samples; however, different criteria would apply if the total coliform test is positive. Exhibit B-11 summarizes the sampling requirements required for various populations served by a water utility.

Utilities also have the option of requesting a variance from this rule from exceedances of the TCR because of biofilms in the distribution system. There is a large list of criteria to be met for the variance to be applicable.

EPA has proposed to revise the TCR as part of its required Six Year Review of existing regulations. A proposed revision to the TCR is not expected until late 2006, with a final Rule no sooner than 2007. One major revision anticipated is the switch from a requirement of fecal coliform testing after identifying a positive total coliform sample to requiring E. coli testing, which is thought to be a better indicator of pathogen presence or contamination. The revision to the rule will also likely expand the rule to include other distribution system


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-10

issues. Nine white papers were issued on distribution system issues by EPA in August 2002. These papers are available on EPA’s website.

EXHIBIT B-11 Total Coliform Sampling Requirements

Population Served Minimum Number of Samples per Month

41,000–50,000 50

50,001–59,000 60

59,001–70,000 70

70,001–83,000 80

83,001–96,000 90

96,001–130,000 100

130,001–220,000 120

220,001–320,000 150

B.5 Groundwater Regulations Regulations specific to the treatment and supply of potable water using groundwater as a source are discussed in this section.

B.5.1 Disinfection As of December 31, 2005, (in accordance with 62-555.320 (12)(b), FAC), groundwater systems with a source that is not under the direct influence of surface water and is exposed to the atmosphere during treatment must provide at least a 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses before the first customer at all flow rates. The virus inactivation/removal requirement is not applicable if aerators and other facilities are protected against contamination from birds, insects, wind-borne debris, rainfall, and drainage.

B.5.2 Groundwater under the Direct Influence of Surface Water Any water that flows below the surface and exhibits microbial or chemical characteristics that are similar or follow similar trends as surface water is considered a groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI). Significant occurrences of pathogens including Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium, presence of insects and other macroorganisms, and algae are all indications that a groundwater is under the direct influence of surface water. A GWUDI can also be indicated by rapid changes in water characteristics, such as pH, turbidity, conductivity, and temperature that correspond with similar changes in surface water. The FAC has adopted Chapter 2 of the EPA Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Systems Using Surface Water Sources as a guide to determine if a groundwater is under the direct influence of surface water.


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-11

Public water systems using groundwater as a source are required by the FAC to periodically sample the raw ground water for microbial contamination. In the event that a sample is positive for total coliform bacteria and when required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), a monitoring regime to determine if the groundwater is under the direct influence of surface water must be undertaken. The sampling regime can be stopped if no samples are positive for bacterial contamination for 1 year. If FDEP determines the system is under the influence of surface water, the system must meet all of the require-ments for a GWUDI. The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) and the various iterations of the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (ESWTR) are applicable to groundwater only if it is a GWUDI.

B.5.3 Groundwater Rule In 2000 EPA proposed a Groundwater Rule (GWR) that would have applied to public groundwater systems and to systems that mix surface water and groundwater if the groundwater is added directly to the distribution system and provided to consumers without treatment. This includes untreated stand-alone groundwater wells and untreated groundwater plants that have their own entry points to the distribution system as well as untreated groundwater blended with treated surface water prior to the entry point to the distribution system. Treatment in this case is defined as 4-log inactivation/removal of viruses.

Specific requirements proposed in the Rule include:

• System sanitary surveys conducted by the state and identification of significant deficiencies.

• Hydrogeologic sensitivity assessments for systems not using disinfectant.

• Source water microbial monitoring by systems that do not disinfect and draw from hydrogeologically sensitive aquifers or have detected fecal indicators within the system’s distribution system.

• Corrective action by any system with significant deficiencies or positive microbial samples indicating fecal contamination.

• Compliance monitoring for systems that disinfect to ensure that they reliably achieve 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses.

The GWR is projected for final promulgation in late 2006. EPA has just completed a re-review of the Rule based on comments received from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

B.6 Surface Water and Groundwater under the Direct Influence of Surface Water Regulations B.6.1 Surface Water Treatment Rule The SWTR was promulgated in 1989 to reduce the potential for pathogenic contamination in drinking water. The rule applies to all public water systems that use surface water or


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-12

groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. The major requirements of this regulation are:

• filtration requirements for most waters (and criteria to avoid the filtration requirement) • performance criteria based on effluent turbidity for filtration • disinfection requirements for both filtered and unfiltered systems • monitoring requirements for all surface water supplies

B.6.2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule In 1992 EPA initiated an ESWTR that would provide additional microbial and disinfection controls for systems using surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. The Rule was to be implemented through stages in the Interim ESWTR (IESWTR) and Stage 1 and Stage 2 Long-Term ESWTR (LT1 and LT2) to allow for development of adequate information concerning pathogen occurrence and inactivation. The Information Collection Rule (ICR) was promulgated in 1996 to obtain data on microbial organisms, DBPs, and other chemical parameters of surface waters. The data were collected so that they could be used in the regulatory process to set standards in the Stage 2 DBPR and the LT2.

B.6.3 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The IESWTR was promulgated in December 1998. The rule builds on the provisions of the SWTR, provides improved public health protection against Cryptosporidium, and addresses risk tradeoffs with DBPs. The rule applies to public water systems that use surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water and serve 10,000 or more people. Utilities are required to comply with both the SWTR and the IESWTR. The compliance deadline for most requirements was January 1, 2002.

B.6.4 Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The purpose of the LT1 and LT2 is to build on the provisions of the IESWTR for better protection of the public health and risks posed by Cryptosporidium and other pathogens. The final LT1 was published January 2002, and it applies the requirements of the IESWTR to small surface water systems (that is, those systems serving less than 10,000 customers) and to non-community water systems. The LT1 requires small systems to comply with the same disinfection profiling and benchmarking, Cryptosporidium removal, and filter turbidity performance standard as those established by the IESWTR. The LT2 requires finished water reservoirs where construction was begun more than 60 days after promulgation must be covered. In addition, unfiltered systems must comply with watershed control requirements that add Cryptosporidium as a pathogen of concern.

B.6.5 Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The LT2 applies to all public water systems that use surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water and the final rule was published January 5, 2006. Key provisions in the LT2 include the following:

• source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, with a screening procedure to reduce monitoring costs for small systems


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-13

• risk-targeted Cryptosporidium treatment by filtered systems with the highest source water Cryptosporidium levels

• inactivation of Cryptosporidium by all unfiltered systems

• criteria for the use of Cryptosporidium treatment and control processes

• requires covering or treating uncovered finished water storage facilities.

B.7 Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List As amended in 1996, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to establish a list of contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require regulation under the SDWA (see Exhibits B-12 and B-13). The first Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) was published in the Federal Register in March 1998 and included 60 contaminants for regulatory consideration. EPA subsequently determined not to regulate nine of these contaminants: acanthamoeba, aldrin, dieldrin, hexachlorobutadiene, manganese, metrbuzin, naphthalene, sodium, and sulfate. In February 2005 EPA published a second CCL of 51 contaminants.

EXHIBIT B-12 Microbial Contaminant Candidates

Adenoviruses Echoviruses

Aeromonas hydrophila Helicobacter pylori

Caliciviruses Microsporidia (Enterocytozoon & Septata)

Coxsackieviruses Mycobacterium avium intracellulare (MAC)

Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), other freshwater algae, and their toxins

EXHIBIT B-13 Chemical Contaminant Candidates 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane DDE

1,2,4-trimethylbenzene Diazinon

1,1-dichloroethane Disulfoton

1,1-dichloropropene Diuron

1,2-diphenylhydrazine EPTC (s-ethyl-dipropylthiocarbamate)

1,3-dichloropropane Fonofos

1,3-dichloropropene p-Isopropyltoluene (p-cymene)

2,4,6-trichlorophenol Linuron

2,2-dichloropropane Methyl bromide

2,4-dichlorophenol Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)

2,4-dinitrophenol Metolachlor

2,4-dinitrotoluene Molinate


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-14

EXHIBIT B-13 Chemical Contaminant Candidates 2,6-dinitrotoluene Nitrobenzene

2-methyl-Phenol (o-cresol) Organotins

Acetochlor Perchlorate

Alachlor ESA & other acetanilide pesticide degradation products

Prometon

Aluminum RDX

Boron Terbacil

Bromobenzene Terbufos

DCPA mono-acid degradate Triazines & degradation products of triazines

DCPA di-acid degradate

EPA is to make a final determination as to whether or not to regulate at least five of these contaminants in 2006. Simultaneously, EPA is scheduled to publish a draft CCL 3 in the winter of 2006 with an anticipated final promulgation in spring of 2008. A subcommittee of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council was formed to advise EPA in this process. EPA has established a website to convey information regarding the CCL.

B.8 Perchlorate Concurrent with the CCL, EPA is undertaking efforts to determine if regulation of perchlorate in drinking water would represent a meaningful opportunity for reducing risks to human health. To support its decision, EPA is gathering occurrence data at public water systems, evaluating the availability and cost of treatment technology, and ensuring that analytical methods are available to monitor for perchlorate in water.

EPA has established an official reference dose for perchlorate that is consistent with the recommended reference dose included in the National Academy of Science’s January 2005 report. A reference dose is a scientific estimate of a daily exposure level that is not expected to cause adverse health effects in humans. The reference dose will be used in EPA’s ongoing efforts to address perchlorate in drinking water. It is important to note that the reference dose in EPA’s draft assessment represents a preliminary estimate of a protective health level and is not a drinking water standard.

Perchlorate both occurs naturally and in the U.S. is used as the primary ingredient of solid rocket propellant. Wastes from the manufacture and improper disposal of perchlorate-containing chemicals are increasingly being discovered in soil and water. Confirmed perchlorate releases have occurred in at least 25 states throughout the U.S. Perchlorate occurrences are also being monitored as part of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR). EPA, other federal agencies, states, water suppliers, and industry are working to address perchlorate contamination through monitoring for perchlorate in drinking water and source water and developing treatment technologies that can remove perchlorate from drinking water. The UCMR results as of September 2004 have found perchlorate present in groundwater in Duval, Osceola, and Polk counties. A few states (for


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-15

example, California, New York, and Massachusetts) have already set a standard or guideline for perchlorate in drinking water.

B.9 MTBE in Drinking Water EPA is also in the process of assessing whether MTBE (methyl-t-butyl ether), a member of a group of chemicals commonly known as fuel oxygenates, should be regulated under the SDWA. MTBE is used in gasoline throughout the U.S. to reduce carbon monoxide and ozone levels caused by auto emissions. Releases of MTBE to ground and surface water can occur through leaking underground storage tanks and pipelines, spills, emissions from marine engines into lakes and reservoirs, and to some extent from air deposition. Because of its widespread use, reports of MTBE detections in the nation’s ground and surface water supplies are increasing. EPA established a panel of leading experts in the fields of public health, the scientific community, automotive fuels, water utilities, and local and state environmental officials to focus on the issues posed by the continued use of MTBE and other oxygenates in gasoline. The panel looked at the role of oxygenates in meeting clean air standards; evaluate its efficiency and other alternatives; assess the behavior of oxygenates in the environment; review known health effects; look at the cost of production and use and the product’s availability; study causes of ground and drinking water contamination from motor vehicle fuels; and examine cleanup technologies for water and soil. In September 1999, the panel released its final report on the findings and recommendations on how best to ensure public health and environmental protection while maintaining clean air and water benefits.

In response to the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel, the Office of Water issued a memo to the States regarding concerns about MTBE and how to protect sources of drinking water. The memo encourages early MTBE monitoring under the UCMR and assessing the impact of MTBE sources into source water assessments, and highlights the development of a secondary drinking water standard.

Since then, EPA placed MTBE on the drinking water for further evaluation to determine whether or not regulation with a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) is necessary. The CCL divided the contaminants among those which are priorities for additional research, those which need additional occurrence data, and those which are priorities for consideration for rulemaking. EPA determined that MTBE needs more health effects research and occurrence data before a regulatory determination can be made. Information gathered from EPA’s research and data collection efforts will assist our regulatory determination.

• In addition, MTBE has been included in the final UCMR that will require all large public water systems and a statistical sampling of small and medium public water systems to monitor and report the presence of MTBE in their water supplies.

• As an additional interim measure, EPA responded to requests for guidance by reviewing and updating an advisory for MTBE in December 1997. This Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer Acceptability and Health Effects Analysis provides guidance to communities that may become exposed to drinking water contaminated with MTBE. The advisory recommends control levels that prevent adverse taste and odor (that is, 20 to 40 parts per billion [ppb]). Managing water supplies to avoid the unpleasant taste and


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-16

odor effects at levels in this range also provides protection against any potential adverse health effects with a very large margin of safety. A fact sheet (PDF format) provides an overview of the advisory.

B.10 Radionuclides Rule The original Radionuclide Rule was proposed in July 1991, but court action delayed its final promulgation. The final Radionuclides Rule was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2000. The rule took effect in December 2003.

In the final rule, EPA set the MCL for uranium at 30 µg/L, using its authority under the SDWA for the first time to set a standard at a higher than feasible level based on cost-benefit considerations. The standard for combined radium-226/228 remains at 5 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L). However, the Rule requires improved monitoring for radium. The final Rule retains the interim standards for gross alpha particles at 15 pCi/L and for beta and photon emitters at 4 millirems (mrem).

A summary of the final Radionuclides Rule is provided below

• Affected Systems: Community Water Systems (CWSs); non-CWSs, including transient and non-transient, are exempt.

• MCLGs for radionuclides: MCLGs of zero;

− combined radium-226/228 − gross alpha − beta particle and photon radioactivity − uranium

• Radium MCL: Combined Ra-226 and Ra-228 MCL of 5 pCi/L which is based on new risk levels.

• Beta/Photon Radioactivity MCL

− ≤4 mrem/yr to the total body or any given internal organ except for H-3 and Sr-90

− H-3 = 20,000 pCi/L; Sr-90 = 8 pCi/L

− Total dose from co-occurring beta/photon emitters must be ≤4 mrem/yr to the total body of any internal organ;

− This MCL will be reviewed within 2 to 3 years based on a need for further re-evaluation of the risk management issues.

• Gross alpha MCL: 15 pCi/L excluding uranium and radon, but including Ra-226; maintain current MCL.

• Uranium MCL: 30 µg/L; new MCL.

• Polonium-210: Part of gross alpha; monitoring required under the UCMR rule; further action may be proposed at a later date.


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-17

• Lead-210: Not regulated; monitoring required under the UCMR rule; further action may be proposed at a later date.

B.11 Radon Rule Radon is a naturally occurring, carcinogenic, radioactive gas. Radon in drinking water increases risk to public health, primarily from inhalation of radon discharged through normal household use, such as showering, but also from ingestion of water. The proposed Radon Rule would have applied to all community water systems that use groundwater or mixed groundwater and surface water supply sources.

On November 2, 1999, EPA formally proposed the Radon Rule, but EPA missed the SDWA deadline for promulgation of August 2000. Because of significant concerns, particularly by Congress, regarding the multimedia concepts in the proposed Rule, little activity has occurred during the past 4 to 5 years.

The rule included a two-option approach that allows states and water suppliers to reduce radon risks in indoor air while protecting public health from the highest levels of radon in drinking water. The proposed rule includes provisions for radon concentrations shown in Exhibit B-14.

EXHIBIT B-14 Radon Rule Provisions Radon MCLG zero

Radon MCL 300 pCi/L

Radon Alternative MCL 4,000 pCi/L

The alternative MCL (AMCL) provision of the rule applies to water systems that adopt and comply with a multimedia mitigation (MMM) program aimed at reducing household indoor/air health risks from the soil as well as the tap water. The AMCL of 4,000 pCi/L is based on the National Research Council recommended estimate of 10,000 to 1 as the transfer factor from water to air and the national average outdoor radon concentration of 0.4 pCi/L in air. Thus, an estimate of 0.4 pCi/L in air would be equivalent to 4,000 pCi/L in water.

If a state develops an MMM program that is approved by EPA, public water systems in that state will be able to comply with the AMCL rather than the MCL. Alternatively, if a state chooses not to adopt its own MMM program or a state’s MMM program does not meet EPA approval, an individual public water supplier can submit an MMM program for approval. The 1996 SDWA Amendments require that the EPA evaluate MMM programs every 5 years.

B.12 Arsenic Rule The original arsenic MCL of 50 μg/L was set by EPA in 1975 based on Public Health Service Standard originally published in 1942. A new proposed Arsenic Rule was released in June 2000. EPA was originally under a court-imposed deadline to promulgate this rule by November 1992. However, EPA has received extensions to examine health effects and occurrence data. EPA succeeded in finalizing the Arsenic Rule on January 16, 2001. The final


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-18

rule was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001, with an effective date of March 23, 2001.

The following is a summary of the major provisions and requirements of the rule:

• An MCLG for arsenic in drinking water is set at zero.

• The MCL for arsenic is revised from 50 ppb to 10 ppb by January 23, 2006.

• Beginning with Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) due by July 1, 2002, all CWSs will begin providing health information and arsenic concentrations in the annual reports for water that exceeds 5 ppb (one-half of the MCL).

• Both CWSs and non-transient, non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) are required to meet the revised arsenic standard.

• Two compliance requirements for inorganic contaminants (IOCs), volatile organic contaminants (VOCs), and synthetic organic contaminants (SOCs). Specifically, when a system fails to collect the required number of samples, compliance averages will be based on the actual number of samples collected. Also, new public water systems and systems using new sources of water must demonstrate compliance within state-specified time and sampling frequencies. These provisions apply to arsenic.

All CWSs and NTNCWSs that exceed the MCL of 10 ppb are required to comply 5 years after the publication of the final Rule.

The new Arsenic Rule published under the Clinton administration, along with several others published in January 2001, was placed on a 60-day stay for review by the Bush presidential administration. The 60-day review pushed the effective date of the arsenic rule to May 22, 2001. A notice published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2001, proposed to delay the May 22, 2001, effective date of the arsenic standard to February 22, 2002. During this time, EPA reviewed the final arsenic standard, including an evaluation of new arsenic research and the estimate of arsenic compliance costs. The Rule was then promulgated in 2003, with compliance of the arsenic rule effective early in 2006.

B.13 Lead and Copper Rule The Lead and Copper Rule was promulgated in June 1991 and went into effect in December 1992, with minor revisions released in April 2000. The rule applies to all CWSs and NTNCWSs. The Rule developed MCLGs and action levels for both lead and copper in drinking water. The major difference between this regulation and most others is that the water is to be monitored at the customer’s tap, not the treatment plant discharge point. Lead and copper must be monitored at the customer’s taps every 6 months and twice each calendar year at the highest risk locations. The highest risk locations are defined as:

• Piping with lead solder installed after 1982 • Lead water service lines • Lead interior piping

For compliance, the samples at the customer’s tap must not exceed the following action levels:


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-19

• Lead concentration of 0.015 mg/L detected in the 90th percentile of all samples. • Copper concentration of 1.3 mg/L detected in the 90th percentile of all samples

If action levels are exceeded, water systems must collect source water samples and submit all data to the state with a treatment recommendation to reduce concentrations below the action level. In addition, the water system must also provide a public education program to its customers within 60 days of the action level exceedance. The education program must be continued until the samples are found to be below the lead action levels.

All water systems that exceed the lead or copper action levels are also required to conduct a corrosion control study. Corrosion control studies must compare the effectiveness of pH and alkalinity adjustment, calcium adjustment, and addition of a phosphate or silica-based corrosion inhibitor. Large and medium systems are also required to monitor many other water quality parameters at the plant discharge and customer’s tap.

After a corrosion control study is completed, a water system must develop a corrosion control program and submit it for approval to the primacy agency. Once approval of the plans is received, water systems have 24 months to install and implement the treatment methods for corrosion control and 12 additional months to collect follow-up samples. After this time, the water system must comply with the action levels for both lead and copper.

In 2000, minor revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule were promulgated to streamline requirements and reduce some burdens on water systems. No changes to the MCLs or the MCLGs were made. Small changes were made to reduce the frequency of monitoring for systems with low lead and copper tap levels and to update the analytical methods used for compliance.

While EPA’s evaluation of the situation observed in the District of Columbia in 2004 did not reveal a national problem, based on the information derived from its review, EPA identified opportunities to improve and clarify specific areas of the rule through its guidance materials. To improve implementation, several actions were initiated in 2005. A workshop was held concerning lead content of plumbing fitting and fixtures. An update and expansion of two guidance documents developed during the 1990s (Lead in Drinking Water in Schools and Non-Residential Buildings and Simultaneous Compliance) should be completed in 2006. Regulatory changes were developed that propose nine targeted revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule, with an expected promulgation date in 2006.

B.14 Volatile Organic, Synthetic Organic and Inorganic Chemical Rules B.14.1 Volatile Organic Chemicals Rule The Phase I VOCs Rule established MCLGs and MCLs for eight VOCs. The rule was promulgated in July 1987 and became effective in January 1989. All public water systems (PWS) were required to complete initial VOC monitoring by December 1991. Monitoring requirements include sampling at each entry point to the distribution system. If no VOCs were detected during the initial monitoring, repeat monitoring is required every 3 to 5 years, depending on the vulnerability of the source. If VOCs are detected, quarterly


WPB310127161256.DOC/061990015 B-20

samples must be analyzed. Compliance requires that VOC levels be lower than the MCLs, based on the annual average of quarterly samples.

The Phase I VOC Rule also required monitoring of 51 additional unregulated VOCs. All systems were required to complete the initial monitoring for these contaminants by December 1991. Repeat monitoring is required every 5 years; however, EPA revises the list of unregulated contaminants thereby changing the constituents to be monitored. Monitoring requirements for Phase I contaminants were revised in the Phase II Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals Rule (Phase II SOC/IOC Rule) to conform with the standardized monitoring.

B.14.2 Phase IIA Fluoride Rule The Phase IIA Fluoride Rule applies to all PWSs. The Rule was finalized in April 1986 and became effective in October 1987. The primary purpose of the Phase IIA Fluoride Rule was to protect the public from skeletal fluorosis. The Rule established an MCLG and MCL for fluoride at 4 mg/L. A secondary contaminant level (SMCL) of 2 mg/L was established to protect against dental fluorosis. Monitoring of fluoride concentration is required yearly for surface water sources and every 3 years for groundwater sources. For systems practicing fluoridation, daily monitoring of fluoride at the entrance to the distribution system is recommended.

B.14.3 Phase II Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals Rule The Phase II SOC/IOC Rule applies to all PWSs. The Rule was promulgated in June 1991 (33 contaminants) and July 1991 (5 contaminants). The Rule established MCLs and treatment techniques for 38 contaminants. Monitoring for the Phase II contaminants occurs in a standardized 3-year cycle, which began in January 1993. Compliance with the Phase II MCLs is based on the average of quarterly samples.

B.14.4 Phase V Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals Rule The Phase V Rule was promulgated in July 1992 and set MCLGs and MCLs for 23 contaminants. Compliance monitoring for these contaminants follows the same standardized monitoring framework introduced with the Phase II Rule. Some of the Phase V contaminants were previously on the unregulated contaminants monitoring (UCM) lists under other rules. To eliminate duplication, these contaminants were withdrawn from the UCM lists.

APPENDIX C

Proposed Water Facilities Improvements

334709.MP.T7 10/06

WB122005005 DFB_Ex_7x_System_Map_Key_Plan_rev2

APPENDIX CProposed Water Facilities Improvements:System Map Key PlanFlorida Keys Aqueduct AuthorityWater System Capital Improvement Master Plan

334709.MP.T7 12/06

WB122005005 DFB Ex_7x_System_Map_1

APPENDIX CProposed Water Facilities Improvements:System Map 1Florida Keys Aqueduct AuthorityWater System Capital Improvement Master Plan

18” Transmission MainImprovements, N. Roosevelt

STOCK ISLANDIMPROVEMENTS

2.5 MGDR.O. PLANT

18” Transmission Main


DISTRIBUTIONPUMP

STATION




NOTES:1. Phase II Cathodic Protection System Improvements are throughout the Keys, except System Map 8.2. Upsize Small-diameter Mains to 4-inch Minimum are throughout the Keys, through MM 107.Items in red text represent proposed improvements.

= 12”

= 18”

= 24”

= 30”

= 36”

Existing Transmission Main

STOCK ISLAND

334709.MP.T7 12/06


Distribution Pump Station Lower Sugarloaf

Proposed Distribution Pump Station Cudjoe

DISTRIBUTIONPUMP

STATION

DISTRIBUTIONPUMP

STATION

DISTRIBUTIONPUMP

STATION

0.2 MG 0.5 MG

Lower Keys Booster Pump #2 Stations

BOOSTER PUMP

STATION

Distribution Pump Station Ramrod

Cudjoe Key, Additional Distribution Main Header

Summerland Key




24”Transmission Main

WB122005005 DFB_Ex_7x_System_Map_2_rev2

DISTRIBUTION 0.5 MG

1 MG


= 12”

= 18”

= 24”

= 30”

= 36”


0.2 MG

DIST

334709.MP.T2 12/06



18” Transmission Main 30” Transmission Main




Marathon Booster Pump Station and Storage

Proposed DistributionPump Station Duck/Grassy Keys

Marathon 33rd Street

MARATHONIMPROVEMENT

Marathon - Crawl Key






Tom

’s H

arbo

r

Lower KeysBooster Pump Station #1


18” Transmission Main OHI

O

MIS

SOUR

I

WB122005005 DFB_Ex_7x_System_Map_4

.75 MGDISTRIBUTION

PUMPSTATION


1.25 MGDR. O. PLANT

DISTRIBUTIONPUMP

STATION1 MG

MARATHON - VACA CUT

DISTRIBUTIONPUMP

STATION.5 MG .5 MG

BOOSTERPUMP

STATION


= 12”

= 18”

= 24”

= 30”

= 36”


BOOSTER PUMPSTATION

DISTRIBUTION PUMP

STATION

3 MG

DIST

.5 MG

DIST

334709.MP.T7 12/06



30” Transmission Main30” Transmission Main







Distribution Pump Station Lower Matecumbe

REL

IEF

Islamorada Distribution Main Header

Distribution Pump StationPlantation Key Plantation Key

Booster Pump Station

Tavernier Distribution Main Header and Tap & Fill Line





BOOSTERPUMP

STATION

DISTRIBUTIONPUMP

STATION

1 MG

1 MG

DIST

.5 MG

DISTRIBUTIONPUMP

STATION

DISTRIBUTIONPUMP

STATION .5 MG

DIST


= 12”

= 18”

= 24”

= 30”

= 36”


334709.MP.T7 12/06


Ocean Reef

Rock Harbor

Replace 36”, MM 93-98

Replace 18”, MM 92-93

Cross Key Canal





Replace 12” Ocean Reef Main

Transmission Main Relocation Jewfish Creek

DistributionPump

Station

DistributionPump

Station


Key LargoBooster Pump Station

Proposed DistributionPump Station and StorageLake Surprise

1.5 - 4.5 R.O. PLANT

DIST

1 MG

.75 MG

DIST

DIST DIST DIST

.5 MG.5 MG.5 MGDISTRIBUTION

PUMPSTATION


= 12”

= 18”

= 24”

= 30”

= 36”


334709.MP.T7 12/06


Other 18-Mile Stretch

County Line



6 MGDR.O. PLANT,ASR & DIW

TRANSSTORAGE

5 MG

FLORIDAN AQUIFER WELLS


= 12”

= 18”

= 24”

= 30”

= 36”


APPENDIX D

Transmission System Capital Cost Estimates

APPENDIX D

Transmission System Capital Cost Estimates

This appendix is divided into subsections, which address the approach used to estimating costs for the different types of transmission system improvements.

D.1 Transmission Main Costs No transmission mains of the type of construction representative of what is required for the recommended improvements were constructed recently within the FKAA system, so general estimating procedures were used to estimate costs. Exhibit D-1 provides a construction cost estimate for replacement of a typical 18-inch transmission main in the Keys. Exhibit D-2 provides construction cost estimates for the replacement of 36-inch transmission main with either 36-inch or 42-inch transmission main. The 12-inch unit price estimate in Appendix E, Exhibit E-1, was used to estimate 12-inch transmission main construction costs.

Exhibit D-3 provides detailed construction and total project cost estimates for all proposed transmission main improvements.

D.2 Booster Pump Station Costs While the Key Largo Booster Pump Station has been the only one bid in recent years, it was used for estimating purposes because the three bids received were similar. Exhibit D-4 shows that only $279,000 (4.4 percent) separated the low and high bidders; and only $18,000 (0.3 percent) separated the second low bidder from the low bidder. The average of the three bids received will be used, and will then be adjusted to the April 2006 cost basis to provide an estimated construction cost.

Other project costs are also added, to give the total estimated project cost for a new booster pump station.

D.3 Ground Storage Tank Costs No distribution system ground storage tanks have been constructed within the FKAA system since the early 1980s, so general estimating procedures were used to estimate costs. Exhibit D-5 provides a summary of the estimated construction and total project costs for the various sizes of ground storage tanks anticipated for both transmission systems and distribution systems.

D.4 Ground Storage Tank Painting Costs See Appendix E.4 where painting costs are addressed. Appendix E.4 gives estimated contract painting costs (that is, construction costs) and not total project costs. Where painting of transmission system ground storage tanks are proposed as a capital cost, the capital cost presented is total project cost, where the other project costs are added to the painting cost from Exhibit E-5.

GNV31013363667.DOC/062020020 D-1

ESTIMATE MATRIX SUMMARY Ver 3.9PROJECT: FKAA Water Master Plan Transmission Lines - 18" Transmission Main PROJECT No.: 334709.MP.T4CLIENT NAME: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority CONTRACT No.:LOCATION: Key West, Florida ESTIMATE No.: 6062DESIGN STAGE: Conceptual BID DATE:PROJECT MGR: CCI INDEX: 7691.71 5/5/06ESTIMATOR: D. Jones / GNV REV No.: Rev 0 5/5/06CHECKED BY: TEMPLATE No.: 3.9.1

01000 02000 03000 04000 05000 06000 07000 08000 09000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000# FACILITIES %'s GENERAL SITEWORK CONCRETE MASONRY METALS WOOD MOISTURE DOORS FINISHES SPECIALS EQUIP FURNISH I &C CONVEY MECH ELECT TOTAL

3.00%

01 18" CLDI Trans Line 1000 LF $5,268 $170,339 $175,607

$0TOTAL $5,268 $170,339 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,607$0

PERCENT OF TOTAL 3.00% 97.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

PROJECT PARAMETER PRICINGProject Size ---------------> 1.00 LSCost Per LS ---------------> $175,607 $/LS

Project Notes: This estimate has been prepared from and based upon design information through April 2006. Because of the level of scope development at thisstage of the design the estimate would be a Order Of Magnitude estimate. The expected range of accuracy would be +50% to - 30%.This cost estimate has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the information available at this stage of the estimate.The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material cost, competitive market conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule,and other variable conditions. As a result, the final project costs will vary from the estimate presented herein.

CH2M HILL, Inc. Report Date:Property of CH2M HILL, Inc. All Rights Reserved - Copyright 2004 05/15/2006 10:40:40

CH2MHILL MARKUPS REPORT No. 1 - Ver 3.9PROJECT: FKAA Water Master Plan Transmission Lines - 18" Transmission Main ESTIMATOR: D. Jones / GNVDESIGN STAGE: Conceptual ESTIMATE No.: 6062PROJECT No.: 334709.MP.T4 REV No./DATE: Rev 0 5/5/06

MARKUPS SETS USEDMARKUPRESOURCE DESCRIPTION MARKUP COMPONENT ITEM PERCENT TO-MAT'L TO-LABOR TO-EQUIP TO-INSTALL S/C

CH-MK CH2M HILL Standard Markup Set Success PWS Branch assigned to:CH2MHill Project Template No.3.9 National Average1. Overhead 10.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes2. Profit 5.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes3. Mob/Bond/Insurance 5.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes4. Key West Factor 20.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes5. Contingency 20.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes

Report Date:

CH2M HILL, Inc. 05/15/2006 10:40:50Property of CH2M HILL, Inc. All Rights Reserved - Copyright 2004 Page No. 1

CH2MHILL ESTIMATE DETAIL REPORT No.1 Ver 3.9PROJECT: FKAA Water Master Plan Transmission Lines - 18" Transmission Main ESTIMATOR: D. Jones / GNVDESIGN STAGE: Conceptual ESTIMATE No.:6062PROJECT No.: 334709.MP.T4 REV No./DATE: Rev 0 5/5/06

CREW TOTAL TOTALDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT MATERIALS RATE MH LABOR EQUIPMENT INSTL S/C DIRECT W/MRKUPS

02000 18" CLDI Trans Line 1000 LFSITEWORK

18" DIP Class 250 RJ Water Main

023159000130 Unit Costs----> B12B 0.030 1.00 1.28 2.28 3.98Excavate trench, 4'-6' D, 1-1/2 CY hyd backhoe 447.22 CY 33.21 13 $446 $573 $1,019 $1,779022405001000A Unit Costs----> B10I 0.126 4.23 1.11 5.34 9.32Dewatering Sock Method 1,000.00 LF 33.60 126 $4,233 $1,105 $5,338 $9,322023159013010210 Unit Costs----> 17.05 B6 0.160 4.97 1.35 23.38 40.82Bedding, crushed stone 3/4" to 1/2" 105.00 CY $1,790 31.08 17 $522 $142 $2,455 $4,287

023152005000 Unit Costs----> 4.50 B12N 0.017 0.57 0.90 5.98 10.44Backfill, select granular fill, shovel, 1 CY bucket 170.14 CY $766 33.85 3 $98 $153 $1,017 $1,776023159003020 Unit Costs----> B10R 0.030 1.01 0.48 1.49 2.60Backfill trench, Common Earth, FE loader, whl mtd, 1 92.59 CY 33.60 3 $93 $44 $138 $241CY bkt, min haul

023153007500 Unit Costs----> B10A 0.029 0.97 0.32 1.29 2.25Compaction, walk behind, vibrating roller 24" W, 6" 425.50 CY 33.60 12 $415 $135 $549 $959lifts, 2 passes 15% Swell

022257303080 Unit Costs----> B17 0.800 24.50 13.32 37.82 66.04Haul Excess, loading & trucking, machine load truck 360.00 CY 30.62 288 $8,820 $4,795 $13,615 $23,776150600110103018 Unit Costs----> 36.99 PIPE02 0.105 4.02 1.50 42.51 74.25CLDI Pipe, Fastite Joint, Pressure Class 250, 18" 1,000.00 LF $36,985 38.32 105 $4,024 $1,505 $42,514 $74,245dia

150600120201018 Unit Costs----> 18.27 PIPE02 0.026 1.00 0.37 19.64 34.29DIP, Flex Ring Bell Adder Per LF, 18" dia 1,000.00 LF $18,267 38.32 26 $996 $373 $19,636 $34,2911599001000022 Unit Costs----> 1.75 1.75 3.06Bag Pipe & Tape Joints 1,000.00 LF $1,750 $1,750 $3,056020807900500 Unit Costs----> 9.25 LABR 0.057 1.30 10.55 18.42Underground Marking Tape, Detectable 10.00 CLF $93 22.81 1 $13 $106 $184





18" DIP Class 250 RJ Water Main

023705501000 Unit Costs----> 0.29 CLAB 0.010 0.30 0.59 1.02Erosion control, silt fence, polypropylene, 3' high, 1,000.00 LF $290 29.63 10 $296 $586 $1,024ideal conditions

Subtotal $58,190 $19,956 $8,826 $1,750 $88,721Markups using CH-MK $43,431 $14,894 $6,587 $1,306 $66,218

TOTAL 08 18" DIP Class 250 RJ Water Main $101,621 604 $34,850 $15,413 $3,056 $88,721 $154,9391.00 LS $0.00

Division Notes: DIP Corisive Soil Placement with Dewatering Required.


18" CLDI Pipe Fittings

150600130301018 Unit Costs----> 985.41 PIPE02 12.650 484.74 181.37 1651.52 2884.1518" CLDI 90 Deg Elbow, Mech Jnt, C153 2.00 EA $1,971 38.32 25 $969 $363 $3,303 $5,768150600140102018 Unit Costs----> 479.58 PIPE01 7.400 280.63 48.06 808.26 1411.5218" Meg-a-Lug Series 1100 Kit For DIP 4.00 EA $1,918 37.92 30 $1,123 $192 $3,233 $5,646

Subtotal $3,889 $2,092 $555 $6,536Markups using CH-MK $2,903 $1,561 $414 $4,878

TOTAL 18" CLDI Pipe Fittings $6,792 55 $3,653 $969 $6,536 $11,4141.00 LS $0.00





Asphalt Roads 18" Pipe Placement

022257600010 Unit Costs----> 0.24 B89 0.015 0.47 0.28 0.99 1.73Saw cutting, asphalt, up to 3" deep 300.00 LF $72 31.20 5 $140 $85 $298 $520022208751710 Unit Costs----> B38 0.058 1.86 1.46 3.32 5.79Site dml, pavement removal, bituminous roads, 3" 125.00 SY 32.09 7 $233 $182 $415 $724thick

022257305000 Unit Costs----> B34B 0.007 0.20 0.39 0.59 1.04Rubbish handling, lding & trucking, haul, per MI, up 6.67 CY 28.94 $1 $3 $4 $7to 8 c.y truck

Notes: Assume a 15 mile haul distance.

027202000300 Unit Costs----> 10.75 B36C 0.010 0.34 0.60 11.69 20.41Base course, large areas, crushed 3/4" stone, 91.67 SY $985 33.51 1 $31 $55 $1,072 $1,871compacted to 12" deep

027202150100 Unit Costs----> B32 0.012 0.40 0.55 0.95 1.66Base, prepare & roll sub-base 91.67 SY 34.11 1 $37 $50 $87 $152027855003200 Unit Costs----> 0.20 B45 0.006 0.19 0.21 0.60 1.05Surface treatment, tack coat, emulsion, .05 gal per 125.00 SY $25 32.41 1 $24 $26 $75 $132S.Y., 1000 s.y

027403000080 Unit Costs----> 2.07 B25 0.011 0.35 0.24 2.65 4.63Asphaltic conc pvmt, Trench Repair, binder course, 125.00 SY $259 31.43 1 $43 $29 $331 $5791" thick

Subtotal $1,341 $510 $431 $2,282Markups using CH-MK $1,001 $380 $322 $1,703

TOTAL 08 Asphalt Roads 18" Pipe Placement $2,342 16 $890 $753 $2,282 $3,9851.00 LS $0.00


CH2MHILL MARKUPS REPORT No. 1 - Ver 3.9PROJECT: FKAA Water Master Plan Transmission Lines ESTIMATOR: D. Jones / GNVDESIGN STAGE: Conceptual ESTIMATE No.: 6062PROJECT No.: 334709.MP.T4 REV No./DATE: Rev 0 3/28/06

MARKUPS SETS USEDMARKUPRESOURCE DESCRIPTION MARKUP COMPONENT ITEM PERCENT TO-MAT'L TO-LABOR TO-EQUIP TO-INSTALL S/C

CH-MK CH2M HILL Standard Markup Set Success PWS Branch assigned to: CH2MHill Project Template No.3.9 National Average1. Overhead 10.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes2. Profit 5.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes3. Mob/Bond/Insurance 5.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes4. Key West Factor 20.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes5. Contingency 20.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes

Report Date:CH2M HILL, Inc. 03/28/2006 11:48:31

Property of CH2M HILL, Inc. All Rights Reserved - Copyright 2004 Page No. 1

ESTIMATE MATRIX SUMMARY Ver 3.9PROJECT: FKAA Water Master Plan Transmission Lines PROJECT No.: 334709.MP.T4CLIENT NAME: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority CONTRACT No.:LOCATION: Key West, Florida ESTIMATE No.: 6062DESIGN STAGE: Conceptual BID DATE:PROJECT MGR: CCI INDEX: 7691.71 3/28/06ESTIMATOR: D. Jones / GNV REV No.: Rev 0 3/28/06CHECKED BY: TEMPLATE No.: 3.9.1

01000 02000 03000 04000 05000 06000 07000 08000 09000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000# FACILITIES %'s GENERAL SITEWORK CONCRETE MASONRY METALS WOOD MOISTURE DOORS FINISHES SPECIALS EQUIP FURNISH I &C CONVEY MECH ELECT TOTAL

3.00%

01 36" CLDI Trans Line 21120 LF $357,298 $*,***,*** $11,909,918

3.00%

02 42" CLDI Trans Line 21120 LF $398,476 $*,***,*** $13,282,519

$0TOTAL $755,774 $24,436,664 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,192,437$0

PERCENT OF TOTAL 3.00% 97.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

PROJECT PARAMETER PRICINGProject Size ---------------> 1.00 LSCost Per LS ---------------> $25,192,437 $/LS

Project Notes: This estimate has been prepared from and based upon design information through March 27, 2006. Because of the level of scope development at thisstage of the design the estimate would be a Order Of Magnitude estimate. The expected range of accuracy would be +50% to - 30%.This cost estimate has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the information available at this stage of the estimate.The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material cost, competitive market conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule,and other variable conditions. As a result, the final project costs will vary from the estimate presented herein.

CH2M HILL, Inc. Report Date:Property of CH2M HILL, Inc. All Rights Reserved - Copyright 2004 03/28/2006 11:48:09

CH2MHILL ESTIMATE DETAIL REPORT No.1 Ver 3.9PROJECT: FKAA Water Master Plan Transmission Lines ESTIMATOR: D. Jones / GNVDESIGN STAGE: Conceptual ESTIMATE No.: 6062PROJECT No.: 334709.MP.T4 REV No./DATE: Rev 0 3/28/06



36" DIP Class 250 Water Main

023159000130 Unit Costs----> B12S 0.053 1.78 3.95 5.72 10.00Excavating, Up to 16' Deep 2-1/2 CY Hyd Cat 330 33,431.32 CY 33.21 1,788 $59,379 $131,960 $191,339 $334,147Excavator Common Earth022405000900 Unit Costs----> DW01 0.025 0.74 0.42 1.16 2.023" Trash Pump 21,120.00 LF 29.63 528 $15,643 $8,811 $24,454 $42,706022405001000A Unit Costs----> B10I 0.126 4.23 1.11 5.34 9.32Sock Dewatering 21,120.00 LF 33.60 2,661 $89,411 $23,329 $112,740 $196,884023159013010210 Unit Costs----> 17.05 B6 0.833 25.90 7.05 50.00 87.32Bedding, crushed stone 3/4" to 1/2" 7,157.33 CY $122,033 31.08 5,964 $185,400 $50,449 $357,882 $624,991023152005000 Unit Costs----> 4.50 B6 0.833 25.90 7.05 37.45 65.40Backfill, select granular fill, shovel, 1 CY bucket 9,777.78 CY $44,000 31.08 8,148 $253,279 $68,920 $366,198 $639,514023159003020 Unit Costs----> B10R 0.045 1.50 0.71 2.21 3.87Backfill trench, Common Earth, FE loader, whl mtd, 1 16,496.21 CY 33.60 736 $24,744 $11,783 $36,527 $63,788CY bkt, min haul023153108200 Unit Costs----> A1F 0.027 0.79 0.12 0.91 1.59Compaction, rammer tamper, 8" lifts, 2 passes 33,431.32 CY 29.63 894 $26,483 $3,955 $30,439 $53,157

Notes: Assume 15% Swell022257303080 Unit Costs----> B17 0.952 29.16 15.86 45.02 78.62Haul Excess, loading & trucking, machine load truck 19,475.38 CY 30.62 18,548 $568,000 $308,824 $876,824 $1,531,250

Notes: Assume 15% Swell150600110103036 Unit Costs----> 119.88 PIPE03 0.200 7.63 3.42 130.93 228.65CLDI Pipe, Fastite Joint, Pressure Class 250, 36" 21,120.00 LF $2,531,878 38.17 4,224 $161,227 $72,167 $2,765,273 $4,829,161dia150000000000036 Unit Costs----> 6.75 6.75 11.79Bag Pipe & Tape Joints 21,120.00 LF $142,560 $142,560 $248,961020807900500 Unit Costs----> 9.25 LABR 0.057 1.30 10.55 18.42Underground Marking Tape, Detectable 211.20 CLF $1,954 22.80 12 $274 $2,228 $3,891023705501000 Unit Costs----> 0.29 CLAB 0.010 0.30 0.59 1.02Erosion control, silt fence, polypropylene, 3' high, 21,120.00 LF $6,125 29.63 211 $6,257 $12,382 $21,623ideal conditions






150600110502036 Unit Costs----> 171.03 PIPE03 0.316 12.06 5.40 188.49 329.17CLDI, Flex Ring Joint Pipe, CL-250, 36" Dia 6,336.00 LF $1,083,626 38.17 2,002 $76,422 $34,207 $1,194,255 $2,085,599

Subtotal $3,789,615 $1,466,519 $714,406 $142,560 $6,113,099Markups using CH-MK $2,828,417 $1,094,551 $533,204 $106,401 $4,562,573

TOTAL 12 36" DIP Class 250 Water Main $6,618,032 45,717 $2,561,070 $1,247,609 $248,961 $6,113,099 $10,675,6721.00 LS $0.00



150600130201036 Unit Costs----> 7357.38 PIPE03 28.430 1085.15 485.73 8928.26 15591.9536" CLDI 90 Deg Elbow, Mech Jnt, C110 21.00 EA $154,505 38.17 597 $22,788 $10,200 $187,493 $327,431150600140102036 Unit Costs----> 2687.06 PIPE01 16.700 633.31 108.45 3428.81 5987.9336" Meg-a-Lug Series 1100 Kit For DIP 42.00 EA $112,856 37.92 701 $26,599 $4,555 $144,010 $251,493

Subtotal $267,361 $49,387 $14,755 $331,503Markups using CH-MK $199,548 $36,861 $11,013 $247,421

TOTAL 36" CLDI Pipe Fittings $466,909 1,298 $86,248 $25,767 $331,503 $578,9241.00 LS $0.00


Site Demo & Restoration

020710010001 Unit Costs----> 0.25 B89 0.015 0.47 0.28 1.00 1.75Saw cutting, asphalt, up to 3" deep 3,150.00 LF $788 31.21 47 $1,474 $896 $3,158 $5,515






020710010002 Unit Costs----> B38 0.058 1.86 1.46 3.32 5.79Site dml, pavement removal, bituminous roads, 3" 4,200.00 SY 32.09 244 $7,818 $6,117 $13,935 $24,336thick020710010003 Unit Costs----> B17 0.920 28.17 15.32 43.49 75.95Rubbish handling, loading & trucking, machine load 175.00 CY 30.62 161 $4,930 $2,681 $7,611 $13,292truck

Unit Costs----> 16.00 16.00 27.94Pavement Replacement Asphaltic Concrete Incl Base 4,200.00 SY $67,200 $67,200 $117,355

Unit Costs----> 25.00 25.00 43.66Traffic Control 3,150.00 LF $78,750 $78,750 $137,526

Subtotal $788 $14,223 $9,694 $145,950 $170,654Markups using CH-MK $588 $10,615 $7,235 $108,931 $127,370

TOTAL Site Demo & Restoration $1,375 452 $24,838 $16,930 $254,881 $170,654 $298,0241.00 LS $0.00




0200042" CLDI Trans Line 21120 LFSITEWORK


023159000130 Unit Costs----> B12S 0.053 1.76 3.92 5.68 9.92Excavating, Up to 16' Deep 2-1/2 CY Hyd Cat 330 40,858.52 CY 33.21 2,170 $72,058 $160,136 $232,194 $405,495Excavator Common Earth022405000900 Unit Costs----> DW01 0.030 0.89 0.50 1.39 2.433" Trash Pump 21,120.00 LF 29.63 634 $18,772 $10,573 $29,345 $51,247022405001000A Unit Costs----> B10I 0.126 4.23 1.11 5.34 9.32Sock Dewatering 21,120.00 LF 33.60 2,661 $89,411 $23,329 $112,740 $196,884023159013010210 Unit Costs----> 17.05 B6 0.900 27.98 7.61 52.64 91.93Bedding, crushed stone 3/4" to 1/2" 8,948.62 CY $152,574 31.08 8,054 $250,351 $68,123 $471,048 $822,620023152005000 Unit Costs----> 4.50 B6 0.900 27.98 7.61 40.09 70.01Backfill, select granular fill, shovel, 1 CY bucket 11,831.11 CY $53,240 31.08 10,648 $330,993 $90,067 $474,300 $828,298023159003020 Unit Costs----> B10R 0.044 1.48 0.70 2.18 3.80Backfill trench, Common Earth, FE loader, whl mtd, 1 20,078.78 CY 33.60 882 $29,618 $14,104 $43,722 $76,355CY bkt, min haul023153108200 Unit Costs----> A1F 0.027 0.79 0.12 0.90 1.58Compaction, rammer tamper, 8" lifts, 2 passes 40,858.52 CY 29.63 1,085 $32,138 $4,800 $36,938 $64,506

Notes: Assume 15% Swell022257303080 Unit Costs----> B17 1.044 31.95 17.37 49.33 86.15Haul Excess, loading & trucking, machine load truck 23,896.69 CY 30.62 24,936 $763,629 $415,188 $1,178,817 $2,058,639

Notes: Assume 15% Swell150600110103042 Unit Costs----> 115.99 PIPE03 0.240 9.16 4.10 129.25 225.72CLDI Pipe, Fastite Joint, Pressure Class 250, 42" 21,120.00 LF $2,449,694 38.17 5,069 $193,473 $86,600 $2,729,767 $4,767,156dia150000000000042 Unit Costs----> 7.88 7.88 13.75Bag Pipe & Tape Joints 21,120.00 LF $166,320 $166,320 $290,455020807900500 Unit Costs----> 9.25 LABR 0.057 1.30 10.55 18.42Underground Marking Tape, Detectable 211.20 CLF $1,954 22.80 12 $274 $2,228 $3,891023705501000 Unit Costs----> 0.29 CLAB 0.010 0.30 0.59 1.02Erosion control, silt fence, polypropylene, 3' high, 21,120.00 LF $6,125 29.63 211 $6,257 $12,382 $21,623ideal conditions






150600110503042 Unit Costs----> 170.31 PIPE03 0.801 30.57 13.69 214.57 374.72CLDI, Lok-Ring Joint Pipe, CL-250, 42" Dia 6,336.00 LF $1,079,102 38.17 5,075 $193,715 $86,709 $1,359,525 $2,374,220

Subtotal $3,742,688 $1,980,688 $959,630 $166,320 $6,849,326Markups using CH-MK $2,793,393 $1,478,306 $716,229 $124,135 $5,112,063

TOTAL 13 42" DIP Class 250 Water Main $6,536,081 61,436 $3,458,994 $1,675,859 $290,455 $6,849,326 $11,961,3891.00 LS $0.00



150600140102042 Unit Costs----> 3385.69 PIPE01 25.400 963.23 164.94 4513.87 7882.8442" Meg-a-Lug Series 1100 Kit For DIP 21.00 EA $71,100 37.92 533 $20,228 $3,464 $94,791 $165,540150600130201042 Unit Costs----> 10136.84 PIPE03 43.100 1645.10 736.36 12518.30 21861.4642" CLDI 90 Deg Elbow, Mech Jnt, C110 21.00 EA $212,874 38.17 905 $34,547 $15,464 $262,884 $459,091

Subtotal $283,973 $54,775 $18,927 $357,675Markups using CH-MK $211,946 $40,882 $14,127 $266,955

TOTAL 42" CLDI Pipe Fittings $495,919 1,439 $95,657 $33,054 $357,675 $624,6301.00 LS $0.00



020710010001 Unit Costs----> 0.25 B89 0.015 0.47 0.28 1.00 1.75Saw cutting, asphalt, up to 3" deep 3,150.00 LF $788 31.21 47 $1,474 $896 $3,158 $5,515






020710010002 Unit Costs----> B38 0.058 1.86 1.46 3.32 5.79Site dml, pavement removal, bituminous roads, 3" 4,200.00 SY 32.09 244 $7,818 $6,117 $13,935 $24,336thick020710010003 Unit Costs----> B17 0.920 28.17 15.32 43.49 75.95Rubbish handling, loading & trucking, machine load 175.00 CY 30.62 161 $4,930 $2,681 $7,611 $13,292truck

Unit Costs----> 16.00 16.00 27.94Pavement Replacement Asphaltic Concrete Incl Base 4,200.00 SY $67,200 $67,200 $117,355

Unit Costs----> 25.00 25.00 43.66Traffic Control 3,150.00 LF $78,750 $78,750 $137,526

Subtotal $788 $14,223 $9,694 $145,950 $170,654Markups using CH-MK $588 $10,615 $7,235 $108,931 $127,370

TOTAL Site Demo & Restoration $1,375 452 $24,838 $16,930 $254,881 $170,654 $298,0241.00 LS $0.00


EXHIBIT D-3 Construction and Total Project Cost Estimates for Proposed Transmission Main Improvement Project

Pipe Line

Project Size(in)

Length (ft)

Construction Cost


Legal Feesa Contingencyb Total Project

Costs Remarks

12-inch Ocean Reef Transmission Main

Contract 1 12 22,000 $2,310,000 $462,000 $416,000 $3,118,000 Worst segments done first.

Contract 2 12 22,000 $2,310,000 $462,000 $416,000 $3,118,000

Contract 3 12 21,000 $2,205,000 $441,000 $397,000 $3,043,000

Replace 36-inch Transmission Main 36 21,120 $9,900,000c $1,980,000 $1,780,000 $13,662,,000 Replacement with 36-inch pipe assumed

Replace 18-inch Main, Key Largo Swamp 18 1,400 $205,800d $41,160 $37,040 $284,000

Other 18-inch Transmission Main Replacements

18 1,000 $147,000d $29,400 $26,600 $203,000 5 segments at 200 feet each assumed

18-inch Transmission Main Replacement N. Roosevelt

18 15,500 $2,278,500d $455,700 $409,800 $3,144,000 Concurrent with highway upgrade

Notes: aConsulting, administrative, legal fees equals 20 percent of construction. bContingency (15 percent of subtotal costs for all items). cConstruction Cost from Exhibit D-2, with 20% contingency removed from that cost estimate. dUnit Price Construction Cost from Exhibit D-1, with 20% contingency removed from that cost estimate.

GNV31013363667.DOC/062020020

EXHIBIT D-4 Key Largo Booster Pump Station Bids Received June 2003, and Adjustment of Costs to April 2006 Cost Basis, for Estimating New Booster Pump Station Costs

Bidder Bid Price

Low Bidder $5,219,000

Second Low Bidder $5,237,000

High Bidder $5,448,370 Average of 3 Bidders $5,301,000 Adjust to April 2006 Construction Cost

$5,301,000 x 7,695/6,685 = $6,100,000

Consulting, Administrative, Legal fees (20%) $1,220,000

Subtotal $7,320,000

Contingency (15% of Subtotal $1,098,000

Total Project Cost, April 2006 Cost Basis $8,418,000

GNV31013363667.DOC/062020020

EXHIBIT D-5 Estimated Construction Cost and Total Project Cost for New Ground Storage Tanks

Tank Size

(MG)(b)

Tank Supplier/ Installer

Sub Price(a)

GC Admin of

Sub(c) Site

Work(d) Yard

Piping(e) Subtotal Markup(f) Gen

Cond.(g)

Estimated Construction

Cost

Consulting, Administrative, Legal Fees (h)

Contingency (i)

Estimated Total Project

Costs

0.50 $290,000 $15,000 $35,000 $52,000 $392,000 $570,000 $17,000 $587,000 $117,400 $105,600 $810,000

0.75(b) $412,000 $21,000 $49,000 $74,000 $556,000 $809,000 $24,000 $833,000 $166,600 $149,400 $1,149,000

1.0 $525,000 $26,000 $63,000 $94,000 $708,000 $1,030,000 $31,000 $1,061,000 $212,200 $190,800 $1,464,000

2.0 $825,000 $41,000 $99,000 $148,000 $1,113,000 $1,620,000 $48,000 $1,668,000 $333,600 $300,400 $2,302,000

3.0 $1,025,000 $51,000 $123,000 $184,000 $1,383,000 $2,013,000 $60,000 $2,073,000 $414,600 $373,400 $2,861,000

5.0 $1,455,000 $73,000 $175,000 $262,000 $1,965,000 $3,432,000 $86,000 $3,518,000 $703,600 $633,400 $4,855,000

Footnotes (a) Tank supplier/installer sub price is budget level estimate provided by Crom Corp., unless otherwise noted. (b) Estimated, based on other budget level estimates. (c) 5% of tank supplier/installer sub price. (d) 12% of tank supplier/installer sub price. (e) 18% of tank supplier/installer sub price. (f) Markups to the construction price are as follows:

Markup Component Item Percent To Mat’l To-Labor To-Equip To-Install 1. Overhead 10.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. Profit 5.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. Mob/Bond/Insurance 5.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes 4. Key West Factor 20.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes 5. Contingency 0.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes (g General Conditions allowance is 3% of markup price. (h) 20% of estimated construction cost. (i) 15% of estimated construction plus consulting, administrative, legal fees.

GNV31013363667.DOC/062020020 D-4

APPENDIX E

Distribution System Capital Cost Estimates

APPENDIX E

Distribution System Capital Cost Estimates

This appendix is divided into subsections, which address the approach used to estimating costs for the different types of distribution system improvements.

E.1 Distribution Pipeline Costs Four representative distribution pipeline project construction cost estimates that were prepared by FKAA were used to define distribution pipeline costs (4-inch through 8-inch) to determine Master Plan distribution pipeline estimated construction and total project costs. The FKAA cost estimate unit prices are based on recently received bid unit prices, and therefore can be considered to represent current April 2006 distribution pipeline costs.

The construction cost data for the four representative projects are summarized in Exhibit E-1. These pipeline prices reflect all work necessary to complete the pipeline project, including costs for pipe, valves, fittings, other appurtenances, and restoration. The Cutthroat Harbor Cudjoe Ocean Shores project summary is provided in Exhibit E-2 as an example. In this example, pipeline costs amount to approximately 66 percent of the total construction cost, which is a typical percentage. The number of work items, such as water main connections and customer service connections, are project-specific and can only be defined in general terms at this planning stage.

To account for these project specific work items and to distribute the cost of these items among the costs for the different pipe sizes, the ratio of just the pipe cost for a given size to just the total pipe cost was multiplied by the total construction cost. This value was then divided by the quantity of pipe for that size to give the pipeline prices in Exhibit E-1.

The variation of project pipeline prices for the various sizes compared to the average prices for a given pipe size is only 10 percent below to 9 percent above the average prices, sub-stantially less than the order-of-magnitude accuracy of 30 percent below to 50 percent above actual prices. The slight variation of overall pipeline prices from project to project reflect project specific details, such as number of service connections, number of connections to existing pipelines, amount of pavement restoration, etc. (refer to Exhibit E-2), that cannot be defined at this planning stage.

The 10-inch and 12-inch unit price construction costs presented in Exhibit E-1 were estimated using the unit prices for 4-inch, 6-inch, and 8-inch pipe and the unit price for 18-inch pipe in Exhibit D-1.

Exhibit 6-7 in Section 6 provides detailed construction and total project cost estimates for all proposed distribution pipeline improvements.

GNV31013363668.DOC/062020022 E-1

E.2 Distribution Pump Station Costs Recent construction prices received by FKAA were used to estimate construction costs for distribution pump stations. The three most recent distribution pump station bids were used. Distribution pump station construction costs are also site-specific and will vary depending on such items as the amount of yard piping, the amount of site work, and the confinement of the site. All three projects included the installation of an owner-furnished package pump station. Each pump station contains two 940-gpm vertical turbine pumps with 75-hp motors. Exhibit E-3 summarizes the actual bid prices received for the installation of the pump stations and summarizes differences in scope of work that contribute to the different bid prices.

To use these bid prices for estimating purposes, the bid prices were adjusted to represent a scope of work typical of that for the average distribution pump station. Exhibit E-4 summarizes construction costs for the three distribution pump stations, adjusted to reflect a common scope of work. It shows the construction costs of the three distribution pump stations, after adjustments were made to reflect the same scope of work; the cost of the owner-furnished pump stations, and adjusts total construction cost to the April 2006 cost basis. The variation of the April 2006 pump station prices compared to the average price is only 4 percent below to 5 percent above the average price. Some of the variation in the adjusted pump station prices can be attributed to site-specific factors, which cannot be defined in detail at this planning stage. The average price, along with engineering judgment, will be used to estimate distribution pump station costs.

E.3 Ground Storage Tank Costs See Appendix D.3 where ground storage tanks are addressed for all size tanks.

E.4 Ground Storage Tank Painting Costs Recent prices received by FKAA for painting tank interiors were also used to estimate costs for re-painting storage tanks. Exhibit E-5 summarizes the recent painting prices received for various size tanks and the average painting price for a 0.5-MG tank, adjusted to April 2006. There does not appear to be much correlation to the cost of re-painting and the condition of the tank. Some of the 0.5-MG tanks in the worst condition had some of the lowest prices. Therefore, to estimate re-painting costs for the interior of a 0.5-MG tank, the average, deleting the highest and lowest prices, was used. This average was then adjusted to the April 2006 cost basis.

Exterior re-painting costs typically are considerably less than interior re-painting costs, mainly because confined space entry safety requirements generally do not apply. Exterior tank re-painting prices were estimated at 50 percent of interior re-painting prices.

E.5 Distribution Pump Station System Costs The distribution pump station system includes both the pump station and the storage tank that is an integral part of the distribution pump station system. Using the costs developed in

GNV31013363668.DOC/062020022 E-2

this appendix for the pump station component and for the storage tank component, detailed distribution pump station system construction and total project cost estimates either for proposed improvements to existing distribution pump station systems or for proposed new distribution pump station systems were developed and are provided in Exhibit 6-8 in Section 6.

GNV31013363668.DOC/062020022 E-3

EXHIBIT E-1 Distribution Pipeline Construction Costs Used to Estimate Master Plan Distribution Pipeline Construction Costs

Pipe Size Cost/LF ($/LF)

Project Date

Pipe Size (in)

Pipe Length

(ft) 4 in 6 in 8 in 10 in 12 in

Cutthroat Harbor Cudjoe Ocean Shores 6/24/05 4 5,555 61.00

6 120 76.26 8 4,300 83.88 Plantation Key 1/4/05 4 5,550 57.36 6 6,805 62.74 8 3,590 73.49 Cutthroat Harbor Estates 2/20/04 4 1,945 53.63

6 7,825 67.09 8 2,565 73.80 Big Coppitt/Geiger Key 1/16/04 4 13,157 58.18 6 4,550 72.72 8 6,425 80.00 Average Price 57.54 69.70 77.79 UNIT PRICE TO USE 58.00 70.00 78.00 95.00 (a) 105.00 (a) Notes: (a) 10" and 12" unit price construction costs were estimated from the unit prices for 4", 6", and 8" pipe in this exhibit and from the unit price construction cost estimate for 18" pipe In Exhibit D-1.

GNV31013363668.DOC/062020022 E-4

GNV31013363668.DOC/062020022 E-5

EXHIBIT E-2 FKAA Project #2209-05: Description Cutthroat Harbor & Cudjoe Ocean Shores

Description Unit Total Unit Cost TOTAL

1. Water Mains In Place 4" -C-900 PVC L.F. 5555 $40.00 $222,200.00 6" -C-900 PVC L.F. 120 $50.00 $6,000.00 8" -C-900 PVC L.F. 4300 $55.00 $236,500.00 9975 2. Gate Valve & Valve Box 4" Valve & Box EA. 13 $700.00 $9,100.00 6" Valve & Box EA. 3 $800.00 $2,400.00 8" Valve & Box EA. 14 $1,000.00 $14,000.00 3. Ductile Iron Fittings Ton 1.756 $5,000.00 $8,780.00 4. Connect to Existing Water Mains Connect to Existing 4" main EA. 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 Connect to Existing 6" main EA. 4 $1,100.00 $4,400.00 Connect to Existing 8" main EA. 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 Tapping Sleeve and Valve EA. 5. Fire Hydrants EA. 8 $3,500.00 $28,000.00 6. Customer Service Connections Type "D" EA. 95 $700.00 $66,500.00 Type "E" EA. 28 $850.00 $23,800.00 Type "F" EA. $900.00 Type "G" EA. T - 10 Meter EA. 94 Type "D" - 4" Meter EA. 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 7. Flushout Assembly EA. 11 $1,000.00 $11,000.00 8. Pavement Restoration Roadway Trench Restoration L.F. 2905 $19.00 $55,195.00 Customer Service Trench Restoration L.F. 1285 $4.00 $5,140.00 Roadway Full Lane Width Overlay S.Y. Bike Path Restoration S.Y. 1231 $7.50 $9,232.50 $708,747.50 $71.05

EXHIBIT E-3 Recent Distribution Pump Station Bids Received by FKAA

Distribution Pump Station

Date Bid

Bid Price Remarks - Reasons for Differences in Bid Price

This project is considered to have the typical amount of different work items - Yard piping - Includes a drainage well - Electrical and I&C

Big Pine 4/14/04 $316,510

Very much below average amount of yard piping. No drainage well included in project. Below average amount of electrical and I&C work.

Vaca Cut 6/24/04 $236,355

Islamorada 10/19/04 $685,010

Well above average yard piping work. This project included a new 6-inch tap and a new feed line to the storage tanks. Included a drainage well. Bid price included $120,000 item for refurbishing interior of 1.0 MG tank. Site is confined, so not a lot of room to work, which generally requires some additional labor hours for same

type of work. Electrical and I&C work well above average for a typical distribution pump station.

GNV31013363668.DOC/062020022 E-6

8.DOC/062020022 E-7

$711,000

$729,000

$776,000

EXHIBIT E-4 Recent Distribution Pump Station Bids, Adjusted to Reflect Generally Same Scope of Work

Distribution Pump Station

Date Bid

Adjusted Bid Price

Owner-Furnished Pump Station Price

Total Adjusted Pump Station

Construction Cost

Total Adjusted Pump Station

Construction Cost, to April 2006 Cost Basis

Big Pine 4/14/04 $316,000 $332,450 $648,450

Vaca Cut 6/24/04 $340,000 $332,450 $672,450

Islamorada 10/19/04 $400,000 $332,450 $732,450

AVERAGE OF 3 BIDS, ADJUSTED FOR COMMON SCOPE OF WORK AND TO APRIL 2006 COST BASIS $739,000 SAY $740,000

GNV3101336366

EXHIBIT E-5 Final Contract Prices for Recent FKAA Interior Ground Storage Tank Painting Contracts

Ground Storage Tank Final Contract Price

0.2 MG Tank (a)

Summerland Tank $57,500 0.5 MG Tank (a)

Marathon, Vaca Cut $62,228

Marathon, 69th Street $67,019

Marathon, Crawl Key $71,865

Marathon Office $73,417

Islamorada $87,260

Rock Harbor $87,260

Tavernier $121,264

Big Pine Tank $121,398

$86,000 Average of All Eight 0.5 MG Tanks

Average Deleting Highest and Lowest Prices $84,000

$84,000 adjusted to April 2006 Cost Basis $97,000

$100,000 Say 1.0 MG Tank (a)

Key West Steel Tank $252,724

Islamorada $230,000 5.0 MG Tank(b)

Stock Island Tank Mixing Improvement Project $370,000

Adjusted to April 2006 Cost Basis $387,000

Say $400,000

Notes: (a) Bids received about June 2003. (b) Painter subcontract price w/General Contractor markup (33%). Bids received February 2005.

GNV31013363668.DOC/062020022 E-8

APPENDIX F

Wastewater Reuse Background Information

P r e l i m i n a r y D e s i g n R e p o r t

Duck Key Wastewater Collection System Alternatives

and Wastewater Reuse Potential

Prepared for

Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

Prepared by

November 2005

WPB31012716995.DOC ES-1 W112005001DFB COPYRIGHT 2006 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Executive Summary

Duck Key is a small island community located at overseas highway mile marker 60 in unincorporated Monroe County, approximately 1 mile east of the City of Marathon municipal boundary. Duck Key consists of five islands. The northern-most island contains the Hawk’s Cay Resort and adjacent residential area. The four remaining islands make up what is termed in this report as the Duck Key Utility Service Area.

The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is acquiring the Hawk’s Cay wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Once acquired, FKAA will expand and upgrade the facility to meet advanced waste treatment (AWT) effluent standards. The Hawk’s Cay WWTP will provide treatment of the wastewater collected on Duck Key. Currently, the Hawk’s Cay WWTP treats wastewater from the Hawk’s Cay Resort and the adjacent residential area and from Conch Key.

This Preliminary Design Report evaluated three wastewater collection system alternatives, or combinations thereof, to establish the alternative collection system or combination of alternatives that will provide Duck Key with the most practical, economical, and reliable wastewater collection system for a 20-year planning period (2006–2025): gravity sewers, low-pressure sewers, and vacuum sewers.

Planning-level cost estimates—accurate from +50 percent to -30 percent and including a 10-percent contingency—were developed to evaluate capital costs for the three collection system alternatives and combinations. Construction costs ranged from a low of $9,284,000 (gravity sewers) to $10,413,000 (vacuum sewers). Estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were also developed. Annual costs, which combine amortized capital costs with annual O&M costs, were then used to compare the life cycle costs of the wastewater collection system alternatives and combinations to determine which wastewater collection system is the least costly. Capital costs were amortized over a 20-year period at 6 percent interest. Annual costs for the wastewater collection system alternatives and combinations, in the order of least costly to most costly, are:

• Gravity sewers: $974,379

• Low-pressure sewers: $980,518

• Combination of vacuum sewers on Center Island, with gravity sewer systems everywhere else: $1,013,595

• Combination of vacuum sewers on Center Island and Plantation Island, with gravity sewer systems everywhere else: $1,061,303

• Vacuum Sewers: $1,097,805

Gravity sewers provide the least annual cost and should provide a more reliable system than the next lowest alternative (low-pressure sewers). Therefore, gravity sewers are recommended for the Duck Key Utility Service Area.

WPB31012716995.DOC/053070030 ES-2 W112005001DFB COPYRIGHT 2006 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

In addition to evaluating wastewater collection system alternatives for the Duck Key Utility Service Area, the potential for wastewater reuse within the Duck Key Utility Service Area was also evaluated. Quantities for the reuse distribution system were determined from a preliminary wastewater reuse distribution system design layout and construction costs were then estimated, accurate from +50 percent to -30 percent and including a 10-percent contingency. Estimated construction cost for the reuse system is $2,829,000, and does not include any annual O&M costs for the reuse distribution system, nor does it include any additional capital or operating costs for upgrading storage and pumping capacities that may be necessary at the Hawk’s Cay WWTP to serve the Duck Key Utility Service Area with reuse water. The estimated total project costs for the reuse distribution system only are $3,592,000. Assuming that an additional $200,000 of project costs are required for Duck Key reuse storage and pumping at the WWTP, the total estimated project costs for a Duck Key wastewater reuse system would be $3,792,000. The annual amortized project cost (6 percent, 20 years) would be $330,587.

If all the current 77,000 gallons per day (gpd) of projected reuse demand could be sold to Duck Key users, the reuse billing rate would have to be $11.76/1,000 gallons, which is substantially higher than the highest FKAA potable water consumption block charge of $8.51/1,000 gallons. Reuse water cannot be sold if its cost is greater than the cost of potable water. For all the projected current reuse demand of 77,000 gpd to be sold for $3.20/ 1,000 gallons (75 percent of the lowest FKAA potable water consumption block of $4.26/ 1,000 gallons), a grant of approximately $3,082,000, or 81 percent of the estimated project costs, would be required.

WPB31012716995.DOC/053070030 5-1 W112005001DFB COPYRIGHT 2006 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

SECTION 5

Wastewater Reuse

Part of the scope of work of this Preliminary Design Report is to evaluate the potential for wastewater reuse within the Duck Key Utility Service Area. Aerial photographs were re-viewed, and site visits were conducted to determine wastewater reuse potential. Based on these site visits, it was found that a large number of property owners keep yard main-tenance to a minimum by having non-grassed lots, consisting mainly of gravel areas with mulched planting areas throughout the lot.

The site visits show that approximately 24 percent of the lots throughout the Duck Key Utility Service Area are “grassed”, with the remaining developed lots being non-grassed (mostly gravel with mulched planting areas). Exhibit 5-1 shows the estimated current distribution of grassed and non-grassed developed lots for each island.

EXHIBIT 5-1 Grassed and Non-Grassed Developed Lots and Estimated Wastewater Reuse Demand for Current Development

Current Development Estimated Wastewater Reuse Demand

(gpd)

Island Developed Grassed % Grassed Grassed Non-

Grassed Total

Yacht Club 83 23 28 19,600 4,400 24,000

Plantation 115 15 13 9,500 7,500 17,000

Harbor 33 4 12 2,800 2,200 5,000

Center 137 45 33 24,100 6,900 31,000

Total 368 87 24 56,000 21,000 77,000

To estimate wastewater reuse demands, an application rate of 1 inch/acre/week of water applied to the actual land surface of grassed and planting areas was used. Because of losses from evaporation and wind dispersal, all water applied by the sprinkler head does not reach the intended land surface. The ratio of water that reaches the land surface to that which comes from the sprinkler head is termed the inefficiency factor. This analysis uses a com-mon inefficiency factor of 0.7, which means that it takes 1.42 inches/acre/week of water from the sprinkler head to actually apply 1 inch/acre/week to the intended land surface.

Based on site visits and review of aerial photographs, the pervious area of each grassed lot that would require irrigation was estimated. For non-grassed lots (stone with mulched planting areas), an average 600 square foot area (20 feet x 30 feet) per lot was considered to have mulched planting areas that would require irrigation. On this basis, the wastewater reuse demand for each island was estimated for the current condition. Exhibit 5-1 shows the estimated current wastewater reuse demand to be 77,000 gpd.


To project year 2025 wastewater reuse demands, it was assumed that the same ratio of grassed to non-grassed lots and the same overall percentage of grassed area for each grassed lot for the current condition would remain constant through 2025. The year 2025 wastewater reuse demands for each island were then estimated using the ratio of the number of 2025 lots that were projected to be developed to the current developed lots. Exhibit 5-2 shows the distribution of estimated grassed and non-grassed developed lots projected for each island in 2025; it also shows the estimated 2025 wastewater reuse demand to be 95,000 gpd.

EXHIBIT 5-2 Estimated Grassed and Non-Grassed Developed Lots and Estimated Wastewater Reuse Demand for 2025 Development

2025 Development

Island Developed Grassed Estimated 2025 Wastewater Reuse

Demand (gpd)

Yacht Club 101 28 29,500

Plantation 144 19 21,600

Harbor 36 4 5,500

Center 169 55 38,400

Total 450 106 95,000

To estimate reuse distribution system costs, the year 2025 reuse demands were used to size the reuse distribution system. It is expected that most irrigation will occur during evening or night-time hours. Assuming that most irrigation occurs during the 8-hour night-time period, the actual peak rate of usage will be approximately three times the demands shown in Exhibit 5-2 above. This is a typical peaking factor for residential-based communities. There-fore, the reuse storage, pumping, and piping distribution systems will need to be sized to meet this night-time peak usage rate.

Exhibit F-1 in Appendix F shows the preliminary reuse distribution system network that was developed. This system is preliminary and was developed based on engineering judgment; no hydraulic modeling was used to confirm or revise distribution system pipe sizes. If wastewater reuse is selected as an option to further pursue, one of the first tasks would be to confirm the preliminary reuse distribution system with hydraulic modeling.

Using Exhibit F-1, quantities for the reuse distribution system were determined and construction costs were then estimated as described in Section 1.3. As shown in Exhibit F-2, the estimated construction cost, including a 10-percent contingency, is $2,829,000. These costs are for construction of the reuse distribution system only, and do not include any annual O&M costs for the reuse distribution system, nor do they include any additional capital or operating costs for upgrading storage and pumping capacities that may be necessary to serve the Duck Key Utility Service Area with reuse water.

The estimated total project costs for the reuse distribution system only are $3,592,000, as summarized in Exhibit 5-3. Assuming that an additional $200,000 of project costs are required for Duck Key reuse storage and pumping at the WWTP (Exhibit F-3), the total estimated project costs for a Duck Key wastewater reuse system would be $3,792,000 (Exhibit 5-3). As shown in Exhibit 5-3, the annual amortized cost would be $330,587.


EXHIBIT 5-3 Total Project Costs and Annual Amortized Costs for a Wastewater Reuse System to Serve Duck Key

Component Cost Remarks

Total Project Costs

Estimated Construction Cost for Reuse Distribution System $2,589,120 See Exhibit F-2

Contingency (10%) $239,880

Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost for Reuse Distribution System $2,829,000

Administration, Legal, Engineering, & Construction Management (27%) $763,000

Total Project Costs for Reuse Distribution System $3,592,000

Additional Project Costs for WWTP Reuse Storage and Pumping $200,000 See Exhibit F-3

Total Project Costs for Complete Reuse System $3,792,000

Annual Project Costs for Complete Reuse System

Annualized Project Costs (6%, 20 yrs) $330,587

If all of the current estimated 77,000 gpd of reuse demand could be sold to Duck Key users, the reuse billing rate would have to be $11.76/1,000 gallons. If only 75 percent of the de-mand could be sold, then the reuse billing rate would have to be $15.68/1,000 gallons for the reuse distribution system cost center to break even.

As shown in Exhibit 5-4, these reuse billing rates are substantially higher than the highest FKAA potable water consumption block charge of $8.51/1,000 gallons. At these reuse billing rates, reuse water cannot be sold because it is significantly more costly than FKAA potable water. For the sale of reuse water to be viable, the reuse billing rate must be less than the lowest FKAA potable water billing rate consumption block of $4.26/1,000 gallons (0 to 6,000 gallons per month). The only hope to maintain reuse billing rates below the FKAA potable water rate of $4.26/1,000 gallons is to reduce the portion of the reuse total project costs that must be financed through a substantial grant.

Assuming that the viable reuse water billing rate would be 75 percent of the lowest FKAA potable water consumption block of $4.26/1,000 gallons, the reuse billing rate would be $3.20/1,000 gallons, assuming all 77,000 gpd of reuse demand could be sold. Then, assum-ing the cost of annual O&M for the Duck Key reuse facilities is $1.00/1,000 gallons (only $28,000 annually), the part of the reuse billing rate that could be used to pay off capital or total project cost debt is $2.20/1,000 gallons, or an annual payment of $61,930. At an amorti-zation rate of 6 percent for 20 years, this is equivalent to $710,370 of project costs. Based on the estimates developed herein, a grant of approximately $3,082,000 ($3,792,000 - $710,000), or 81 percent of the estimated project costs, would be required to maintain the reuse billing rate of $3.20/1,000 gallons (assuming all 77,000 gpd can be sold).


The FKAA water bill includes a base facility charge (readiness to serve) and a consumption charge to be calculated as follows:

• Base Facility Charge: 5/8” x 3/4” Meter=$10.16

• Consumption Charge: per thousand gallons, billed in 100-gallon increments

EXHIBIT 5-4 FKAA Potable Water Rates

Meter Size Block Consumption Block

Charge ($ per

1,000 gal.)

5/8” x 3/4" 1 0 to 6,000 gallons $4.26

5/8” x 3/4" 2 6,001 to 12,000 gallons $6.23

5/8” x 3/4" 3 12,001 to 30,000 gallons $6.99

5/8” x 3/4" 4 30,001 to 50,000 gallons $7.77

5/8” x 3/4" 5 Over 50,000 gallons $8.51

Planning for a Better Environment

7-1

hapter 7The Recommended SanitaryWastewater Master Plan

CC

7-1

The recommended plan to improve wastewater management practicesthroughout the Keys is illustrated in Exhibit 7-1, and includes four principalcomponents:

1. Upgrade or replace existing onsite systems with onsite wastewaternutrient reduction systems (OWNRS) in “Cold Spot” Areas, which arelocated in lower density areas of the Keys. (“Hot Spot” areas are de-fined in Chapter 6 and are depicted in Exhibit F-1 in Appendix F. Areasnot designated as “Hot Spots” are “Cold Spot” areas.)

2. Implement central community wastewater collection and treatmentsystem service areas in the more densely developed and highest ranked“Hot Spot” areas where service area analyses indicate central sewersystems are more cost effective and environmentally sound (see discus-sions in Chapter 5 of this Master Plan and Technical MemorandumNo. 12 in Volume 5, Supporting Documents).

3. When the number of community treatment systems and the number ofcustomers in selected areas of the Upper and Middle Keys (i.e., Mara-thon, Islamorada, Tavernier, and Key Largo) increase to the pointwhere it is no longer economical to operate community treatmentsystems, consolidate them into larger regional treatment systems.

4. Phase implementation of smaller regional systems in the Lower Keysand construct the treatment plants at the proposed regional sites, sothat interim community treatment systems are not necessary.

Planning for a Better Environment

7-11

OWNRS) represent 89 percent of the$438,000,000 total cost. (See Exhibit 7-11.)

7.5 Wastewater ReuseAlthough there are advantages associatedwith wastewater reuse, the high costassociated with additional facilities andthe limited availability of suitable areas toirrigate make this option more difficult toimplement in the Florida Keys than inother areas. As noted in Section 3.7.3, thecost required to provide reuse water forirrigation is expected to be considerablyhigher than the current cost to providepotable water (an estimated $12.52/1,000 gallons for reuse water vs. $4.93/1,000 gallons for potable water). Conse-quently, initiating wastewater reuse doesnot provide a cost-savings incentive towastewater customers in the Keys. There-fore, a policy mandating wastewater reusewould have to be initiated by local, state,or federal regulatory agencies before full-scale wastewater reuse could be imple-mented in the Keys. However, mandatinga reuse policy should be carefully consid-ered because it may be more economicallysound to produce more potable waterfrom seawater and distribute it to theexisting potable water distribution systemthan to produce and distribute reclaimedwater through a separate reuse distribu-tion system.

An immediate initial step in determiningthe practicality and economics of waste-water reuse in the Keys should be toconduct reuse feasibility studies

The six existing community WWTPs thatwill continue to operate each have inde-pendent solids handling facilities centeredaround the aerobic digestion process. Mostlikely, it will be cost effective to maintainthese existing solids handling facilitiescurrently in operation. However, a de-tailed evaluation of each facility will benecessary to determine if the existingfacilities are adequate. If expansion ormajor improvements are necessary, par-ticularly at the four smallest facilitieshaving capacities of 0.2 mgd or less, thentransporting solids to a nearby regionalfacility for stabilization and/or dewater-ing may be a more cost-effective option.

7.3.2.3 Interim WWTPsSolids management facilities should not beconstructed at interim WWTPs because oftheir limited lifespan. Solids from thesefacilities should be transported to one ofthe Monroe County Solid Waste TransferStations for ultimate disposal at Miami-Dade.

7.3.2.4 Solids Treatment and DisposalClass B aerobic digestion followed bydewatering and truck transport of cake toa remote land application site in mainlandFlorida is the recommended solids man-agement system for all residual solids fromthe wastewater treatment facilities.

7.3.2.5 OWNRSWaste sludge from the 1,085 OWNRS isrecommended to be contract-hauled to theexisting Monroe County Solid WasteTransfer Stations and then to Miami-

Dade, as is the current practice forseptage. If issues arise with this method, asludge receiving facility and expandedsolids treatment capacity could be in-stalled at one or several of the regionalWWTPs, most likely the Big Pine, Mara-thon, or Tavernier/Key Largo RegionalWWTPs.

7.3.2.6 Grease ManagementContinuation of the current practice oftransporting waste grease to the MonroeCounty Solid Waste Transfer Stations forultimate disposal at Miami-Dade is recom-mended. Disposal of waste grease at thecommunity or regional WWTPs should beavoided because of the potential for odors.

7.4 Capital Costs Required toImplement the Master PlanAs shown in Exhibit 7-10, the capital costsrequired to improve wastewater manage-ment practices, as recommended by thisMaster Plan, are approximately$438,000,000. These costs assume that,other than those existing WWTPs that willcontinue to serve given isolated areas orexisting functioning private wastewaterutilities, all existing WWTPs will connectinto the central community wastewatersystems or regional systems once all the“Hot Spot” areas are served, or by 2010,whichever occurs first.

The seven largest systems, in terms ofcapital cost, (one of which is all the “ColdSpot” areas that will have to upgradeonsite systems to nutrient reduction

Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan

7-12

throughout the different service areas.These studies should establish firmamounts of reclaimed water to whichreuse customers are willing to commit andpay for.

7.6 Alternatives forImplementing WastewaterInfrastructure SystemsIn implementing the recommended capitalimprovements in this Master Plan, avariety of project delivery methods couldbe used, from the traditional design-bid-build approach to many different projectdelivery alternatives that are being em-ployed throughout the United States. Thedelivery alternatives are presented inExhibit 7-12. The following sections de-scribe these alternatives and the pros andcons of each.

EXHIBIT 7-10Estimated Capital Cost Required to Implement the Master Plan

Wastewater System Service AreasEstimated Capital

Cost1

KW Resort Utility $3,080,000Big Coppitt Service Area $20,500,000Bay Point Service Area $4,000,000Lower Sugarloaf Service Area $9,350,000Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional $34,300,000Big Pine Regional $55,900,000KW Resort Utility (AWT for non reuse) $760,000Key Haven Utility $500,000Monroe County Detention Center (AWT for non reuse) $250,000NAS Key West (Boca Chica) $670,000Bahia Honda $390,000Marathon Regional $72,300,000Conch Key Service Area $1,750,000Long Key/Layton Service Area $3,540,000Hawk's Cay (Hawk's Cay portion of AWT upgrade) $1,600,000West End Long Key $380,000East End Long Key $290,000Lower Matecumbe Service Area $8,900,000Islamorada Regional $66,800,000Tavernier/Key Largo Regional $119,400,000Ocean Reef Club $5,660,000PAED 22 at Snake Creek $200,000PAED 22 at County Line $460,000Onsite Unpgade of Unknown Systems $3,525,000Onsite Upgrade in 2010 $12,750,000

Total $437,950,0001Capital costs include a 20% contingency and include all construction costs,including the costs to decommission existing onsite systems and the costs ofnew building sewers on private property from the house or building to thestreet. Capital costs also include all engineering, construction administrationand inspection, land acquisition, legal fees, and financing charges.

Sec 1 WPB310127161227 final · sion programs through 2025. This Master Plan includes...

Documents

Transcript of Sec 1 WPB310127161227 final · sion programs through 2025. This Master Plan includes...