<%BANNER%>

The Feasibility of Water Reuse in Florida

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101112_AAAAEA INGEST_TIME 2010-11-12T19:35:38Z PACKAGE UFE0020149_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 132608 DFID F20101112_AACLPQ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH rembold_m_Page_114.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
f65d538406f487dfec91b58194ab7389
SHA-1
33a3663dc87a50220e59fccf68eebf693d796337
10873 F20101112_AACLQF rembold_m_Page_077.pro
0a2a25ce3421d889841b4b864136b120
89f2bf124b4da1503396c3fb4e9f1f1e301e63d8
8265 F20101112_AACLPR rembold_m_Page_070thm.jpg
9fb51b89470ae04774d8785a3671bd83
9d6badcdaabff65e150413b43027fd064444db17
111564 F20101112_AACLQG rembold_m_Page_090.jpg
b8ddce1b293922168789995bb9000054
fbccbd4e7e0d068beb9b2b55b6798e5544b24ebd
525877 F20101112_AACLPS rembold_m_Page_079.jp2
1e2a0ac21c546ae51709a9ca6b58ea85
371622d09f08dca07edfa4b50bd388d50b24d7df
98552 F20101112_AACLQH rembold_m_Page_003.jpg
da3b03e2624b9db651045e0d9ce33831
0eeaff67f454cbbb863a58a7b89294431f75c21d
48328 F20101112_AACLPT rembold_m_Page_045.jpg
06945dfda66c98c74ae5f6c359cbfab2
2e5e475d127d3417ccdae62c932ea6df7861913b
94279 F20101112_AACLQI rembold_m_Page_063.jp2
043b7b8f15669fe0d93a0458354476e9
6a249c5c953031ee3f631cdcb2daa6329d5e7798
108188 F20101112_AACLPU rembold_m_Page_017.jpg
ee81c24d12c648bbc6b5f16df578d969
41de414fa3550d99b588de5d44a6de5debdb5190
2137 F20101112_AACLQJ rembold_m_Page_017.txt
6ae40962de0054d73a8e480a91d19dba
695596976407647d1278c09b778cf81a3d47fab4
65675 F20101112_AACLPV rembold_m_Page_100.pro
7c8c12e1492da95a06f30ea242880f82
e273642d3daff575d5e51e36c111d85ab1b510c5
8798 F20101112_AACLQK rembold_m_Page_023thm.jpg
19c0edf908150ee375e0d0919fc74c07
21660c1f146bf634056b6f3583db593298d38593
59666 F20101112_AACLPW rembold_m_Page_080.jpg
5e7bc960a56d3141dd24dc0d4aff75f7
87bd2aa4a5a78770fb9b9a67f09f3c74854e9cc3
7123 F20101112_AACLQL rembold_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
b1e90d04ee91df0d7f21025410da3738
1adf2194fa5f120ca49b37d07c08ba5d76179386
401 F20101112_AACLPX rembold_m_Page_001.txt
bd428e6533a12c5252021900f7ccdca2
5d6fb50e2b823f1f8d5e4b164857b5429b40b8d6
102610 F20101112_AACLRA rembold_m_Page_015.jpg
95d8504b05d2962e1aca3b35a4aed733
5b26437ab0461c726ec4d3dcd6a082c17c538a9f
1053954 F20101112_AACLPY rembold_m_Page_065.tif
24d400b1ff8621bd88f53ad3f3806b1c
45135397ebd0e3ec2cf2ffcf6f1c8a222ca4a3a3
107287 F20101112_AACLRB rembold_m_Page_016.jpg
84bca8124565992b6bc4d4b80c86d8e0
502789db3288a59d179fcd02240107b0d34be8aa
176420 F20101112_AACLQM UFE0020149_00001.xml FULL
9e87a13814e3be04c228c255a0cda0e6
4e8eeee5f2d7198b8af933fe18eaf604dcbe2fcf
9079 F20101112_AACLPZ rembold_m_Page_025thm.jpg
7bfa9f5833eb139b46fdf3050461f2bd
ea62357e47e5cfe6a52dbb101398f4a893d49389
98341 F20101112_AACLRC rembold_m_Page_018.jpg
fc8a6284bca27ed863fbd9130c036dd3
bbc9b6cb72eebad6b39a3eaa8ffc93d39d534b61
104739 F20101112_AACLRD rembold_m_Page_020.jpg
793af0a77db6f801745745224a2b451f
80fd42c35e6de6901b05506f97b3c9dec0ff200a
103172 F20101112_AACLRE rembold_m_Page_021.jpg
a3a0869f5cb36e05c488978e02adee40
f1471b3f70b4a3a9babf7344c4f90fbf797fc6a2
21985 F20101112_AACLQP rembold_m_Page_001.jpg
c222019b3e2819972abf94e131a274c6
4e6ec64f82a098129d365f0f79473c1b1bbf89e3
104210 F20101112_AACLRF rembold_m_Page_022.jpg
48ce204af90d71033287761fc7e45b36
93693ac5e297071fba902d990eabaf92a7d0109b
4166 F20101112_AACLQQ rembold_m_Page_002.jpg
257e166c81ad77d10fa07bd3902662b4
221b58d2f388a1ce7aa4db1e7f1706dd9d7a767e
105638 F20101112_AACLRG rembold_m_Page_023.jpg
aff8e5d0478f18036c0dcfea53ecfe12
d8d65b3290c27170d59faab20f323c26e887c4a9
121425 F20101112_AACLQR rembold_m_Page_004.jpg
2cb66943a723bf883540c652753b6c02
27eb24dacfd586457bcb002d5810345691c51076
120127 F20101112_AACLRH rembold_m_Page_025.jpg
2668f915bb8b6c5276dc9e64fe9b07fc
646a2e7bf8a5e951d788ac9aec20e0c7b27faa3a
31592 F20101112_AACLQS rembold_m_Page_005.jpg
f7c458fb928f82df557163c895431860
17d72f07230993b6cedfbf9a601379ed8f7492f5
105432 F20101112_AACLRI rembold_m_Page_027.jpg
28f950172973a5ad026f5d30b78c35d7
ca5f6cbc34aa81e7237aed682774ea602533d227
114106 F20101112_AACLQT rembold_m_Page_006.jpg
b88cf5e8859856f64ee084b9179bd91a
eba9876ef9b5dd1fef90dddfedfaf9825c0ae21b
105366 F20101112_AACLRJ rembold_m_Page_029.jpg
ddb18b66e4a1ae776562638a4bb5bb11
7af07ce44df880e98827b6cd9519c8b5c280d2cd
24879 F20101112_AACLQU rembold_m_Page_007.jpg
ca5eab3cc52f03ebf57eb9fe3f64ae8e
9062b49b89931badec49d44816f92e8f9f5d7999
110238 F20101112_AACLRK rembold_m_Page_030.jpg
47d70f5f05d8514fe46f296bd8f9ad9f
4f28a612b7ec293b7a68ffacbd6027ff69bb3e57
121760 F20101112_AACLQV rembold_m_Page_008.jpg
7ba4adc2cb773242465a00753c768e58
16584409d9eae95885135412879b16f737a8e0a5
14676 F20101112_AACLRL rembold_m_Page_031.jpg
75337fc56b0cb3dce16ce7e9cccb20f2
f5e244c5693c3dc91f2bb3cc7538f5ddac600566
97180 F20101112_AACLQW rembold_m_Page_010.jpg
4caa3c786ed2eb173823726a3566092d
3d224605d816241a709b5c55a8c4475f65569d0b
101218 F20101112_AACLSA rembold_m_Page_059.jpg
f17e06d5c88602716e5edad91b254dc5
8c48d93cbe815d4e1dcb096606610d671d191277
78199 F20101112_AACLRM rembold_m_Page_032.jpg
59f8abfb8ccbbbf30d3e023386a33c55
1a9ac36f9d78260a8432ce9c9ed048a26d20924f
83666 F20101112_AACLQX rembold_m_Page_011.jpg
e62004ca3d76277a45475ed7f2956141
aa415ac8b9127b7642ef13e073b8511b58b939fa
104970 F20101112_AACLSB rembold_m_Page_060.jpg
11aa48535d9dec60eb2412ced74a2abb
6ac2a221fa5c7d51ce77dc3c6be7980b206947ec
105448 F20101112_AACLQY rembold_m_Page_012.jpg
08b1d74e3577180f9d107bf6590ab1ad
67759a13021c6ef23e84565bb02f43db5076559d
113940 F20101112_AACLSC rembold_m_Page_061.jpg
ffeefc0856d2c87d39953832c78d43c9
f6f5820981137001c29f3c6eafe70f67ab2a5887
96568 F20101112_AACLRN rembold_m_Page_033.jpg
88abebe7e8c0597f9189a2be82c97a20
ba19126f77fd448fc79c99942a420772dfce436d
109125 F20101112_AACLQZ rembold_m_Page_014.jpg
d13f3cce71f25c92138744f588986d64
e5490ade80b37cd8684eaef1cf52c5cccee4e299
109081 F20101112_AACLSD rembold_m_Page_062.jpg
2e6a2f1257722b0487dd2ce87ddf7e70
0c196c245afad2a27e28c47640d28604d1fa1119
47995 F20101112_AACLRO rembold_m_Page_034.jpg
7d85ec53c6839a4b5aa52b7892fa4ca7
5ca930d49233da3555f035b45979ba6e9a9e781c
87640 F20101112_AACLSE rembold_m_Page_063.jpg
2e6908ab3f84f34f941d0783b521fee0
ec63f87b257854e5719c4da83f338aefbc0a49d8
130386 F20101112_AACLRP rembold_m_Page_039.jpg
1eacc7d0b26416db0c01bf5559623da8
4a99fb907f7ffe93396e2b6a9338d421d0c68d4d
108062 F20101112_AACLSF rembold_m_Page_064.jpg
1e5ae4484bf832397ecfb2957befb492
288c2eea4ec9e2b89401726433eafe9dd9b00a25
38091 F20101112_AACLRQ rembold_m_Page_042.jpg
583a94095bcf3161524201b6dca8d4f2
3b6359cda9c91b9f49c5a9cc04094b197a0dcdc1
106728 F20101112_AACLSG rembold_m_Page_065.jpg
20ccb558c4c4c90ce99779b911972ecf
b8b99f54d8781aab62c40372fd5eb576ef9e6176
124552 F20101112_AACLRR rembold_m_Page_043.jpg
7bfbc72e6365bc43c9ae64c1c8ef9740
66f332f1eb51aa272c75a72aba8ddf21d8e358f4
90486 F20101112_AACLSH rembold_m_Page_066.jpg
654e5afcdf508ee986abb87db4de50c1
16684ff358b7b6d71a7c258490bf8922ce462737
53139 F20101112_AACLRS rembold_m_Page_044.jpg
4ea9767b1adae2dc3d9b973b71cc0d13
2aaf5a7c9ecf7abbe9a83d6b2e88cdc0f79c49aa
91004 F20101112_AACLSI rembold_m_Page_067.jpg
5fc031809826a01fe3415fa7e518eb38
0c83756524b4be03c78b751ef818ecf992ce1480
110889 F20101112_AACLRT rembold_m_Page_048.jpg
4f6e5a098d0d2f673c37d73ce0ab82a1
40dbbe897cbedcc3f3aeef06e03152413a496993
107371 F20101112_AACLSJ rembold_m_Page_068.jpg
1dfba6ac74f9a1f96a4aeaf618c5d16f
9a625508320b3cba6cd468d855ec11d8bba15501
93347 F20101112_AACLRU rembold_m_Page_049.jpg
82b7b003ff6d0074facb8f58b4e08b3a
8ac8c2b319bcd4158fd6c14410acbdf171ec7dce
101141 F20101112_AACLSK rembold_m_Page_070.jpg
4fb278f8732979d4cd64d36b569abe20
70efa72915b695fe0a3b49b1784632e0b188e8fc
111080 F20101112_AACLRV rembold_m_Page_051.jpg
812966bfe07b03b3428d3cf106115688
c594183516a0b096c4ccfbb965268e55206b816f
99234 F20101112_AACLRW rembold_m_Page_052.jpg
dff1a59ad12cc46d2b934a9bae693a1d
612f13903bde301a662141337fe29415aaa2e67d
98785 F20101112_AACLSL rembold_m_Page_073.jpg
d781cc02affa4d926c1b5e85ef586cee
f5d8b9f27f2cbc640ab2b70e26ec7179613be054
109283 F20101112_AACLRX rembold_m_Page_053.jpg
2e6f880fd8a5430c33797fd4040f2256
0013b389520db3d1f27c6a9f154cd00949c2b749
109959 F20101112_AACLTA rembold_m_Page_099.jpg
d0fa9a1f7130b7134a6c92cae34ad70b
3e87e9e785078d9ef50b0e1ed8b9dbacd2de3955
51884 F20101112_AACLSM rembold_m_Page_076.jpg
6a21264f21dc1bb34b37a58da43c7834
1e5d7a083a460d5d794f61b0c6146cfb68d6464a
107372 F20101112_AACLRY rembold_m_Page_056.jpg
dceb1efd43b632e84d63144ad875e64f
ebbf264369b0fc55ebff31214f8a1cd58db0df2f
111018 F20101112_AACLTB rembold_m_Page_101.jpg
6f48d0cc9898a7ffaea8277aa379630d
4de5648b59fd7fbcf96b037f9badc23f6257b39b
46480 F20101112_AACLSN rembold_m_Page_077.jpg
bc7963a2ddce9a69eef5661c55f40aae
2309c52d2a6a4b08e5c848cf50fff3e548dcdef4
111761 F20101112_AACLRZ rembold_m_Page_057.jpg
81fc0f70ac51b6be5d74a22f997a08af
8a200b0431190ede7a526cccd8eb8155a339e4fa
112669 F20101112_AACLTC rembold_m_Page_102.jpg
6a11db437fd50e065fe21ce6c8e18720
9e0c3272028e720f46ee66b5ebdb3aa357a0416f
110667 F20101112_AACLTD rembold_m_Page_103.jpg
df40376cb759a5d96205e03052f9121c
f6f935ba51263c48cba4710bf561763b51e39af5
49510 F20101112_AACLSO rembold_m_Page_078.jpg
64e6b595cb38c966da36b149099b472d
0356bf2fcf3e62773e15cb392ec9160dba7ee2ae
53008 F20101112_AACLTE rembold_m_Page_104.jpg
3df1a9c78ee86aa9a3ed6abd585a7f06
bfdcd96340e80a3c468de8d7964f18f6b088a7f3
52008 F20101112_AACLSP rembold_m_Page_079.jpg
12165c40ce0e39044395f878086ed5be
3faa7f4c855f0400d34302b7f8cdc1559a6ce635
57764 F20101112_AACLTF rembold_m_Page_105.jpg
793827ea12da38919823fa36f354800d
1c6bd52474111318d931f55fcfc87c893c235db0
109124 F20101112_AACLSQ rembold_m_Page_081.jpg
e9cb580236ba839cbc3f27c32cbac9dd
9ed73ed17d6a6baac8e5317f92f381b44cbf6b13
57080 F20101112_AACLTG rembold_m_Page_106.jpg
1f790fa6dc1d4d665823104fc87d956c
882afb689a76b53eafa09be11b981bacf59e059b
108394 F20101112_AACLSR rembold_m_Page_083.jpg
799a1cdbb74ce26b1e3a485f5368a29f
ec106d1685f77610f48864046dd8b334ea787106
43516 F20101112_AACLTH rembold_m_Page_107.jpg
593c0835dc32597070b92248be723780
fa8fa38ae7519f6e8e1be2e8686967bcaa2be6bd
38013 F20101112_AACLSS rembold_m_Page_086.jpg
60cbde700d7acd39e61cc2619bc382f6
46ea84d456592ef06be1faea7b6418bfcc2a1a8e
60877 F20101112_AACLTI rembold_m_Page_108.jpg
cf088b1a3dd254a9e4928712c0d6faff
56acfa04286c8e383c6a0b527c6c9cc94335c3f0
110103 F20101112_AACLST rembold_m_Page_088.jpg
9ab334a7aa283354bffa99742a65f111
d8671e694577fbf263e085ed62da60e954330b50
28003 F20101112_AACLTJ rembold_m_Page_109.jpg
006322c9eee728d1c1322f9487e11a01
094a9a3fd9b8ff48e7b24b84bfa34950dec0f8c9
110839 F20101112_AACLSU rembold_m_Page_091.jpg
716815f7e610d56c064c88917c8b5e9f
271b72a021283bba1cd9bc226f46d6055ea61b35
68146 F20101112_AACLTK rembold_m_Page_110.jpg
31f8d6003777b6f763809cc76ac22b0d
ae4e85652d02f2a1f4c315c3bb0c0ba0eafab34a
110600 F20101112_AACLSV rembold_m_Page_092.jpg
f4890d9d63bbb9be826d446ebe247290
335a46cc9d8a8ef04a741d06ef9299e4534288dc
20609 F20101112_AACLTL rembold_m_Page_111.jpg
99df9e77678c02d11bd1e195f01561f6
64bfd217b24463c629b8a50ccc8292e57e52b359
110908 F20101112_AACLSW rembold_m_Page_093.jpg
8d29043ec33dfa074410d7a4c23797a8
84a1082ce85814aa6353e15d68462592f00cc449
109059 F20101112_AACLUA rembold_m_Page_015.jp2
33804a1915444838242beea39464089a
40bc02560791d9ef174ed6a558edfaeb7c94386d
102366 F20101112_AACLTM rembold_m_Page_112.jpg
f77bd95b0e456092c7e4a07af73f2b51
54c8c66d5c56c5330da071d1bc43fb7c532f0330
110610 F20101112_AACLSX rembold_m_Page_096.jpg
3bfbd65e9726d43ac833f6de642b9d78
ebdd7a8868e62719dffcd9d46d6f29a68fad4880
115662 F20101112_AACLUB rembold_m_Page_016.jp2
2ab22f22bb819d41bdc0aa8017aee46e
edde8492b147e48d48ba59d045c242852b085bd7
122226 F20101112_AACLTN rembold_m_Page_114.jpg
0b70338b0a2e31278cf18d1327aad508
3055b3f249babf15fd6dce50b4e9951daa4d0a87
110042 F20101112_AACLSY rembold_m_Page_097.jpg
52e9c504136d706897764b6aa76a934d
86739921471e8ee6aba5d25cfa13401500cedbb1
113882 F20101112_AACLUC rembold_m_Page_017.jp2
e4ea401d3908773dd7ebd1d62bbefed5
4e408449961f2092686590775919d1525ce72d72
116520 F20101112_AACLTO rembold_m_Page_115.jpg
d1bd657ef66eb4c251e690988280a4bf
8457191e21c4b6cf24ce1d68bc1f79a4bb8888ba
111770 F20101112_AACLSZ rembold_m_Page_098.jpg
840ebdad9575f627cf19a6fc4c690370
fe0fbeb0282c7e2d9386c7a087b7603f60b0b1c2
104121 F20101112_AACLUD rembold_m_Page_018.jp2
40ae72dd2312e568fef78e36180b2010
819136774aaa8fad31ec6e799a23f61bbbbc8536
114114 F20101112_AACLUE rembold_m_Page_019.jp2
df543a174cdf4865f371703734579ad2
4502353730fae6fc11e4043319216239664f3b1e
90401 F20101112_AACLTP rembold_m_Page_117.jpg
8398231445d691b8a8191102572e23f1
f10b6fe426ff38036125f5a03c89d01918426e2c
110815 F20101112_AACLUF rembold_m_Page_020.jp2
3abecbdf0930d6876eb829f418addc7b
fd131500751eff98ca7176b3056330de060085d8
22081 F20101112_AACLTQ rembold_m_Page_001.jp2
8a4b1bd3866ee74802c7f62de0672755
ffb89410d559923f5b452f2c6f937394efa8359b
110748 F20101112_AACLUG rembold_m_Page_021.jp2
c557e5de30f9dc63788bc046fc3e3de1
52e8591a3ba9a7344ae236d6d5af094516ade4ec
103090 F20101112_AACLTR rembold_m_Page_003.jp2
464666cb53a8d40736735bd44451eb08
920a1a94382c0623e42e9d88ff74c54b7ec306f6
F20101112_AACMAA rembold_m_Page_092.tif
8676d8f68af503977856990ee10c8b23
0af5c15153ea804b76d3f0cd066e2f2d21702192
111674 F20101112_AACLUH rembold_m_Page_022.jp2
2ff593cd71eff52fe4e81f2d0da84802
14fc323a077f518e46c125bbed16ffc77a00ac3a
1051971 F20101112_AACLTS rembold_m_Page_004.jp2
2053398314989c948fba8cda953c44cc
e53060b8090378ea9780843d6c5dfbdee8cfc41f
F20101112_AACMAB rembold_m_Page_093.tif
98916141c33bca14639477a160c71957
b54d6197de8358cbaec27c5a6e346a9a3a5e0c4a
112852 F20101112_AACLUI rembold_m_Page_023.jp2
cc2a3f893d948e49474e0e91a48a377a
17df634707d0e0771c6941b43c76366ddeb2ed28
512755 F20101112_AACLTT rembold_m_Page_005.jp2
6330028e315cdf774771fc4eff471010
7d919b5a1dc1be1bc9b50e82dbc7a57a86b968c8
F20101112_AACMAC rembold_m_Page_095.tif
9f47faf44ece8977cd34c0d67f32dfad
3ab40c2d2be015fa63b8304ebce5b30c0fdb57e9
128305 F20101112_AACLUJ rembold_m_Page_025.jp2
d1595b6cf55f9aa9f4ef0a8a9a8d8a30
a2e431d2aeed1952c1e4eff2c29a53d452ec7a50
1051969 F20101112_AACLTU rembold_m_Page_006.jp2
99a9ced1d20762e45585a3c052209a63
0db2af334ba35487be37bd7266b2a02bafee93e3
F20101112_AACMAD rembold_m_Page_098.tif
0825c7a46ddb8daee2ed8e53d16dd2ac
b5c7423d7d62646d98ff315478ddd34c66437add
113113 F20101112_AACLUK rembold_m_Page_027.jp2
df1d153dcdb076d26d2fea02d7296621
32834ce2ede9854e9d2705afe84e5f4bae01778e
447462 F20101112_AACLTV rembold_m_Page_009.jp2
ab0008e1fd518be31a7f46165c822ead
e392a55495634be61d85c1b4a5d068c1c42be19b
F20101112_AACMAE rembold_m_Page_099.tif
1c0e46b5045d0e0c92cc4476980f1500
c8deb1cb76ff1746a3d1ab35c860f08251420f71
101553 F20101112_AACLUL rembold_m_Page_028.jp2
1a8fdb4cd80d9228b146e3f171a2e6b8
08134301c192c3bc4d31ec145db05d6dd2557e32
90697 F20101112_AACLTW rembold_m_Page_011.jp2
0b3e994a1cc944b209391663724350e7
0455a3b2ec1a9505af7da7a04a1be9de9d613c4b
F20101112_AACMAF rembold_m_Page_100.tif
566c8b3c72671c7a36ac776177c182d5
45585a617d9d9f98973cc76d4899deb12b4d3d32
112839 F20101112_AACLUM rembold_m_Page_029.jp2
a4e49c44a457479ed61812103ff8776e
89d7567b3d719df769cc865696adf06b91d8df47
112373 F20101112_AACLTX rembold_m_Page_012.jp2
683bb79c620f40e8430b22cb8922c609
c719dd71a7d1beeaff664218921b34e45a7f8744
F20101112_AACMAG rembold_m_Page_101.tif
153840a6c4299f44f3a9cd6c8ca7b7d9
3e146e18164c9a5a136e287a071ef998f67295ea
110428 F20101112_AACLVA rembold_m_Page_047.jp2
aebfbce1d6c8ece054a9b544b7d0db18
c3f83f09e9acd0e14ec372b0d2130aaeef36a63e
117364 F20101112_AACLUN rembold_m_Page_030.jp2
b0e1ce37160bbcd26b665f2a6de49f4a
c950857e8b9bc9fc495b647bb503d5b0c6a11410
46712 F20101112_AACLTY rembold_m_Page_013.jp2
2afa60ba1166628ff8d28604cfb5ca5c
6ca03195af000af5173cc9ca4fb3d999ab862389
F20101112_AACMAH rembold_m_Page_103.tif
490371cddb6324c07e507d0ce680478b
65068ef63e343ce091d18e13ba6ee2c3c9c18b13
118580 F20101112_AACLVB rembold_m_Page_048.jp2
ee2db9f994c55de98d503f6cc9c7d43a
a57b248be5bb0d2d78d88b408901adfd90e880a6
81717 F20101112_AACLUO rembold_m_Page_032.jp2
1a7e31375d44716c8d976c6ab4c5fbee
1197dfade2058713b490abcec839d5646440ff3e
115702 F20101112_AACLTZ rembold_m_Page_014.jp2
c3e3b97842c4450ca2b52dec68424a06
1bb075f8e91e38f60108fa1d8ef9831ab162a74b
F20101112_AACMAI rembold_m_Page_104.tif
9a0d9501a5949f53a08627792f843cea
77960c5f687324b5fd0e0b5079a402a078d1e120
98859 F20101112_AACLVC rembold_m_Page_049.jp2
00d165ca9b67456b3f6c88da3cd11302
9fcc5179e03ae9cc39557e7daf7c0e523c1a463f
51465 F20101112_AACLUP rembold_m_Page_034.jp2
e0aba92b2edad7e888821a1f44623041
e10790f6ac936c03fbdc254ddebec340f21d97f2
F20101112_AACMAJ rembold_m_Page_105.tif
f498e3b2d4b3c6c581a95271d5a44c47
27b15b5d733c62135dc5b32a9a2f42a1b1d59ffc
104292 F20101112_AACLVD rembold_m_Page_050.jp2
622a0550a2f5bfed2bbdddc54d0c3f7e
9e81a0fce288c84d7ef3be01c9e78d55c9e84096
F20101112_AACMAK rembold_m_Page_106.tif
49a268565d2a3a294cbd01feba130392
e15a76ddd282693de7a7af64b960871cef35dc86
118326 F20101112_AACLVE rembold_m_Page_051.jp2
b706f12324a39368b4bca01d185afc00
25b8a347eb7a497af2a4b50dafcdd838fdfb6feb
68898 F20101112_AACLUQ rembold_m_Page_035.jp2
2ee96b26d37983a64f18cb65e2224c53
f3afc9527e7e91bcc2378e3eaa65a6585533d37a
F20101112_AACMAL rembold_m_Page_107.tif
9b1a0cd0bbfe08b8b0d0094d88ffd7d1
b2f899ac7e24bfd6fc1bd2fcb2e6de12168fa3ef
105255 F20101112_AACLVF rembold_m_Page_052.jp2
e904b6546c89fa86b1ea6836cff84d46
5195119445fd2a941145d96d1f7cccd9f325c3c5
53828 F20101112_AACLUR rembold_m_Page_036.jp2
fd7357f76a47e6ff83052736075576b8
b5a4eb73b49d9ecfb6c5d88e459570df66bfa6b1
11487 F20101112_AACMBA rembold_m_Page_009.pro
2c7a9f7ca72954b840f0985b2ce12957
0597c806cad648636a8f2be633a4d86bcfc99022
F20101112_AACMAM rembold_m_Page_108.tif
30cd728d235be1fcc29cee71f1978e0b
2834671ca36e066ab0e3b1518ea7b63db5f35594
113333 F20101112_AACLVG rembold_m_Page_053.jp2
f1af2f759fc1d0abf1453b24597638f1
64a07f7ab4b1fb401d2df5104c34f3f36657539b
387539 F20101112_AACLUS rembold_m_Page_037.jp2
be9155ea14649f5c735b2d227f361b5a
dc08ddaf9d34ba8c6d964fd6b8f6521a164fb3a4
46986 F20101112_AACMBB rembold_m_Page_010.pro
93faea1ba9588489d91663cf14a1454e
c8f5807b2d3824faa4785850894d0c68e7ee00d5
F20101112_AACMAN rembold_m_Page_109.tif
46828fcce2142bb2fae6128f2f3d7bb3
f8710a6816cce0ac4e2098e0b2c05055eded7eab
115281 F20101112_AACLVH rembold_m_Page_054.jp2
8189ae92eac409e1c72ba072d83f921f
29e55821f393d35ab9a07490ae4fe2bbc179a194
1051978 F20101112_AACLUT rembold_m_Page_038.jp2
6ca742e18e36854a36b674ca36261e2f
81dec4f41e172fc3e529b7264167114fc25fcaaa
53247 F20101112_AACMBC rembold_m_Page_012.pro
50d38d1ee293613e7b7658aa8d81821a
e300ed4c81abfb82075ba928c3702564691de5e8
F20101112_AACMAO rembold_m_Page_110.tif
43f73b4a5283ff3ea599da9a82da6a84
353d0db6c9b30bb13898816e1d939a79527b1469
114368 F20101112_AACLVI rembold_m_Page_055.jp2
a10c7f1ed3baa725d6ade099bbb11ffa
9f5ecb0bca13a0435637c23f2dab3e11662f0023
1051920 F20101112_AACLUU rembold_m_Page_039.jp2
72d1424a458d58d693f30a3d20bf3f8a
0330b820e47db05cee1752df8cda44ed44688b11
19934 F20101112_AACMBD rembold_m_Page_013.pro
7a637fcd60652cafeed6908535d60231
703fbb08e58dee4efaa59095d2c5dd26f992bc4a
F20101112_AACMAP rembold_m_Page_111.tif
ff5e6b4ab208d00316bfafd02e889e04
7a767b9853aae4968b76cf236ee325b27197d000
118930 F20101112_AACLVJ rembold_m_Page_057.jp2
c33e7f2ac04153aebf63f71f21fc068e
5c9c6f1443a6d6f8f803a3e63d13895a0b264315
429445 F20101112_AACLUV rembold_m_Page_042.jp2
62ae3bdbbbf6ca8dd1e3993853ac399c
893f05f2959e70725f661c7649cd662445df978a
52343 F20101112_AACMBE rembold_m_Page_014.pro
51c9e127a35970b7af1f74c18baf5f82
c1844a7f738b9b91483d6fccc5e0c4d70a495e5d
F20101112_AACMAQ rembold_m_Page_112.tif
6f466c57b157b96d014969c408bcd5ab
6cd2da15f0c510345083c6ec99d05d8d7c5e1b80
117115 F20101112_AACLVK rembold_m_Page_058.jp2
1e3d65af556986b92827d56242451159
c146d5244f89493171cb99666925f06cabb1a4d2
1051972 F20101112_AACLUW rembold_m_Page_043.jp2
c5d8862af02702717293ce033aee6824
c2bde936071e573618274e7eb3fb7c9e982be1e2
53415 F20101112_AACMBF rembold_m_Page_017.pro
a8862eaea67ddda45e9aabfae1a4de31
583a02b0166a3a8df51ca1e6fe34a982a7ff2d3a
F20101112_AACMAR rembold_m_Page_113.tif
6da739a21c1d8b59a0a9fcad5c2b533f
bb7b18a1f9956a62b8f33588b3cfc6418197e398
112896 F20101112_AACLVL rembold_m_Page_060.jp2
8ddae02125c60297ac5e4b0c724ad35d
289d650a22ff58f486519cc686b8d0360536c36d
475592 F20101112_AACLUX rembold_m_Page_044.jp2
0c61c3f9a459882b69e4a13b2e640eea
f24672c2723053d05907e9c70e33031515829a74
49650 F20101112_AACMBG rembold_m_Page_020.pro
4ba536ea276d875b05f615f8d3b93d7a
8b1dd1e4c49ea054dbbdd5d9afa0704e256472eb
406644 F20101112_AACLWA rembold_m_Page_077.jp2
e451f0d6bc9d13d32a1601a93931408d
b2bf299933ac1a029bf46b268fe66de54c3b7c57
F20101112_AACMAS rembold_m_Page_114.tif
cdb3cf1a04b91d63a22dbad8bee4d6a6
b309e68fac8af8fddb1f85e489095314574b8cb5
122037 F20101112_AACLVM rembold_m_Page_061.jp2
5202243fe11d47b8969913794d130601
b637cbfd9983f0e047e3bd5a98f5580d37437b52
442149 F20101112_AACLUY rembold_m_Page_045.jp2
384bf9ef9048b1c2ad598c8a5ac33654
f5c2aad3a76a6109df4fb4f426f4e06430bf6462
50614 F20101112_AACMBH rembold_m_Page_021.pro
dd8c3e4c513b8a728c3870aad749046c
000acc9bdd460d0f4ec2594dfc46e71c83076dbb
783141 F20101112_AACLWB rembold_m_Page_078.jp2
a732f727390e1cff4ca9d07bc95c628f
67de0003bada77e39037c2bfb504c666eea02766
F20101112_AACMAT rembold_m_Page_116.tif
85e4f1dee6343ea227ae7735ed853f94
e24b165d836c15d0f17898efcbfcbdd4f7c35b45
116124 F20101112_AACLVN rembold_m_Page_062.jp2
d6fcb411a0b97515b035e60b0d7bd4f1
69d29812a21548aff318d058278fc09a4fe044ad
780487 F20101112_AACLUZ rembold_m_Page_046.jp2
f71589c0d1cf01249be7054949c74957
b59d82da37a37b8fced5a9ee0cb9d7fe3153bb08
50829 F20101112_AACMBI rembold_m_Page_022.pro
96bd59a524e1f23eba5116cdbb372005
9ba620adead7dfc6a48d451319dbbe7f1c48353a
115895 F20101112_AACLWC rembold_m_Page_081.jp2
985c048e475aa6de2880e8248a4d34d5
a083007249c741c4a1e095d98ca77bc94222dd99
7223 F20101112_AACMAU rembold_m_Page_001.pro
e1adba70fdac9abeae51a2be89a80306
7f108bfe2c5babb1e4e121a8d1668a22ad499a92
114389 F20101112_AACLVO rembold_m_Page_064.jp2
c4fdfb871fd8cba32bbb80a8c501313b
a9f8f83574547dfaefe4e100117ad12e2809d762
52324 F20101112_AACMBJ rembold_m_Page_023.pro
59c390c44031d44c425d4dfa4c211132
999b300e1671918246df5fd0e99bf67990728518
108193 F20101112_AACLWD rembold_m_Page_082.jp2
db89265b1e720733b6b326d0e0bc71e2
a29446549fd92f3e2d23e7b2d3b37994625fe1c5
940 F20101112_AACMAV rembold_m_Page_002.pro
6ea3ffac533fdbf5c4bc0e01a1845a89
2d36c8d3b91cbf4852553707785ede94c5d36c8c
115567 F20101112_AACLVP rembold_m_Page_065.jp2
b99b401eba75018f5e8cf9e626c54d08
a178347ce8141c6027e3ac367518b4ca8ac7c435
41807 F20101112_AACMBK rembold_m_Page_026.pro
19b65cf211fb2b4644e0b2e2474a06db
9bd7a0da1b46061b52dc05d0de6376075fdef4c7
117522 F20101112_AACLWE rembold_m_Page_083.jp2
3fc7c2d9e36a584e5497ca433fe10ff6
88cac921ade299d54d6942ddaa01eda8034cea9f
99258 F20101112_AACMAW rembold_m_Page_004.pro
1847d617a360f9039b37c8aa8f07a0d9
2acd8b85a9c9ffb573916a1e5beec60fe41b18cf
97427 F20101112_AACLVQ rembold_m_Page_066.jp2
2ed1d4d268f9c46bb14119a373561319
b103a17482513338d4cefa4264b37b171be63e30
53705 F20101112_AACMBL rembold_m_Page_027.pro
aa50a89bccdabfc49e0a3e691156d788
4b3213622ee337e3148eeef7b7ab418846423001
84431 F20101112_AACLWF rembold_m_Page_084.jp2
94cc363043278e116d13dabdd76eb9b2
38e1eb18be6b8d19aaf62ba790c1d314a4bad0c6
19926 F20101112_AACMAX rembold_m_Page_005.pro
19166d4f8f38777a35ce76bb3e96fd7a
b6eb3c5d732828cdce9339d683a2b74742748ff2
47366 F20101112_AACMBM rembold_m_Page_028.pro
7c9b9d664bfcd87f64a06f9d49c1731a
e9698119e636f71dd890d6b120768fbb4d818210
84464 F20101112_AACLWG rembold_m_Page_085.jp2
1828a331cad2f0c693e42e5f77d69dad
e64d31f8519fe91f461ef1ac516671218c122fe1
16516 F20101112_AACMAY rembold_m_Page_007.pro
e60fb0c62b9f280b40b29d27de052601
aca3da53a25a2c17f944ebdc0ef57783ceaa11ba
96295 F20101112_AACLVR rembold_m_Page_067.jp2
5c49c23a3cbd3c2752ed3dcbcc006305
56a5a84115906d6091406821bf87d8188b8d9b67
16680 F20101112_AACMCA rembold_m_Page_045.pro
ae2ef715be984c2e95c20b5c602fbfa1
63b76ebafe32e335536aede3650bb0b77d2e7f02
53098 F20101112_AACMBN rembold_m_Page_029.pro
e46a408717990179423b51040c2db12a
a51bdb75664221ec552e41e43a8c222f21c39f30
41733 F20101112_AACLWH rembold_m_Page_086.jp2
afa7c3dffa2b2b31af2a5450c5cc938e
531aec4087916ba1920677c4146f0cde058b4d50
71951 F20101112_AACMAZ rembold_m_Page_008.pro
9f36ac8266fce248983d3f06c553bdc9
c636a32cf0e974df45520b9110dd291f8f7d011e
113230 F20101112_AACLVS rembold_m_Page_068.jp2
8ae31091fa6b805d99c946ca4d750a36
50b69ad5c559f7bc29cecbb12f9d0f5e5ae7ae94
50979 F20101112_AACMCB rembold_m_Page_047.pro
0ba79be9180b28f0512e530fa764e163
29c95d4fa49e9f6b32be1fe58234a6fc0abec3b1
54817 F20101112_AACMBO rembold_m_Page_030.pro
c8cd9088b774c7d3951c6b2c05f343e9
4b20a5ea180763fbe1f923b551f2303b3e13d532
126878 F20101112_AACLWI rembold_m_Page_087.jp2
69459281ab5118f49b016511a48fae95
c18f4309ca9eaaeef411d06b6ab4ce3de8e158a5
110453 F20101112_AACLVT rembold_m_Page_070.jp2
5263ab495f903da9c2d38f1d82b1f02e
a678eb8d6703ef18fdff0ed0b33f33fdf1175dc7
55599 F20101112_AACMCC rembold_m_Page_048.pro
a7443c42c4b01cac767347faef27181b
32081f3e6e69846b8771a1d1f60a61165061e6e5
5622 F20101112_AACMBP rembold_m_Page_031.pro
bf94d9e15930ca520398f9fbe66695dc
4120e22e8a764817674f1c5c3a6e2daf529403fc
125423 F20101112_AACLWJ rembold_m_Page_088.jp2
7640f5a6021406d0431b4b89dc031f6f
9c409344b3ebfe84dc233f634dcd54d47b939381
119278 F20101112_AACLVU rembold_m_Page_071.jp2
ce6af74ad3d99fb512a74ab7f748fcbd
0cfb936046f0fa241c709378a1797d5faffbda85
46271 F20101112_AACMCD rembold_m_Page_049.pro
534923483c120b996012a37044942ed1
532bac31be566c9d7851cca3b310177f193ff342
44217 F20101112_AACMBQ rembold_m_Page_032.pro
3cd25b9b4c99735a8c356bc24cfc1b0f
563d3ad805a2e85847b880f9a1accada7ad35b37
126913 F20101112_AACLWK rembold_m_Page_090.jp2
ca740d73f7f8198692beb11d373bdb2b
43d506ee07d5926eb8f302d0ebf255a60f7bd17c
45025 F20101112_AACLVV rembold_m_Page_072.jp2
219fdd680857911973b24f4e008fc2ed
74069b4d4eb33b72c08acd3b9ed212fc1c32e7a4
54741 F20101112_AACMCE rembold_m_Page_051.pro
ae9d2a38d15862b683501928ffd50c14
79fc20e3bfd322fcb5285f25b016dfa23ba7fa81
53979 F20101112_AACMBR rembold_m_Page_033.pro
69c055396e9ea135b29394ceb735b69d
42c8b4debd70ddec2e5564d141068341e6135e4f
130091 F20101112_AACLWL rembold_m_Page_091.jp2
4030856a1ad0e5471c224621fb799fa7
130c5c4644cce5041fff2f25f075a3eafda93204
108813 F20101112_AACLVW rembold_m_Page_073.jp2
77d8640b3c2655816a66373e4224886c
bfb4bfdac98249f49f40231f24686e950f4ce528
48286 F20101112_AACMCF rembold_m_Page_052.pro
03998327b590217351b5e7020b0e8297
8df7e32925eb316082f1b8fb3589e64b2701574e
76565 F20101112_AACLXA rembold_m_Page_110.jp2
4ec908a6ebab85d3c7029aa30d918e8e
b3c780175776a8e358f808ddbea0bdf52ef3b86a
27599 F20101112_AACMBS rembold_m_Page_034.pro
179f2ca7cd9045284135dc45fd1958cc
2d6c1be2186b4631056d7a9706bef8f9482423da
127674 F20101112_AACLWM rembold_m_Page_092.jp2
ff2b27a5c1adfd0ff57b4a88158793b0
d19beaf95359dd0f9fcd482dbcaee62db158d614
78961 F20101112_AACLVX rembold_m_Page_074.jp2
bed939ca1d0d9bfc048d53e0f25289c2
26eca76cdb7a3449905453619127896aed69044e
53213 F20101112_AACMCG rembold_m_Page_055.pro
29a61c8072020cbaeeb5c5498e52124c
e4d55961cffe210bd7d5994e26df0d96d8bc5c71
111524 F20101112_AACLXB rembold_m_Page_112.jp2
652573cd77029c31e50cfb5e935fb26d
d7e3249bb93ef2d2d9516db0f4ae926f0756a633
32236 F20101112_AACMBT rembold_m_Page_035.pro
732f9d61a305f703c43378126f6f3f8f
dadce5ff52003a5f6c5040f6572df63e13d41e74
123669 F20101112_AACLWN rembold_m_Page_093.jp2
02ab691f027ce4446c3baa9de0b8d070
a37aaed3b6f8ef8e64f0d2178f436fcc5f014e1d
656899 F20101112_AACLVY rembold_m_Page_075.jp2
224a2973a1d41638728568536cb71f56
de9b718f02beae04de06148df9a3910371039c30
53791 F20101112_AACMCH rembold_m_Page_056.pro
3586310a40d7e52b20a346b680edb99f
9d289f4ba7e9d311e4f708def3836849a4e874a2
40055 F20101112_AACLXC rembold_m_Page_113.jp2
2232010cafd0ba6ce32a6f3035cb005b
921477efb81ba5cdd3d2e0b1b855c7dd30303e05
7815 F20101112_AACMBU rembold_m_Page_037.pro
c41fbc1f2ddd2b95d7c391e1be9d6bdb
ecf6f42bb8f6e35469fcbd4133da789c75477ae7
126297 F20101112_AACLWO rembold_m_Page_095.jp2
ccd0a72694da536ce8e2257bc318087e
6335fe82721cc06fb1a892f6dfad912b9bca5802
463260 F20101112_AACLVZ rembold_m_Page_076.jp2
e02c44650e5c5b37d35ef202ad865eb1
da4ce3c8a2dac29d62b0a114b769d8e97465b791
56982 F20101112_AACMCI rembold_m_Page_058.pro
3e4a453d88dc69038d8f501e0431af2a
159a27498dfff56d7cef484692dc79cdbd518be3
119792 F20101112_AACLXD rembold_m_Page_115.jp2
feca6e087b5859e48c75e4b921199442
40dc69747032ed86773f473e26bb67f3928faf7a
3178 F20101112_AACMBV rembold_m_Page_038.pro
cd318e74227a83f3465005a5a7fc832e
6c3a034d07d71103034d5d3ab221c7818def3630
125805 F20101112_AACLWP rembold_m_Page_096.jp2
8cf73c1e3216bc873fdc7d694db2513c
b3648de60754e41a22e0997d2db8cadc76e4c521
50690 F20101112_AACMCJ rembold_m_Page_059.pro
22dfbf11548e6aef672de01f3fcdaf49
d8b54fefe705eefa3c618e67169697d66860c1ba
122432 F20101112_AACLXE rembold_m_Page_116.jp2
8d04168312773272d79f1ca3983fac7c
8d8a775edfc16d6e3e4426c9f5e8c9005d77eebb
3094 F20101112_AACMBW rembold_m_Page_039.pro
00a29910bb897cee844c9f6545fccc74
9b5242ae756831e1b6d13437334b692a7043eaa5
122820 F20101112_AACLWQ rembold_m_Page_097.jp2
6f21673f83296b06026319e4576aa825
1fa3749fafc1efedb4bb650a893c397f7cc2f971
52342 F20101112_AACMCK rembold_m_Page_060.pro
3ad015b5731a138421c59c27fe0cac73
814469d2ed8c8bfa3357916bb8accdb2134ce633
95071 F20101112_AACLXF rembold_m_Page_117.jp2
6fec4e1520c08ab2eb2507317c913d55
4dcffd749d5d23f66f95053905121e59e6e39e66
3206 F20101112_AACMBX rembold_m_Page_040.pro
25d810132bc6f43c6109a1e25d450dbf
9615735270e300866bf9498838041d2fd652297f
127337 F20101112_AACLWR rembold_m_Page_099.jp2
8c27f67021ee391654cab724ee8b48f6
c09bc0255ad159d36758c6b5191096b1edefcb74
57099 F20101112_AACMCL rembold_m_Page_061.pro
6a88f0669e10a466ee8c807e1b7db8b2
e541d92dcef6d38c17f95a4d4213ffcbc2ff5925
F20101112_AACLXG rembold_m_Page_001.tif
4b42bdff2cc426b47635f8743938cf22
f5f362b3fc3620a5d3d890b8fbb9defe475ee2bf
4819 F20101112_AACMBY rembold_m_Page_043.pro
860ba3a6ee903be129951a31da51d226
ee8e699a22ded103ed1020b9c3c7a25272b49429
54035 F20101112_AACMDA rembold_m_Page_081.pro
fe2d7ee41fa57eac8e58ab8465e8b772
2eb6e8f7fba1c8361f1ee6543ff88b0ed4353ce2
54655 F20101112_AACMCM rembold_m_Page_062.pro
a8256f773a400f5724709322ed1d9e42
e63498f490c63a9a3726320f7293958df1790617
F20101112_AACLXH rembold_m_Page_003.tif
cf6414364fc1ca68fc0b07916666d717
181231802789719e4f4194c3cd711c56063edbe4
12862 F20101112_AACMBZ rembold_m_Page_044.pro
9d225819407c15cbddce265ed1bc9b5e
351953860d1c692d6e9e64af5b16f5eee83a8c29
124470 F20101112_AACLWS rembold_m_Page_101.jp2
9bcb05233fadb3917fb3cdb60c8e2ac1
28c1a28f4e4240cb6777de0227a4b7d5cfcc01bc
49764 F20101112_AACMDB rembold_m_Page_082.pro
4631fc35bbca3fb03e797b3a79ef73f5
32f5af4a16f7ed344d859210f6646cdc4ad3fe6c
44503 F20101112_AACMCN rembold_m_Page_063.pro
232de250809c8b1763ca5a5e4a2a82ea
79ba3fcd23bfda7a3021c12d46a71af6c9208a57
128847 F20101112_AACLWT rembold_m_Page_102.jp2
949bee590ed5bc4186f23397d718cdfe
36c00bef58a0a729dae3c8d7dd8c61a03565b553
55066 F20101112_AACMDC rembold_m_Page_083.pro
e7058d8a3966e295eb5572640d578219
623963d6fb5a6fa861a690a0de9ffbe6bcdc1e3c
53852 F20101112_AACMCO rembold_m_Page_064.pro
49a8275dca67aa4b621ccaf8d6a9faf9
95b0198b9b5ebd4b18158275635b70bdf9087b7f
25271604 F20101112_AACLXI rembold_m_Page_004.tif
977cbecafb70277341a4ee3e53cf60d1
405eb2db4fe3d1e15d954915d8c733126caf199b
126262 F20101112_AACLWU rembold_m_Page_103.jp2
d88344d205172dd905da8961bf0e3af3
372a2429dc1db7e75ce920cf4acc5b479a293dc9
41927 F20101112_AACMDD rembold_m_Page_085.pro
cb0b2acff5f35d12dc43fbba3e039985
9a107df59c89830e15240d07f77f1c0bdcef2f09
46324 F20101112_AACMCP rembold_m_Page_066.pro
763a33ab42ec57865948bd9da00d8e87
df3a0116129bca38ffcb741aeef1fef4d41f0cb3
F20101112_AACLXJ rembold_m_Page_005.tif
c550c340af98b09694a05ee535f986fa
53bd109e3591b99d7da4eaadcc5ac1a036fc9d10
63762 F20101112_AACLWV rembold_m_Page_105.jp2
047a985c86e851314f7435be4f4f5a93
10044de1d058e9023c07aad2c65ddac58a10e19b
17059 F20101112_AACMDE rembold_m_Page_086.pro
f5e019a72264282fd9fa935d40bd6592
14fa4b9c132a08cf2e6659534672788d93dcd74e
45666 F20101112_AACMCQ rembold_m_Page_067.pro
6b32a92bb8788036dfb13e545262d607
5d6bdd1f6584e799bd6578afca46e90fcf09ff60
F20101112_AACLXK rembold_m_Page_006.tif
82a88807f5d362a7b77d0432e43d3281
571e9e2c1059132e22fcb31d94365bf7212d163c
63938 F20101112_AACLWW rembold_m_Page_106.jp2
7437ce4c736c08c5815caae661a5913e
dd748f6a15218b111408790f1a139d86ca4d0197
65513 F20101112_AACMDF rembold_m_Page_087.pro
2ce4f2752a061eb59044d60d84248843
226fb4ed313aa9bb9f01ce799f3686328399b495
53292 F20101112_AACMCR rembold_m_Page_068.pro
4f3776954788ece01985b40616ee9088
a6bfc796014cf07a12515c9fa5539770711ea100
F20101112_AACLXL rembold_m_Page_007.tif
3e6529c3ccd5119415a374947551804c
0bece7921c9bba5fc8b0c7b67719fb647a3b6e94
48203 F20101112_AACLWX rembold_m_Page_107.jp2
1ef94bd6a3701e9d89a52bc33063b32c
a204f6764246e0fad4de00182f579dcfd2059d49
65397 F20101112_AACMDG rembold_m_Page_088.pro
6e30c10cef0c9c905bec66198ab8b6ba
a3ce3cc9808418eeecf83082784851b3eda86597
F20101112_AACLYA rembold_m_Page_026.tif
83d93178497c2c15aceeae9068a587e4
f3e007179511a43d29c9818c371c2283e85d7deb
50703 F20101112_AACMCS rembold_m_Page_070.pro
e9dd6ce7b66289a08c80a1fad590d5fe
0a073b639b741ab573d8206d55011dc1e16c8aac
F20101112_AACLXM rembold_m_Page_008.tif
b9f7ca83fdee1915095c1e6fc0baa51f
7a8f901fe91457ca7479314d1b3a9156b4cb94d6
65088 F20101112_AACLWY rembold_m_Page_108.jp2
359e828a01598c0ffd6077f3f3763e25
175420a9ce0a16f85d7b88f1cb6b7572efc27569
65791 F20101112_AACMDH rembold_m_Page_089.pro
914f0c9819b85fe7d2d763767a7ade9e
378e5bbea316d63491aec68ca1a5f193867ad9f9
F20101112_AACLYB rembold_m_Page_027.tif
9c1bfc063b0f5a94b0e7b598a4f35e4c
aab07eda6154d052a3d79e0bea6e6e63f9b77b4f
56133 F20101112_AACMCT rembold_m_Page_071.pro
df4beca62c62e5a41058f37245f301e4
826dd7672b071b47c8b101a38c80904f043265bd
F20101112_AACLXN rembold_m_Page_009.tif
d1bd2c39d41ac976733f8f4bfec42a96
2cc0d8715d0dc63799d4a4d33587668876bcc6b1
29504 F20101112_AACLWZ rembold_m_Page_109.jp2
a5cbf04afac0f29eecc0c10c3769c1a6
d8726c8993fe0e1bfc441bdee71a9969c84ea9c5
66699 F20101112_AACMDI rembold_m_Page_090.pro
fed666795c34fdc4ffb294b747273a87
5f78fa3b7d250b5fb2bdbe71b702ccaabb3e6b86
F20101112_AACLYC rembold_m_Page_028.tif
f35fc4d0e164c706a027df7bb9cfd239
313923c3e9c607713abd49ce1d11c06a44588705
19310 F20101112_AACMCU rembold_m_Page_072.pro
50db5a21fab70394a13b3b9feae543ad
066d21a751f4c0427d7f10ffad0ab7e3086a7b89
F20101112_AACLXO rembold_m_Page_010.tif
d7c9737cfbfd8ef017d62cb0dce1239b
664c02023c0c637bb04072b2d28cd58951fd17a8
66487 F20101112_AACMDJ rembold_m_Page_091.pro
a12d13141b1e6e32cd593c6cf38071d3
ecd3cc83ec6fdf9eba6cf25f39d782074bf51ef9
F20101112_AACLYD rembold_m_Page_029.tif
50ccda3a79c6998b633be7f88dc1deec
05f0aa8855ba378c63dbe1f6db931aa3c5297814
62231 F20101112_AACMCV rembold_m_Page_073.pro
7d68a66af7f1cf810cd4aca54a7ce45c
39b17d8b5cd692fdd2585a47dab2b5b1ef6fa140
F20101112_AACLXP rembold_m_Page_012.tif
cd52cba43a287c206c15b5bc5b54ac03
e4bd71aefb2587f66bf39d8e7d17c84408feb022
65407 F20101112_AACMDK rembold_m_Page_092.pro
1cf2886616fd575457c6f840d7131a79
d3605036fef2fcb0ad6d1449d03a702c7e51d213
F20101112_AACLYE rembold_m_Page_031.tif
27aee754a93c5aa6548ff4ec232b3656
5732874c81f6a635ba2d45e6eb0e5b21591e450e
23454 F20101112_AACMCW rembold_m_Page_076.pro
ae26ab9201b6b654b7ce780671e6bd92
2162e07a46f5b8d2a4a679aed91fb3a79f8685ea
F20101112_AACLXQ rembold_m_Page_013.tif
4c9be9a5988d873ac2b4a39782537da1
8b171177ecd0023c549b0071024aaff32718ca86
65847 F20101112_AACMDL rembold_m_Page_093.pro
1cdb4a36d9bc4bd4f310a8d5b8ee9416
d791dcedfc206e84c4ae6d99091ab1327710de64
F20101112_AACLYF rembold_m_Page_032.tif
bdca4ab6605eaa2bcfc69f6eacf95e4c
bd8129e190dd339db216c8a537e4f4bc98df9172
7572 F20101112_AACMCX rembold_m_Page_078.pro
59df25f66bc8b87b4368e38e18648ea3
09e2f5afcbf1570bf8d26e2869a68b929f91cf5b
F20101112_AACLXR rembold_m_Page_014.tif
d17f8248ad90bd32e782ec62c877b6fb
0725e6ceec8cc284dce463adbc899ab34670c18c
9700 F20101112_AACMEA rembold_m_Page_111.pro
51729cf4de19f3a36c464e2b98d0a6ad
153d089df2ee59700d5b78f477fe7432c0e7d26d
65549 F20101112_AACMDM rembold_m_Page_094.pro
4a56c4e5be671efae98998881086d8f3
08f2cb557d98a78f91c5e11815c95469a820be1e
F20101112_AACLYG rembold_m_Page_034.tif
856e9ef924dafa66d8bf63e6848d8688
d2f07769eb553d3466d2bb3287beca5865f45651
14396 F20101112_AACMCY rembold_m_Page_079.pro
26309bb7f585c785b7270189d75aceba
98e863b581571e27321ca7a05e5b802bfbeeb5b4
F20101112_AACLXS rembold_m_Page_015.tif
c7d1a4ff25960e102e93bb6d7f984fd4
fa141ea1f70a530d26c3ac19ff3d01b0760ea451
56791 F20101112_AACMEB rembold_m_Page_112.pro
5f420b50580f9da142228e8b275459fe
3a33ec05b001f757cde77d1b1ed2eefaad7fe421
66101 F20101112_AACMDN rembold_m_Page_095.pro
780cc80da4a13dd6b07db8ac2c9943db
3c9534b99219ab5a3c5ec07680d9ac78620fff83
1054428 F20101112_AACLYH rembold_m_Page_035.tif
232f0404f595bfbb389ad9e56af91157
c2e1997c4a200ddfde9c37254ccfe1cd99a50567
19471 F20101112_AACMCZ rembold_m_Page_080.pro
2d5ac0410403cff9fc748c045e988bab
da4f839a3594f2d9fb34efb9c9bd42993d957a26
61571 F20101112_AACMEC rembold_m_Page_114.pro
5c60fde5f84496a74ff270ff1e65d354
92256007531dee2dc46361c6db12f6bfbae3223f
65511 F20101112_AACMDO rembold_m_Page_096.pro
8484a6c32f2ac1d5011ff7ef58f1414d
be25d781ae741721eb680e50371a731d4f8c9f41
F20101112_AACLYI rembold_m_Page_036.tif
b4e1c3e3c95adadea71a46ec037588c0
a7e87d68472ab6686dd12b16c3597e58cf2c12d7
F20101112_AACLXT rembold_m_Page_017.tif
80d861c7baf7b3371d752a9bec1c97d7
1f1d849b0395b1b2a9857299134c2d61aac546cf
55640 F20101112_AACMED rembold_m_Page_115.pro
ee4b9158650c31715d0d0d44afe98f1f
945b2947462d3774c5d5fa8162a649097312e5ce
66177 F20101112_AACMDP rembold_m_Page_097.pro
f27f1383ab56768fc72d7e6ac8dfec52
f513c591fa3f038b939ccb4f955c46146ba0661b
F20101112_AACLYJ rembold_m_Page_037.tif
6faf44f6745602041668e259cd522ec2
f381f22b9430247cb6ba6e4af05dc994ebde0099
F20101112_AACLXU rembold_m_Page_019.tif
904d02ed0e846566c757b0fc01b02ea3
388b4c67f27a19bdd28daa3652d4725dc629e276
42937 F20101112_AACMEE rembold_m_Page_117.pro
c1bad22ca7d0edc8cdc7faca841ed3b4
4e35f71cf7495685ecce7935051f0512518ca8ed
66681 F20101112_AACMDQ rembold_m_Page_098.pro
7f9fe7cd06181e786702631a2d8c9bcc
4a8b78172e09c18040dfa0de743915d5350f04d2
F20101112_AACLYK rembold_m_Page_038.tif
abfc6beb2dac40dccd31c190931c55d0
aaf646605c6454fd48a04a677574c6b9db933b23
F20101112_AACLXV rembold_m_Page_020.tif
964eff4d67862689bbd896c9942b7203
18fddd5ac4770ef2d145563331a01d8791a9418f
65485 F20101112_AACMDR rembold_m_Page_099.pro
2afffbdf08f905417acf6d45106c13ee
2a0c6621214a9aba6909b1426162c68fa69d483f
F20101112_AACLYL rembold_m_Page_039.tif
7786d53df2e76c77b3f4c8b8b11ec7e4
f49ffe46abe64816ecec644ac6fb73ce90076b5e
F20101112_AACLXW rembold_m_Page_021.tif
3ef224e86608e97d8e693fb021776220
61a3df29901ffaa447cb8f37116bdbef198a2273
94 F20101112_AACMEF rembold_m_Page_002.txt
3e28315bbe36a45a72c531ed4fd4ac62
25b9b04d98c48eba846d331734c51d3214e2e3b8
F20101112_AACLZA rembold_m_Page_054.tif
e2386f31a82a164dbf3f627971d8faac
0702de49894299cd62be09d4c6c5f8e90d0d2bfe
66273 F20101112_AACMDS rembold_m_Page_101.pro
7552913f40a0f72bca52fe6b3ea889a4
dc5a40648e2a1d7474da79862d7a2484ddee3b68
F20101112_AACLYM rembold_m_Page_040.tif
0fa09db9096805466f3f3283b6e430b5
a0020c02995dc9435ffa69291c6022ed18ef2371
F20101112_AACLXX rembold_m_Page_022.tif
914d997fd3b9d6cddbba369839a0c42a
3393e8955cf47877b3543bdb4cd466a9a6b7bf51
1923 F20101112_AACMEG rembold_m_Page_003.txt
10a1f8192c6d8668b0334e2889898c28
718c35040c3295819b89023a8089de80d4d76926
F20101112_AACLZB rembold_m_Page_056.tif
86acfd2812d615f42a86ec88be3d74e5
dcce66274c03c050d1a34ce2d81b49f2ae5305eb
66615 F20101112_AACMDT rembold_m_Page_102.pro
401d4471b24d904ccdfa9f3abc57d9cc
802e8acae1ced6714984392ce879856949e9b8be
F20101112_AACLYN rembold_m_Page_041.tif
bc594e8ab6f46b0be4eacb4bbad95cb8
a4cadb47ca2fa7fe6d25b5c6b0b699ea0c759b78
F20101112_AACLXY rembold_m_Page_023.tif
ca15d77a104604817781a98973278126
2d699d8d8259926e1670b4cca5d05890822a67ca
745 F20101112_AACMEH rembold_m_Page_005.txt
a65443de5ec131dfb395def3720a6ca0
1170e5a158cd88404c9a60672308ea80d3cc59f9
F20101112_AACLZC rembold_m_Page_057.tif
c281719e16adf5b664fa5535ac21bfb2
578a60dfe6247d3541b2451f7018fa8362743b23
65887 F20101112_AACMDU rembold_m_Page_103.pro
b4e9520c276255f1f4c4278956cfdaa7
440fb2810003c02f04fd5742cd2ec776990a9ae4
F20101112_AACLYO rembold_m_Page_042.tif
c90523ab19ca9d10ee47858865124b24
79a5d1dd5c8b62d3a07915086e524628ba3b8647
F20101112_AACLXZ rembold_m_Page_024.tif
f3772744f1d541e93a9eaf6452994671
5bd4ded462ba85f9f8b6a84eb43c5e7e3bcbe0d2
641 F20101112_AACMEI rembold_m_Page_007.txt
a023edb2a5ddcf11241fcae218430d11
d4eba6b63d7c7929d7d65d3f65ba57d1dd1c4c5e
F20101112_AACLZD rembold_m_Page_058.tif
199c50b1c201c012b0ccb6b77fdec40a
3236f078ed5ef32b37f69ab1f8cd3817d30f8ce1
28926 F20101112_AACMDV rembold_m_Page_104.pro
0f960fae176657930ed85970e28455be
43d7c68d23d455b30523e6a0ea0fc941a19c39cc
F20101112_AACLYP rembold_m_Page_043.tif
6db5e183c4bfc400191724d5a7265baa
5edb4d49390e05b7566094cafc74a2f4e5b9b616
2873 F20101112_AACMEJ rembold_m_Page_008.txt
0ccb842f80656eb981e029f32a620136
0cb6da3ae12ffb23d49a79f0e1b0e47cc9aa96b0
F20101112_AACLZE rembold_m_Page_059.tif
fc714bc5107e50e633f7b5210343dda0
a320a6947dee08cad525e3a389f5edb2476d0c20
35995 F20101112_AACMDW rembold_m_Page_106.pro
5f9bf58bcb3b86e4bd78b6d74565bfeb
89fe3c740cd772da1292d1c3869a45aaa5a7c902
F20101112_AACLYQ rembold_m_Page_044.tif
36288aaa945c6b965222f329fca08077
86442acbf59cd453ffe83cf60fe6998e9d6f4281
459 F20101112_AACMEK rembold_m_Page_009.txt
f8bc5c3196ad82e387b8e7d3d150e6bf
f2146375ee842d83d7c14a75858093b10f0f393c
F20101112_AACLZF rembold_m_Page_061.tif
644478eb4ddc16c04c21758365b012e5
35df82623c88db05d32fc11c35eb98db509ca08e
26619 F20101112_AACMDX rembold_m_Page_107.pro
9c5a86eda9916329b377ed7b4bea8d2c
90fc0cabb8d434ca54e39518814735f4d0c28a15
F20101112_AACLYR rembold_m_Page_045.tif
3a99c849a1c9369516446afde8dcf40b
d60c7234600194bd81937b06a654a58ad3879e4d
2048 F20101112_AACMEL rembold_m_Page_010.txt
d0bae08ec84e3ae87ed0880f8ae66569
ff35212be0d2e4f1c13cac37af0f8f33a5ee1cb9
F20101112_AACLZG rembold_m_Page_066.tif
61e9357bb0ccb7aef3e949fc7ea1cdb0
e4fc7f1a8f8bd06ab9df4c13eb1aa7a1ba0019b7
31900 F20101112_AACMDY rembold_m_Page_108.pro
38b1e38936b8ee011f66c405ebb98560
52cc6cb2b0921387f03dd4573d4dc4515dd1bd00
F20101112_AACLYS rembold_m_Page_046.tif
0a5c86018d467518210968e8acc68c4e
0249fe65f85b7c7ddd1fe28d6b0291ce34064233
1967 F20101112_AACMFA rembold_m_Page_028.txt
81e6d503d4847c16dae0808863db11c8
dc8f6e1a241713bbaa22b3db133df0258897d6cc
1650 F20101112_AACMEM rembold_m_Page_011.txt
114f6cbe7041a644ce2768b519ff32c5
7fe003096be153ddbbf96963475a3bc3bcd40745
F20101112_AACLZH rembold_m_Page_067.tif
c34999711bc14b1e24f9f158f1d7e3d4
3b9b7449ebc16d4efe27bf532f54535ea340edd3
41515 F20101112_AACMDZ rembold_m_Page_110.pro
be37763bbf1ce56c38db84ae74351e3f
8f917d61b33a6463d5ead77ff6b680a92291748b
F20101112_AACLYT rembold_m_Page_047.tif
1efe1aa63808f7b883f894343a1a3434
4b26345a3d5b66e951c3aa157b4364503d5efca2
2195 F20101112_AACMFB rembold_m_Page_030.txt
bc7b03b43f39dffcadda885fdf2175b9
0a19c9e7b128599667cae4c71137e135acf22aec
798 F20101112_AACMEN rembold_m_Page_013.txt
691fda5e3601ec4befacbb9ee7409b56
870071a44222446bac33601f54d4cc2e482ca527
F20101112_AACLZI rembold_m_Page_068.tif
7f13a6b295fc7153cdbbb4bc83b4eee0
2335e3656cfc167f772d3bb5d423264be4361b92
227 F20101112_AACMFC rembold_m_Page_031.txt
4d8c71b85333e3e82e30168dcfafecff
62fbbebbf50822a2f0b946c6cc8cf3500eb9e0ca
2144 F20101112_AACMEO rembold_m_Page_014.txt
6db7bacd0182a4c8fa4746f2e72aa3b5
896d4abb4a3cf8fcaa4779ad78a0ed65854e19b6
F20101112_AACLZJ rembold_m_Page_069.tif
217c4468a0b19ccb0193a9ca50e381a5
f07e7e20844d04ae55734ebae945876ef2879338
F20101112_AACLYU rembold_m_Page_048.tif
7b46b604f5a85ad1fddbdfe1049b25a6
7934af90d10ec7c34561157a97874bffa6f84861
2327 F20101112_AACMFD rembold_m_Page_032.txt
cc20de46ef2096829c80d3ed7a332c78
448307b6a1ff72df048762b51ba69d8727029874
2030 F20101112_AACMEP rembold_m_Page_015.txt
34b825af50ee9c6a12e2e33a649b3ae6
29b4b301a4dfcea5f62fef1a07730d93395c11fc
F20101112_AACLZK rembold_m_Page_071.tif
e6193b45e47585a5601ed3809d92e71b
d5c140fc5dc6d52fa120144fb217fd37b3d1278e
F20101112_AACLYV rembold_m_Page_049.tif
20c3c8bff0669c41d566e74480903e0e
8742fe8fcba3aea9172aef56ed1e5f53d05e487e
2584 F20101112_AACMFE rembold_m_Page_033.txt
cc9a6eb5a97835a3a62e48c3d613a022
b21a3463f3a0666408a491dbe43a69c4dd11b2c2
2132 F20101112_AACMEQ rembold_m_Page_016.txt
cd866a36f60b8a0ee2c2a62757e519e3
919e65c9bc94d96ba4bc31a7361aedce084f6807
F20101112_AACLZL rembold_m_Page_072.tif
fb7646bb6e1a82166e285c37e55d7813
9799d495235eb67e93399f8fa0523223965c4ad9
F20101112_AACLYW rembold_m_Page_050.tif
310ff73977ad950cef6cedd6e737b456
679070d2cc74c1a89af35b716285bd6fed43e181
1483 F20101112_AACMFF rembold_m_Page_034.txt
c10914ff428f5fdb5f6b2c88c4b1d0a1
87430bb8d9d452b270162b6d0513c479e0a2bc63
1963 F20101112_AACMER rembold_m_Page_018.txt
1d9265508c10bfffc72aab243155334a
dddfbd318837a44b851df85572a11a272e665167
F20101112_AACLZM rembold_m_Page_073.tif
e85c68be2469d78a5100f1dc7aa0421d
ecc34d867899bc23657dd82ed016279becfd4ec5
F20101112_AACLYX rembold_m_Page_051.tif
15c2e193bb9f7236bdf3a265f15f140a
8898709f114b1a84131b8b15536cfe0e353460e8
1093 F20101112_AACMFG rembold_m_Page_036.txt
8c3769093ee318532577ef6c8ab4fa3f
2a6c0beb21e81d1dcbc98a7893f451aaa7561957
2069 F20101112_AACMES rembold_m_Page_019.txt
cec9dd34314995024344f7ffd3e1f204
54e4b9bbf9f93fb74d5c023e950d6b14081eca34
F20101112_AACLZN rembold_m_Page_074.tif
1cca270c0a63f9047149409733f7e223
afa7346348b32d2a878365f66635c179e961e295
F20101112_AACLYY rembold_m_Page_052.tif
1e9187b6c8f51476b64201fdbe1964db
f75cee5060380206a60136f6cd31eb4ead44bd69
369 F20101112_AACMFH rembold_m_Page_037.txt
03c3b7e3e5a57cd5d27d763f295843bf
f9daf7c4a0b9575e77e9c6c98da648f82b112727
1965 F20101112_AACMET rembold_m_Page_020.txt
c3f05e454d0c2079c8bf3d8d5d1ecc7c
946adbc21a94d03daaae4facd5cc086fdef77c82
F20101112_AACLZO rembold_m_Page_076.tif
254300cf6ba5ed7b04d09b222fe4dd24
c598cc9acf018dd8f73bf008233f6d3b214bad83
F20101112_AACLYZ rembold_m_Page_053.tif
4f73e22473d6ab9be9b40fc5ab4d1084
a0ea1abfded822532f6c8b4219df0bb7f169bc9b
278 F20101112_AACMFI rembold_m_Page_038.txt
ebf48253d7b6e58c26ae0f78bcd49bd8
10a4d1313247ce58c5db53ce49d80f38b549e67b
1995 F20101112_AACMEU rembold_m_Page_021.txt
9f3691d9887535bccf93d7f0ab3028f3
42cf40dbda3b8d1a153dc3108e85d3f1fe73b436
F20101112_AACLZP rembold_m_Page_077.tif
881ffca91117eca3ace58fab21445b53
5e58e7614bb0ec281dcb3e4a41edef6abb995db3
274 F20101112_AACMFJ rembold_m_Page_039.txt
bb5fd6824970d5d8d53f8093eb5f360d
fa217f118f0e0f9d6f23e2b2ac962542c24a31f5
2004 F20101112_AACMEV rembold_m_Page_022.txt
1b92872e09629519015e315ff60aa139
156f48a71cd038748259ff1bb0124caa422cef30
F20101112_AACLZQ rembold_m_Page_078.tif
ecee3b0c4e5694671ffce49906100370
2c6afac14cb2fcc70c0a51c6c1fcc833568d9ef5
277 F20101112_AACMFK rembold_m_Page_040.txt
5cb19d9c374420e08268b2e89a94e205
1aee7a0852cda888a2f126d5a64d7798b9548398
2445 F20101112_AACMEW rembold_m_Page_024.txt
1be94762e7b882146f55135f73321010
e64ca52a02362412e724885ca35bc08d962b4e11
F20101112_AACLZR rembold_m_Page_079.tif
fc99caae1a23de39871b6c3077982a1b
456703bac88caf565b8a2fc6f527a4c7b4e72ea9
1828 F20101112_AACMGA rembold_m_Page_063.txt
6bb1297584c45bddd207067a99cd5610
aef12b307104f6c7b53160ec0c96b79f53f8a559
818 F20101112_AACMFL rembold_m_Page_041.txt
08895ad63f08cd225ace3ed267eecc3b
0f50c3fdcf4740d54bae65afade2391799545ea7
2420 F20101112_AACMEX rembold_m_Page_025.txt
edf148d914cd5dcaf20eaf5f7c53c95d
ada042e8f2d9b7c22bc93b2bd09d5f8cd671ca76
F20101112_AACLZS rembold_m_Page_080.tif
ae3ebda21c53c9d9a3555ae98ecc6cd1
682539284323fafe78f6f4f1a0c5f8aa475d6c41
622 F20101112_AACMFM rembold_m_Page_042.txt
3079cea02f4b165407904ecf2129b51e
5a65055919ad33dbd5aaf1e523a322e9fdd6330f
1787 F20101112_AACMEY rembold_m_Page_026.txt
621f088bf5c15a50e1b739e5e7c84e1b
b09115f0ddfd32d0536c460c295250c1ca9eff48
F20101112_AACLZT rembold_m_Page_081.tif
13d34299c5e6339985a4943131110760
03b9c68d9d5667101119b711fa7ab47648837497
2124 F20101112_AACMGB rembold_m_Page_064.txt
b7834f6d1582d607acb1e3f2239b2340
366869c55af07960ef7a73af6c34e7b6948c46bf
698 F20101112_AACMFN rembold_m_Page_044.txt
cd35b5b8d8662678dd4bbcbb587ddbc0
3d68db52071f9c4bf8b89c0b0c7e8843889401e5
2117 F20101112_AACMEZ rembold_m_Page_027.txt
2709a92e7651c6286454c7d2a15ac673
4725e63a36bbe3529559928330f551b59cfa75f5
F20101112_AACLZU rembold_m_Page_082.tif
0c85fb849b44bafce00af49ab13ba28c
19ed519b833330807f8bf8c36336abc9d51b7e76
2103 F20101112_AACMGC rembold_m_Page_065.txt
b457e55584ad63a85267f13a36d862ce
98c425419f4d6f6d8b381b3ff4be497dd78c9fa2
1200 F20101112_AACMFO rembold_m_Page_045.txt
efc272fc926eef28ce4557a903badf36
1a9c965513df945c1ddcbd3ceb9656fc977a9d01
1934 F20101112_AACMGD rembold_m_Page_066.txt
c773eaa853b4504df2a9b3f1a8ad0e97
03ba9fa9a04bf3cd551096b3dc5aa6d1ffbeb314
568 F20101112_AACMFP rembold_m_Page_046.txt
63bc1cba2df2624d680a9697ecb78dfa
ff4bb8bcdfac9b34139b6ca94d8e7fa5c8212705
F20101112_AACLZV rembold_m_Page_083.tif
4edd06e561f48a7e31636277f4fec23f
3d027f14ec3267f5673b3d5cca8d601db0f1ab62
1919 F20101112_AACMGE rembold_m_Page_067.txt
4dab868604f3cdbbb4d568e8a6adc691
2681c6fb446996c29c9d610aedb2aa85d0f6d08f
1879 F20101112_AACMFQ rembold_m_Page_049.txt
b6e3072f312ff0e02e5c2c7eef56708f
8e6683c8d2f01bb2ab94059bc1f111de39fd7f39
F20101112_AACLZW rembold_m_Page_086.tif
518a967cf4d3ba70708544d770247110
b46ef5e07689f863193d97ff60511f093471a001
2105 F20101112_AACMGF rembold_m_Page_068.txt
89a601407417ee61c62507f18f1d540d
b81cab14e6ad6bd1a733a14876de3a4a47538272
1952 F20101112_AACMFR rembold_m_Page_050.txt
575de0fe89749be6804b8d0945a12434
7ce7add59746104fe1990f8b3bf9eb1db4218c39
F20101112_AACLZX rembold_m_Page_087.tif
b731710261ac8fa98f968e86f5ea754d
b2b3d7bb6a06cdd1441655851f8850a406995bc6
2238 F20101112_AACMGG rembold_m_Page_069.txt
6e6c77760978008b710d579645997e21
5bed1dbab7dd2f39d5d319dfc02e0e5133b3ddcf
2107 F20101112_AACMFS rembold_m_Page_053.txt
622b99e4823dbf757e80613919c9b052
58b169f68ff75e65f175a78a156e07579ea3b26f
F20101112_AACLZY rembold_m_Page_089.tif
9e8e2d28bcbd8a175633917c335a512f
a911df342f81f11dc07cc7c2c0b83c7ec2008822
2037 F20101112_AACMGH rembold_m_Page_070.txt
fa841423094f460c6048de07074f671e
4e3cfad14f22765d37c881a8c22ba4258d96a255
F20101112_AACMFT rembold_m_Page_054.txt
f54f564340ce319542829ec2458d3f81
ba87edf9267e80b059674c5a85a377892d2ad2c7
F20101112_AACLZZ rembold_m_Page_091.tif
43f895ab70616dec385d269896b460f5
61610b72f294597ece1759e57428c686b4a8ef19
774 F20101112_AACMGI rembold_m_Page_072.txt
ecb5f82ee8d896aaf2241cab51d2f7f7
604e809a51096b796aab5530f002ee875be26c81
2129 F20101112_AACMFU rembold_m_Page_056.txt
00a85f3b9a239e7dc21f56a9e3aa2875
111ae5676bdb8109d04526e1f4494aefbd394c38
3278 F20101112_AACMGJ rembold_m_Page_073.txt
6a56f9a310e5d1ed16f06bb88c79fbc6
d66ac4e73bcc2b3ecdd55d15b561c5e4e7039d20
2178 F20101112_AACMFV rembold_m_Page_057.txt
5cc8fe670b6356f358d84d1a0023c970
3e2ed00f4cf50583572274b420d22fc7ad191705
2331 F20101112_AACMGK rembold_m_Page_074.txt
fae42f5152ff7d688b45e0ec8e017975
959c0f2a6363f8d308b5c736d7c59c0444d73ff5
2308 F20101112_AACMFW rembold_m_Page_058.txt
518aabad64a84e11abf091fb5cb628fc
6067194ca2a874f70ce6cd502ab70cd2588f0f50
769 F20101112_AACMGL rembold_m_Page_075.txt
211bb6ab8795edda45b8d0f2fb7c7a58
b3ae34f5f73da6b9cf45b520879cdc2730b90fa3
2100 F20101112_AACMFX rembold_m_Page_059.txt
a6e4993b3d89a72d0bd09ef142ba62d2
33531f26c4c72f3f1d54332da72bc538dd98e12f
2992 F20101112_AACMHA rembold_m_Page_092.txt
31e2c7854549d395d4f2eea4b6e29e74
58df3bc7f3c7c106f059e2c712c4b5e00f3f6346
1599 F20101112_AACMGM rembold_m_Page_076.txt
2101873c0ecf98035284dcf7f18fcaf2
bd0be1329d8d1acd2f7677bbe9f0d0d8bc90d70a
2101 F20101112_AACMFY rembold_m_Page_060.txt
8a26049286de507d46b41663a8e52689
a2cd59f202ee464d7abcff5c9e7507cf6ce24c3d
3010 F20101112_AACMHB rembold_m_Page_093.txt
82f6fa5aec1fafaa8d6133b1877fff2f
bf78169d72f43a544f0f22c0576ce6e3a3812115
679 F20101112_AACMGN rembold_m_Page_077.txt
0b2c476524d9cba507442e857b5816c9
4650ae5d0b5749d49628d94a3e3a9a2922880433
2275 F20101112_AACMFZ rembold_m_Page_061.txt
555a68402f5c40b47843ea307744df80
8db87cb6da815ce13734574a3c68a4eef68b504f
437 F20101112_AACMGO rembold_m_Page_078.txt
0f08b71abd7649d54019c00fdb31460f
e723b9601dc6be5cbc08c363b23e69a7bd9dcfdd
2996 F20101112_AACMHC rembold_m_Page_094.txt
89c29bf7a591a4e09f0c7453f229dad3
78715f3c63ad52055ac3bd0d7fd274fdeb8c8738
712 F20101112_AACMGP rembold_m_Page_079.txt
18fec94b6792865cd07ccc9ded62aa9b
c3aa02182f03c5932cb3bbb1ba5c26d95725cdac
3019 F20101112_AACMHD rembold_m_Page_095.txt
f94e6e81936af793e40cc1b08d5d1e67
687974facf2484daac600c03ac97f2705ac263ec
1267 F20101112_AACMGQ rembold_m_Page_080.txt
5f339e16d731aa99f217ebcf47d4aa52
225e609d608e4d4d1328d4c5c332bf79fa424b2c
2997 F20101112_AACMHE rembold_m_Page_096.txt
9a830699a387aab1d0e4866d6aeb919c
22dc24d19252400f8ad6855a1a504725d1bee7d1
F20101112_AACMGR rembold_m_Page_081.txt
70ea4a03a530bfe2e9cb37e15707c660
92ae4a35f4823f69d296d75709b26ab514b6b76e
3040 F20101112_AACMHF rembold_m_Page_098.txt
c2b10794e80d3c670fbbe2282cfeae57
0eb2a8e5469cd05e671be5fae2e67a9d6078c68c
1979 F20101112_AACMGS rembold_m_Page_082.txt
5fcb7f96af44e3111eeab0d5ca960950
0e39ca810564bc93191f52a6723aa085dc95a07e
2994 F20101112_AACMHG rembold_m_Page_099.txt
4fba50e5a58f57de4876ed5da74b31c1
1ae4575d8220c83f94034fa8d8b42f197bc12e6e
2179 F20101112_AACMGT rembold_m_Page_083.txt
f8f7b01c9acd3f37f202fc3e840c11bb
3909f354fc6563595413f109fdc5a96b23d0b9bc
3004 F20101112_AACMHH rembold_m_Page_100.txt
a70c77a2ac71348882779a1400c1222d
70b81469bb109cd997e0ea859e719c0454b25e21
1964 F20101112_AACMGU rembold_m_Page_085.txt
5ef3551ae80fbbc499b86b0c842987c7
61612064aa9e105199f3ad70e6b4b72845ba1486
3026 F20101112_AACMHI rembold_m_Page_101.txt
b0b3901dee3e99db81c82eceedb5083c
ebd54f94ba1329214e3bd7609ce63c6349fbccc5
684 F20101112_AACMGV rembold_m_Page_086.txt
dd3e7ad0e745ad9c83f7070ed42bd0ad
63d6949aaca82402a4136dbe7e2a48f575ede116
3039 F20101112_AACMHJ rembold_m_Page_102.txt
e53c247c094a4c6bc3c32f8103f6b0e3
38068792262359ef32e10d892c01ca44f7710fe7
3030 F20101112_AACMGW rembold_m_Page_087.txt
257cb1994c81b1eab7d5e6a7a2bc8a88
33811ebe8fecc76722c378e5274b930338ad4f7d
3011 F20101112_AACMHK rembold_m_Page_103.txt
6888625aa75fc9a61d748916025cf180
0347e4cd6d9d2f44c9a79cc214069738ed5b1142
2993 F20101112_AACMGX rembold_m_Page_088.txt
d3c491a1e4f484fcde0491c59440d672
aacdaf2f6c43a33e038f01ae02d7ce2077293e6b
32120 F20101112_AACMIA rembold_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
dc51cd197a001772c3a27f7c8a7cd945
e3b7631a32993b5bf90945a1db1b6859f7c32d24
1287 F20101112_AACMHL rembold_m_Page_104.txt
5ef50863c50de5efb156ed36c809faea
c9d66bec8936e1fe6c23f81f87f6f83e8bf758fe
3041 F20101112_AACMGY rembold_m_Page_090.txt
ec7f9590beed7c90a78e0c602fc9d6ee
760639d40f5256c225be1a34d15e97f356c0b916
7891 F20101112_AACMIB rembold_m_Page_003thm.jpg
92b1fc54dd1610e64f37e117935f8045
bd876ca0e16464be3124e66196dc426cab6f1f8b
1801 F20101112_AACMHM rembold_m_Page_106.txt
c06e041e80673d5d485774bb63f947b0
dcb7adfffe9a772b22a9192659b5505048a35b27
3018 F20101112_AACMGZ rembold_m_Page_091.txt
bb6f4d03c0d1d1fe425e089039c36022
e15a22c2788c9a6a88d58c8301b964cca9800115
6470 F20101112_AACMIC rembold_m_Page_004thm.jpg
dbf1f65ceb42a2854918208efa56855d
8795d35a7e5433dd0aa51efe5ff94b39d68c9a71
1442 F20101112_AACMHN rembold_m_Page_107.txt
1db631400e5d77b3d500027f074c9e98
707c7850714ea6cda1422946ccba674d4f76d8c0
1444 F20101112_AACMHO rembold_m_Page_108.txt
91ca9a4c5d6b3c766dcacf07b7912df7
f5654a2586958e22926776606ce3664698419e5d
8950 F20101112_AACMID rembold_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
8bfc2b1906c57ab904302bb693df1d43
1ae48edc45df5514021371fcdef40863da39cfd7
693 F20101112_AACMHP rembold_m_Page_109.txt
f4a7d5ea78c1964ead960e6871c09cae
bb490801f19deb97b71efe52c2fd8b92a337c05c
2576 F20101112_AACMIE rembold_m_Page_005thm.jpg
3fd7aac844dcc9b946c0d814a6f3ebfe
cf824a03367a903ccd4cb465ded531ae3ab6f1b1
454 F20101112_AACMHQ rembold_m_Page_111.txt
97b42b1945cdc62d55b9b98fa1d0db0d
33a443dfdd8080f852cae66d445b98080792d39d
31966 F20101112_AACMIF rembold_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
aba962dbe086eaab3b5efca1c25e7d04
1c0f50ca12b4449f9b0d41b4a108cd3a0ad4b75e
2409 F20101112_AACMHR rembold_m_Page_112.txt
fd0542e789f23b5cc0318e608e84981e
d1c7bcee3c79d899d6b5f93e5f761882dd642b81
7801 F20101112_AACMIG rembold_m_Page_006thm.jpg
e70ad883d18265e296e75dd1ee179c8d
b38c53d2565d5ec19c195d5ada4499b6f12be581
977 F20101112_AACMHS rembold_m_Page_113.txt
7cec9892ebb17fd27b86411b49ac57c3
ccda816bcf6dc9ffee4b788169deb7a2090b3953
33725 F20101112_AACMIH rembold_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
59de3277ab2f64a4927a28b3eea8ee53
47dd480db4938e425cfd8dbae96fbef876c459e0
2538 F20101112_AACMHT rembold_m_Page_114.txt
d8372283519a9ec639f9e4108fc50bfb
7fa148a54daf3a3420b33ac7d9deb972aed32ecd
8301 F20101112_AACMII rembold_m_Page_008thm.jpg
f256c17d12a18457a4e5403b8caa2e41
a1fc9bf420e8435e6dc57bee6a5d78497dba5bcd
2302 F20101112_AACMHU rembold_m_Page_115.txt
7956d8093afb89c011b1ebc284db6823
cfef200e7d60cbcfd8f394cb153fb4d721b45041
8054 F20101112_AACMIJ rembold_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
e87e220c6ebdf0f9910fd30353efceb1
0f9d15effb2fee68aef8151b8e69264efdc983dc
1747 F20101112_AACMHV rembold_m_Page_117.txt
0780d2dcef213542cc3ad60b3a734d6e
60fed485d8978327bd7d21015d3b578b4970c8e7
2093 F20101112_AACMIK rembold_m_Page_009thm.jpg
a8258c3bfd9d093c1b502614b17e0701
679b0446d31e6903b1ce7aa85e3a8234f34d3630
1974 F20101112_AACMHW rembold_m_Page_001thm.jpg
14df2b190c0b7d880bc6d628f2130523
01869f06bd63414f389d016e0ba21c2e2e245552
8501 F20101112_AACMJA rembold_m_Page_020thm.jpg
13b3bc78e42511e05c8a40571e5ed40c
b2e2c10868df2ff8c1c76336c277bdf61846bc1b
30605 F20101112_AACMIL rembold_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
38feea3e5b01128f3dbbc02392cee059
5fb8ecbca10b992b7c57b216a4c1598d0abd633f
6779 F20101112_AACMHX rembold_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
2d57038989e7c7b735ec9068fae958c6
997e057918ef710395085ec3c510567bdd9adfcb
33364 F20101112_AACMJB rembold_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
2afdd0b2ea8bd2e8eb4cf36b263f512b
618baeb030f651810ea83539520bcb1dc41ee7cc
7779 F20101112_AACMIM rembold_m_Page_010thm.jpg
df53f79d96ebcdb30f8575adceb00438
d20e203ba7299a79191b51c1e1968b95b82c05a4
1240 F20101112_AACMHY rembold_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
7cef4e38a0758f1e9ab58357b9f2cf8b
bc42565f79187705efce7f52d61bba51f58e18e5
33708 F20101112_AACMJC rembold_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
082f969522b346ceed5e6c68336b2cde
e9031b2ab8603a8a52f127d54ab5a5ed2791db67
27937 F20101112_AACMIN rembold_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
5860981e6005b58fa0ae551796ad6ffd
e87838b27c5d4d19800a0d14bd1e4563cd315ae2
658 F20101112_AACMHZ rembold_m_Page_002thm.jpg
a5d4fd8e184926d8c995564561f2b4c5
e8754c014b627c616432758ad9abc9b2668ace2b
34728 F20101112_AACMIO rembold_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
89e9bef3098697cc1b6ffb97b4ecda21
4de7627b63666d9954bd5d40ede99f2b0f9a3e80
34372 F20101112_AACMJD rembold_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
17e4142f6f6bc5b01498383c03cdcb09
904be83c7ff9ee1abc4b04157a69e0480b24d3f5
14371 F20101112_AACMIP rembold_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
d9e2d415d4497de06fe873b738d15923
a2a3177a93837842d174ca0fcd57811dde63c744
3727 F20101112_AACMIQ rembold_m_Page_013thm.jpg
b0f9b1523059cdfdd951111c79e33c44
85cfb0a94886475dbe8f82365802304c2dd9c970
36805 F20101112_AACMJE rembold_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
70a89d5f784b1604aec1b8d6f2b763ba
ec300c64ce2165b3513d39622b38a7030a8df76b
8827 F20101112_AACMIR rembold_m_Page_015thm.jpg
1ec50c4f7eb7ee393735defa25238f89
3c440100ea554a44463bb186f9f18555533972ec
37928 F20101112_AACMJF rembold_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
6463a323d843a8125a16e783bb066548
089587f3142d082098b393380f07bb5e36faa9f8
35518 F20101112_AACMIS rembold_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
bf1449e91773d42ac4bc8551e2bc6148
46ab0c2575128cd64dfdcf8c47aac1eae4f80074
27189 F20101112_AACMJG rembold_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
6c42f5e3c080c9305b01bd5a873554dd
49eba4c787364b08c5f92a884a51a9e21731ef42
8640 F20101112_AACMIT rembold_m_Page_016thm.jpg
969888c221b7efeeece4c696428a2328
8a582d222be88288e41ffc72da8d12d6dba93b86
35167 F20101112_AACMJH rembold_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
2248d17f5ef11d6471b8fafb95656f93
b35908dc2c3ad5a80b3fa24c09efeaedc3c4732b
33650 F20101112_AACMIU rembold_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
5160969f4e95f0d8034f38591e25c231
ed00bbec5db896eba88eb00d837d9eb3b86debce
8810 F20101112_AACMJI rembold_m_Page_027thm.jpg
75c08f2f87cdbd9995308ae31ed44091
6cc45caeb4259dd2528d4a5f23df61e8e670726f
33107 F20101112_AACMIV rembold_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
a68ba83281ea0d866eefa1cb055b5e87
4a219e3ab1d78b1a3b7dbd098dbfed433c40fa2d
7788 F20101112_AACMJJ rembold_m_Page_028thm.jpg
e97d4b89aa5eeefb5019ffc5b1d4f6b2
ea2ac0c261b992904a8eb80e8e08142bb2e44506
7898 F20101112_AACMIW rembold_m_Page_018thm.jpg
524bff9b0a91cf8804587ff8c9c44abc
b3655d9d0744704bafb64083bcd811e78ce195d9
34496 F20101112_AACMJK rembold_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
b038eb2b9482943690777b209fb50807
524bd1cb36ef5891498772ddd50df1856772c61f
34705 F20101112_AACMIX rembold_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
ffda2ab9e4dd0e3bb4abd60fcf9b888f
3208cfc1f25d587815116362c817f00ff692afd5
38116 F20101112_AACMKA rembold_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
3716cc73544f06c89daaa0e871b354e4
05b35927244a17b32debee5b7d86b48b8e1f8fb3
8544 F20101112_AACMJL rembold_m_Page_029thm.jpg
d45d6f21df6a9c7a473deba5431e12f6
6b55897109270ec957201a40ce6785ffb0e0f514
8563 F20101112_AACMIY rembold_m_Page_019thm.jpg
64694ce4a805464e8e16acdff132e8a1
ee918f53da01aa7c76697600183d5c83e813c0af
9794 F20101112_AACMKB rembold_m_Page_039thm.jpg
f474a41faa739d5a233efb6510c41604
70504aa53e11f436180786a3429fb018d7648cfa
35859 F20101112_AACMJM rembold_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
bba8aa673e51f6b9aea59dc58b672e14
05a47bcba6c30aa72da33178f9255aa1adbf1ebc
33700 F20101112_AACMIZ rembold_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
831312e78bd71948921927dbd9c64a87
3825718c9f3f800cb889b6db292902ec522d3988
34216 F20101112_AACMKC rembold_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
7d846b840f28d8038a203cfb32b19a14
ed22be581d45ce0f2422e0600c463e7ae0c442ae
8748 F20101112_AACMJN rembold_m_Page_030thm.jpg
ee76f8f33bb99158b038732c43129fe0
3d9e24d156962d6e7751b83beba39ecf65fb1efe
9049 F20101112_AACMKD rembold_m_Page_040thm.jpg
90a6897a179ccc382f5ff8b3220690bb
539e516d0721c3a3675f7e59a8ab610133ba83da
5383 F20101112_AACMJO rembold_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
e74027a207193da2ccaef730d0dc4af6
7ec1944f0ff62dcc6a96a2cd4f1719c1a4ee878e
21841 F20101112_AACMKE rembold_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
80b96ff65a1214b6f434a53ebc478adb
4befdc52539bac14a0ea5e19b5ba78e55204559f
1428 F20101112_AACMJP rembold_m_Page_031thm.jpg
40118355e981a16fc378c0f761e1dfae
b36a8e97d9f16e7e038d376779032aec82c2db8e
6102 F20101112_AACMJQ rembold_m_Page_032thm.jpg
e65fbc16e556c032d3688261ac62be30
fc4a6051df50f93ed2bfdfac00fc1dc972e43835
7614 F20101112_AACMKF rembold_m_Page_041thm.jpg
45a7f697cf62a33484d25c4766f2028b
bfc41b1fdf43d200bf72c5c3e0b998bceeb84ada
14434 F20101112_AACMJR rembold_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
50bf450509cb2a741d4a37d63e3c4fc4
c07e752929a34ab6b5d6279e58fd56e3eb126e6a
13078 F20101112_AACMKG rembold_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
9a3113d7dd9cb1200f6418891562e883
01540b271c339c6555b4877a0c3e7d456c86993a
3918 F20101112_AACMJS rembold_m_Page_034thm.jpg
c7fa07c87eb50f21c73005fd53d68df4
abb44dd4b378383c38d03cfcb65fb71f9e9ce27f
4434 F20101112_AACMKH rembold_m_Page_042thm.jpg
e86f39892281f77b40998c30d119678d
efea322440cf63e13af4d36db6d8f486b4300c5a
10877 F20101112_AACMJT rembold_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
43cfdce9cee73ea07792e3dc5f0e39e6
87333c361995bce4425e9512e72f1dd77a69861e
37072 F20101112_AACMKI rembold_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
f92563ad1979d865d29233c0ef7b8f6d
0361669674db3cd8255b9bcb8a14650a03c4c894
2573 F20101112_AACMJU rembold_m_Page_035thm.jpg
c8311ecca7c480a4d3f023853f0ee8c2
bc270d96de2fff3b9278579491dda70f6beb4cee
20128 F20101112_AACMKJ rembold_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
24e232a0894a71d563c6f2af47e8c070
a14c45e392b4c7f1575a323ebaebc003e5ad0faf
14636 F20101112_AACMJV rembold_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
4c27f4efdf170ebc21cac0622cd00174
3e56e886afcfe12d7b8f5076e1e0c19e1ca19fba
5897 F20101112_AACMKK rembold_m_Page_044thm.jpg
8ebca617decc690b54928043d385681c
5e1e7af823a7fea03f6b2d4341f7deb78b9d22fc
3743 F20101112_AACMJW rembold_m_Page_036thm.jpg
806223607c1f3a717a0bfcb646b546c9
7f2737c0f6cf19099976b552eff0d1ba682ee8fd
8578 F20101112_AACMLA rembold_m_Page_056thm.jpg
bfc34f8017a725afce0edb5e4ad6cfdc
5be173013d120b7b594d170e471951e76a32a29d
17739 F20101112_AACMKL rembold_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
a644105aa1e4f1357aaa4d2aae0ded1e
345b9c79b2e910363264e15397c20ac6c36fa790
5663 F20101112_AACMJX rembold_m_Page_037thm.jpg
57b4628d86c4fea8f33715ac0b7dc6fd
9707bb8b3425e1d7f230edc9cbeb0ad83a6a0897
36014 F20101112_AACMLB rembold_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
f1cd50d2a4f9f00763db4bdbdc8ebb9b
b0c9feff86a6fbd80f6ac17baff80041506a6217
5799 F20101112_AACMKM rembold_m_Page_045thm.jpg
bab2b8cdb4b96fa4545405c376cec252
0aa26f0c2f2e490d4958fc84801b48f9380f3c90
33395 F20101112_AACMJY rembold_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
1dcd65452d921a9c558cbcb374e81fcc
c362f206a6f1ada13a35cbeabc8cfc8b02e76204
9146 F20101112_AACMLC rembold_m_Page_058thm.jpg
e44425dff37de0eeb7b7c472e4eef004
5f256c461ba0019395cf219da71a1ced6bea114b
7484 F20101112_AACMKN rembold_m_Page_046thm.jpg
d42267dcae16ef661ba3598198a59941
903593f2d9c10b4655d1a89b67a0f29bcf23925f
9144 F20101112_AACMJZ rembold_m_Page_038thm.jpg
24336d9706233af9ef6f209192a56cd4
21d485a3ef0c52f131a867cba16ce1bee805bbd6
8383 F20101112_AACMLD rembold_m_Page_059thm.jpg
9da447afea553ef47fe948916222fe7f
fa3f9d5967ade9361f6eccfed49870515f387ac9
34112 F20101112_AACMKO rembold_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
63d390728801eca1d973d221e3108b57
1c49527891fc046da74ec8f0cd69f796a1db9396
34091 F20101112_AACMLE rembold_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
cd5a8adfb56e32fab2ce783472adb81f
c7a60f2e29099644cc9fee2561f713bf516f0dd3
8300 F20101112_AACMKP rembold_m_Page_047thm.jpg
9ebab8526258738353eb8f9570941bf1
143dec94448e5915ab9b2d89e71a5aa2d01fca28
8084 F20101112_AACMLF rembold_m_Page_060thm.jpg
9b5f62206df08d179d3a060c861a6fa0
3b1be4e25711e5e88b4d494fc7f7afa6e67f32ca
37314 F20101112_AACMKQ rembold_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
52c962eaecbe3ed250b5b6a2678243a4
87dec635ee5998cd60dad708f94cdd8bed40697d
7832 F20101112_AACMKR rembold_m_Page_049thm.jpg
4bce3f512a64955c740e25e413b2cf70
4e5716eafc97d2cb319e59f435c71100c7aad337
36353 F20101112_AACMLG rembold_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
db2d7bf88008ebe31a1239c56af2df57
79557038def17f98f626de1dfb767b8e15489c01
36048 F20101112_AACMKS rembold_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
752e0369691206ecdff6dfc406fee5bb
d13c3fbc28232671527745848660a5440f48a965
8924 F20101112_AACMLH rembold_m_Page_061thm.jpg
73f038f2ecda70ff3eb8033bdd6cfa39
a64e4b07cfd107e8bee27ece973a41bd3a765b36
8214 F20101112_AACMKT rembold_m_Page_052thm.jpg
e5c88d3dcc448bd91b68c0a717e5b856
39de0de77d69b7b8229de3e40223257cb0fea22d
35811 F20101112_AACMLI rembold_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
1a35c17b29eba45afe36e281dbdf68e6
d0353209b0f24ae6bd9e3f50ea2bc23d4c88542c
35381 F20101112_AACMKU rembold_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
67f434082d45a59d26ac7ee8e795a7d7
9d865fab6f07b768140187670bedcfe3a7af674f
8839 F20101112_AACMLJ rembold_m_Page_062thm.jpg
3617992688126870133ec953cf633517
419c42306bd8cb0eb43752f443965c9f154f39c1
8733 F20101112_AACMKV rembold_m_Page_053thm.jpg
cfbfada728d7e48eebc5ab83dfae2f15
2c186b93978dde619bf1d7fdd8e8db3b6cbb535f
30079 F20101112_AACMLK rembold_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
8aa57d6339335a6c8c0ac5a51ee83e64
888ecc88a1204cc5265124e72804cba90f240356
34443 F20101112_AACMKW rembold_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
705efc525b29112fa08a1db4f071e3dc
66ba88f0afaaf4f2f8090b8d0a12c6ad53c73677
7460 F20101112_AACMLL rembold_m_Page_063thm.jpg
492c8bcc8355fa16b2b601c7543f9a8c
cdd8054e54dcd7bdd53626e0a33404188ed81561
8707 F20101112_AACMKX rembold_m_Page_054thm.jpg
ae6394f94c58949686550d517e23a3dc
29ecc9a02a0a027096685ecd14ee8d0bdca2c54e
14057 F20101112_AACMMA rembold_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
371b40baef83263f697e79196c2c85ae
205c29c366643d3363123e27d04035bd9aae4a5d
35496 F20101112_AACMLM rembold_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
e3c746b68b422d7690f5c8a10a8c292d
cb104de03a43b46ed3cd5e78946451166277c220
34355 F20101112_AACMKY rembold_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
a43d4cfead7fe5ff5abf52250e30bcdd
802a9c3b887720a31cf7e473b5ce779f341fcf01
3601 F20101112_AACMMB rembold_m_Page_072thm.jpg
3ce77c9ecd8a1d4622017657e82a9adc
d36e22ddbdbec6668e097525d7794ddcb2f5d1ba
8802 F20101112_AACMLN rembold_m_Page_064thm.jpg
5b476adec4732e4669e7a5efdfca5729
d71e7976be17b728400dcc1c5ae5bb0ce7998a8f
8605 F20101112_AACMKZ rembold_m_Page_055thm.jpg
1267412e75c9f829b6cb06e41e18f26a
459828c864e28af9cc08169f6a71d1921e6a834c
29666 F20101112_AACMMC rembold_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
8be2b4fa719981d30570992406f45258
83721e4561d42303c68d6ceb7343afd83930a479
33895 F20101112_AACMLO rembold_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
21f31efedda4e003892dfe2b6f5a26b9
e8a64fae831a582b1b1f7cd5c6cb34fb12f3e85e
7687 F20101112_AACMMD rembold_m_Page_073thm.jpg
8e39efc9d0807f5b2bac2d01f1acd3a0
757eb909edcc030a71e88b55f11c53340e96894b
8641 F20101112_AACMLP rembold_m_Page_065thm.jpg
53850342ca897874a830c7c502e7f8e5
335ca8ce208c9cca2c6a23eb8f4bcb95dcd7ce05
24348 F20101112_AACMME rembold_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
d444ce61be80091e3a9b84ecec8e9c5d
a8527617f0f97925d3b5c01790e671bb2151584e
30129 F20101112_AACMLQ rembold_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
66422623498a4f1c79d0029c4c9f2d17
c62404669915341ed66be7edf62d2af703fec765
7990 F20101112_AACLJD rembold_m_Page_050thm.jpg
fa3138c759dbb099d9f77b35d0b79c96
ba19949239262b2651ba25d58ded0342b73fbada
6012 F20101112_AACMMF rembold_m_Page_074thm.jpg
6dcf18de8c71bd60616721c11cf46632
eeb04ceca09cc3e4c12932fe0f348abf5e8204d9
7654 F20101112_AACMLR rembold_m_Page_066thm.jpg
8e388e49ca811591047c5b0a8ed80faa
3027875d1a1f2fc7e45a811cb17ff3cfdd17573a
53653 F20101112_AACLJE rembold_m_Page_016.pro
2c4a0d8a3ba3d34e47eda05e15bfdc3c
f38aa7c8de16909d57fa80ea6cf3975cb5c652d4
20917 F20101112_AACMMG rembold_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
386fa89e7b433da479cac702be941b98
3793778cd191be231fb2eb89b3640256faeaf216
30080 F20101112_AACMLS rembold_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
e9ba6e0489ead9b90f464a8122e67b23
56d86b29a677234bceb97a2a320769eeba3cb785
7895 F20101112_AACMLT rembold_m_Page_067thm.jpg
b63d61633929a1678295f8403c98427b
6894a5e3da5d56f0cfee3d6b3e069904995a46f6
5623 F20101112_AACLJF rembold_m_Page_002.jp2
e24f51008be670c0fd1f75a2444002b9
7e2fd3d6a75f7d92e4f3599d060450a71b3eaaff
6137 F20101112_AACMMH rembold_m_Page_075thm.jpg
daf43f66126de42bfa5bb22d309c196f
9c57e5718ba065817922ac04f302d4043e1b0500
35049 F20101112_AACMLU rembold_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
2f8b196e9987157f8a702e2761c1d89a
10e9c0cc9d3511a77eaca92a450ca9cad189e94a
3080 F20101112_AACLJG rembold_m_Page_113thm.jpg
69275fcba15941c445fa161c8ecf6f81
034667673ea4dede8de4afe9d95ad0a689c17f0e
5229 F20101112_AACMMI rembold_m_Page_076thm.jpg
16ebb84f6de68f27eedce179068ccd10
b59225c910e0b8c1936835ee32d85d46f3c700e5
8734 F20101112_AACMLV rembold_m_Page_068thm.jpg
d539bfbbcb6ffdce079ac1708cca61ed
a15b01124cba65ceb5d409fa8c67182ded069806
8456 F20101112_AACLJH rembold_m_Page_017thm.jpg
003b045ef5b2bfdfca0b0cacfbfe1b6c
50b83db4d737bd9afda6147fb166e4d5e855df4b
16791 F20101112_AACMMJ rembold_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
e966e3c47641dd7d7466f0a1b520cbad
d08fedbe565ed9b7de93ffe5f01aa59681faa9bd
38150 F20101112_AACMLW rembold_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
ce0decfaf1674412c40eee6dfa7a6867
9abd383c319ac129e3e33b365d14e4172916e2f5
19240 F20101112_AACLJI rembold_m_Page_110.QC.jpg
d134b8c6882e1c0cdbc1ca24d990fba6
7ec4f96a0778f774c795970c4d14c060f96648d7
5537 F20101112_AACMMK rembold_m_Page_077thm.jpg
2c0c0f0b184b2d888379b97d1f91102c
d9f1338372d924b8d14b8e44bc0a28d84593a17d
9161 F20101112_AACMLX rembold_m_Page_069thm.jpg
9e768c6f4b7a154e0f40c2933453423b
0c395a1f21df07188e07c1f3e92c9c015040c789
6330 F20101112_AACMNA rembold_m_Page_085thm.jpg
c89fe5c64b5126e4137292a93ccab1fe
1c2b59043e3915f7198cafe04cb05bdd3c6ca454
50685 F20101112_AACLJJ rembold_m_Page_036.jpg
4d8625f07cc3c9a55cd454c81eed7714
ffd39b16a40465c42889baf5709be8ecc55e0f0e
16167 F20101112_AACMML rembold_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
f1ba4e73e1fba5a8592daebd7c732b66
b4473d744b3a90b53656c72f1cccc29f6b4caa11
33906 F20101112_AACMLY rembold_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
01df45eb5cd7f49860aed9faf0f385be
251d929a2efc1a13d55de817fcdab72961a8eaca
13513 F20101112_AACMNB rembold_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
a7a89e65bfd4f08821ac47a2f776dd05
4e4e9c005753f18e73109350ed2124e45aa5a9b3
F20101112_AACLJK rembold_m_Page_002.tif
f420e0158542d3620c0d16228caeb37b
81d80c9cbffcca4bac985118a5e4025611b3a836
4565 F20101112_AACMMM rembold_m_Page_078thm.jpg
e1d5c79fb788d485b8a10c633be8db26
8bab1583cf75e6887904acf6a623ccac6a8f5554
36551 F20101112_AACMLZ rembold_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
27f0d9d51f8e5d23209a1d87a72f5c29
fdd14652776378a37cf50acfa8878c32670242ff
105391 F20101112_AACLKA rembold_m_Page_055.jpg
7123090f18397ad929949154663d4502
811b85a3265bbec782ad8507089f8ce6ba313137
3180 F20101112_AACMNC rembold_m_Page_086thm.jpg
bce8dfb66b828c9c35b7de17cb1fcadb
da7c5b71f07a9b22cfe9c89ba3604802e4fe8383
36339 F20101112_AACLJL rembold_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
87e86c32ed94cbc8ba78166f293cacb5
b3c4d2dfe9a73c63722341bfa8e4f66a27641f76
18856 F20101112_AACMMN rembold_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
f7e3b95980fe7060ad92ce06c72d5e2a
16e754a1f9d99cc352e56cdd82523cae58a66670
111771 F20101112_AACLKB rembold_m_Page_058.jpg
9d3b72ed78b7dbf7f766f169d72f83b7
fd5df5b442a7d75b2cde0c3343ec9509392a2c1e
31536 F20101112_AACMND rembold_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
e76389755cc5e3f035befedfc9cb1a92
bb8905555c139455c551a521168d5288c18bebc1
124518 F20101112_AACLJM rembold_m_Page_089.jp2
f72b6d17503ec6dc0ed6e1ccccc57a49
3678ca8418a54a34bd6e489b9bdb9a1e957053f0
5817 F20101112_AACMMO rembold_m_Page_079thm.jpg
b6750074615643ff3d0dcaa21f0ce366
04656a5716eb5dceb76360aeaa6b4cca916a7239
16907 F20101112_AACLKC rembold_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
f7ec3cdddda478a49b4156877dbed1e3
84542b88d7f0a5d741b284da55bd2c7a4eec0320
7289 F20101112_AACMNE rembold_m_Page_087thm.jpg
fc8be25a0e6057188310aec1fe8ca4ea
9689f804ffef17b1c23dbc46923192792cc23cb6
31281 F20101112_AACLJN rembold_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
75ac4ad2d6bbc0cad0fb8db310b8b5fb
036924eceb58e9b595b48e7824d3b20f4f294942
21680 F20101112_AACMMP rembold_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
84859bdb637431efcb323644f2575802
d8538397732f9a27eddcd8bac18bb896f2e207c7
110765 F20101112_AACLKD rembold_m_Page_087.jpg
878288c1bf64e47ec411fd72b9db28ac
328aa94d5d0e696ec16f1050a3fc78889a66fcfd
31264 F20101112_AACMNF rembold_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
3746a1b87ba8ff694eed2067837b0b5f
4c24b7903433335b9389a7cbb66f6980883ec435
F20101112_AACLJO rembold_m_Page_070.tif
fdca06ac9bc6008adf88e1b922306347
ff1e71f27eb60b590e705b32557cfc0d655b42bb
6282 F20101112_AACMMQ rembold_m_Page_080thm.jpg
40a53fe7aff521432add8ca930ef3150
1a81e855e08b4dbcd08f39af59d5abe67851c654
2225 F20101112_AACLKE rembold_m_Page_048.txt
58a91698399527e1ed3d09d4b245e574
4ce6ea88e4c5cb72e70dadab595cb166a26c1156
31248 F20101112_AACMNG rembold_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
ee5d254dbede61ef92db9fcfc2ea2cef
9a45b2966a3c0e6a66ba5e75abae79dfe6dd8a8f
1802 F20101112_AACLJP rembold_m_Page_105.txt
33b7834404f2057d951d70d51ab7c515
996d28f4b0c60a1fd6e092a380de5e77a8594622
35113 F20101112_AACMMR rembold_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
c7927049a6af321da76f9f25abecfbac
d56e5d856999e330966eb6a8484c6e4f5bcdcb79
13382 F20101112_AACLKF rembold_m_Page_109.pro
a71be434e9a48074c972fd47ac04c62f
c8f64907517448b3468c55a0f9eeca5d62507ec8
7178 F20101112_AACMNH rembold_m_Page_090thm.jpg
66d677d7ba050d0abed0314576308697
92da0a5a9c0eed466d13dee3cc439928fc7f25ff
41145 F20101112_AACLJQ rembold_m_Page_011.pro
6245d09490556bd62a7e2c2bed2ab7f0
c6f1f678b09a6bf20c5dd876fc8bb8eb23c37479
8919 F20101112_AACMMS rembold_m_Page_081thm.jpg
1fc459ed7b0d67ccc9e7ccac9a76991b
37ece29d72a7e0464079a6f1380f4dee4860109c
96746 F20101112_AACLJR rembold_m_Page_050.jpg
4b8a958ecb96f1b37151d985bb17554b
3f1af59af70a2fa5d1aca889ab7a5340943aad79
32838 F20101112_AACMMT rembold_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
db4f66e5920f22fa829da39c01ebc024
5d9b45a7df7971d5f6de5855b5a94575f713e923
115796 F20101112_AACLKG rembold_m_Page_056.jp2
6ecedadf5c1589c33dff4c4d1ae7ad26
f916ef29b999eeadb4df29442c81e85b8f0a2b1f
31024 F20101112_AACMNI rembold_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
aa06e9f02db9749e5097d58bae228f31
956118fb4941edcd84a8360cd75ff5a06a0caad0
1051979 F20101112_AACLJS rembold_m_Page_040.jp2
5bc6e87fbf70f43389a0f96dd32088bb
ab4b95af5b6bb59d986cfcf78c837148e1c3fb0c
8404 F20101112_AACMMU rembold_m_Page_082thm.jpg
049997ccaa6f44bb2dc8b8a4c674efce
e30c1162c022db797f3d86c073050cb89f724918
7133 F20101112_AACMNJ rembold_m_Page_091thm.jpg
acf165eaef929d7577e53d522e9e00bd
877ec0e26cbb4e7671ee25def01758dfa38f5644
F20101112_AACLKH rembold_m_Page_023.txt
25affd3a596316ae97735310fa169202
1aa83fca24d1b06f4b1cd86cb853bf34e33646ef
110210 F20101112_AACLJT rembold_m_Page_089.jpg
8c2a3d50b8c8cd74de242e59b6cac9dc
6282405f65ffe0ddce5d001dd9d0f6de406cfcad
36563 F20101112_AACMMV rembold_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
81943f47b4a41bda7ef8687b5ccf5e17
e3ee14236af3e5fa6914d4bf6d6c3a4a9927452a
30892 F20101112_AACMNK rembold_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
f4e14751657ace712fbd8c92af35bf87
a7e05c82d407b84cc49e655dde72293869ffb484
9623 F20101112_AACLKI rembold_m_Page_043thm.jpg
413ef1aa8d19c9a41cda7f0961d48192
295f9fdb63930815f1bfeabd5972b6eac4344cac
128447 F20101112_AACLJU rembold_m_Page_024.jp2
2ba4ef57393952849ba4b8fa03861b6c
16e8a5aa496ecd374eb72f2fef3c62968a065a02
8610 F20101112_AACMMW rembold_m_Page_083thm.jpg
2b472b75e215109fa8f8abcd6d4497df
75864161d59c162c5d36ebb066f986caa519dff9
7278 F20101112_AACMOA rembold_m_Page_102thm.jpg
d908abc8193f1334c51c84d4d12629e8
e0d2190cb4b7387fd30e24ebeaed81d5f6202234
F20101112_AACMNL rembold_m_Page_092thm.jpg
324ed480c89d92f6b44d3e28cdf5dbc7
b5ea2aada8058793f99aa6fa9b80a81352ec4190
82708 F20101112_AACLKJ rembold_m_Page_026.jpg
972a8e2eec205fb756dd4855e2deb1fa
e5b0a88b3281e7ba17a46a4e1e12768f52b123b7
557133 F20101112_AACLJV rembold_m_Page_080.jp2
5643783580c5c187fbd54675bcc81b7b
afdbdcfa76aa76685f04d4037e9f1413f73c20fa
25854 F20101112_AACMMX rembold_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
71b8f2b5c27083cfa4e26fae619973df
efb6a9ffff74d00f30b12c75690641b8883db698
7267 F20101112_AACMOB rembold_m_Page_103thm.jpg
9afbd7be4320f3cec3d3467528f1c8d5
b3308d573d9138503dd1f7816ff72a510dbd57d1
31239 F20101112_AACMNM rembold_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
dfd6953081c1709db7843bcc8a71df9a
ec07032e1513bcd9de5dfedd30e3f2d0f4be62f2
3021 F20101112_AACLKK rembold_m_Page_097.txt
fdbb8a66c939b82041f70d4834bc32a3
647da4b897b0f555e8200291ded567f9525404f9
2090 F20101112_AACLJW rembold_m_Page_029.txt
ca55e18db84f86856e307b6a3625455f
45d695a2f2bbd8536de41e628447826835f3f27d
6446 F20101112_AACMMY rembold_m_Page_084thm.jpg
f8506e02179697aadf4f4621de52f7d8
80d7509892b6f3e84ad4a7c4e1d6f8df2a63855b
15601 F20101112_AACMOC rembold_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
7d97ac6cfa452c9fb0309e36ebd7450d
7d1a261addc9882d337517762b6fd835331aa0b2
7265 F20101112_AACMNN rembold_m_Page_093thm.jpg
8d47b120b4e5452601bb389ab3d9b0f5
ae4ec3af58a92b51be3afcc1a79500464440d9d8
F20101112_AACLKL rembold_m_Page_011.tif
ef4a53fd4c3dd8e1c0272f4eee419c5b
80588e29cb7a824b81984e23ec2ae5985a353ecc
8750 F20101112_AACLJX rembold_m_Page_071thm.jpg
268cec5e452ffe1ecd50179faae183d2
1af5db8bf52f3c4f9e67138846695dc33d86e790
24835 F20101112_AACMMZ rembold_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
40b034ec548dad8c81bcb1b6bf991641
440e513e7ae4f20cdef7692d429312ea930bffc1
56099 F20101112_AACLLA rembold_m_Page_116.pro
845a8eccd33d5427f57b79a4818b90e8
6f476dbb7bc00e4113c9dc78249e49b722f7b56d
3729 F20101112_AACMOD rembold_m_Page_104thm.jpg
7445f51b7e1816938883171e17dad286
f20256cbdda89252b992658dc8c0ad66d77226ad
31277 F20101112_AACMNO rembold_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
10d9e29bc01305ece6839eaa11b662ca
09017bcfecbf14a8ac59dc32b5683034ed355e25
60931 F20101112_AACLKM rembold_m_Page_025.pro
19c76306d004883f5eef91ebc53ceac8
9dfb73146bca165e2b2797f63af1f84e363cd1f5
8527 F20101112_AACLJY rembold_m_Page_022thm.jpg
5e3937c806bb16e2c41bb54f74f86ac8
9b349c1a7b0340f304fb481f90027d5ed2e977d4
7197 F20101112_AACLLB rembold_m_Page_099thm.jpg
5543b1d152a65aeb43517efb08430282
5dadadc2dbe87c83011f46c7b32cf5fed4eb00cd
3803 F20101112_AACMOE rembold_m_Page_105thm.jpg
978e483340031f225f409efb702eecf6
646416e3def7db383706ef4084afc1c25ba8d932
F20101112_AACMNP rembold_m_Page_094thm.jpg
e1aed15ef6a9c0b265a2ef0814417460
8c796f7e3f47c59ed1040748a75aa3fbefb718b1
71429 F20101112_AACLKN rembold_m_Page_006.pro
b29ef3457dbaa96edfd316d27b6a874d
0d2dd6f81b864c85915e7292bb0afd3cef1250e1
57213 F20101112_AACLJZ rembold_m_Page_069.pro
40727c83fa1d850d03a164664da753a4
e90d58764697e9d93af736c005cea0086a6710a2
F20101112_AACLLC rembold_m_Page_030.tif
8f56ebea381eb73dc02db4a6ad1e3eed
80afd3a1d8bc18ecf5a307db1f241d0522ee38e0
3733 F20101112_AACMOF rembold_m_Page_106thm.jpg
42a03a6f8a09333c1fef7473a751962c
db55934370ad4fd542e0fc09bd5a793d075dd9b3
31401 F20101112_AACMNQ rembold_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
e44b6d5917e79f9275a37e93ca367898
a302fbabcf115db42a50a0607403c96737c36b9a
7521 F20101112_AACLKO rembold_m_Page_112thm.jpg
20cade925541338e9a695acf6eebdbbd
aedd75ac3d113e907ca7ee4e974d40ccaa0ed446
6236 F20101112_AACLLD rembold_m_Page_111.QC.jpg
6e4adbedb4dfa7faf6e2da9c33ac89d8
05c51b9830de42678a968caa6f274b9c9c7132c4
11870 F20101112_AACMOG rembold_m_Page_107.QC.jpg
cfb908e125331c403117a4ac24bbfa4c
95eda4c6d26bd16189524c21876b9a9dae2ca0c8
7317 F20101112_AACMNR rembold_m_Page_095thm.jpg
ca30e6aee5e6ecfc3eecc398d78bd7c2
b4672f7f18dd930e92f9b2cb32493759ce4ff6a9
285 F20101112_AACLKP rembold_m_Page_043.txt
8d581fd8c2547e334611338db70c257f
dd1dd11d1d8d6439bcb882ec469b11d0516fdf62
9459 F20101112_AACLLE rembold_m_Page_046.pro
31f8a1f65e229ef443ea727cb1b90488
674114f5332738f158945b8bf312ecf145e0ad35
5579 F20101112_AACMOH rembold_m_Page_108thm.jpg
4dab05d6eea1ec94e14dc890a0cd7671
9e03cae3c8ed6e10f60aefdcf2f3e746f550ef1e
7347 F20101112_AACMNS rembold_m_Page_096thm.jpg
42011631cd29ca474b3a67a6a67b1f37
7e4d638f83a91d698a13ad6bde939e6ebaf4383d
44770 F20101112_AACLKQ rembold_m_Page_037.jpg
b61c1543f61de90bd08c9b76b9c34e94
6e3956b364b34bdecf2dc5bb6b1c4bbb4cc6a700
111491 F20101112_AACLLF rembold_m_Page_100.jpg
85a26685c789289f264f1892ac9d77b8
df561ef2575eecdbf33b42b061070cbf6484410c
8566 F20101112_AACMOI rembold_m_Page_109.QC.jpg
556e5ed7e3375082e21e461218e19087
e99666a8b45f38c64f3e1ead936cbbee94961e62
31100 F20101112_AACMNT rembold_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
282928029ceac4a58cc4e2c17e23ec9f
5a67f51e9ea5ba5ee7d16c311918260f290594e3
31438 F20101112_AACLKR rembold_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
482bba7a62a7930c720b6198a60d5f6e
586ab0256395ef9bc1fbce56990acd4583820c82
51124 F20101112_AACLLG rembold_m_Page_015.pro
e47cb759f7cebf75cf6c124f27b91554
8c13f8832a4c4bb751bfb7ab4e460da6bb218bbe
F20101112_AACMNU rembold_m_Page_098thm.jpg
904f655e678e6e8c77fb3a27fff01a76
70093822fc50423f69ae025663bc1cc735152c1f
31173 F20101112_AACLKS rembold_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
a9c801b4179ccdb2b866778a9335a1cd
1c13aaba3b4c0c6cac319ff3154d9a293f0a9779
2758 F20101112_AACMOJ rembold_m_Page_109thm.jpg
106577b9ffe50d6a42ccf6a14259f665
722fec5e84ac45e2ae641c1f8462c80e83c76788
30774 F20101112_AACMNV rembold_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
96ea315bc6d45e97136cac17eeeb0bce
d30ea3a46f1d5cdad2f6557391e2fd7cb6c696b6
26758 F20101112_AACLKT rembold_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
bf02cc600d2ffbe77fda9e7b01117822
f2b583604ace156344f13a86b922c934087b59d2
113231 F20101112_AACLLH rembold_m_Page_071.jpg
a0edc0298e7004eae7ac3ce840623cf5
25fe34a41152444d589c750b31226a50194276ef
F20101112_AACMOK rembold_m_Page_110thm.jpg
2b5f7ca5f236e3ce040c9530db96e4b6
7983a8fc0ab5cc5a7e4044b97ac4dc919419efa8
31123 F20101112_AACMNW rembold_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
3cb2a85bcd4a6b779f2bf12ed9fc3d80
5ef57a10ec4e332fec2c4e8eeba9fb144f4002e5
F20101112_AACLKU rembold_m_Page_117.tif
e119756e1c87ed9c4462565d867429e6
6ba3027ef4b8a5ae2ef7088de7703427203bb9eb
55642 F20101112_AACLLI rembold_m_Page_057.pro
fbea8ab2b33c4797c60a27aa2de5cb22
789762b36f3ffc598c50f549fdc5f5e9b417becd
1587 F20101112_AACMOL rembold_m_Page_111thm.jpg
46458057db78dd51b3fad6ed6be3d989
7d092ae9fbcc6a40bdd52d5e3b58cd6b49381a6e
7144 F20101112_AACMNX rembold_m_Page_100thm.jpg
1b5a32a1b7ad23beffe3dba1ea0b634a
bb49e79da95f437323a34ed7818e6aed13791178
11143 F20101112_AACLKV rembold_m_Page_113.QC.jpg
9b23b5c8ebdd24f0c9cab008b4318068
e94dfbcefefb4962c0f0aa933164729a7f26a802
2174 F20101112_AACLLJ rembold_m_Page_012.txt
511c75e4b430ac261b53a2bbd82aaa98
5f3f72b4d42c82b37db67baf05c417b8173663b1
28650 F20101112_AACMOM rembold_m_Page_112.QC.jpg
f3f27eedff624f4dec31f0253723bc27
2c5bfba831927ed1040a185de486d5631ec7382f
7271 F20101112_AACMNY rembold_m_Page_101thm.jpg
66bc1ba5991baa4ee588a3dd51401105
6476078a81e0f6a244d9042e7a476ed398164437
F20101112_AACLKW rembold_m_Page_060.tif
a3910ba24604cbe16c27efe69cf0ac6e
7bc394a6d4e43f09bedae4f28f5b3927869e95bc
126877 F20101112_AACLLK rembold_m_Page_098.jp2
5e0b137a0d01c5c184ae2529ddf8740c
04c834ac94210b51e96e620c61bfe5591169ac7c
34004 F20101112_AACMON rembold_m_Page_114.QC.jpg
417edfa42b83c46d6facd79af5aaf777
e906b0c90d3b9b97713ed72f74d58c8b0213b12d
31899 F20101112_AACMNZ rembold_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
4b141bb021a9bf98ad402cfd43ac33ca
ab5e45c864a7a73a9f69292590dc6c56337e0c5d
2143 F20101112_AACLKX rembold_m_Page_047.txt
ad22904399eebb76f2542acfb97c613e
fa6cf2c4c5451b91dc5def013bf9c676fc4c7376
100746 F20101112_AACLMA rembold_m_Page_082.jpg
925ea53cb5c3834f6778315f0bdada2b
0642f37105dfb886ecd1aa6e8d00fc6a1e35b5c3
9009 F20101112_AACLLL rembold_m_Page_024thm.jpg
5e1a181b1852c3fb1d3aaf78ab8a6009
7f3317374ab0f9ccb0e1c88fcd6c58a061282615
8429 F20101112_AACMOO rembold_m_Page_114thm.jpg
425e59b232ec91041ab633a1f4f9a59f
5222c77368285d81c04979307eb5e9d5ee74a880
47580 F20101112_AACLKY rembold_m_Page_003.pro
878764c25f1d689ad75da1f86e6ca81c
db46628d0cd55c764685462e38155b81b427bec5
2152 F20101112_AACLMB rembold_m_Page_051.txt
ae82f898c9d484aef8a3ab6c418dca5b
1ab418e80159d40327418aa4f87b3692ca3dcbc6
398069 F20101112_AACLLM rembold_m_Page_007.jp2
73cbcedb3850a557500a920bbe830d66
202e0fea9b184cf4a25385e5587651cf633c12d8
32541 F20101112_AACMOP rembold_m_Page_115.QC.jpg
061f735b52bd2ca9dc61a363608c860e
6124d7c52c5723977a5f5d3d230f7b04eb1cf52d
37876 F20101112_AACLKZ rembold_m_Page_084.pro
d590f46f40c499cf8f9db3a40cf64243
3d403f2eaac5119f26199de2c083eadcddb3495e
80251 F20101112_AACLMC rembold_m_Page_074.jpg
9d318921856f09eb74641e671e64cb60
eac182f35215fc95fc4b2195cc01bb8bc31bc174
2224 F20101112_AACLLN rembold_m_Page_071.txt
7f4e5949e972cbfbba781a63eaee7361
0de6efe16d4c08348414a5edffa653e74d0afc6e
8156 F20101112_AACMOQ rembold_m_Page_115thm.jpg
b67335a1bf0d5e9f46bbfdbb4b1522ac
e3141e32b165fd965fce851c8a2b1b5dd6a16c1c
F20101112_AACLMD rembold_m_Page_033.tif
03052a9cb1649b62d4a031ca03d62494
5327ca87b594741c74a7296e4269731fb22553d7
8466 F20101112_AACLLO rembold_m_Page_012thm.jpg
4417dc40e7a9a4aec0d072d11fe2177f
c5282a91a49b005cee0ceab0966b930dae35e718
7924 F20101112_AACMOR rembold_m_Page_116thm.jpg
76eee2f1d4017db389f06043eda0efad
f85ea8562cae902a6362140ae36e9bfb4fcbe866
12244 F20101112_AACLME rembold_m_Page_041.pro
1880ec14b7a874d30fe6d26bf14205a1
47b73bf3081d6b85033e2ff91f6c369aa97f5567
24136 F20101112_AACLLP rembold_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
418095d4374964ef66c1a9f5dfd1f94e
f63f19ec6ec8c16510f3807d0d144c1c8ec86635
29838 F20101112_AACMOS rembold_m_Page_117.QC.jpg
dfc6edadf09ee459163f072ba6f66aaa
db3026dc27f1b2c66fea74a1a929f78e8dbadef8
108060 F20101112_AACLMF rembold_m_Page_038.jpg
6a7fcd0b8bed8ba3f543a46b44c056f8
c58e9eee6d5ec644bade36763f7f6541cf73ac5e
53363 F20101112_AACLLQ rembold_m_Page_053.pro
7bb6bdc0ca7e6468962588bfad27f877
58e8af7570a2d5cefff5091255bec5b1362fcf1e
6987 F20101112_AACMOT rembold_m_Page_117thm.jpg
08a581da0bfcee47626ab2e991b4be80
2ea5a8ccdb7795efe2e3cc641556c18cff5ed069
8757 F20101112_AACLMG rembold_m_Page_014thm.jpg
8322b4f6b93e0a7a83996e7ad691a586
87eae713b13f6eb03a5174ab32a7acb0c0ae84af
7259 F20101112_AACLLR rembold_m_Page_089thm.jpg
50c152cfc88a7370134a7c09ed5ec2c1
75d1865249bb60ab65b480a02f7ed048b8229ed6
136234 F20101112_AACMOU UFE0020149_00001.mets
cefc4ab874a4059d0b8e3637429dc969
961ac907960b857d6a3f6824f015ed781a38f7ea
19929 F20101112_AACLMH rembold_m_Page_113.pro
d49e3d32774cd28c7e194f3ec7b27182
7f7e0e762dd51eeb902dd8b35eef6534e5b74c53
40007 F20101112_AACLLS rembold_m_Page_035.jpg
b039958ad081dffb052151dad54a70d0
6f8bf2cdd864ea4806ec7e08bc9ee9e33aa08cf6
30870 F20101112_AACLLT rembold_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
54567c9acfc378e0aa04f0e384e9de9a
46a846acce0f6d8178120dd0a81fdbce0f9ef13d
F20101112_AACLMI rembold_m_Page_084.tif
dc163ef5fcd3bff24da57a848d5c31a0
68a80ca4a5cf5b784ea9ca543887839e320345e1
9057 F20101112_AACLLU rembold_m_Page_057thm.jpg
44d2c90b4ac03ea951b37219c292ebb6
13b21945ce9860e03f27d3e7647b9c29d7fc3e24
62128 F20101112_AACLMJ rembold_m_Page_075.jpg
64d0b30bc7f02ef5f70ad2db14b6763a
b7a50aa28f5c1a283b6615cc4acab0c9ad6e10e1
F20101112_AACLLV rembold_m_Page_062.tif
fd727f5d64df1b0102af76c0214f32a9
31a1f0804684dd007ea1a9fd56e80202d1a32c5f
70798 F20101112_AACLMK rembold_m_Page_046.jpg
21b377e255bd5b43ae99397af915496f
00c8f2e8e21de958df4b60dd3ffd8de7019d45cd
8990 F20101112_AACLLW rembold_m_Page_048thm.jpg
0c15ba663d2c59858108d7ec2be67a14
8eed649fb3a8c72f00d4eda1109048a18ac63b3c
87547 F20101112_AACLNA rembold_m_Page_026.jp2
d2e34f29551fc4ef98a1b2a20799fa23
7ced06d23547b1c1f779881d1678d26bb4261775
2140 F20101112_AACLML rembold_m_Page_055.txt
2a10e9d494ccdcd55f7bc7c3d7e849aa
54c97cb3444af3fc1e06d3dbd9917344eb416788
1511 F20101112_AACLLX rembold_m_Page_084.txt
03c21e412b9bf35e9a9f8cf8aac8f12a
16a9a96da42d5a3d5fb37fa37593c022ba56eb60
F20101112_AACLNB rembold_m_Page_094.tif
d0d0c9a88f9fca3de0d07fc3649a5bc6
15155e51ffbec5cd195db3dad4655e1cc2740aba
F20101112_AACLMM rembold_m_Page_102.tif
ae4fefb3cfd2141ca24893215ec67444
2bc5d1b8647becace028eae6e41282cfcbe9cb5f
34200 F20101112_AACLLY rembold_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
09fd65239e38ac67c3438f08178a4697
ae3c9626ddb063cdd3c0fa1f04856889e271dd73
F20101112_AACLNC rembold_m_Page_090.tif
0f71b25ab6aa25bc98ab5d4d7d07067e
45d895618416da11a54729f5d098ee9909c787bc
60134 F20101112_AACLMN rembold_m_Page_041.jpg
a90f47f0c99cc6a28b454405b015b796
28a3981dbb9a1728637863dadffcf76487457550
2164 F20101112_AACLLZ rembold_m_Page_062.txt
ed74dc2e03cf2441dcf1e38e3aaf6372
a8b9d052ed052b6daa04c6e3be86f87de5333d58
1847 F20101112_AACLND rembold_m_Page_007thm.jpg
08ccdadd7d013b2ca14309bfb6b28977
6893b1385fb7a689e20b4769a8ca2bdace2aa7e7
8586 F20101112_AACLMO rembold_m_Page_021thm.jpg
99435321f2f1a8a63e31cef2c2fcdfe6
d3a76a2aed5ee219b56f04b9e55d48e374bfa897
7257 F20101112_AACLNE rembold_m_Page_088thm.jpg
3d6b1abeb4ba594d2fc303452c5a7c5b
e797173809bc27d2de06f6719664b458e26658ff
33619 F20101112_AACLMP rembold_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
869c4e85fd14a3350bf2c4ba6e8de1cd
bc34d567fc72f4fd1e3a0e6a81409f2851ac37f3
23509 F20101112_AACLNF rembold_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
0a7e0340ebceef2491006266f97d670d
4d4a31909372b056680773f5dbc88e1655497355
18321 F20101112_AACLMQ rembold_m_Page_108.QC.jpg
15b1a22d8e9221ea3729b8c66e7e63e9
a147f5f02ef30f5fd49e8d0d357cf3e838f8adb7
F20101112_AACLNG rembold_m_Page_055.tif
a373e748b1daeec05961dc9617f9df24
743c21012276e1a9071dfc56b71a563e6ea16d27
35789 F20101112_AACLMR rembold_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
b3390d8d2d6d187bd8529b3f8bdb660e
5a580cb2339be77816e7aee8a493b2c2a972aeaf
F20101112_AACLNH rembold_m_Page_085.tif
e23f300ae7f2a9456de2b26391d28b20
e586cf9609f3aff1d9ddc8b1d18d8a4b8fff9173
104666 F20101112_AACLMS rembold_m_Page_047.jpg
37db0470981d38d5d378c81854851e68
64e90262bd58b35c5fd12158ce7865ada00fb49a
125698 F20101112_AACLNI rembold_m_Page_100.jp2
53adaf49a4891f2d30161884628124e2
4b8bc4ad171906bbfb998c47f11663d2d9018441
30620 F20101112_AACLMT rembold_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
9fc4aa988e33317312826e37034592d3
b87bc37939bf27fd31ff63cc2a7ca7bb3a90fc67
26857 F20101112_AACLMU rembold_m_Page_009.jpg
948241c08fe7643ae013beed0e825215
0acc3872d8dcfc2f8633f66df13195cbfe623016
1929 F20101112_AACLNJ rembold_m_Page_052.txt
ca7a629d633f55f57ca97e137d7a1d80
e64fb139e095a10e3cf1cf7d4520a7ebc4cf96cf
53549 F20101112_AACLMV rembold_m_Page_065.pro
6ae54ddc377ac7c3eb95442062dacf6d
d28b47c2648bc0ce9c5f0b4b67bf61d7d8941eb8
8543 F20101112_AACLNK rembold_m_Page_051thm.jpg
97ae3a80122d82d732b9853dfa510652
6b156283c28cbe614d7561670fcdf67c5c11f32b
7221 F20101112_AACLMW rembold_m_Page_097thm.jpg
5eb2470506cd4e97130c144f89a39dcf
f4bb08e97714891bf1c277fa86f90542056e1c26
2839 F20101112_AACLNL rembold_m_Page_006.txt
54f8b935c08e1d7461362e86bc754f6b
dd55fb901c394cd299b78037400b295cbe7c394c
32077 F20101112_AACLMX rembold_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
46f4f926be7fe41a522f69e733f9ed41
5a46e3b91df6cacd3dbbc4edaf8638dcbb1bac0b
15445 F20101112_AACLOA rembold_m_Page_031.jp2
e64a1dc97a1a4558e623e433f462fc8a
7f293ff4495ee71c2e78e1b0bd28ccfb24b23233
21972 F20101112_AACLNM rembold_m_Page_111.jp2
64c81ce57fa63604213c18942b61beb0
452fd3ea3cabcafb27551a26d1784e953f4b48e2
53413 F20101112_AACLMY rembold_m_Page_054.pro
1a5d762b2904edab568afde126719011
12df59380ef7e4ca2678c677fc97cfa0ae07e0cd
F20101112_AACLOB rembold_m_Page_097.tif
f06d984ba95591423ee2ab14f62bb24e
0abf247728283091c4ea0630da3b55d5389b37cb
F20101112_AACLMZ rembold_m_Page_115.tif
c50b7e47c4213745f1c3db81684ef5c5
e3ee5d21fe06f38140471f7ad490bcfe16557ac9
34934 F20101112_AACLOC rembold_m_Page_105.pro
ab031eff38dc3a9c5f09dd370f5a04db
3bd1cd32a5ad6e14fe898bb7e66d67b38cd97631
2348 F20101112_AACLNN rembold_m_Page_116.txt
4a3b7926f68454b4bcf55bc607214789
e3b64f3318f40323ff824382e0066fa8c4badc0a
F20101112_AACLOD rembold_m_Page_064.tif
a819c9468d9d5136268c918c830b79bf
c14e5d0513c18fda33f6a951184ea5e86e7e2ae7
36197 F20101112_AACLNO rembold_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
bb3ca0dd40d52a6d08d298f10597e38a
16fe80ec4026d9aa33f15fcaf829119eb1114348
7228 F20101112_AACLOE rembold_m_Page_026thm.jpg
316f133ce24c32292e40853085e2f3d3
cb3e8b66563cc88a81f4aa5e79b5be0ca25e2499
110508 F20101112_AACLNP rembold_m_Page_094.jpg
234acd8f5f457909d35896fff11081ba
f5371241183c26a1fe5e47baca10fc46f8ecb525
37685 F20101112_AACLOF rembold_m_Page_113.jpg
aee82ae8ce5e501cd8bc517ed15015c1
2d5c5849944d15db4ad1168865c822358c9e4181
31759 F20101112_AACLNQ rembold_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
6cf2355f98d024a262cc861d8ec0d539
31c5315b343028901c6b08892f6fb13c8361ab8e
F20101112_AACLOG rembold_m_Page_096.tif
c099dc3b89cda8789687befd76360dab
366a2ad29c0edf525f6404678837a7b5898fedae
F20101112_AACLNR rembold_m_Page_050.pro
775acada10691c639990f70c8585a3fd
edb075c7ffb5d67423278ee7dbd382b9b8c3693f
24461 F20101112_AACLOH rembold_m_Page_036.pro
3a9baff184f216ec38a1fe7194633800
cccd1f8ca398d79fc63444f4d6aafec94002e2f9
3007 F20101112_AACLNS rembold_m_Page_089.txt
501e45bb1fd0831612d1f3a8d56a5c60
94d2f301b779a2edd052ded396359b0bf5777e90
104949 F20101112_AACLOI rembold_m_Page_019.jpg
fcff8fd195134d95a7112abece4a1cfb
07acd69013516792e071bc0840c3179cbfb846fa
107173 F20101112_AACLNT rembold_m_Page_059.jp2
324170ccc957415e1399448424538414
f1ff9ebd57accf80964b4cec8e4d07271f7a4ed8
15673 F20101112_AACLOJ rembold_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
e96cf94bf0e852fa30545fc66e602242
e64935075cb35cb9c8ade7020796258b017af811
31308 F20101112_AACLNU rembold_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
5e4759300606672a648949f5990c4f89
8ab8770980e575ff22c5751648f5e735ddda6ed4
578453 F20101112_AACLNV rembold_m_Page_041.jp2
2426c3051418bf9e6d01b5be166ce17e
4165c9085d40faa84c1de0b4367f7697ce689fcd
6999 F20101112_AACLOK rembold_m_Page_011thm.jpg
a798338e5deb33ffb0aa3189206c49bb
22900595a5622acf066d0b74e9edc8410170cc6c
30903 F20101112_AACLNW rembold_m_Page_116.QC.jpg
3c25f8e43c3d0b564d16f595fbc81cc2
04ea014570652bb9c5362ad756a187e5a0d6eb0a
114839 F20101112_AACLPA rembold_m_Page_069.jpg
2040fc612bf8930bb331232cb4b3343e
85cb15d18c6ae21470f4b374974ffa2f25edede2
48721 F20101112_AACLOL rembold_m_Page_018.pro
b0d54d0e6406ede01b92dca76ec8c42f
16bb242b7e4bfcd391fa996a3de0a360d1a49431
F20101112_AACLNX rembold_m_Page_018.tif
7fa3b8e6fee61546856614422c863511
bf313fd54c375156ee3ae52e7a5b9c2ed7c5772a
18166 F20101112_AACLPB rembold_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
f9d131b4fcea2f96905b5e736b645dcf
8c8988f90640c3080bec4af575769ad7f2be55e8
F20101112_AACLOM rembold_m_Page_033.jp2
c748b2f2bb810afd3193b75c8678f98f
cbef327466f4ff7c6eaef95e29919fc2a69c218b
124534 F20101112_AACLNY rembold_m_Page_094.jp2
04e356ce19622bf7b674b13aec60406d
fb7f99f9d129186abfda07836c33bca7173308f5
121670 F20101112_AACLPC rembold_m_Page_024.jpg
d1730e9be417c7c3f6a72cb21898db6f
be584fa8a18a08f582ecff533095459df84c3ab8
112947 F20101112_AACLON rembold_m_Page_116.jpg
cc2eb3db2807fc28395405a6971ee1ee
ba325a14778eca13991df9a5880e6efcff2c314d
61074 F20101112_AACLNZ rembold_m_Page_024.pro
57f600b23eb66da0e93fdce1a119114e
053c72cb4e9e4ae1b8d26a070961b56739f8365d
111124 F20101112_AACLPD rembold_m_Page_095.jpg
02eccf2079fb362610d9ee9ec44299bf
1ef6ab8e03133b656417406f778fd1814fd04641
10030 F20101112_AACLOO rembold_m_Page_042.pro
43fdeacc14fb46e9e8fda1823571c915
043e2524e19548dc261e4f080394f46614654f91
3075 F20101112_AACLPE rembold_m_Page_107thm.jpg
e8f0f1461a443112074ed469a5cd411f
e42b43464f96bd216e90e324f73e379b1a7b92e2
43667 F20101112_AACLOP rembold_m_Page_074.pro
510daffa973a1999969c89b90ae89c5c
0941445b77a7db86c0ed35593d7801133a3ef635
77110 F20101112_AACLPF rembold_m_Page_084.jpg
797558ae0b521b0b67f4fd744a444683
5845b8b71a098e939b382beea635bdb7dbcb3879
31359 F20101112_AACLOQ rembold_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
12269659e99ab32ec82d74c03cb88433
684181c27b30389c07b881c11877025bb4b7ccf1
F20101112_AACLPG rembold_m_Page_025.tif
a2c946f5f5720073648d301fe530d0a9
4a975d6aac40ac2ee6a6da34fc5db77cba2a5672
14642 F20101112_AACLOR rembold_m_Page_075.pro
68901f514a3279d768ed73a336e2c410
b13f10ea5cca2d7005c983f1f456cdece9f28dd8
15565 F20101112_AACLPH rembold_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
c227cf90c276fe56169cf8ba09f94d8e
74a6dac0b54fd97469ec2caad3edb46d85c919e7
27229 F20101112_AACLOS rembold_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
590805ca8f907595e381eb9415f280dd
322749a24292c07482f5cc1d51fc14ce92736f97
41665 F20101112_AACLPI rembold_m_Page_072.jpg
bd92989c3efd3542968e52d52c3383f4
89bacf94afb812c7a37c5e72baba39ca0916ad4c
43607 F20101112_AACLOT rembold_m_Page_013.jpg
2baa18c918a2677f0d2f76dbbdfcd3fc
167bbb7abfd971e79cf995d8ca05a9e7c525afa3
4106 F20101112_AACLPJ rembold_m_Page_004.txt
aba967943ff06baa7871438679cf2be8
4fc0bb3266aaa6b182e4ac5f17245338af4f1325
101939 F20101112_AACLOU rembold_m_Page_010.jp2
026d09c6aae78b6c6b8c32c046507d48
6eb587f3b292f67d44b3c4788358a09d595fb06c
80120 F20101112_AACLPK rembold_m_Page_085.jpg
f3cfc4c3a17d0e5f5c793098080f74b6
1c3fa96261c3dffc94d56847e20b9addd84bfcef
107923 F20101112_AACLOV rembold_m_Page_054.jpg
c126bfaa948efc1bf4c1b02024c541e8
301e57a7b613e643f11d1bd731341f8cf02ec2ab
117720 F20101112_AACLOW rembold_m_Page_040.jpg
176142f6b52f02a29785bc484364683c
66c855f61071fb093bfdc8b5ca85e4c9ad50dfee
2029 F20101112_AACLPL rembold_m_Page_110.txt
70846074c8b0fe1c5978f73e8c32fe6e
3689d0e956d9c35396784468cf419314a753278f
F20101112_AACLOX rembold_m_Page_088.tif
7e232add1d7e85ceb6536166eb4dfcf9
73d6d1337a048f0afa2bd6f8c0c26eeafa27b177
6791 F20101112_AACLQA rembold_m_Page_033thm.jpg
699be0696dd15e674f59c0ce7e0c5a77
ceef5cb8cb381d75a47ea942f94c1e1c92771925
1051953 F20101112_AACLPM rembold_m_Page_008.jp2
206b3adaef07a8cf05dfed77e7c79a84
5daa61010c17c56cda5c9f6ac9abc175395cd4e1
F20101112_AACLOY rembold_m_Page_016.tif
057ee5f7777b538ef446f29fb26ab52b
99432dc27b79f23f36b91a7d442067574fa4b521
123446 F20101112_AACLQB rembold_m_Page_069.jp2
d7a5ab4d1852a79c73d70ddfb9d282e4
ebea1c9c9c6a9a64dad24cc60471225215aa626f
F20101112_AACLPN rembold_m_Page_063.tif
ca92662a0b90be9a337a25b11c35debc
8ff47d702d5318d383471995766a28c87d3e3d76
92427 F20101112_AACLOZ rembold_m_Page_028.jpg
36f577b58d7971d81d1aaee3ebb96824
78605b7b7b8d58f2267eabe68f713069a6fbc719
F20101112_AACLQC rembold_m_Page_075.tif
c38603ac9dead30a691c4fe9bf19b276
1b562a4b6e0371d4b88932c3ef9e74e28cf72f69
1492 F20101112_AACLPO rembold_m_Page_035.txt
7449e2a4fe910f8d178ffd62d96ae3a7
31d47ace9da978f7da3ad7fe37218e7116244527
52462 F20101112_AACLQD rembold_m_Page_019.pro
0f4476993e30e709318b7bb5e87eb8b4
497020b485cd4a0dfb7fd716323117b07434a3fe
57242 F20101112_AACLPP rembold_m_Page_104.jp2
b064d137cfed785d6f27d4839d140633
5106169194d403cd0a95dff42956da460a5ede32
2926553 F20101112_AACLQE rembold_m.pdf
38b76b4dab01785a751d88d65a060ae5
4c91c727bebb4f1b264656327dc54501864f1ce2



PAGE 1

1 THE FEASIBILITY OF WATER REUSE IN FLORIDA By MATTHEW DAVID REMBOLD A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Matthew D. Rembold

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my committee chai r and advisor, Dr. James P. Heaney. Dr. Heaney provided a learning and a working envir onment that made it possible to succeed. He challenged me to produce the best work possible. At the same time, he always provided the encouragement needed to help me get through some tough spots. His enthusiasm for anything he did was contagious. I am extremely thankful to him for the opportunity to come to the University of Florida and for everything he has provided me during my time here. I hope to take many of his qualities with me outside of school. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. K oopman and Dr. Sansalone. I have had the pleasure of learning from both. In addition, I had the chance to work extensively with Dr. Koopman. I thank him for always challe nging me and for his patience. I also thank Dr. Sansalone for always taking the time to meet with me when I needed it. I would also like to express th anks to Dr. David York from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the opportunity to work with him on two separate projects and his invaluable insight during these tasks. In a ddition, I acknowledge Donna Rickabus from the South Florida Water Management District, Lisa Self from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Andy King from the Un iversity of Floridas Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences for providing me with the data needed to complete this thesis. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family fo r always placing a high value in education. I would particularly like to thank my parents, Rob and Karen, and my sister, Megan, for providing me with all of their suppor t and encouragement over the years. I would not be where I am today without them.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........6 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 2 WATER REUSE IN SOUTHEAST FLORIDA.....................................................................14 Introduction and Background.................................................................................................14 Current Rules and Guidelines.................................................................................................16 Identifying Potential Users of Reclaimed Water....................................................................18 Consumptive Use Permit Databases................................................................................19 Potential for Reuse in Southeast Florida.........................................................................22 Determining the Optimal Amount of Reuse to Provide.........................................................23 North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Case Study...............................................24 The Relationship between Di stance and Feasibility........................................................27 Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................................................30 3 STORAGE IN RECLAIMED WATE R SYSTEMS IN FLORIDA.......................................47 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........47 Current Rules.................................................................................................................. ........47 LANDAP......................................................................................................................... .......48 Diurnal Storage................................................................................................................ .......50 Previous Work.................................................................................................................51 Hourly Water Balance.....................................................................................................52 Seasonal Storage............................................................................................................... ......55 Previous Work.................................................................................................................55 Daily Simulation..............................................................................................................56 Best Management Practices....................................................................................................60 Irrigation Practices...........................................................................................................60 Effective precipitation..............................................................................................63 Reliability.................................................................................................................66 Storage requirements to increase reliability.............................................................67 Meters and Volume-Based Rates....................................................................................69 Providing Storage at Customers Site..............................................................................70 Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................................................70

PAGE 5

5 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................81 APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL UNIT COSTS FO R WATER REUSE SYSTEMS........................................85 B DAILY SIMULATION..........................................................................................................87 C WEEKLY SIMULATION....................................................................................................105 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................114 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................117

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Percent of wastewater re used in Southeast Florida............................................................32 2-2 Summary of 2003 flows for th e six ocean outfall facilities...............................................32 2-3 Reuse alternatives and reclaimed wate r flows for North Regional service area................32 2-4 Treatment costs for the six options....................................................................................32 2-5 Storage and land costs for the six options..........................................................................33 2-6 Transmission and distribution and indirect costs for the six options.................................33 2-7 Operation and maintenan ce costs for the six options.........................................................33 2-8 Total present value, annual costs, and daily costs for the six options...............................33 2-9 Cost savings for the six options.........................................................................................34 2-10 Water system costs in Florida............................................................................................34 2-11 Present and annual costs for the Moderate Reuse Alternative...........................................35 2-12 Marginal costs for the Moderate Reuse Alternative..........................................................36 3-1 Irrigable area and daily and hourly demand......................................................................73 3-2 Diurnal storage analysis.................................................................................................. ...73 3-3 Storage requirements based on time interval used for the 10,000-acre case study............73 3-4 Effective precipitation for various evapot ranspiration and total precipitation values using soil water storage factor of 0.72...............................................................................74 3-5 Statistics of the four cas es using average weekly data......................................................74 3-6 Reliabilities of th e four cases using average weekly data..................................................74 A-1 Reuse treatment expansion costs.......................................................................................85 A-2 Transmission system unit construction costs.....................................................................85 A-3 Operation and maintenance costs.......................................................................................85 A-4 Miscellaneous costs....................................................................................................... ....85

PAGE 7

7 B-1 Daily storage simulation.................................................................................................. ..87 C-1 Total weekly data......................................................................................................... ....105 C-2 Average weekly data....................................................................................................... .108 C-3 Irrigation volumes required for the four cases.................................................................110 C-4 Storage simulation for Case 2..........................................................................................112

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Floridas Water Resource Caution Areas..........................................................................37 2-2 Countywide irrigation demand..........................................................................................37 2-3 Consumptive use permit holders with demands greater than 0.05 MGD in Palm Beach County................................................................................................................... ..38 2-4 Consumptive use permit holders with demands greater than 0.05 MGD in Broward County......................................................................................................................... .......39 2-5 Consumptive use permit holders with demands greater than 0.05 MGD in MiamiDade County.................................................................................................................... ..40 2-6 Potential water reuse in se rvice areas and reuse districts..................................................41 2-7 Distribution of distance of large us ers from wastewater treatment plant..........................41 2-8 Cumulative daily demand ve rsus metropolitan distance...................................................42 2-9 Proposed North Regional reuse system.............................................................................43 2-10 Daily cost versus reclaimed water flow.............................................................................44 2-11 Marginal cost curve...................................................................................................... ......44 2-12 Daily costs and benefits versus reclaimed water flow.......................................................45 2-13 Cost function for the Mo derate Reuse Alternative............................................................45 2-14 Cumulative daily demand versus metropol itan distance with potential cut-offs...............46 2-15 Current and potential reclaimed water flow.......................................................................46 3-1 Diurnal supply and demand...............................................................................................75 3-2 Typical seasonal patterns of reclai med water supply and irrigation demand in Florida........................................................................................................................ ........75 3-3 Effect of reclaimed water utilization on storage required..................................................76 3-4 Differences in storage volume re quired depending on time interval used.........................76 3-5 Effect of not meeting irrigation de mands on damage to St. Augustinegrass.....................77 3-6 Effect of soil water storage on the soil water storage factor..............................................77

PAGE 9

9 3-7 Irrigation demand for the four cas es based on average weekly data.................................78 3-8 Illustration of relia bility determination..............................................................................79 3-9 Reliability versus volume of reclai med water storage provided for Case 2......................80 3-10 Potable quality water demands as a function of potable quality water rates.....................80

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering THE FEASIBILITY OF WATER REUSE IN FLORIDA By Matthew David Rembold May 2007 Chair: James P. Heaney Major: Environmental Engineering Sciences Several methodologies were developed to better define the feasibility of implementing a reuse project. The methods were conceived by conducting several case studi es within Southeast Florida. These techniques can enhance current guidelines that are in place to determine the feasibility of such projects. These methodologies are relevant for wast ewater managers, water supply utilities, and large users of water that are required to determine project practicality under current Florida laws and Florida Departme nt of Environmental Protection rules. Two issues water planners face in implemen ting reuse systems are the identification of potential demand for reclaimed water and the amount to provide given econo mic constraints. A case study in Southeast Florida yielded a method to effectively identify pot ential users and their demands. The utilization of consumptive use permits found upwards of 17 MGD of potable quality water that could be subs tituted with reclaimed water. Current guidelines dictate that water planners identify differe nt reuse alternatives based on defined percentages of reclaimed water utilization rates and their associated costs. The reuse alternatives are then co mpared to the no action a lternative. Instead, a method was developed in which all of the reuse alternatives are considered together and compared with the benefits of providing reclaimed water. This method will determ ine the optimal amount of reuse to provide.

PAGE 11

11 A case study was conducted in the Pompano Beach area, in which after finding the costs of several different levels of reuse, it was conclu ded that approximately 26 MGD of reuse could be provided while considering economic constraints. Providing reclaimed water storag e is not only an important as pect in planning for a reuse system, but also has a major effect on the feasibility of a project. Diurnal and seasonal storage patterns were examined. A method is presented in which the optimal amount of storage was found in order to meet reclaimed water demands as compared to the supply. The use of these techniques can result in a si gnificant cost savings by more accurately modeling the storage needs. The results of the seasonal storage analysis determined that the time interval is a significant factor in determining storage requirements. Studies have shown that a weekly time interval will not produce any a dverse effects on Florida turf and therefore provides the appropriate time step for estimati ng the volume of storage to provide. Finally, best management practices from the customer and utility points of view were examined. It was determined that if the customer initiates an irrigation practice in which historical evapotranspiration and precipitation data are taken in to account, the demands of the reuse system are reduced, the reliability increases, and the need for storage decreases. This has a significant impact on whether a project is economi cally feasible. Addi tionally, the introduction of meters and volume-based rates affect feasibility.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The conservation of Floridas water resources is vital to the livelihood of the state. Florida, one of the fastest grow ing states in the country, relies on a finite source of potable quality water to meet the needs of its citizens. In response, Florida has made it a state objective to reuse reclaimed water. The State is one of the national leaders in this field and has enacted several laws and rules re quiring the implementation of reuse if it is feasible. Current guidelines pertaining to the determination of feasibil ity of employing reuse were examined and strengthened through two projects. The Florida Department of Environmental Protec tion first tasked the University of Florida to develop alternatives to dis posing treated effluent through ocean outfalls in the southeastern portion of the state. Water reuse for public acces s activities, such as landscape and agricultural irrigation and industrial uses, were among the alte rnatives considered. In order to enhance current guidelines, a methodology that allows water planners to identify la rge users of potable quality water that could possibly be suited for reclaimed water needed to be developed. In addition, a technique to determine the optimal amount of reuse to provide would offer a means to better determine the feasibility of initiating these projects. After the initial reuse project, the Florida De partment of Environm ental Protection asked the University of Florida to examine their curr ent guidelines and develop a refined document that was to be used by any entity required to determine the feasibility of implementing a reuse project. This document was to import the met hodologies developed during the original project, but also allowed the University of Florida to modify and/or expand on other topics as appropriate. Current guidelines for determining feasibility address storage of reclaimed water minimally. Provision of diurnal a nd seasonal storage increases the supply capacity of the reuse

PAGE 13

13 system. Best management practices, such as us ing soil moisture sensors for irrigation systems, can reduce the demand for reclaimed water. Methods need to be developed to show how utilities can determine storage requirement s and overall system reliability. The aim of this study was to develop methodologies that can be added to current guidelines pertaining to the feasibility of providing reuse. Techniques to identify large water users, methods to define an optimal amount of reuse to provide, and the relationship between storage and best management practices to reuse feasib ility were examined. The methodologies were developed by examining case studies in Southeast Florida, but can be applied elsewhere in the State of Florida or in other areas.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 WATER REUSE IN SOUTHEAST FLORIDA Introduction and Background The State of Florida is recogni zed as a national leader in wa ter reuse (RCC et al. 2003). The reuse of reclaimed water is encouraged and promoted as state objec tives in Sections 403.064 and 373.250 of the Florida Statutes (Florida Legisl ature). The State currently reuses 660 million gallons per day (MGD) of reclaimed water and has set a goal of reusing one billion gallons per day by the year 2010 (FL DEP 2006a; US EPA 2004) The 660 MGD of reuse represents 41% of Floridas current domestic wastewater. By th e year 2020, Florida is ex pected to reclaim and reuse 65% of its domestic wastewater (FL DEP 2006a). At the same time, Floridas reuse capacity has increased significantly in the pa st twenty years. As of 2005, 465 domestic wastewater facilities with a permitted capacity of 0.1 MGD or greater have made reclaimed water available for reuse (FL DEP 2006a). Th e total reuse capacity associated with these facilities is 1,325 MGD (FL DEP 2006a). The implementation of reuse systems varies wi dely among Floridas sixty-seven counties. Floridas three most populous counties, Miami-Da de, Broward, and Palm Beach, are located in the southeast portion of the state. These counties constitute ap proximately 30% of the states total population and generate approximately 40% of the states domestic wastewater (FL DEP 2006a). In addition, population in these three coun ties is growing at a rapid rate. The increasing population and the fact that Floridas public wa ter suppliers depend on finite ground waters for 90% of their total supply causes concern regarding the sustainability of this resource (RCC et al. 2003). Some areas within this region are proj ected to experience wate r shortages by 2020 and will have to seek new potable quality water s upplies (Koopman et al. 2006). However, as of 2005, Miami-Dade and Broward Counties ranked in the bottom twelve c ounties by reusing only

PAGE 15

15 6% and 5% of their domestic wastewater, respecti vely (RCC et al. 2003). Overall, the combined amount of reclaimed water in these two countie s account for 5% of th e states 660 MGD reuse flow (FL DEP 2006a). A summary of the 2005 reuse statistics for the three counties is given in Table 2-1. Six wastewater treatment fac ilities within the three-county area currently dispose of 290 MGD of treated effluent via ocean outfalls (FL DEP 2006a). This water could be reclaimed to meet a significant part of the water demand and prevent negative environmental impacts associated with ocean disposal. In order to pr event detrimental effects, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is considering increasing the tr eatment standards on effluent discharge to ocean outfalls from secondary treatme nt with basic disinfectio n to intermediate or full nutrient control with basic disinfection. The continuing increase in Floridas populat ion, particularly in the three southeast counties, the current disposal methods, and the po tential to substitute reclaimed water for potable quality water for irrigation and i ndustrial applications make the region an excellent case study for water reuse. This chapter will explore the si x facilities which currently dispose of treated effluent through ocean outfalls: The South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Delray Beach The Glades Road Wastewater Treatment Plant in Boca Raton The North Regional Wastewater Tr eatment Plant in Pompano Beach The Southern Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Hollywood The Miami-Dade North District Wastew ater Treatment Plant in North Miami The Miami-Dade Central District Wastew ater Treatment Plant on Virginia Key A breakdown of these facilities and their current flows is pr esented in Table 2-2. This chapter will first review the current rules that re quire utilities and large water users to determine

PAGE 16

16 whether a reuse project is t echnically, environmentally, and economically feasible and the current guidelines that aid in this determina tion. A methodology for determining the identities, locations, and demands of poten tial large users of reclaimed water using readily available information will then be introduced. The met hodology will be presented for those users with large demands in Southeast Florida, but can be e xpanded to other areas in the state. Finally, an approach for optimizing the reclaimed water system size in relation to economic constraints will be presented. Current Rules and Guidelines In order to fulfill Floridas objective of enc ouraging and promoting water conservation and the reuse of reclaimed water, several laws have been enacted that require domestic wastewater facilities, potable quality wate r supply facilities, and end-user s of potable quality water to evaluate the feasibility of providing or usi ng reclaimed water. Under Section 403.064, Florida Statutes and Rule 62-40, Florida Administrative Code, domestic wastewater facilities located within, serving a population within, or discharg ing within a water resource caution area are required to determine the feasibility of implemen ting reuse (Florida Legisl ature; FL DEP 2006e). Water resource caution areas, as shown in Figur e 2-1, have been identified by local water management districts under Floridas Reuse Prog ram as areas in which water resource problems are projected to develop over the next twenty ye ars. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection applies the Antidegra dation Policy, contained in Chap ters 62-4 and 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, to those wastewater utilit ies currently not within a water resource caution area (FL DEP 2006b, 2006d). Under this rule, wastew ater utilities seekin g a new or expanded surface water discharge permit must show the feasibility of provi ding reuse. In addition, Rule 62-40, F.A.C. requires that water supply utili ties and other consumptive use permit holders

PAGE 17

17 statewide evaluate the technica l, environmental, and economic feasibility of implementing a reuse project (FL DEP 2006e). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, under Rule 62-610, F.A.C., requires those responsible for evaluating th e feasibility of reuse to follow one of two published guidelines (FL DEP 2006c): Guidelines for Preparation of Reuse Feasibilit y Studies for Domestic Wastewater Facilities (FL DEP 1991). This also includes provi sions for combined wastewater and water facilities. Guidelines for Preparation of Reuse Feasibility Studies for Consumptive Use Permit Applicants (RCC 1996). Currently water supply utilities with cons umptive use permits currently follow these guidelines. The feasibility studies must include evaluations of different alternatives for water reuse, with assessment of technical cons traints, environmental impacts, and present values for each alternative. The current Florid a Department of Environmental Protection (1991) Guidelines for wastewater facilities prescribe that the following four alternat ives be evaluated: No Action current level of reuse Minimal Reuse less than 40% of the average annual daily wastewater flow Medium Reuse 40 to 75% of the aver age annual daily wastewater flow Maximum Reuse greater than 75% of th e average annual daily wastewater flow In order to determine technical and economi cal feasibility, the Fl orida Department of Environmental Protection (1991) me thodology requires the use of a ne t present value analysis, in which all costs associated with a reuse project that will be incurred over a twenty-year study period be expressed in current dollars using the discount ra te published by the Federal government for water resource projects. The costs that are considered in clude capital costs for wastewater treatment, transmissi on costs to transport reclaimed water to the end users, and operation and maintenance costs of these systems. A contingency allowance is also prescribed.

PAGE 18

18 The cost of facilities to pump and store the recl aimed water are included in the capital costs. The guidelines consider the value of treatment facilit ies already in operation as sunk costs. Salvage and replacement values are determined using th e straight-line deprecia tion method. Revenues from the sale of reclaimed water, connection fe es, crops produced, and the lease of lands are considered in the net present value analysis. The initial present value is then compared to an adjusted pres ent value. The adjusted value takes into account the value of potable quality water saved by implementing a reuse system. The potable quality water usage for a reuse alternativ e is subtracted from the potable quality water usage for the no action alternative. This flow is multiplied by the average residential potable quality water rate to quantify the annual benef it, which is converted to a present value on the basis of project duration and discount rate. Th e present value of the potable quality water savings is subtracted from the original presen t value to give the adjusted present value. Identifying Potential Us ers of Reclaimed Water An essential step in implementing a reuse system is identifying users that could potentially supplant part of or all of their current potable quality water supply with reclaimed water. Metcalf and Eddy (2007) describe the four importa nt characteristics of major water users to consider when planning a reuse system as: The quantity of reclaimed water required The physical location of the major water users The operating schedule of reclaimed water use The required operating pressures The methodology presented in this chapter directly addresses the first two characteristics and indirectly aids in the identifi cation of the final two attributes. Southeast Florida is utilized as

PAGE 19

19 a case study. A methodology to identify those candi dates that are particul arly attractive as reclaimed water customers is also presented. Consumptive Use Permit Databases Consumptive use permits allow a user to wit hdraw a specified amount of potable quality water. These permits are typically compiled into a database and are availa ble from most of the water management districts. Consumptive use permit databases contain a we alth of information, a lthough the amount of data varies depending on the water management district. These databases will typically contain, at a minimum, the project name and permit numb er, the projects land use, the acreage of the project, and the annual allocati on of potable quality water. The databases also contain geographic coordinates that ca n be plotted using a geographic information system (GIS) program. Analysis of data from these permits en ables effective identification of potable quality water users that can substitute reclaimed water for potable quality water. In order to identify potential us ers in Southeast Florida, cons umptive use permit data were obtained from the South Florida Water Manageme nt District. Attention was focused on the permit holders located within or n ear the service areas of the six wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to ocean outfalls. The database was first arranged by land use. The specification of land use aids in the estimation of operating schedules and pressure requirements. Six types of land uses were initially analyzed from the South Florida Wate r Management District data: golf courses, landscaped areas, agricultural areas, aquaculture areas nurseries, and indust rial users. The study focused on golf courses and landscaped areas, as they constitute a large proportion of the permit holders and tend to be located closer in distance to the wast ewater treatment plants. The demands of these users are fairly constant as they use between 40 and 50 inches of water

PAGE 20

20 annually. Industrial and ag ricultural uses also represent attrac tive reuse alternatives statewide. However, the demands for these applications mu st be identified on a cas e by case basis. The remaining golf and landscape areas were ar ranged by daily allocation. A golf course or landscaped area was considered a large user if its demand was 0.05 MGD or higher. Urban users with demands of 0.05 MGD or more co mprised 80-90% of the total consumptive use permit demand in each of the three counties. Golf courses and landscaped areas within th e urban areas of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties are summarized in Fi gure 2-2. The number of golf courses with consumptive use permits varies widely, ranging from 98 for Palm Beach County to 26 for Miami-Dade County, and totals 164 for the three c ounties. Water use per golf course is fairly consistent across the three service areas, aver aging 0.47 MGD. The total water demand for golf courses is 77.5 MGD, with Palm Beach County accounting for 47.9 MGD of this total. The 396 landscape large users have a to tal demand of 70.2 MGD, with an average demand of about 0.18 MGD per user. Palm Beach and Broward Counties account for 35.4 and 30.4 MGD, respectively, of this amount. The total dema nd for all large users is 148 MGD. Palm Beach County accounts for 83.3 MGD of this total. The large users were then entered into a GI S program along with the service areas of the six wastewater treatment plants th at use ocean outfalls, as can be seen in Figures 2-3 through 2-5. The service areas were described in reuse feas ibility studies for the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (Brown and Caldwell 1995), the Glades Road Wastewater Treatment Plant (CDM 1990), the North Regiona l Wastewater Treatment Plant (Hazen and Sawyer 2004), the Hollywood Wast ewater Treatment Plant (Public Utility Management and

PAGE 21

21 Planning Services and Hazen and Sawyer 2001) and the Miami-Dade North and Central Districts Wastewater Treatment Plants (PBS&J 1992). The large users were then categorized accord ing to their location. The first category included users that are located within the servi ce areas of the six wastew ater treatment plants under consideration, with two exceptions. The Town of Davie and Cooper City in Broward County were considered part of the Hollywood Wastewater Treatment Plant service area. According to the Florida Department of Envi ronmental Protection (2002), these two areas send wastewater to the Hollywood Wast ewater Treatment Plant. Similarly, Boynton Beach in Palm Beach County was included as part of the Boynt on-Delray Wastewater Treatment Plant (Brown and Caldwell 1995). The next category of large users included those lying outside these serv ice areas, but still within areas that could be potentially served with reclaimed water. These outlying areas are typically fulfilling their daily demand through individual wells; however, upcoming legislation could limit the availability of this water so urce. In addition, curre nt laws require these consumptive use permit holders to implement reus e if it is practical (F L DEP 2006e). An area was considered as a possible annexation target for water reuse provided that it did not lie within the service area of another wastewater treatment plant. The expanded service areas can be seen as parts of Figures 2-3 through 2-5. Palm Beach County has several users in this outlying area that are candidates to receive reclaimed water. Broward County has fewer expansion candidates because there are several other wast ewater treatment plants in this area. The service areas of the two Miami-Dade Wastewater Treatment Plants enco mpass all large users. The expanded service areas coupled with the originally defined service area are called reuse districts.

PAGE 22

22 The potential large users located within the se rvice area and within th e reuse districts for the six wastewater treatment plants with ocean outfalls are summarized in Figure 2-6. The first row shows the number of large users and their corresponding demands with in each of the six service areas. The service area s for the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Broward County and the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Delray Beach include the greatest amount of large users. The next row gives the number of large users and reclaimed water demand for the expanded service areas. Th e two service areas with in Palm Beach County have the greatest potential for reuse by expa nsion. The South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant could add a possible 50 users by expanding its service area, followed by the Glades Road Wastewater Treatment Plant with a pot ential of 41 additional users. The two plants in Broward County are surrounded by other wastew ater treatment plants and therefore have lesser potential. The Miami-Dade North and Centra l Districts Wastewater Treatment Plants have no expansion potential as their combined service area encompasses all consumptive use permit holders. Potential for Reuse in Southeast Florida Large users occupy 18% of the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant reuse district in Broward County, which consists of the define d service area plus the expanded area. Palm Beach County has the second largest proportion of la rge users; 13% of the reuse districts of the South Central Regional and Glades Road Wastewater Treatment Plants are occupied by large users. In contrast, only 5% of the reuse district of the Hollyw ood Wastewater Treatment Plant is occupied by large users. The reuse districts of the two wastewater treatment plants in MiamiDade County that are under consideration have the lowest proportion of large users approximately 2%.

PAGE 23

23 Large users are located randomly throughout the reuse districts, as evident by Figure 2-7. The histogram shows a breakdown of distance from the wastewater treatment plant for all large users in the three-county area under consideration. The cumulative average demand of the large us ers, as given by permit data, was then plotted versus metropolitan distance1 from the large users respective wastewater treatment plants, as seen in Figure 2-8. The reuse districts served by the South Central Regional, Glades Road, and the North Regional Wastewater Treatm ent Plants have much higher increments of water demand per mile than the districts served by the other three facilities. The slopes of the lines (MGD/mile) in Figur e 2-8 fall into two groups. The cumulative demand of large users within ten miles of th e South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is 20 MGD. Cumulative demands for the reuse districts around the Glades Road and North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plants have sim ilar slopes. In contrast, the cumulative demand of large users within ten miles of the Hollywood Wastewater Treat ment Plant is only 3 MGD, or 15% of the South Central Regional value. Sim ilar relationships are seen for reuse districts around the Miami-Dade North and Central Wastewat er Treatment Facilities. Accordingly, the more promising opportunities for water reuse ar e in Palm Beach County and northern Broward County. The determination of the actual amount of reuse to provide for the six wastewater treatment plant reuse district s is decided during an economic feasibility analysis. Determining the Optimal Amount of Reuse to Provide This section presents a methodology to identify the optimal amount of reuse to provide by identifying the costs associated with the reus e project alone and comp aring it to the potable quality water savings. The proposed methodology is then applied to one of the six wastewater 1 Distance measured in the directions of the street grid.

PAGE 24

24 service areas in Southeast Florida. Finally, c onclusions are drawn from this service district throughout the other five service areas. North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Case Study A case study was conducted on the North Regi onal Wastewater Treatment Plant in Broward County. This was a part icularly attractive area to an alyze as the feasibility study conducted by Hazen and Sawyer (2004) was thor ough and gave excellent cost estimating data. This methodology follows the 1991 Florida Departme nt of Environmental Protection Guidelines for cost estimating and present value analysis, w ith a few notable exceptions. First, the number of alternatives analyzed is incr eased in order to more accurately determine the optimal amount of reuse to provide. Also, salvage and replacem ent and revenues were not taken into account. Instead of using the specified percentages of average annual wastewater flow as the 1991 Guidelines prescribe, the net present value was determined for a variety of reuse percentages. The addition of more points along a net cost func tion graph will show to what degree an option is cost effective. The following list describes th e six different reuse al ternatives identified: No Action the current amount of reuse provi ded by the wastewater treatment plant as determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report Low large users, as determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report, are identified to increase reuse production to the wa stewater treatment plants capacity Moderate large users to the north of the f acility, as determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report, are selected and will cause the reuse capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to expand Medium large users to the north and west of the facility, as determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report, are selected and will cause the reuse capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to expand High expands the reuse system to serve all large users within the wastewater treatment plants service area, including those determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report as well as those identified in the consumptive use permit database analysis. In addition, a portion of the residential group identified by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report was included.

PAGE 25

25 Maximum expands the reuse system to serv e all large users within the wastewater treatment plants service area, including thos e determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report as well as those identified in the cons umptive use permit database analysis. In addition, a group of residential customers, as identified by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report were included. Table 2-3 lists these reuse alterna tives and their corresponding flows. After the large users and their corresponding fl ows were determined, the information from the consumptive use permit database in the GIS pr ogram aided in the determination of the reuse network. The GIS program was used to estimate the lengths and locations of transmission and distribution lines. The estimated location of the reuse network is illustrated in Figure 2-9. The capital costs determined in this project include the cost to expand the capacity of the reuse facility, the cost to pump the water on-site and throughout the reuse network, the cost of storage tanks, if needed, along w ith booster stations throughout the service area, the cost of transmission and distribution lines required to provide th e demand, and land costs. A contingency was added to all capita l costs, except that for land. The cost estimating data used were obtained from the Hazen and Sawyer (2004 ) report and are listed in Appendix A. In addition, the size of transmission and distribution components and qua ntity of storage tanks were determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) repo rt. Tables 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7 show the corresponding costs for treatmen t, storage and land, transmissi on and distribution, and operation and maintenance, respectively. It was assumed that land is to be leased and that it will hold its value over time (Sample et al. 2003 ). Therefore, the annual cost of the lease was calculated as the investment cost multiplied by the discount ra te. The present value of the land lease was determined by multiplying the annual cost by the capital reco very factor. All costs in 2004 dollars were added, and were converted to 2005 dollars using the Engineering News Record index. The present va lue over the twenty-year period was calculated in Table 2-8 using a 7% discount rate. This present value can then be converted to a daily cost

PAGE 26

26 and plotted versus flow rate in thousands of gallons per day. The resulting graph, shown as Figure 2-10, has an excellent coefficient of determination (R2) when a power function is fit to the data. The resulting power function was found to be: C = 24859 23 0000058362 0 Q (2-1) where C equals total daily costs and Q equa ls flow in thousand of gallons per day. The derivative of this total cost function gives the marginal cost curve, as seen in Equation 2-2. MC = 1* bQ ab Q C (2-2) Using the parameters from the total co st function, i.e., a = 5.83623 E-06 and b=2.24859, the equation for the marginal cost is MC = 24859 1* 05 29901 1 Q E (2-3) where MC = marginal cost, $/1,000 gall ons, and Q = demand in 1,000 gallons/day. The marginal cost curve is shown in Figure 211. In economics parlance, the marginal cost curve is the supply curve. Customers who d ecrease irrigation demand on the central water system save an estimated $4.04 per 1,000 gallons in 2002 dollars, or $4.58 per 1,000 gallons in 2005 dollars. Thus, the optimal amo unt of reuse to provide corres ponds to the intersection of the marginal benefit and the supply curves, or in th is case approximately 26.5 MGD. If user savings are $2.00 per 1,000 gallons, then the optimal amount is about 14 MGD. Similarly, if the user savings are $6.00 per 1,000 gallons, then the optima l amount of reuse is about 34 MGD. The use of intermediate data points allows these total a nd marginal cost curves to be generated more accurately.

PAGE 27

27 Another, and equivalent, way to evaluate the be nefits and costs is to look at total values. The total daily benefits and cost s are presented in Table 2-9. Pr esent values of potable quality water rates for customers within the North Regi onal Wastewater Treatment Plant are identified in the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report. If total va lues are used, then the objective function is to maximize total benefits minus total costs. If the value of water reuse is $4.58 per 1,000 gallons, then the total benefits of reuse exceed the total costs over the entire range of flows. However, the best solution is where net benefits are maxi mized. For the indicated data, this occurs at approximately 30 MGD. Using the fitted equation, as was done for the marginal cost analysis, the actual optimal amount turns out to be 26.2 MGD. However, public utilities typically seek to br eak even rather than maximizing net revenues, that is, the daily benefits equaling the daily costs. As evident in Table 2-9, additional reuse flow can be added until this situation occurs. Daily co sts and daily benefits are plotted as a function of flow in Figure 2-12. If the two regression lines are set equal to one another, the total flow to satisfy a break-even condition is 52.6 MGD. This value should be used with caution, however. If additional residential users are added to achie ve this optimal flow, the costs will exceed the benefits before 52.6 MGD, as the transmission a nd distribution costs required are greater for residential reuse applications. The Relationship between Distance and Feasibility By looking at the analysis thus far, it can be seen that tran smission costs, and therefore, distance away from the wastewater treatment plan t plays a vital role in determining whether a user should be considered for reuse. This is confirmed in a study by the Cadmus Group (2006) which showed that transmission lines account for a large percentage of th e total costs for water systems. The findings of the st udy are summarized in Table 2-10.

PAGE 28

28 The users and their corresponding demands ar e spread throughout the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant se rvice area. However at $2.87 pe r thousand gallons to provide reclaimed water for the Medium alternative, water reuse is considered quite attractive in spite of the distance from the wastewater treatment plant. It can also be seen fr om Figure 2-9 that while some users may be at larger distances from the wastewater treatment plan t, they tend to be grouped together. An analysis was conducted on the Moderate reuse alternative, which consists of a group of large users located to the north of the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Broward County, in order to determine the effect of di stance on marginal costs. The same methodology described before was used in this analysis. The expansion of the re use distribution network along with the present and annual values can be seen in Table 2-11. The flows shown in this table are the cumulative total flows and the larg e users are arranged in increasing distance from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. A total cost function can again be plotted using daily costs ve rsus flow in thousands of gallons per day as shown in Figure 2-13. The power function fit to this eq uation is shown in Equation 2-4. C = 22477 20000108498 0 Q (2-4) The marginal costs for each expanded segment of the distribution network can then be calculated by taking the derivativ e of this total cost function. The resulting marginal cost equation is shown as Equation 2-5. MC = 22477 1000024138 0 Q (2-5) The marginal costs at the various distances are shown in Table 2-12. They range from $0.90 to $2.41 per thousand gallons at a distance of 13.9 miles. Distances are measured using

PAGE 29

29 the metropolitan metric to more accurately repr esent that pipeline would follow north-south and east-west pathways. Marginal costs increase with metropolitan distan ce from the wastewater treatment plant. However, due to the density of large users in this area, there are certain places where marginal cost remains relatively constant as distance increases. The large user is considered more attractive to serve with reclaime d water if it is surround ed by other large users that can share the costs of the system. In order to extrapolate the results of the No rth Regional case study to the other five reuse districts, a distance of twelve miles from th e wastewater treatment plant was used as a conservative cut-off. The twelve-mile cut-off is based on the marginal cost curve of Figure 2-11 for the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The case study found that the benefits of using water reuse were $4.58 per thousand gallons. If the benefits of using public access reuse were higher, as is the case in ot her counties, the optimal amount of flow would be greater, and the twelve-mile cut-off would be extended. The cumulative daily demand versus distance fr om the wastewater treatment plant graph (Figure 2-8) for all six reuse dist ricts is used in the extrapolat ion. The South Central Regional, Glades Road, and North Regional Wastewater Tr eatment Plants exhibit high flow per mile values. In addition, all of the large users could be reached with a transmission line that was less than twelve miles in length. Therefore, all of the large users identified in these service areas were determined to be feasible for reuse. Several large users in the remaining three reuse districts went beyond twelve miles, as seen in Fi gure 2-14. Therefore, the highest flow per mile value was found near this twelve-mile mark, and the users outside this mark were considered infeasible and were excluded. Figure 2-15 show s the demand for users that were considered feasible for reclaimed water service.

PAGE 30

30 Summary and Conclusions A methodology is presented for determining the pot ential users of reclaimed water within a reuse district and to aid in the determination of the important characteristics necessary in planning a reuse distribution ne twork, including the quantity demanded, the location, operating schedules, and operating pressures required. The current Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1991) guidance document offers no guidance in this determination. This chapter also presented a method for determining the optimal amount of reuse to provide. The North Regional Wastewater Treatmen t Plants reuse district was analyzed using the general concepts within the current guidelines However, instead of determining the present value for each reuse alternative, the methodology took it a step furt her and looked at the costs for all the reuse alternatives and calculated the supply curve for the region. The supply curve was then compared to the benefits associated with the alternatives and the optimal amount of reuse was determined. A similar method for comparing th e costs and benefits of all reuse alternatives on one chart is also presented. Additionally, the effect of distance from the source of reclaimed water on costs was explored. The described methodology presented can be applied statewide and elsewhere. The method of finding potential large us ers is extremely helpful in the planning stages, and the use of a GIS program will also aid in estimating transm ission length requirements. Each region should work through the economic analys is. The optimal system radius is likely to vary depending on facility location; therefore, th e twelve mile distance found to be optimum for Southeast Florida should not be assumed to be optimal elsewhere. In working through the feasibility analysis portion, several othe r methods could be developed to add to current guide lines. Storage is a very importa nt concept that not only affects the economic analysis, but also affects the reliabi lity of the system. In addition, there are best

PAGE 31

31 management practices on both the consumer and util ity side that should be explored in order to better determine the demands of the system. These concepts will be explored further in the following chapter.

PAGE 32

32 Table 2-1. Percent of wastewater reused in Southeast Florida (Adapted from FL DEP 2006a). County Population rank Reuse rank Reuse flow (gallons/day/ person) Percent of wastewater reused Miami-Dade 1 56 0 7.82 0 6 Broward 2 60 0 5.91 0 5 Palm Beach 3 36 25.77 26 Table 2-2. Summary of 2003 flows for the six ocean outfall fac ilities (Adapted from Koopman et al. 2006). Facility name Total treated flow (MGD) Ocean outfall flow (MGD) Reuse design capacity (MGD) Reuse flow (MGD) South Central Regional 0 16.6 0 12.3 10.0 4.3 Glades Road 0 16.3 0 10.7 0 9.0 5.6 North Regional 0 69.8 0 36.5 10.0 4.5 Southern Regional 0 42.1 0 39.5 0 4.0 2.6 Miami-Dade North District 0 82.9 0 80.6 0 4.4 2.3 Miami-Dade Central District 113.5 104.6 0 8.5 8.9 Table 2-3. Reuse alternatives and reclaimed water flows for North Regional service area. Reuse alternative Reclaimed water demand (MGD) No action 0 4.46 Low 0 9.34 Moderate 11.34 Medium 19.31 High 30.00 Maximum 41.98 Table 2-4. Treatment costs for the six options. Reuse alternative Reclaimed water treatment Process equipment Auxiliary equipment Pumps No action $ 00,000,00 0 $ 0,000,00 0 $ 0,000,00 0 $ 0,000,00 0 Low $ 00,000,00 0 $ 0,000,00 0 $ 0,000,00 0 $ 0,000,00 0 Moderate $ 0 1,105,500 $ 0, 294,800 $ 0,0 73,700 $2,781,655 Medium $ 0 7,680,750 $2,048,200 $ 0, 512,050 $4,037,585 High $16,500,000 $4,400,000 $1,100,000 $5,496,155 Maximum $26,383,500 $7,035,600 $1,758,900 $6,953,506

PAGE 33

33 Table 2-5. Storage and land costs for the six options. Reuse alternative Storage costs Booster stations required Booster pump station costs Land costs No action $ 00,000,00 0 0 $ 0,000,00 0 $ 0,000,00 0 Low $ 0 1,250,000 0 $ 0,000,00 0 $ 0,000,00 0 Moderate $11,431,458 2 $1,500,000 $ 0, 370,790 Medium $16,592,816 3 $2,250,000 $ 0, 556,186 High $22,586,939 5 $3,750,000 $ 0, 926,976 Maximum $28,576,050 6 $4,500,000 $1,112,371 Table 2-6. Transmission and distribution and indirect costs for the six options. Reuse alternative Transmission and distribution costs Indirect costs No action $ 000,000,00 0 $ 000,000,00 0 Low $ 00 1,231,500 $ 000, 620,375 Moderate $ 00 9,419,866 $ 00 6,651,745 Medium $ 0 44,351,236 $ 0 19,368,159 High $ 0 76,764,865 $ 0 32,649,490 Maximum $349,886,170 $106,273,431 Table 2-7. Operation and mainte nance costs for the six options. Reuse alternative O & M Years 1-5 O & M Years 6-10 O & M Years 11-15 O & M Years 16-20 O & M Present value No action $ 0, 284,883 $ 0, 341,859 $ 0, 396,556 $ 0, 452,074 $ 0 3,665,843 Low $ 0, 596,593 $ 0, 715,911 $ 0, 830,457 $ 0, 946,721 $ 0 7,676,900 Moderate $ 0, 889,907 $1,067,888 $1,238,750 $1,412,175 $11,451,238 Medium $1,515,352 $1,818,423 $2,109,370 $2,404,682 $19,499,419 High $2,354,250 $2,825,100 $3,277,116 $3,735,912 $30,294,282 Maximum $3,294,381 $3,953,257 $4,585,778 $5,227,787 $42,391,798 Table 2-8. Total present value, annual co sts, and daily costs for the six options. Reuse alternative Total cost (2004$) Total cost (2005$) Annual cost Daily cost No action $ 00 3,665,843 $ 00 3,815,259 $ 00, 360,133 $ 000, 987 Low $ 0 10,778,775 $ 0 11,218,106 $ 0 1,058,910 $ 00 2,901 Moderate $ 0 45,080,753 $ 0 46,918,197 $ 0 4,428,746 $ 0 12,134 Medium $116,896,401 $121,660,977 $11,483,936 $ 0 31,463 High $194,468,706 $202,395,049 $19,104,661 $ 0 52,342 Maximum $574,871,327 $598,302,484 $56,475,522 $154,727

PAGE 34

34 Table 2-9. Cost savings for the six options. Reuse alternative Reclaimed water demand (MGD) Potable quality water cost (2002$/1,000 gallons) Daily benefits (2002$) Daily benefits (2005$) Daily benefits daily costs ($/day) No action 0 4.46 $4.04 $ 0 18,018 $ 0 20,408 $19,421 Low 0 9.34 $4.04 $ 0 37,734 $ 0 42,737 $39,836 Moderate 11.34 $4.04 $ 0 45,814 $ 0 51,889 $39,755 Medium 19.31 $4.04 $ 0 78,015 $ 0 88,358 $56,895 High 30.00 $4.04 $121,200 $137,272 $84,931 Maximum 41.98 $4.04 $169,599 $192,090 $37,362 Table 2-10. Water system costs in Flor ida (Adapted from The Cadmus Group 2006). Item Cost Percent of total Transmission and distribution $10,387,000,000 0 69.1 Treatment $ 0 2,596,000,000 0 17.3 Storage $ 00, 983,000,000 00 6.5 Source Development $ 00, 937,000,000 00 6.2 Other $ 00, 138,000,000 00 0.9 Total $15,041,000,000 100.0

PAGE 35

35 Table 2-11. Present and a nnual costs for the Moderate Reuse Alternative. From node (i) To node (j) Distance (mi) Reclaimed water demand (MGD) Total cost (2005$) Annual cost (2005$/yr) NRWWTP NRWWTP (on-site) 0 0.000 0 5.390 $ 0 4,610,817 $ 0, 435,229 NRWWTP Central Sanitary Landfill 0 1.412 0 5.468 $14,330,881 $1,352,734 NRWWTP WES 0 2.501 0 7.768 $20,634,402 $1,947,742 NRWWTP Crystal Lake Country Club/Tam OShanter 0 3.560 0 8.450 $23,344,288 $2,203,536 NRWWTP Meadows of Crystal Lake 0 4.586 0 8.506 $23,975,514 $2,263,119 NRWWTP Highland Village Mobile Park 0 5.717 0 8.570 $24,677,764 $2,329,406 NRWWTP Deerfield Beach High School 0 6.343 0 8.620 $25,092,357 $2,368,541 NRWWTP Century Village East 0 7.907 10.124 $34,708,050 $3,276,194 NRWWTP Deer Creek Country Club Community 0 8.874 10.441 $36,798,925 $3,473,558 NRWWTP Deer Creek Golf Course 0 9.036 10.880 $39,732,984 $3,750,513 NRWWTP Deerfield Country Club 10.027 11.104 $41,608,800 $3,927,576 NRWWTP The Waterways 12.023 11.517 $44,451,327 $4,195,891 NRWWTP Quiet Waters Park 12.473 11.847 $46,153,783 $4,356,591 NRWWTP Adios Golf Club 13.934 12.088 $47,730,422 $4,505,414

PAGE 36

36 Table 2-12. Marginal costs for th e Moderate Reuse Alternative. From node (i) To node (j) Distance (mi) Reclaimed water demand (MGD) Marginal cost ($/1,000 gallons) NRWWTP NRWWTP (on-site) 0 0.000 0 5.390 $0.90 NRWWTP Central Sanitary Landfill 0 1.412 0 5.468 $0.91 NRWWTP WES 0 2.501 0 7.768 $1.40 NRWWTP Crystal Lake Country Club/Tam OShanter 0 3.560 0 8.450 $1.56 NRWWTP Meadows of Crystal Lake 0 4.586 0 8.506 $1.57 NRWWTP Highland Village Mobile Park 0 5.717 0 8.570 $1.58 NRWWTP Deerfield Beach High School 0 6.343 0 8.620 $1.60 NRWWTP Century Village East 0 7.907 10.124 $1.94 NRWWTP Deer Creek Country Club Community 0 8.874 10.441 $2.02 NRWWTP Deer Creek Golf Course 0 9.036 10.880 $2.12 NRWWTP Deerfield Country Club 10.027 11.104 $2.18 NRWWTP The Waterways 12.023 11.517 $2.27 NRWWTP Quiet Waters Park 12.473 11.847 $2.35 NRWWTP Adios Golf Club 13.934 12.088 $2.41

PAGE 37

37 Figure 2-1. Floridas Wa ter Resource Caution Areas (RCC et al. 2003). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Irrigation Demand (MGD ) Palm BeachBrowardMiami-DadeCounty Golf Demand Landscape Demand 98 228 40 140 26 28 Figure 2-2. Countywide ir rigation demand. Number of large users on graph.

PAGE 38

38 Figure 2-3. Consumptive use permit holders w ith demands greater than 0.05 MGD in Palm Beach County.

PAGE 39

39 Figure 2-4. Consumptive use permit holders w ith demands greater than 0.05 MGD in Broward County.

PAGE 40

40 Figure 2-5. Consumptive use permit holders w ith demands greater than 0.05 MGD in MiamiDade County.

PAGE 41

41 0 5 10 15 20 25Potential Wate r Reuse .. (MGD) S o u t h C e n t r a l G l a d e s R o ad N o r t h R e g i o n a l H o l l y w o o d M D / N o r t h M D / C e n t r al S e r v i c e A r e a R e u s e D i s t r i c tWastewater Treatment Facility90 40 47 6 53 47 34 26 16 16 17 17 Figure 2-6. Potential water reuse in service areas and reuse distri cts. Number of large users on graph. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Large Users 0-11-22-33-44-55-66-77-88-99-1010-1111-1212+Distance from WWTP (mi) Figure 2-7. Distribution of di stance of large users from wastewater treatment plant.

PAGE 42

42 0 5 10 15 20 25 05101520Distance (mi)Cumulative Daily Demand (MGD ) Miami/North Miami/Central North Regional Hollywood South Central Glades Road 1.49 MGD/mi 1.76 MGD/mi 1.82 MGD/mi 0.34 MGD/mi 0.29MGD/mi 0.35 MGD/mi Figure 2-8. Cumulative daily dema nd versus metropolitan distance.

PAGE 43

43 Figure 2-9. Proposed North Regional reuse system.

PAGE 44

44 y = 5.83623E-06x2.24859R2 = 0.965 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 050001000015000200002500030000350004000045000Reclaimed Water Flow (1,000 gal/d)Daily Cost ($/day) Figure 2-10. Daily cost ve rsus reclaimed water flow. $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 050001000015000200002500030000350004000045000Traditional Reuse Demand (1000 gal/day)Marginal Cost ($/1000 gal) Figure 2-11. Marginal cost curve.

PAGE 45

45 Benefits y = 4.5757x Costs y = 5.83623E-06x2.24859$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 01000020000300004000050000Flow (1,000 gal/day)Daily Cost/Benefit. Costs Benefits Figure 2-12. Daily costs and benef its versus reclaimed water flow. y = 1.08498E-05x2.22477R2 = 0.874 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 02000400060008000100001200014000Flow Demand (1,000 gal/d)Daily Cos t Figure 2-13. Cost function for th e Moderate Reuse Alternative.

PAGE 46

46 0 5 10 15 20 25 05101520Distance (mi)Cumulative Daily Demand (MGD ) Miami-Dade/North MiamiDade/Central North Regional Hollywood South Central Glades Road 1.49 MGD/mi 1.76 MGD/mi 1.82 MGD/mi 0.34 MGD/mi 0.29MGD/mi 0.35 MGD/mi Cut-off MiamiDade/North 0.43 MGD/mi Cut-off Miami-Dade Central 0.27 MGD/mi Cut-off Hollywood 0.25 MGD/mi Figure 2-14. Cumulative daily demand versus metr opolitan distance with potential cut-offs. 0 5 10 15 20 25Reclaimed Water Flow (MGD ) S o u t h C en t r a l G l a d e s R o a d N o r t h R e g i o n a l H o l l y w o o d M D / N o r t h M D / C e n t r a lWastewater Treatment Plant Current Flow Potential Feasible Flow Figure 2-15. Current and poten tial reclaimed water flow.

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 3 STORAGE IN RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEMS IN FLORIDA Introduction The need for and size of storage facilities play a vital role in the planning and feasibility determination of a reuse system. Storage of reclaimed water will incr ease the proportion of reclaimed water that can be reused because it pr ovides a better match of reclaimed water supply availability to user demands. It also decreases the costs of tr eatment, transmission, and pumping by reducing peak demands. Two types of storage should be evaluated: diurnal and seasonal. This chapter will explore the rule requirements and current practices behind both of these concepts in the State of Florida, as well as introduce methodologies to more accurately determine the reuse systems needs for storage. These methodologies will show where the common practices fall short in storage estimations. Be st management practices from the viewpoint of both the customer and the facilit y, will also be explored to dete rmine how they affect storage requirements, reliability of the reuse system, and overall feasibility of reuse alternatives. Current Rules The State of Floridas rules pertaining to storage requirements are discussed within Sections 62-610.414, 62-610.464, and 62-610.656 for rest ricted slow-rate land applications, public access slow-rate land appli cations, and industrial uses, re spectively (FL DEP 2006c). Storage is not required at a domestic wastew ater treatment plant under these rules if the facility has an alternative disposal method to ensu re continuous facility op eration. Such disposal methods include surface water discharges, if permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and deep -well injection. However, stor age or other flow equalization methods must be evaluated to ensure that th e reclaimed water supply matches the demand on a diurnal cycle, despite the availabil ity of alternate disposal methods.

PAGE 48

48 Facilities that do not have al ternate disposal methods for reclaimed water must provide storage to maintain constant faci lity operation. Periods of facil ity inactivity may include adverse weather conditions, malfunctions of the reuse system such as pump breakdown, harvesting conditions, irrigation system mainte nance, or other activities that would prevent the application of reclaimed water. Florida Department of E nvironmental Protection rule s require that a water balance calculation be carried out in order to determine storage capacity (FL DEP 2006c). This water balance must account for all water in and ou t of the system. A minimum of twenty years of monthly climatic data must be used. The Fl orida Department of Environmental Protection has developed a program called LANDAP that will complete this calculati on using monthly data (Swartz 1999). At a minimum, the storage capacity must be three times the average daily flow for which there is no alternate disposal method. Irrigation or precipitation efficiencies are not to be used in the st orage calculation. All current rules are in place to ensure continuous facility operation. There are no current rule requirements that discuss the need or the methods to calculate seasonal storage. In addition, the Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection (1991) Guidelines on determining the feasibility of reuse only mention that storage costs should be taken in to consideration, but no methods are offered to properly size the tanks for diurnal or seasonal storage needs. LANDAP The Florida Department of Environmental Protection produced a program called LANDAP in 1998 to calculate the amount of storage required for a wastewater facil ity providing reclaimed water without an alternate dis posal method (Swartz 1999). The program contains sixty weather stations spread across the stat e, each with several decades of climatic data. The program calculates a monthly water bala nce and returns the maximum m onthly storage requirement for each year on record. In addition, the program can also determine the monthly amount of

PAGE 49

49 reclaimed water that can be discha rged if a storage tank is alrea dy sized and if the facility is permitted to discharge during wet-weather events The monthly water balance is calculated using Equation 3-1 (Swartz 1999). S or SRO GRO PET EF R (3-1) where R = rainfall, EF = applied reclaime d water, PET = evapotranspiration, GRO = ground water outflow, SRO = surface runoff, and S = storage LANDAP requires five inputs fr om the user: site hydrologic capacity, site area, a surface runoff coefficient, the reclaimed water applica tion rate, and the method to determine potential evapotranspiration. Additionally, if wet-weather discharges ar e permitted, the program requires the initial amount of storage that is to be provided. There are several limitations to the current program. First, the model is set up to determine wet weather storage and does not take into a ccount the high variations in reclaimed water demand. Therefore, this model doe s not assure that an adequate supply of reclaimed water will be available to the end-users. In addition, the model is very sensitive to si te hydrologic capacity a nd design loading rate. The site hydrologic capacity is a value which show s the amount of reclaimed water that can be applied without causing surface water runoff. This value can be difficult to estimate in Florida as the ground water table is shallow, thus limiting the amount of irrigation water required. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection requires that this value be determined by a professional engineer or geologist (Swartz 1999). It was determ ined that a 10% increase in the value inputted for site hydrol ogic capacity will result in a 64 % increase in storage required (Swartz 1999).

PAGE 50

50 LANDAP gives the user the option of using the Thornthwaite or McCloud equations to calculate potential evapotranspiration. These empirical equations are designed for warm, humid climates. However, these empirical equations tend to cause inaccuracies. Additionally, the Thornthwaite equation requires m onthly correction factors that de pend on the amount of sunlight received per day and per season. The programs design manual admits that an equation such as the Penman method would yield more accurate ev apotranspiration results; however, the amount of climatic data that needs to be available fo r this equation made it infeasible to use in the program. Finally, the model distributes rainfall over the entire month, thereby decreasing the actual irrigation requirements and producing inaccuracies in the volume of storage required. As an example, a hurricane or strong storm that produces a large am ount of precipitation over a few days will show that no irrigation is needed for that month, thereby increasing the storage requirements to ensure continuous facility opera tion; however, in actuality, there may be days before and after the storm that require irrigation. As will be shown later, a shorter time-step is more appropriate. Diurnal Storage Diurnal storage is provided to match the dail y supply of wastewater entering a facility to the reclaimed water demands of the end-users. Th is short-term storage is important to meet the peak hourly demands associated with a reuse sy stem. For instance, golf courses, which have large reclaimed water demands, typi cally irrigate at night. This causes an imbalance with the supply of reclaimed water as wastewater flows ar e typically at their lowe st values during this time and peak in the morning. The use of s hort-term diurnal storag e will eliminate this imbalance.

PAGE 51

51 Previous Work Several reuse feasibility reports prepared fo r the Florida Department of Environmental Protection were examined during the Southeast Florida study to determine the methodology used to determine short-term storage capacity. These facilities claim their ocean outfalls as alternate disposal methods to the reclaimed water system and therefore are not requi red to provide storage that ensures continuous facility ope ration. However, the rules state that storage is to be provided to match the diurnal patterns of reclaimed water supply to demand. Metcalf and Eddy (2007) state that utilities will commonly choose a percentage of the maximum daily demand, typically between 25 to 50 percent, in order to estimate the required diurnal storage. In the feasibility study for the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, each reuse alternative going to public access applications gave an allowance of 40% of the daily reclaimed water flow for diurnal storage (Hazen and Sawyer 2004). The Miami-Dade wastewater treatment plants designed a storag e system for six hours ba sed on the reuse flow during the high demand season (PBS&J 1992). A more accurate method in which to predic t the diurnal storage requirements is by completing a water balance on an hourly basis. The balance simply mo dels the amount of wastewater flow into the facility that is treate d for reuse and the demand of the system. Existing wastewater facilities have historic data to determine the hourly fluctuations in wastewater flow and the maximum capacity the utility can treat. The demands of end-users can be estimated by the consumptive use permit method, described in Chapter 2, or more accurately determined in consultation with the customer. The South Ce ntral Regional and Glades Road Wastewater Treatment Plants modeled their storage needs on a diurnal pattern (Brown and Caldwell 1995). By modeling storage on a diurnal pattern, not only will the demands of the system be more accurately met, but typically a cost savings in storage requirements will be realized.

PAGE 52

52 This diurnal storage is usually provided in one of four ways (Metcalf and Eddy 2007): Ground level steel or concrete tanks with auxiliary pumping Below ground level steel or concrete tanks with auxiliary pumping Elevated storage structures w ith or without auxiliary pumping Small ponds, such as those found at golf courses. Florida Department of Environmental Protecti on rules require that ponds be lined so that seepage of the reclaimed water is prevented (F L DEP 2006c). In addition, overflow devices are required so that the reclaimed water level stays at least one foot below the surface of the pond. In the design of storage systems, algae and mosquito breeding control must be addressed. Hourly Water Balance The example below models the diurnal st orage requirements for the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The facility is cu rrently permitted at an annual average daily flow of 84 MGD, although it is undergoi ng expansion to 100 MGD (Hazen and Sawyer 2004). As of 2004, the facility had a reuse capacity of 10 MGD, with only half the capacity being used. The remaining treated effluent is either disposed of through ocean outfalls or through deep-well injection. However, a feasibility study comple ted in 2004 identified a re use alternative that would send approximately 42 MGD of reclaimed wate r to beneficial purpos es. This alternative will be evaluated in the case study. The storage tank was designed for this reuse alte rnative with an average daily supply of 42 MGD of reclaimed water required. Demand flows ar e taken directly from the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) feasibility report for the wastewater treatment plant. Th e demand is split into three categories: golf courses, lands cape irrigation, and residential irrigation. A summary of the required flows is shown in Table 3-1.

PAGE 53

53 The diurnal analysis is comple ted within Table 3-2. In orde r to show hourly fluctuations of wastewater supply, peak hour factors are used from Brown and Caldwell (1995) and are displayed in Column B of Table 3-2. The resulting supply data, s een in Column C of Table 3-2 and as a plot in Figure 3-1, mimic hourly supply curves from other faci lities in the region. The three demand categories were each given diffe rent periods in which to irrigate. It was assumed that the large landscape irrigators could wa ter at any point in the day and therefore their daily demand was split equally over the twenty-f our hour period (Column D). As discussed previously, golf courses typically irrigate over night and ther efore their hourly demand was uniformly distributed over the period from 9 pm to 5 am (Column E). Finally, it was assumed that the residential customer is allowed two-hour blocks, three days a week in which to irrigate with reclaimed water. The residential neighborho ods are split up into eight sections so that the irrigation demand can be split over the course of the day and week. Therefore, one section of residential users may irrigate within a two-hour block, three days a week (Column F). The total reclaimed water demand is show n in Column G of Table 3-2. Reclaimed water demand is subtracted from r eclaimed water supply in Column H of Table 3-2. A plot of the reclaimed water demand is also compared to supply in Figure 3-1. The amount of storage that is required to fulfill the diurnal patterns occurs when the demand exceeds the supply, and is highlighted in Fi gure 3-1. There are two sections where this occurs. The first such section occurs between 1 am and 8 am, wher e there is a cumulative reclaimed water deficit of 10.529 MG. The next occurrence is between 6 pm and 10 pm, where there is a cumulative reclaimed water deficit of 5.375 MG. The amount of storage required in this case is found by taking the cumulative deficit volume from 6 pm to 8 am and subtracting the period of surplus

PAGE 54

54 from 10 pm to 1 am. The storage requirements ar e simulated in Column I of Table 3-2 and total 14.876 MG. There is a difference between the amount of st orage determined by the hourly balance and that required by taking a percentage of the average reuse flow. Earlier, it was discussed that the feasibility study took 40% of the reuse flow fo r storage to match peak daily demands and differing residential schedules. In this example, the required stor age was estimated at 40% of 42 MGD or approximately 17 MG. The difference in this example is minimal; however, completing an hourly simulation more accurately determines the short-term storage needs of a water reuse system. Taking a percentage of the daily reclaimed water flow c ould either result in the demands of the system not being met or in a significantly larger storage tank designed. The former leads to a system that would not always be able to pr ovide reclaimed water, thus making it unreliable. The latter would result in larger expenditures fo r storage. Hazen and Sawyer (2004) estimated storage costs at $1.25 per gallon. An overestima tion in storage needs would produce additional costs that could make the project infeasible. For example, if the feasibility report had estimated diurnal storage at 50% of the daily reclaimed wa ter flow, the storage tank would have been sized at approximately 21.5 MG, resulting in an additio nal expenditure of over $8 million as compared to the hourly simulation. No minimum storage re quirements would be instituted for this design by Florida Department of Environmental Protection rules as the wastewater treatment plant could rely on the ocean outfall or deep-wells as a backup system to ensure continuous facility operation. The storage calculation presented in this section does not take into account the reliability of the design; however, this will be shown in this chapter and could be taken into account to match reclaimed water supplies and demands on a diur nal pattern. Additionally, best management

PAGE 55

55 practices will be discussed with in this chapter that could poten tially reduce the amount of shortterm storage required. Seasonal Storage Florida receives an average rainfall of 55 inch es per year. However, the rain is sporadic throughout the year. In addition, the climate also produces 47-55 inches of evapotranspiration a year. Therefore, the irrigation demand will ty pically exceed the available reclaimed water supply. The reclaimed water supply and demand for a typical Florida year are shown in Figure 3-2. It can be seen that Floridas dry season, lasting from February th rough June, can cause a reclaimed water shortage. The volume of seasonal storage of reclaimed water that is needed to satisfy the demands of the system should also be evaluated. Previous Work Studies have shown that no seasonal storage is required if less than one-half of the wastewater utilitys annual av erage daily flow goes to reuse (Ammerman 2007). The amount of seasonal storage required as a function of the re claimed water utilization ratio (demand divided by supply) is shown in Figure 3-3. If the ratio is less than 0.5, then no seasonal storage is needed since the average demand is relatively small co mpared to the average supply. As the ratio approaches 0.75, up to a few weeks of seasonal st orage are needed. At a ratio of 90%, three months of storage are needed. For 100% utiliz ation, the seasonal storag e increases to over one year. Even though significant economies of scale ex ist in constructing storage systems, evidence suggests that ratios beyond 0.75-0.80 become prohibi tively expensive. The relationship shown in Figure 3-3 depends on several key assumptions including: The time step used in the calculati ons, e.g., daily, weekly, or monthly The assumed nature of the irrigation demand, e.g., users set irrigation timers to the maximum expected demand and leave it at th is setting year round ve rsus users employing soil moisture sensors to irrigate only as needed by the plants

PAGE 56

56 Thus, the nature of the util ization versus storage curve should be determined for the appropriate set of circumstances. Such pr ocedures are develope d in this chapter. The feasibility reports for the Southeast Fl orida wastewater treatment plants were examined to determine if seasonal storage is typi cally taken into account. It was concluded that as there are no rules requiring this additional cost facilities will not take seasonal storage into account. The only report that mentioned seasona l variations in reclaimed water supply and demand was the study on the Miami-Dade wastewat er treatment facilities (PBS&J 1992). This report states that the facility k eeps reuse supply at 70% of the ca pacity to ensure that seasonal variations are met. Depending on the quantity of long-term storag e required, facilities can provide storage systems as described for short-term storage, or it may be more feasible to store this reclaimed water in reservoirs and lakes. Another option is through aqui fer storage and recovery. The varied climatic differences in Floridas seasons make this an attractive option as reclaimed water that is produced during the dry season can be recharged into the ground and stored when demand is low. Then, when demand increases during th e dry period, this water can be recovered and used in concert with current reclaimed water s upplies to reduce the overall demands and increase the reliability of the reuse system. Aquifer storage and recovery systems are permitted under Rule 62-610.466 for public access reuse (FL DEP 2006c). The option is rapidly growing in popularity in Florida and as of 2002, twenty-six such facilities we re in operation and nineteen were permitted for construc tion (Arthur et al. 2002). Daily Simulation A daily water balance was set up in order to model the storage needs of a water reuse system. A case study was completed on the Nort h Regional Wastewater Treatment Plants reuse district. Daily precipitation and evapotranspiration data we re obtained from the Florida

PAGE 57

57 Automated Weather Network for a period of twen ty-seven months ranging from June 2004 to August 2006. The climatic data were obtained for a weather station in Fort Lauderdale, which is in close proximity to the wastewater treatment pl ant. The spreadsheet is contained in Appendix B with raw precipitation and eva potranspiration data in Columns B and C, respectively. The daily irrigation demand is modeled assuming that water users will need irrigation water equal to the amount of total evapotranspi ration on a daily basis, less a ny precipitation. The irrigation demand, in Column D, was th erefore calculated as the ev apotranspiration minus any precipitation for that day. If precipitation exceeded evapotrans piration, it was assumed that no irrigation would be required fo r that day. This method of es timating irrigation demand assumes that very efficient irrigation practices are being used. The effect of other irrigation practices will be discussed later in this chapter. The daily water balance was simulated for a selected area within the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plants re use district. A total irrigabl e area of 10,000 acres was chosen for the case study. Fifty-five percent of this to tal land area is considered landscape irrigation by large users, such as golf course s and schools. The remaining 45% is assumed to go to residential irrigation. The irrigation demand from Column D was then applie d over this irrigable area to determine the volume of reclaimed water that would need to be supplied to serve this region. The result, shown as Column E in Table B-1, ta kes into account irrigation efficiencies. As discussed previously, these irri gation efficiencies are currently not taken into account under Florida Department of Environmental Protection rules. However, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection published the Strateg ies for Effective Use of Reclaimed Water report in 2003 in which they ac knowledge and identify these irriga tion efficiencies (RCC et al. 2003). These factors are currently being publis hed in updated guidelines and therefore are

PAGE 58

58 included within this study. Golf course and lands cape irrigation were given an efficiency of 75% and residential irrigation was gi ven an efficiency of 50%. Th e reclaimed water volume required was determined by Equation 3-2. The irrigati on volume was calculated for both landscaped areas and residential area and then combin ed as part of Column E of Table B-1. V = ) 1 000 000 1 1 231 1 1 144 1 560 43 * 100 (3 2 2 2d gal MG in gal ft in ac ft A IE ID (3-2) where V = volume (MG), ID = irrigation demand (in/d), IE = irrigation efficiency (%), A = irrigable area (acres). In order to determine storage requirements, the reclaimed water demand was compared to the flow of wastewater into the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. These data were obtained from the Florida Department of Envi ronmental Protection thro ugh monitoring reports that wastewater facilities are required to co mplete. However, only monthly averages were available for this study. The accuracies in resu lts from this case study will not be affected greatly by this input as wastewat er flows are relatively consta nt over the month. The greatest variance in these data occurs due to inflow a nd infiltration, which will also follow the seasonal variations in precipitatio n data. Wastewater flow data are reported in Column F of Table B-1. The difference between reclaimed water supp ly (Column F) and reclaimed water demand (Column E) on a daily basis is calculated in Colu mn G. Any deficits, or demands greater than supplies, require storage in order to meet the need s of the system on a reliable basis. Therefore storage required for a particular day is equal to the deficit, if any, for that day. In addition, if there was a deficit on a previous day, the volume mu st be included into the present days storage requirements. Similarly, if ther e is a surplus on a particular da y, the amount of storage required reduces by that amount, until the storage requirem ents reach zero. The method for daily storage requirements is presented as Equation 3-3 and th e results are shown as Column H in Table B-1.

PAGE 59

59 S1 = 0 ) ( ) ) ((1 0 1 D S if S D S ABS (3-3a) S1 =0 ) ( ) (1 1 0 D S if D S S (3-3b) S1 =0 ) ( 0 ) ( 01 0 1 D S S and D S if (3-3c) where S1 = present days storage requirements (MG), S0 = previous days storage requirements (MG), S = supply (MG), D = demand (MG). The storage required for the entire system is therefore the maximum amount of storage required on a particular day over th e entire range of data. For th e case study, the storage required was approximately 232 MG. Obviously, system storage requirements may change with additional climatic data, and indeed current rules require at least tw enty years worth of data to be analyzed. However, the climatic data analyzed for the case study illustrates how to determine the amount of seasonal storage required to m eet the demands of a water reuse system. The same simulation was carried out for l onger time intervals in order to show the difference in storage requirements. Weekly and monthly totals were calculated for precipitation and evapotranspiration data from the daily values The required amount of storage decreases for both the weekly and monthly simulations compared to the daily simulation, as summarized in Table 3-3. Whereas 232 days of storage are requ ired if a daily simulatio n is performed, only 118 day of storage are needed if a weekly time step is used and no storage is required if a monthly time step is used. These results show the drama tic effect of the selected time step. Required storage is shown for a variety of irrigable areas in Figure 3-4 to show these differences for different demands. As discussed previously, LANDAP uses a mont hly time interval. However, plants cannot withstand a monthly moisture deficit. Busey ( 1996) studied the effect of watering requirements on different varieties of St. A ugustinegrassthe prevalent type of turf in Florida. The study

PAGE 60

60 concluded that there was relativel y little damage to the turf up to seven to ten days without watering. However, after this period, the damage rate increased dramatically, as seen in Figure 3-5. Therefore, it was concluded that a m onthly simulation will undere stimate the irrigation needs of the system. Conversely, a daily simula tion will overestimate the irrigation needs of the system as plants can survive several days wit hout watering. A weekly ti me-step will therefore both accurately portray the storage requirements of the system and provide an adequate time interval that will have little detrimental effect on grass. These simulations and plots are very powerful in the determination of project feasibility. Storage costs are expensive and can quickly ca use rapidly escalating total costs. A daily simulation will overestimate storage requirements, a nd therefore increase total project costs. On the contrary, if the use of monthly simulations is continued, storage costs will be underestimated. A weekly time interval will pr ovide a system with the correc t amount of storage required. Project costs and overall project feasibility can therefore be estimated more precisely. Best Management Practices This section analyzes best management prac tices that can be implemented at both the customer and utility level. These best manage ment practices will reduce demands of the system, thereby making it more reliable and more attractiv e to implement. Appropriately sized storage facilities in conjunction with demand manageme nt practices to reduce the average demand can enable this reclaimed water demand to be met in a more cost-effective manner. Irrigation Practices Application rates by the customer signifi cantly affect reclaimed water demand and therefore the storage requirements. This portion of the methodology examines how best management practices from the customer point of view will affect storage requirements and performance of the reuse system.

PAGE 61

61 Significant work has been completed on irrigation practices in Florida. Haley et al. (2007) studied residential neighborhoods in Marion, Lake, and Orange Countie s. They set up three case studies that examined: typical residential irrigation, residential irrigation that scheduled watering based on historic evapotranspira tion values, and residential irri gation with reduced turf area combined with scheduled watering based on histor ic evapotranspiration values. They concluded that by setting irrigation schedules based on hi storic evapotranspirati on values, a 30% reduction in average monthly water use occurred. In additi on, the residents who reduced their irrigable turf area in addition with the efficient water schedu les reduced their average monthly water use by 50% as compared to the no action scenario. Cardenas-Lailhacar et al. (2007) also studied soil moisture sensors in relation to amount of irriga tion water demanded. The soil moisture sensors are not set to historic climatic data values as done for traditional residential irrigation systems, but instead use electromagnetic methods to meas ure the moisture content in soil. It was determined that these systems resulted in a 69 to 92% water savings as compared to an automatic system with no detrimental effects to the turf. In a similar fashion, this study examined four different irrigation pract ices to determine the demands on the reuse system. The average avai lable supply of reuse water is 74.76 MGD. The four irrigation practices examined were: Case 1: Automatic irrigation systems that are set on a yearly basis depending on the maximum average weekly evapotranspiration value for the year Case 2: Automatic irrigation system that are set on a weekly basis depending on average evapotranspiration values for the week Case 3: Automatic irrigation systems that are set on a yearly basis depending on the maximum average weekly evapotranspiration value for the year less the effective precipitation Case 4: Automatic irrigation systems that are set on a weekly basis depending on the average weekly evapotranspiration va lues less the effective precipitation

PAGE 62

62 Irrigation practices impact the reliability of the system in meeting the demands of the customer. In addition, these practices will have a significant impact on storage and transmission line requirements and thus f easibility of the system. The four different irrigation practices were calculated using the daily precipitation and evapotranspiration data presented in Table B-1. Additionally, the irrigation application rates are applied over the same 10,000 acres as describe d during the daily simulation. In order to calculate irrigation requirements, the daily data for the irrigati on practices were averaged on a weekly basis for reasons discussed previously. The total weekly precipitation (Column B) and evapotranspiration (Column C) values were totaled for each of the 118 week s of data and can be seen within Appendix C in Table C-1. The data in this table is then averaged to show corresponding weekly precipitation (Column B) and evapotranspiration (Column C) data for each we ek of the year, as show in Table C-2. The first scenario examines the least effici ent irrigation method in which an automatic irrigation system is installed and set to the ma ximum average weekly evapotranspiration value. Column C of Table C-2 lists the weekly evapotranspiration values for the wastewater treatment plant reuse district. The maximum value is hi ghlighted within the table (Week 28) and is considered the application rate for all large and residential users within the system. Therefore, for Case 1, it is assumed that each user will se t their watering systems to irrigate 1.26 inches per week for the entire year. The irrigation volume fo r this scenario is shown in Column B in Table C-3 and is calculated as in Equation 3-2 excep t with a weekly convers ion factor included. The second scenario is an automatic irrigation syst em that is more efficient than the first as it assumes that the customer resets the syst em on a weekly basis depending on historic evapotranspiration data. The irri gation volume required under this situation is shown in Column

PAGE 63

63 C of Table C-3. Instead of using the maximu m evapotranspiration value of 1.26 inches per week, Case 2 takes the weekly evapotranspira tion values from Column C of Table C-2 and calculates the required volume in a similar fashion as Case 1. The third and fourth scenarios follow the evapotranspiration patte rns of the first two options, with the exception that effective precipitation is taken into account. This should lead to a more effective irrigation system as th e weekly irrigation de mands will be reduced. Effective precipitation Effective precipitation is that rainfall that can be used to help meet the irrigation requirements of plants and turf. It excludes rainfall that constitutes surface runoff or that percolates below the root zone of the plant. There are several methods to calculate effective precipitation. The USDA1-SCS2 Method was developed in 1970 by analyzing fifty years of rainfall data over twenty-two locations in the United States (USDA 1993). The relationship is given in Equation 3-4. Pe = ) 10 ( ) 11556 0 70917 0 ( ** 02426 0 82416 0 ET tP SF (3-4) where Pe = average monthly effectiv e monthly precipitation, Pt = monthly mean precipitation, ET = average monthly evapotranspi ration, and SF = soil water storage factor. The soil water storage factor is defined as: SF = 3 2003804 0 057697 0 295164 0 531747 0 D D D (3-5) where D = the usable soil water storage. The first few inches of soil water storage ha ve the most impact on the soil water storage factor, as seen in Figure 3-6. However, at about 3 inches of so il moisture storage, the soil water 1 United States Department of Agriculture 2 Soil Conservation Service

PAGE 64

64 storage factor begins to reach a limit of about 1.05. Typical turf in Florida has a soil moisture storage of about 0.75 inches (Busey 1996). Th e corresponding soil water storage factor is approximately 0.72. A two-way table was set up using the soil wa ter storage factor of 0.72. The table calculates the ratio of effective precipitation to actual precipitation for various values of precipitation and evapotranspiration. The results, shown in Tabl e 3-4, indicate that for equal amounts of precipitation and ev apotranspiration values, the ratio of average monthly precipitation to average monthly ef fective precipitation is approximate ly 0.5. This means that in a time period that receives an equal amount of rainfall as evapot ranspiration, approximately 50% of the rain is used by the plant. During a drie r period that receives very little rainfall compared to the amount of evapotranspiration, approximately 75% of the rainfall is used by the plant. Conversely, during a period that receives ample rain with small amounts of evapotranspiration, approximately 33% of the rainfall is utilized by plants. These result s were reasonable, and therefore the soil water storage factor of 0.72 is us ed in the calculation of effective precipitation. The effective precipitation is calculated in Column D of Table C-2 using the weekly averages of precipitation (Column B) and evapot ranspiration (Column C). The irrigation rates are calculated in Column E of Table C-2, in which the average weekly effective rainfall is subtracted from the average weekly evapotranspi ration. The values of effective precipitation should not to be greater than total precipitation values (USDA 1993). This is taken into account in Column E by setting all negative values equal to zero. The application rate for Case 3 is found by taking the maximum value of the average weekly evapotranspiration values minus the eff ective precipitation over the same time frame. The maximum value of 1.12, highlighted within Column E of Table C-2, is applied over the

PAGE 65

65 entire irrigable area as discussed before. The resu lts of this application rate are displayed within Column D of Table C-3. In a similar fashion, the application for Ca se 4 is found by taking the individual weekly values of average weekly evapot ranspiration minus the effective precipitation. These values, shown in Column E of Table C-2, are then conve rted to a volume and are displayed in Column E of Table C-3. The volume of irrigation water required for the f our different scenarios is contained within a time-series plot in Figure 3-7. Additiona lly, the average demand for each case is compared with the average wastewater supply in Table 3-5. Case 1, which sets the watering system once a year, is the least efficient water management prac tice. This case represents the highest average demand but the variability in dema nd is low since the users dont change the irrigation schedule. The average demand for this case is 86.83 MGD, which exceeds the average wastewater flow into the facility. Therefore, Case 1 is infeasib le. Case 3, which also sets the watering system once a year represents a reduction in average demand compared to Case 1 since effective precipitation is included. This case also has a low variability in demand since the irrigation setting is not changed. The average demand for this case is 77.22 MGD, which again exceeds the available supply and therefore makes the practi ce infeasible in this example. Case 2 only takes evapotranspiration into acc ount, yet by resetting the water sy stem on a weekly basis, the volume of irrigation water required is much less than the previous two scenarios. The average demand for this case is 55.48 MGD, an average that is 74% of the available supply. This irrigation practice would make it feasible in the ex ample. Finally, Case 4 is the most efficient management practice to follow, as the watering sy stem is reset on a weekly basis and effective precipitation is taken into account. This case is comparable to employing soil moisture sensors

PAGE 66

66 that trigger irrigation when it is needed. Th e average demand for Case 4 is 24.23 MGD, an average of 32% of the available supply Therefore, Case 4 is feasible. Reliability The provision of irrigation water throughout the entire year is paramount. Current restrictions on irrigation pract ices on the potable water system make reclaimed water an attractive alternative. The reliability of these reuse systems is define d as the probability that the reclaimed water supply exceeds the reclaimed water demand. Mays (2005) presents details about how to determine the reliability of water systems. An illustration of this methodology is presented using the supply and demand statistics for the weekly simu lation of Case 2 in Figure 3-8. Reliability is determined as the difference between the supply and demand probability di stribution function. The two probability distribution functions are plotted in Figure 3-8A. Then, a probability distribution function is plotted for supply minus demand in Figure 3-8B. The area under this curve that is to the left of th e zero-axis is known as the failure zone. The area under the curve to the right of the zero-axis is th e reliability of the system. Reliability in this study was computed using a sa fety margin. The safety margin is defined as the difference between the supply and the dema nd (Mays 2005). First, the mean value and the variance of the safety margin are calculat ed by Equations 3-6 and 3-7, respectively. SM =D S (3-6) 2 SM =2 2D S (3-7) The mean of the safety margin must be non-negative. Then, the standard normal variate, z, is calc ulated using Equation 3-8, assuming that the safety margin is normally distributed.

PAGE 67

67 z = SM SMSM (3-8) Rearranging Equation 3-8, the reliability is defined as: R = ) ( ) (SM SM SM SMz P (3-9) The reliability is determined by finding th e area under the standard normal distribution curve. These values are typically summarized in cumulative probability tables such as those by Mays (2005). The reliabilities of the system for the four different irrigation pract ices are summarized in Table 3-6. Cases 1 and 3, with the largest irrigation demands, ar e infeasible since the means of the safety margin are negative. The irrigati on practices that reset the watering system on a weekly basis have the highest reliabilities. Ca se 2 has a reliability of approximately 84% and Case 4 has a reliability of approximately 99%. Storage requirements to increase reliability Reliability can be improved by changing the supply and/or demand relationships. As shown above, the reliability can be improved dram atically be employing more efficient irrigation practices that reduce the averag e demand. Alternatively, overall system reliability can be improved by increasing the reliabil ity of the supply by providing stor age to reduce the variability in supply as illustrated below for Case 2. The addition of storage will increase the reliability of the water reuse system. A simulation was set up in order to determine the eff ect of storage on the reliabilities of each of the four irrigation practices. The si mulation using average weekly data is contained in Table C-4. First, the average weekly wastewater flows (Column B) are compared with the system demands (Column C) for each irri gation practice. The reuse system demands are taken directly

PAGE 68

68 from Column C of Table C-3. The demand is s ubtracted from the supply in Column D in order to determine the deficits in reclaimed water. Any calculated deficits are determined to require storage in order to make the system as reliable as possible. The total demand in Column H is calculated by taking the irrigation demands (C olumn C) on the system minus any reclaimed water that is released from storage (Column G). An optimization process was set up in order to minimize the variations in the total demand (Column H) of the system. In order to reduc e these variations in total demand, additional reclaimed water must be released from storage in order to compensate for large deficits. The additional release of reclaimed water from storage not only redu ces the variations in total demand, but also reduces the average reclaimed water flow. The combination of these two factors will increase the reliability of th e overall system, as discussed previously. The objective function of the optimization equati on is to reduce the standard deviation of the system over the 53-week period by changing th e amount of reclaimed water that is released from storage. Several constraints must be ente red into the objective func tion. First, the amount released from storage (Column G) must be greater than or equal to zero. In addition, the amount of reclaimed water released from storage ma y not be greater than the irrigation demands (Column C) of the system. This ensures that irrigation demands are met but not exceeded. In addition, in order to get the most reliable syst em, the amount of reclaimed water released from storage must be greater than or equal to the defi cit (Column E) of the sy stem for the particular week. If this constraint is relaxed, the optimization function will not satisfy the demands of the system every week. Several different storage volumes are assu med for the system and the reliabilities monitored. Figure 3-9 shows the effect that stor age has on reliability. The reuse system without

PAGE 69

69 storage has a reliability near 83% for Case 2. The reliability of the system increases to 90% with a 10 MG storage tank and exceeds 98% with approximately 25 MG of storage. This analysis differs between the different i rrigation practices. Case 4 requires the least amount of storage to provide th e maximum system reliability. Meters and Volume-Based Rates There are best management practi ces that the utility can implement in order to keep storage costs at a minimum, thus making a reuse project more feasible. One such practice is through the use of metering reclaimed water and by charging for it by the volume used as opposed to a flat fee. The Southwest Florida Water Management Dist rict found that the average flat-rate customer uses twice as much reclaimed water as does the average metered customer (SWFWMD 2003). The reuse systems capital costs, including storag e requirements, will increase as a result. In addition, Whitcomb (2005) conducted a detailed study of the impact on metered potable quality water price on potable quality water demand th roughout Florida. Total demand curves for residential users were developed. The indoor po table quality water use can be separated from the outdoor use by assuming the indoor demand range s from 55-65 gallons per capita per day (Mayer 1999). The indoor, outdoor, and total re sidential demand curves for potable quality water are show in Figure 3-10. Outdoor dema nd ranges from about 700 gallons per household per day if the water is unmetered to a virtual ce ssation of irrigation dema nd at a price of $10 per 1,000 gallons. The outdoor demand curve illustrate s the dramatic sensitivity of outdoor use to price. Metering can be an effective way to i nduce customers to use more efficient irrigation practices to reduce demand. This curve is illust rative of the impact of metering reclaimed water has on demand. If meters are included in the de sign of the reuse system and a relatively large portion of the cost is levied as a commodity charge, then irrigation demand will be much lower. Therefore, the reliability of the system will be greater and the amount of storage required will be

PAGE 70

70 lower, following the same methodology discussed pr eviously. Costs of the reuse system, as a result, will decrease making the system more attractive. A downside of using commodity charges to reco ver a significant portion of the cost of the reuse system is that revenues may be harder to predict until the actual cu stomer response to the charges become known. This option increases the financial risk. The us e of meters and volumebased rates is encouraged in Florida. Providing Storage at Customers Site Another best management practice related to storage is to set up agreements with the reclaimed water customers to provide storage at their site. The South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant sough t agreements with local golf courses that it was providing reclaimed water (Brown and Caldwell 1995). The basis of the agreement was that if the golf courses would store their reclaimed water dema nds on-site, such as in a pond, the treatment facility would charge less for the reclaimed water provision. Th is agreement allows less shortterm storage required at the treatment facility, re sulting in a smaller cost to the utility. A popular low impact development option in urban stormwat er management is to provide additional soil moisture and surface storage on-site. This same storage can reduce irrigation demands (Sample et al. 2003, 2005). Summary and Conclusions Provision of storage is an important consider ation in the planning of a reuse system. Storage not only keeps the costs of other reuse co mponents, such as transmission and treatment, down, but also increases the reliability of the system. This chapter presented methodologies for cal culating the optimal amount of storage to provide on a daily or seasonal basi s. Current rules require that reclaimed water demands be met on a diurnal basis. Current prac tice typically takes a percentage of the average daily flow going

PAGE 71

71 to reuse. The technique presented in this chap ter examined the demands on an hourly basis and calculated the optimal amount of storage to provide. This tec hnique could result in a significant cost savings. Seasonal storage, although not required by curr ent rules, is a very important aspect to consider. Current potable quality water restrict ions make a reuse system attractive if it can meet the irrigation requirements during high dema nd times. The optimal amount of storage was determined using a weekly analysis. This me thod differs from LANDAP, the current program produced by the Florida Department of Environm ental Protection, in two main aspects: The simulation is set up to provi de the storage necessary to m eet all irrigation demands of the system; LANDAP was developed to ensure continuous facility operation in times when reclaimed water is unneeded or unable to be provided The simulation uses a weekly time-step, wh ereas LANDAP utilizes a monthly time-step. The time interval came into question during the case study. Daily precipitation and evapotranspiration data are available from weather stations around Florida on the Florida Automated Weather Network. However, the us e of a daily time interval may become dataintensive as the Florida Departme nt of Environmental Protection re quires twenty years worth of climatic data. Additionally, the use of a daily time interval overe stimates the amount of storage required. Conversely, the continued use of a m onthly time step will underestimate the demands of the system and thus underestimate storage requi rements. A weekly time-step is adequate to provide the irrigation demands of the system with little harm to the ground cover that requires watering. Finally, several best management irrigation prac tices were identified and related to storage requirements. Customers of reclaimed water can reduce the load on the reuse system and thereby increase the reli ability of the system by initiating better irrigation practices. Following historical precipitation and eva potranspiration records will dras tically reduce the demand placed

PAGE 72

72 on the reuse system and provide the highest system reliability. Good irrigation practices also reduce the need for seasonal storage, thus making the alternative more attr active to implement. Regardless of the irrigation practice used, storag e will increase the overall reliability of the system by reducing variability in the demand. Additionally, the introduction of meters and the provision for volume-based rates as the system matures should accompany the introducti on of reclaimed water service. Customers reduce overall consumption as pri ce increases, as indicated by Whitcomb (2005). More efficient irrigation practices will be ut ilized, thereby reducing system costs and increasing the overall reliability of the system.

PAGE 73

73 Table 3-1. Irrigable area and daily and hourly demand. Demand values from Hazen and Sawyer (2004). Irrigation category Total acreage Demand MGD Landscape 1762 10.090 Golf course 3166 0 9.270 Residential 3900 22.693 Table 3-2. Diurna l storage analysis. (A) Hour (B) Peak Factor (C) Qs MGH (D) Qd Landscape irrigation MGH (E) Qd Golf courses MGH (F) Qd Residential MGH (G) Qd total MGH (H) S-D MGH (I) Storage MG 0 0.040 1.684 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 0.105 0 4.347 1 0.031 1.297 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 -0.282 0 4.629 2 0.022 0.908 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 -0.671 0 5.301 3 0.015 0.648 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 -0.931 0 6.231 4 0.015 0.648 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 -0.931 0 7.162 5 0.014 0.584 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -2.673 0 9.835 6 0.017 0.713 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -2.544 12.379 7 0.043 1.814 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -1.443 13.822 8 0.052 2.203 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -1.054 14.876 9 0.062 2.592 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 2.172 12.705 10 0.049 2.073 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.653 11.052 11 0.048 2.008 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.588 0 9.464 12 0.051 2.138 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.718 0 7.746 13 0.046 1.944 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.523 0 6.223 14 0.046 1.944 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.523 0 4.700 15 0.048 2.008 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.588 0 3.112 16 0.046 1.944 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.523 0 1.588 17 0.048 2.008 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.588 0 0.000 18 0.049 2.073 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -1.184 0 1.184 19 0.052 2.203 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -1.054 0 2.238 20 0.055 2.333 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -0.924 0 3.163 21 0.052 2.203 0.420 1.159 2.837 4.416 -2.213 0 5.375 22 0.049 2.073 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 0.494 0 4.881 23 0.048 2.008 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 0.429 0 4.452 Totals 1.000 42.053 10.090 9.270 22.693 42.053 0.000 Table 3-3. Storage requirements based on tim e interval used for the 10,000-acre case study. Time interval Storage MG Daily 232 Weekly 118 Monthly 0

PAGE 74

74 Table 3-4. Effective precipitati on for various evapotranspiration and total precipitation values using soil water storage factor of 0.72. Total Precipitation (in) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.75 2 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.61 0.64 0.68 0.72 3 0.39 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.69 4 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.66 5 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.64 6 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.63 7 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 8 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.60 9 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 Evapotranspiration (in) 10 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 Table 3-5. Statistics of the four cases using average weekly data. QS Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Maximum (MGD) 84.75 111.40 83.55 99.08 78.78 Minimum (MGD) 68.60 0 79.57 22.55 70.77 0 0.00 Average (MGD) 74.76 0 86.83 55.48 77.22 24.23 Standard Deviation (MGD) 0 3.72 00 8.94 19.26 0 7.95 21.68 Coefficient of Variation 0 0.05 00 0.10 0 0.35 0 0.10 0 0.89 QD/QS 00 1.16 0 0.74 0 1.03 0 0.32 Table 3-6. Reliabilities of the four cases using average weekly data. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 SM -12.0761 19.2729 -2.4675 48.2862 SM 19.6175 21.4356 SM/ SM 0 0.9824 0 2.2526 Reliability 0 0.8371 0 0.9879

PAGE 75

75 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 5.000 05101520Hour of DaySupply and Demand (MGH ) Qs Qd Cumulative Volume = 10.529 MG Cumulative Volume = 5.375 MG Figure 3-1. Diurnal supply and demand. Vo lume of storage required marked on graph. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 1357911MonthMonthly Flow as a Fraction of . Average Monthly Flow Reclaimed Water Supply Irrigation Demand Figure 3-2. Typical seasonal patt erns of reclaimed water supply and irrigation demand in Florida (Adapted from US EPA 2004).

PAGE 76

76 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00Reclaimed Water UtilizationDays of Storage Figure 3-3. Effect of reclaime d water utilization on storage re quired (Adapted from Ammerman 2007). 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 05,00010,00015,00020,000Irrigable Area (acres)Storage Volume Required (MG ) Monthly Weekly Daily Figure 3-4. Differences in storage volume required depending on time interval used.

PAGE 77

77 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0246810121416Duration Wilt (days)Damage (%) Figure 3-5. Effect of not meeting irrigation de mands on damage to St. Augustinegrass (Adapted from Busey 1996). 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0123456Soil Water Storage (inches)Soil Water Storage Facto r Figure 3-6. Effect of soil water storage on th e soil water storage f actor. USDA-SCS Method.

PAGE 78

78 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 11121314151WeekIrrigation Demand (MGD ) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Qs Figure 3-7. Irrigation demand for the f our cases based on average weekly data.

PAGE 79

79 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 020406080100120Flow (MGD)Relative Frequenc y Supply Demand DS A 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 -50-40-30-20-100102030405060708090100110Flow (MGD)Relative Frequenc y S-D Failure Zone Reliability B Figure 3-8. Illustration of reliability determinati on. A) Plot probability distribution functions for supply and demand. B) Plot probability distribution function for supply minus demand (Plotting software adapted from Wittwer 2004).

PAGE 80

80 0.8200 0.8400 0.8600 0.8800 0.9000 0.9200 0.9400 0.9600 0.9800 1.0000 0102030405060Storage Volume (MG)Reliability Figure 3-9. Reliability versus volume of r eclaimed water storage provided for Case 2. $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $1 0 02004006008001000Potable Quality Water Use (Gallons per Household per Day)Potable Quality Water Rate .. ($ per 1,000 Gallons) Total Indoor Outdoor Figure 3-10. Potable quality water demands as a function of potable quality water rates (Adapted from Whitcomb 2005).

PAGE 81

81 CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The results presented in this thesis offer seve ral refinements to existing procedures of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection fo r evaluating the feasibility of implementing a reuse system in the State of Florida. Current Florida rules and guide lines were examined. Techniques were analyzed in the southeast portion of the state, but can be included in updated guidelines for use elsewhere. Chapter 2 offered a methodology which gives util ities and water planners a procedure to identify large potable quality water users within their districts that could substitute some of their current water demand with reclaimed water. Consumptive use permits are issued through Floridas water management districts and are compiled in databases. These databases are available for download on water management distri ct websites. The databases aid in planning for a reuse system in several ways. First, the in formation obtained from th ese permits aids in the identification of the water demand, location, oper ating schedule, and pressure requirements for large users. Also, the databases can be instal led within a GIS program, which will aid in the planning for the reuse network. The use of the consumptive use permit method in Southeast Florida identified several additiona l golf courses and landscape irriga tors that could be added to the reuse systems of the six wastewater treatment plants that currently di scharge their effluent through ocean outfalls and deep-well injection. The more promising options for reuse occurred in the reuse districts of the north ern three facilities that have th e potential to add between 17 and 19 MGD of reuse. Current rules offer no guidance is to the identification of these users. A case study was then completed on the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pompano Beach. The goal of the case study was to more accurately identify the optimal amount of reuse that could be provided considering econ omic constraints. Current rules and guidelines

PAGE 82

82 dictate that several reuse alternatives with varyin g reclaimed water utilization rates be identified and examined. The present values of these a lternatives are compared, including the no action alternative. A different method was presented in which the co sts of all reuse altern atives are compared together. A marginal cost curve, i.e., the supply curve, was produced for the facility and compared to the costs of potable quality water. Potable quality water in the region costs $4.58 per 1,000 gallons. When compared to the supply cu rve, the optimal amount of reuse that would be feasible to provide given th ese costs was approximately 26.5 M GD. If the costs of potable quality water were higher, the optimal am ount of reuse to provide would increase. An equivalent way to present the results wa s to compare actual costs and benefits on the same graph. The point at which the net benefits of providing reuse were greatest again occurred around 26 MGD. However, if utilities try to break even instead of maximizing profit, the optimal amount of reuse coul d be extended beyond 50 MGD. The effect of customer distance away from the wastewater treatment plant and customer density were studied and found to be significant. A portion of the reuse district in Pompano Beach was examined and found that the marginal costs of customers close to one another increased only slightly. Also, it was determined that customers up to 14 miles away could be reached at a feasible cost. The results from this study were extrapolated to the other five reuse districts; however, indi vidual calculations should be comp leted if this methodology is applied elsewhere. Chapter 3 introduced a valuable aspect to the planning of a reuse system storage. Both short-term (diurnal) and long-term (seasonal) st orage were examined using the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant as a case study.

PAGE 83

83 Current rules require storage to ensure continuous f acility operation; how ever, utilities are required to show that reclaimed water demands will be met on a diurnal basis. Typically, utilities take a certain percenta ge of the flow going to reuse as storage. An hourly simulation was carried out on the North Regional Wastew ater Treatment Plant. It was found that approximately 15 MG of storage would need to be provided to ensure that the demands were met on a diurnal pattern. The use of the hourly simula tion and site-specific di urnal variability data will provide a more accurate estimate of diurnal storage needs. In addition to short-term storage, seasonal storage was examined. Floridas seasonal climatic difference often produces a reclaimed wate r shortage. In order to meet the demands on a seasonal basis, thus making reuse an attrac tive alternative to potable quality water for irrigation, storage must be provided. An an alysis was carried out on a theoretical 10,000-acre site using climatic data obtained from the Florida Automated Weather Network. Three different trials were conducted using a different time in terval with the following results for storage obtained: Approximately 232 MG of seasonal storag e was required using a daily time-step. Approximately 118 MG of seasonal storage was required using a weekly time-step. No seasonal storage is required was required using a monthly time-step. Reports indicate that Florida turf can withsta nd a water shortage up to eight days without detrimental effects. Therefore, the optimal am ount of storage to provide is found using this weekly time step and was approximately 118 MG for the case study. The existing procedure of using LANDAP with a monthly time-step under estimates the requirements for storage. Finally, best management practices on part of the customer and utility were examined to determine their relationship to st orage and overall project feasibil ity. Four different irrigation practices were examined from the customers view point. It was determined that if the customer

PAGE 84

84 used an automatic watering system and changed the settings on a weekly basis based on historical evapotranspiration and precipitation values, the irrigation demand placed on the reuse system would be reduced. This demand alleviat ion reduces component co sts and increases the reliability of the system. If less efficient i rrigation practices are utilized, additional storage volumes would be required to prov ide the same system reliability. The use of meters and volume-based rates for re claimed water is encouraged in Florida and has a significant impact on irriga tion demands. Studies show that outdoor water use in Florida decreases as the price for the resource increas es. Implementing this practice will again reduce storage and other component costs, as well as incr ease system reliability and overall feasibility. A future area of work would be to redeve lop the LANDAP program so that it more accurately models the storage re quirements to meet the needs of a reuse system. This would entail modeling storage as the period when suppl y exceeds demand and using a weekly time step. In addition, the diurnal analysis should be expanded to show the effect that different irrigation schedules have on storage requirements. The cu rrent calculation sets the customer demands on typical patterns. The expanded methodology could allow different users to water at different times and more accurately determine the storage needs of the system.

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL UNIT COSTS FO R WATER REUSE SYSTEMS Table A-1. Reuse treatment expa nsion costs (Hazen and Sawyer 2004). Item Cost ($/gallon) Facility structures $0.825 Process equipment $0.220 Auxiliary equipment $0.055 Table A-2. Transmission system unit cons truction costs (Hazen and Sawyer 2004). Pipe diameter (in) Pipe installation paved ($/ft) Pipe installation unpaved ($/ft) Roadway crossings ($/ft) Canal crossings ($/ft) 6 0 75 0 37.50 8 100 0 50.00 10 125 0 62.50 12 150 0 75.00 1,140 1,240 16 200 100.00 1,330 1,330 18 225 112.50 1,370 1,520 20 250 125.00 1,600 1,770 24 300 150.00 1,670 2,150 30 375 187.50 1,980 2,280 36 450 225.00 2,280 2,510 42 525 262.50 2,340 2,730 48 600 300.00 2,520 2,960 Table A-3. Operation and mainte nance costs (Hazen and Sawyer 2004). Operation and maintenance costs ($ per 1,000 gallons) Alternatives Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Y ears 11-15 Years 16-20 No Action 0.175 0.210 0.244 0.278 Low 0.175 0.210 0.244 0.278 Moderate 0.215 0.258 0.299 0.341 Medium 0.215 0.258 0.299 0.341 High 0.215 0.258 0.299 0.341 Maximum 0.215 0.258 0.299 0.341 Table A-4. Miscellaneous costs (Hazen and Sawyer 2004). Component Cost Unit Booster Station $750,000 Each Land $250,000 Acre Contingency 25% All capital costs excluding land Costs for pumping and storage were based on the power function shown as Equation A-1. C = aQb (A-1)

PAGE 86

86 The cost of the component, C, is determined by inserting the reclaimed water flow, Q, and the power function parameters into Equation A1. A typical exponent value for treatment systems is 0.7 (Heaney et al. 2007). Pumping a nd storage was calculated by Hazen and Sawyer (2004) for a 45 MGD alternative. The pumpi ng system cost $7,300,000 and the storage was estimated at $30,000,000. Substituting these syst em component costs in to Equation A-1, the coefficient was determined as 32.068 for pumps and 131.787 for storage. This coefficient and exponent are then used in Equation A-1 for various flow levels to determine system component costs.

PAGE 87

87 APPENDIX B DAILY SIMULATION Table B-1. Daily storage simulation. Precip itation and evapotranspira tion data from Florida Automated Weather Network. (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 6/1/2004 0.00 0.18 0.18 79.80 64.3 -15.50 15.50 6/2/2004 0.00 0.23 0.23 101.97 64.3 -37.67 53.17 6/3/2004 0.01 0.20 0.19 83.22 64.3 -18.92 72.09 6/4/2004 0.07 0.14 0.07 29.02 64.3 35.28 36.82 6/5/2004 0.56 0.14 0.00 0.00 64.3 64.30 0.00 6/6/2004 0.21 0.17 0.00 0.00 64.3 64.30 0.00 6/7/2004 0.05 0.09 0.04 19.91 64.3 44.39 0.00 6/8/2004 0.04 0.18 0.14 61.53 64.3 2.77 0.00 6/9/2004 0.18 0.18 0.00 1.71 64.3 62.59 0.00 6/10/2004 0.03 0.09 0.06 28.78 64.3 35.52 0.00 6/11/2004 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.53 64.3 -24.23 24.23 6/12/2004 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.35 64.3 -24.05 48.28 6/13/2004 0.00 0.19 0.19 86.08 64.3 -21.78 70.07 6/14/2004 0.06 0.20 0.14 63.49 64.3 0.81 69.26 6/15/2004 0.00 0.20 0.20 90.45 64.3 -26.15 95.41 6/16/2004 0.00 0.23 0.23 100.75 64.3 -36.45 131.86 6/17/2004 0.04 0.18 0.14 60.66 64.3 3.64 128.22 6/18/2004 0.01 0.20 0.19 84.44 64.3 -20.14 148.37 6/19/2004 0.00 0.19 0.19 82.24 64.3 -17.94 166.31 6/20/2004 0.00 0.19 0.19 83.64 64.3 -19.34 185.65 6/21/2004 1.26 0.17 0.00 0.00 64.3 64.30 121.35 6/22/2004 0.47 0.14 0.00 0.00 64.3 64.30 57.05 6/23/2004 0.00 0.23 0.23 103.37 64.3 -39.07 96.12 6/24/2004 0.00 0.22 0.22 97.26 64.3 -32.96 129.08 6/25/2004 0.02 0.24 0.22 95.72 64.3 -31.42 160.50 6/26/2004 0.04 0.23 0.19 85.81 64.3 -21.51 182.01 6/27/2004 0.04 0.20 0.16 72.36 64.3 -8.06 190.07 6/28/2004 0.01 0.15 0.14 62.97 64.3 1.33 188.74 6/29/2004 0.03 0.19 0.16 69.46 64.3 -5.16 193.90 7/1/2004 0.03 0.20 0.17 74.35 66.3 -8.05 201.95 7/2/2004 0.01 0.23 0.22 96.84 66.3 -30.54 232.49 7/3/2004 0.06 0.17 0.11 47.60 66.3 18.70 213.79 7/4/2004 0.34 0.18 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 147.49 7/5/2004 0.03 0.22 0.19 84.48 66.3 -18.18 165.67 7/6/2004 0.40 0.19 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 99.37 7/7/2004 0.00 0.22 0.22 98.31 66.3 -32.01 131.37 7/9/2004 0.00 0.23 0.23 102.32 66.3 -36.02 167.40 7/10/2004 0.03 0.24 0.21 91.29 66.3 -24.99 192.39 7/11/2004 0.00 0.18 0.18 80.50 66.3 -14.20 206.58 7/16/2004 0.03 0.12 0.09 40.65 66.3 25.65 180.93

PAGE 88

88 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 7/17/2004 0.01 0.19 0.18 78.16 66.3 -11.86 192.79 7/18/2004 0.35 0.17 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 126.49 7/19/2004 1.45 0.13 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 60.19 7/20/2004 0.35 0.13 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 0.00 7/21/2004 0.70 0.15 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 0.00 7/22/2004 0.00 0.18 0.18 81.37 66.3 -15.07 15.07 7/23/2004 0.01 0.18 0.17 73.27 66.3 -6.97 22.04 7/24/2004 0.01 0.21 0.20 87.24 66.3 -20.94 42.98 7/25/2004 0.00 0.14 0.14 61.99 66.3 4.31 38.66 7/26/2004 0.12 0.16 0.04 16.62 66.3 49.68 0.00 7/27/2004 0.19 0.11 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 0.00 7/28/2004 0.30 0.13 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 0.00 7/29/2004 0.06 0.18 0.12 51.44 66.3 14.86 0.00 7/30/2004 0.05 0.20 0.15 66.53 66.3 -0.23 0.23 7/31/2004 1.78 0.16 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 0.00 8/1/2004 2.93 0.10 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 0.00 8/2/2004 0.96 0.13 0.00 0.00 66.3 66.30 0.00 8/3/2004 0.31 0.15 0.00 0.00 77.9 77.90 0.00 8/4/2004 0.00 0.20 0.20 89.23 77.9 -11.33 11.33 8/6/2004 0.45 0.15 0.00 0.00 77.9 77.90 0.00 8/7/2004 0.00 0.13 0.13 59.72 77.9 18.18 0.00 8/8/2004 0.00 0.13 0.13 59.19 77.9 18.71 0.00 8/9/2004 0.50 0.11 0.00 0.00 77.9 77.90 0.00 8/10/2004 0.00 0.17 0.17 74.56 77.9 3.34 0.00 8/11/2004 0.00 0.20 0.20 87.13 77.9 -9.23 9.23 8/12/2004 0.03 0.18 0.15 64.57 77.9 13.33 0.00 8/13/2004 0.56 0.16 0.00 0.00 77.9 77.90 0.00 8/16/2004 0.04 0.14 0.10 46.34 77.9 31.56 0.00 8/20/2004 0.02 0.12 0.10 43.51 77.9 34.39 0.00 8/21/2004 0.63 0.15 0.00 0.00 77.9 77.90 0.00 8/22/2004 0.10 0.13 0.03 12.22 77.9 65.68 0.00 8/23/2004 0.19 0.11 0.00 0.00 77.9 77.90 0.00 8/24/2004 0.58 0.12 0.00 0.00 77.9 77.90 0.00 8/25/2004 0.08 0.09 0.01 5.55 77.9 72.35 0.00 8/26/2004 0.00 0.20 0.20 86.96 77.9 -9.06 9.06 8/27/2004 0.00 0.15 0.15 67.75 77.9 10.15 0.00 8/28/2004 0.00 0.18 0.18 78.05 77.9 -0.15 0.15 8/29/2004 0.27 0.19 0.00 0.00 77.9 77.90 0.00 8/30/2004 0.14 0.17 0.03 13.52 77.9 64.38 0.00 9/1/2004 0.00 0.17 0.17 77.35 79.2 1.85 0.00 9/2/2004 0.03 0.17 0.14 64.05 79.2 15.15 0.00 9/3/2004 0.26 0.16 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/4/2004 2.21 0.05 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/5/2004 2.54 0.06 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00

PAGE 89

89 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 9/6/2004 0.05 0.14 0.09 38.94 79.2 40.26 0.00 9/7/2004 0.28 0.09 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/8/2004 1.03 0.13 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/9/2004 0.00 0.13 0.13 55.53 79.2 23.67 0.00 9/10/2004 0.01 0.16 0.15 68.03 79.2 11.17 0.00 9/11/2004 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/12/2004 0.00 0.18 0.18 78.75 79.2 0.45 0.00 9/13/2004 0.01 0.10 0.09 40.79 79.2 38.41 0.00 9/17/2004 0.00 0.18 0.18 79.80 79.2 -0.60 0.60 9/18/2004 0.00 0.15 0.15 65.83 79.2 13.37 0.00 9/20/2004 0.04 0.13 0.09 40.41 79.2 38.79 0.00 9/21/2004 0.19 0.12 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/22/2004 1.21 0.09 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/23/2004 0.00 0.15 0.15 67.05 79.2 12.15 0.00 9/24/2004 0.00 0.13 0.13 59.72 79.2 19.48 0.00 9/25/2004 1.46 0.05 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/26/2004 1.23 0.13 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/27/2004 0.00 0.16 0.16 70.54 79.2 8.66 0.00 9/28/2004 0.24 0.09 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/29/2004 0.92 0.13 0.00 0.00 79.2 79.20 0.00 9/30/2004 0.00 0.16 0.16 72.29 79.2 6.91 0.00 10/1/2004 0.00 0.11 0.11 49.94 78.4 28.46 0.00 10/2/2004 0.00 0.12 0.12 52.73 78.4 25.67 0.00 10/3/2004 0.01 0.13 0.12 53.19 78.4 25.21 0.00 10/4/2004 0.00 0.16 0.16 70.89 78.4 7.51 0.00 10/6/2004 0.31 0.12 0.00 0.00 78.4 78.40 0.00 10/7/2004 0.14 0.11 0.00 0.00 78.4 78.40 0.00 10/8/2004 0.01 0.13 0.12 54.06 78.4 24.34 0.00 10/9/2004 0.02 0.13 0.11 47.70 78.4 30.70 0.00 10/10/2004 0.00 0.13 0.13 57.80 78.4 20.60 0.00 10/11/2004 0.01 0.09 0.08 33.98 78.4 44.42 0.00 10/12/2004 0.08 0.10 0.02 6.78 78.4 71.62 0.00 10/13/2004 0.00 0.13 0.13 58.50 78.4 19.90 0.00 10/14/2004 0.00 0.13 0.13 57.10 78.4 21.30 0.00 10/15/2004 0.67 0.11 0.00 0.00 78.4 78.40 0.00 10/16/2004 0.00 0.11 0.11 48.89 78.4 29.51 0.00 10/17/2004 0.00 0.11 0.11 48.19 78.4 30.21 0.00 10/18/2004 0.00 0.12 0.12 54.31 78.4 24.09 0.00 10/19/2004 0.46 0.08 0.00 0.00 78.4 78.40 0.00 10/20/2004 1.14 0.12 0.00 0.00 78.4 78.40 0.00 10/22/2004 0.02 0.11 0.09 38.45 78.4 39.95 0.00 10/23/2004 0.13 0.09 0.00 0.00 78.4 78.40 0.00 10/24/2004 0.00 0.12 0.12 54.31 78.4 24.09 0.00 10/25/2004 0.00 0.11 0.11 50.46 78.4 27.94 0.00

PAGE 90

90 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 10/26/2004 0.00 0.10 0.10 42.43 78.4 35.97 0.00 10/27/2004 0.00 0.11 0.11 48.02 78.4 30.38 0.00 10/28/2004 0.00 0.10 0.10 43.65 78.4 34.75 0.00 10/29/2004 0.00 0.11 0.11 49.07 78.4 29.33 0.00 10/30/2004 0.00 0.10 0.10 46.27 78.4 32.13 0.00 10/31/2004 0.06 0.09 0.03 14.77 78.4 63.63 0.00 11/1/2004 0.00 0.11 0.11 50.64 69.5 18.86 0.00 11/2/2004 0.02 0.12 0.10 42.82 69.5 26.68 0.00 11/3/2004 0.00 0.12 0.12 51.51 69.5 17.99 0.00 11/4/2004 0.00 0.11 0.11 50.99 69.5 18.51 0.00 11/5/2004 0.00 0.09 0.09 38.24 69.5 31.26 0.00 11/6/2004 0.01 0.07 0.06 26.47 69.5 43.03 0.00 11/7/2004 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.56 69.5 27.94 0.00 11/8/2004 0.00 0.10 0.10 43.13 69.5 26.37 0.00 11/10/2004 0.07 0.10 0.03 13.13 69.5 56.37 0.00 11/11/2004 0.00 0.09 0.09 37.72 69.5 31.78 0.00 11/12/2004 0.00 0.10 0.10 45.23 69.5 24.27 0.00 11/13/2004 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.43 69.5 38.07 0.00 11/14/2004 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.00 69.5 69.50 0.00 11/15/2004 0.00 0.08 0.08 36.32 69.5 33.18 0.00 11/16/2004 0.00 0.10 0.10 43.13 69.5 26.37 0.00 11/17/2004 0.00 0.06 0.06 28.81 69.5 40.69 0.00 11/18/2004 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.00 69.5 69.50 0.00 11/19/2004 0.00 0.07 0.07 29.16 69.5 40.34 0.00 11/20/2004 0.00 0.08 0.08 35.97 69.5 33.53 0.00 11/21/2004 0.00 0.08 0.08 36.67 69.5 32.83 0.00 11/23/2004 0.00 0.08 0.08 36.15 69.5 33.35 0.00 11/24/2004 0.07 0.08 0.01 4.23 69.5 65.27 0.00 11/25/2004 0.05 0.07 0.02 8.21 69.5 61.29 0.00 11/26/2004 0.00 0.06 0.06 27.94 69.5 41.56 0.00 11/27/2004 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.08 69.5 38.42 0.00 11/28/2004 0.00 0.08 0.08 35.97 69.5 33.53 0.00 11/29/2004 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.78 69.5 37.72 0.00 11/30/2004 0.00 0.06 0.06 26.02 69.5 43.48 0.00 12/1/2004 0.00 0.06 0.06 27.94 69.5 41.56 0.00 12/2/2004 0.00 0.07 0.07 29.51 69.5 39.99 0.00 12/3/2004 0.00 0.07 0.07 30.03 69.5 39.47 0.00 12/7/2004 0.00 0.07 0.07 32.65 69.5 36.85 0.00 12/8/2004 0.00 0.07 0.07 33.00 69.5 36.50 0.00 12/9/2004 0.00 0.08 0.08 36.67 69.5 32.83 0.00 12/10/2004 0.00 0.08 0.08 34.40 69.5 35.10 0.00 12/11/2004 0.00 0.06 0.06 27.41 69.5 42.09 0.00 12/12/2004 0.00 0.04 0.04 18.16 69.5 51.34 0.00 12/13/2004 0.00 0.04 0.04 17.99 69.5 51.51 0.00

PAGE 91

91 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 12/14/2004 0.00 0.05 0.05 22.53 69.5 46.97 0.00 12/15/2004 0.00 0.04 0.04 18.33 69.5 51.17 0.00 12/16/2004 0.00 0.05 0.05 22.70 69.5 46.80 0.00 12/18/2004 0.00 0.06 0.06 27.07 69.5 42.43 0.00 12/19/2004 0.00 0.05 0.05 22.00 69.5 47.50 0.00 12/20/2004 0.00 0.04 0.04 16.76 69.5 52.74 0.00 12/21/2004 0.00 0.05 0.05 22.00 69.5 47.50 0.00 12/22/2004 0.00 0.06 0.06 26.72 69.5 42.78 0.00 12/23/2004 0.00 0.05 0.05 23.92 69.5 45.58 0.00 12/24/2004 0.00 0.06 0.06 27.76 69.5 41.74 0.00 12/25/2004 0.00 0.06 0.06 27.07 69.5 42.43 0.00 12/26/2004 0.00 0.06 0.06 26.72 69.5 42.78 0.00 12/27/2004 0.00 0.05 0.05 21.30 69.5 48.20 0.00 12/28/2004 0.00 0.05 0.05 23.57 69.5 45.93 0.00 12/29/2004 0.01 0.06 0.05 21.93 69.5 47.57 0.00 12/30/2004 0.43 0.07 0.00 0.00 69.5 69.50 0.00 12/31/2004 1.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 69.5 69.50 0.00 1/1/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 28.81 68.6 39.79 0.00 1/2/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 30.03 68.6 38.57 0.00 1/3/2005 0.01 0.08 0.07 28.92 68.6 39.68 0.00 1/4/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 29.16 68.6 39.44 0.00 1/5/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 34.92 68.6 33.68 0.00 1/6/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 35.27 68.6 33.33 0.00 1/7/2005 0.01 0.07 0.06 28.22 68.6 40.38 0.00 1/8/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 33.35 68.6 35.25 0.00 1/9/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 28.81 68.6 39.79 0.00 1/10/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 30.21 68.6 38.39 0.00 1/11/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 34.92 68.6 33.68 0.00 1/12/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 34.57 68.6 34.03 0.00 1/13/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 25.14 68.6 43.46 0.00 1/14/2005 0.84 0.06 0.00 0.00 68.6 68.60 0.00 1/15/2005 0.22 0.05 0.00 0.00 68.6 68.60 0.00 1/16/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 23.92 68.6 44.68 0.00 1/17/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 24.45 68.6 44.15 0.00 1/18/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 25.49 68.6 43.11 0.00 1/19/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 25.49 68.6 43.11 0.00 1/20/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 25.32 68.6 43.28 0.00 1/21/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.61 68.6 36.99 0.00 1/22/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 32.13 68.6 36.47 0.00 1/23/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 29.86 68.6 38.74 0.00 1/24/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 25.67 68.6 42.93 0.00 1/25/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 28.29 68.6 40.31 0.00 1/27/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 35.27 68.6 33.33 0.00 1/28/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.43 68.6 37.17 0.00

PAGE 92

92 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 1/29/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 32.48 68.6 36.12 0.00 1/30/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 35.27 68.6 33.33 0.00 1/31/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 37.37 68.6 31.23 0.00 2/1/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 34.92 66.9 31.98 0.00 2/2/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 33.70 66.9 33.20 0.00 2/3/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.43 66.9 35.47 0.00 2/4/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 24.80 66.9 42.10 0.00 2/5/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 34.22 66.9 32.68 0.00 2/6/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 38.07 66.9 28.83 0.00 2/7/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 39.46 66.9 27.44 0.00 2/8/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 33.53 66.9 33.37 0.00 2/9/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.86 66.9 26.04 0.00 2/10/2005 0.00 0.10 0.10 42.26 66.9 24.64 0.00 2/11/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 37.19 66.9 29.71 0.00 2/12/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 38.76 66.9 28.14 0.00 2/13/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.34 66.9 26.56 0.00 2/14/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.03 66.9 25.87 0.00 2/15/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 49.07 66.9 17.83 0.00 2/16/2005 0.00 0.10 0.10 43.83 66.9 23.07 0.00 2/18/2005 0.00 0.10 0.10 42.61 66.9 24.29 0.00 2/19/2005 0.00 0.10 0.10 42.61 66.9 24.29 0.00 2/20/2005 0.02 0.11 0.09 39.50 66.9 27.40 0.00 2/21/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 50.46 66.9 16.44 0.00 2/22/2005 0.00 0.10 0.10 45.92 66.9 20.98 0.00 2/23/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 49.77 66.9 17.13 0.00 2/24/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 39.11 66.9 27.79 0.00 2/25/2005 0.42 0.08 0.00 0.00 66.9 66.90 0.00 2/26/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 36.84 66.9 30.06 0.00 2/27/2005 0.02 0.08 0.06 25.00 66.9 41.90 0.00 2/28/2005 0.00 0.08 0.08 36.67 66.9 30.23 0.00 3/1/2005 0.00 0.12 0.12 51.69 72.6 20.91 0.00 3/2/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 48.19 72.6 24.41 0.00 3/3/2005 0.53 0.06 0.00 0.00 72.6 72.60 0.00 3/4/2005 0.51 0.08 0.00 0.00 72.6 72.60 0.00 3/5/2005 0.00 0.12 0.12 54.65 72.6 17.95 0.00 3/6/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 47.32 72.6 25.28 0.00 3/7/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 50.11 72.6 22.49 0.00 3/8/2005 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.00 72.6 72.60 0.00 3/9/2005 1.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 72.6 72.60 0.00 3/10/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 49.94 72.6 22.66 0.00 3/11/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 49.59 72.6 23.01 0.00 3/12/2005 0.00 0.13 0.13 59.37 72.6 13.23 0.00 3/13/2005 0.00 0.13 0.13 56.75 72.6 15.85 0.00 3/15/2005 0.00 0.14 0.14 60.94 72.6 11.66 0.00

PAGE 93

93 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 3/17/2005 1.91 0.10 0.00 0.00 72.6 72.60 0.00 3/18/2005 0.03 0.12 0.09 39.25 72.6 33.35 0.00 3/19/2005 0.00 0.13 0.13 56.75 72.6 15.85 0.00 3/20/2005 0.00 0.13 0.13 56.40 72.6 16.20 0.00 3/21/2005 0.00 0.12 0.12 51.51 72.6 21.09 0.00 3/22/2005 0.00 0.14 0.14 60.24 72.6 12.36 0.00 3/24/2005 0.00 0.15 0.15 65.13 72.6 7.47 0.00 3/25/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 77.00 72.6 -4.40 4.40 3/26/2005 0.00 0.15 0.15 66.70 72.6 5.90 0.00 3/27/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 75.78 72.6 -3.18 3.18 3/28/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 50.46 72.6 22.14 0.00 3/29/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 73.69 72.6 -1.09 1.09 3/30/2005 0.00 0.15 0.15 66.00 72.6 6.60 0.00 3/31/2005 0.01 0.17 0.16 71.52 72.6 1.08 0.00 4/1/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 77.35 67.7 -9.65 9.65 4/2/2005 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.00 67.7 67.70 0.00 4/3/2005 0.00 0.15 0.15 67.05 67.7 0.65 0.00 4/4/2005 0.00 0.15 0.15 66.35 67.7 1.35 0.00 4/5/2005 0.00 0.15 0.15 64.43 67.7 3.27 0.00 4/8/2005 1.50 0.09 0.00 0.00 67.7 67.70 0.00 4/9/2005 0.00 0.15 0.15 67.92 67.7 -0.22 0.22 4/10/2005 0.00 0.18 0.18 79.10 67.7 -11.40 11.63 4/11/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 73.86 67.7 -6.16 17.79 4/13/2005 0.00 0.14 0.14 63.56 67.7 4.14 13.65 4/14/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 75.78 67.7 -8.08 21.73 4/19/2005 0.00 0.16 0.16 69.50 67.7 -1.80 23.53 4/20/2005 0.00 0.14 0.14 59.89 67.7 7.81 15.72 4/21/2005 0.00 0.15 0.15 64.96 67.7 2.74 12.97 4/22/2005 0.00 0.16 0.16 71.42 67.7 -3.72 16.69 4/23/2005 0.01 0.19 0.18 79.73 67.7 -12.03 28.72 4/24/2005 0.00 0.18 0.18 81.02 67.7 -13.32 42.04 4/25/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 76.31 67.7 -8.61 50.65 4/26/2005 0.00 0.16 0.16 70.89 67.7 -3.19 53.84 4/28/2005 0.00 0.19 0.19 83.81 67.7 -16.11 69.96 4/29/2005 0.02 0.19 0.17 74.94 67.7 -7.24 77.20 4/30/2005 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.53 67.7 -20.83 98.03 5/1/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 49.94 69.4 19.46 78.57 5/2/2005 0.03 0.16 0.13 57.24 69.4 12.16 66.41 5/3/2005 0.30 0.11 0.00 0.00 69.4 69.40 0.00 5/4/2005 1.41 0.10 0.00 0.00 69.4 69.40 0.00 5/5/2005 0.23 0.09 0.00 0.00 69.4 69.40 0.00 5/6/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 74.73 69.4 -5.33 5.33 5/7/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 75.43 69.4 -6.03 11.37 5/8/2005 0.00 0.19 0.19 85.21 69.4 -15.81 27.18

PAGE 94

94 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 5/9/2005 0.04 0.19 0.15 65.03 69.4 4.37 22.81 5/10/2005 0.03 0.17 0.14 60.91 69.4 8.49 14.31 5/12/2005 0.05 0.14 0.09 40.69 69.4 28.71 0.00 5/13/2005 0.03 0.18 0.15 67.89 69.4 1.51 0.00 5/14/2005 0.00 0.16 0.16 69.50 69.4 -0.10 0.10 5/15/2005 0.01 0.19 0.18 78.16 69.4 -8.76 8.85 5/16/2005 0.04 0.21 0.17 73.58 69.4 -4.18 13.04 5/17/2005 0.01 0.19 0.18 79.90 69.4 -10.50 23.54 5/18/2005 0.04 0.18 0.14 60.14 69.4 9.26 14.28 5/19/2005 0.26 0.17 0.00 0.00 69.4 69.40 0.00 5/20/2005 0.03 0.17 0.14 61.95 69.4 7.45 0.00 5/21/2005 0.45 0.18 0.00 0.00 69.4 69.40 0.00 5/22/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 74.04 69.4 -4.64 4.64 5/23/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 77.53 69.4 -8.13 12.77 5/24/2005 0.00 0.22 0.22 99.18 69.4 -29.78 42.55 5/25/2005 0.00 0.21 0.21 93.59 69.4 -24.19 66.74 5/26/2005 0.99 0.17 0.00 0.00 69.4 69.40 0.00 5/27/2005 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.35 69.4 -18.95 18.95 5/28/2005 0.07 0.19 0.12 51.20 69.4 18.20 0.75 5/29/2005 0.34 0.21 0.00 0.00 69.4 69.40 0.00 5/30/2005 0.00 0.16 0.16 71.07 69.4 -1.67 1.67 5/31/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 47.32 69.4 22.08 0.00 6/1/2005 2.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/2/2005 1.05 0.09 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/3/2005 0.00 0.12 0.12 51.34 91.2 39.86 0.00 6/4/2005 0.32 0.09 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/5/2005 1.18 0.10 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/6/2005 0.03 0.13 0.10 42.57 91.2 48.63 0.00 6/7/2005 0.82 0.08 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/8/2005 0.88 0.16 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/9/2005 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.17 91.2 91.03 0.00 6/11/2005 0.44 0.12 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/12/2005 0.07 0.17 0.10 46.31 91.2 44.89 0.00 6/13/2005 0.04 0.21 0.17 74.46 91.2 16.74 0.00 6/14/2005 0.08 0.22 0.14 61.78 91.2 29.42 0.00 6/15/2005 0.02 0.23 0.21 95.03 91.2 -3.83 3.83 6/16/2005 0.56 0.18 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/17/2005 0.14 0.20 0.06 27.83 91.2 63.37 0.00 6/18/2005 0.47 0.18 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/19/2005 0.01 0.16 0.15 65.06 91.2 26.14 0.00 6/20/2005 0.97 0.04 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/21/2005 0.06 0.10 0.04 19.66 91.2 71.54 0.00 6/22/2005 0.37 0.08 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/23/2005 1.31 0.15 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00

PAGE 95

95 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 6/24/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 73.86 91.2 17.34 0.00 6/25/2005 0.01 0.20 0.19 83.40 91.2 7.80 0.00 6/26/2005 0.01 0.12 0.11 50.39 91.2 40.81 0.00 6/27/2005 1.20 0.11 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/28/2005 0.66 0.15 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 6/29/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 48.54 91.2 42.66 0.00 6/30/2005 1.06 0.17 0.00 0.00 91.2 91.20 0.00 7/1/2005 1.20 0.17 0.00 0.00 76.9 76.90 0.00 7/2/2005 0.06 0.19 0.13 57.90 76.9 19.00 0.00 7/3/2005 0.01 0.13 0.12 54.58 76.9 22.32 0.00 7/4/2005 0.00 0.23 0.23 102.67 76.9 -25.77 25.77 7/5/2005 0.00 0.24 0.24 105.64 76.9 -28.74 54.51 7/6/2005 0.02 0.23 0.21 91.36 76.9 -14.46 68.97 7/7/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 75.08 76.9 1.82 67.16 7/8/2005 0.69 0.19 0.00 0.00 76.9 76.90 0.00 7/9/2005 3.48 0.11 0.00 0.00 76.9 76.90 0.00 7/10/2005 0.36 0.09 0.00 0.00 76.9 76.90 0.00 7/11/2005 0.00 0.23 0.23 103.20 76.9 -26.30 26.30 7/12/2005 0.00 0.21 0.21 95.34 76.9 -18.44 44.74 7/13/2005 0.00 0.16 0.16 71.94 76.9 4.96 39.78 7/14/2005 0.02 0.18 0.16 69.71 76.9 7.19 32.58 7/15/2005 0.04 0.22 0.18 81.27 76.9 -4.37 36.95 7/16/2005 0.02 0.19 0.17 76.52 76.9 0.38 36.56 7/17/2005 0.00 0.19 0.19 85.04 76.9 -8.14 44.70 7/18/2005 0.01 0.18 0.17 74.14 76.9 2.76 41.94 7/19/2005 0.00 0.22 0.22 96.04 76.9 -19.14 61.08 7/20/2005 0.11 0.20 0.09 38.00 76.9 38.90 22.18 7/21/2005 0.00 0.22 0.22 96.56 76.9 -19.66 41.84 7/22/2005 0.00 0.19 0.19 84.69 76.9 -7.79 49.63 7/23/2005 0.00 0.23 0.23 102.50 76.9 -25.60 75.22 7/24/2005 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.70 76.9 -11.80 87.03 7/25/2005 0.00 0.18 0.18 81.89 76.9 -4.99 92.02 7/26/2005 0.07 0.15 0.08 33.91 76.9 42.99 49.03 7/27/2005 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.18 76.9 -11.28 60.31 7/28/2005 0.00 0.15 0.15 68.45 76.9 8.45 51.86 7/29/2005 0.00 0.16 0.16 71.59 76.9 5.31 46.55 7/30/2005 0.00 0.12 0.12 54.65 76.9 22.25 24.31 7/31/2005 0.02 0.20 0.18 79.14 76.9 -2.24 26.54 8/1/2005 0.02 0.18 0.16 68.83 77.6 8.77 17.78 8/2/2005 0.15 0.13 0.00 0.00 77.6 77.60 0.00 8/3/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 74.04 77.6 3.56 0.00 8/4/2005 0.97 0.14 0.00 0.00 77.6 77.60 0.00 8/5/2005 0.35 0.11 0.00 0.00 77.6 77.60 0.00 8/6/2005 1.18 0.17 0.00 0.00 77.6 77.60 0.00

PAGE 96

96 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 8/7/2005 1.83 0.17 0.00 0.00 77.6 77.60 0.00 8/8/2005 0.00 0.20 0.20 89.40 77.6 -11.80 11.80 8/9/2005 0.01 0.14 0.13 57.38 77.6 20.22 0.00 8/10/2005 0.00 0.14 0.14 62.51 77.6 15.09 0.00 8/16/2005 0.00 0.19 0.19 84.69 77.6 -7.09 7.09 8/17/2005 0.09 0.21 0.12 52.98 77.6 24.62 0.00 8/18/2005 0.00 0.22 0.22 96.56 77.6 -18.96 18.96 8/19/2005 0.00 0.21 0.21 94.82 77.6 -17.22 36.18 8/20/2005 0.00 0.19 0.19 86.26 77.6 -8.66 44.84 8/21/2005 0.02 0.20 0.18 81.93 77.6 -4.33 49.17 8/22/2005 0.17 0.20 0.03 11.91 77.6 65.69 0.00 8/23/2005 0.27 0.19 0.00 0.00 77.6 77.60 0.00 8/24/2005 0.12 0.17 0.05 20.12 77.6 57.48 0.00 8/26/2005 0.29 0.10 0.00 0.00 77.6 77.60 0.00 8/27/2005 0.22 0.14 0.00 0.00 77.6 77.60 0.00 8/28/2005 0.07 0.16 0.09 38.97 77.6 38.63 0.00 8/29/2005 0.10 0.14 0.04 18.51 77.6 59.09 0.00 8/30/2005 0.00 0.19 0.19 85.39 77.6 -7.79 7.79 8/31/2005 0.54 0.13 0.00 0.00 77.6 77.60 0.00 9/2/2005 0.03 0.16 0.13 58.46 79.8 21.34 0.00 9/3/2005 0.23 0.13 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/4/2005 0.39 0.10 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/5/2005 0.40 0.10 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/6/2005 0.23 0.08 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/7/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 77.35 79.8 2.45 0.00 9/8/2005 0.00 0.17 0.17 74.21 79.8 5.59 0.00 9/9/2005 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.18 79.8 -8.38 8.38 9/10/2005 1.49 0.16 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/11/2005 0.08 0.14 0.06 28.25 79.8 51.55 0.00 9/12/2005 0.00 0.19 0.19 85.39 79.8 -5.59 5.59 9/13/2005 0.00 0.20 0.20 86.96 79.8 -7.16 12.74 9/14/2005 0.00 0.19 0.19 84.34 79.8 -4.54 17.28 9/15/2005 0.00 0.19 0.19 83.81 79.8 -4.01 21.30 9/16/2005 0.01 0.15 0.14 60.17 79.8 19.63 1.67 9/17/2005 0.00 0.18 0.18 79.80 79.8 0.00 1.67 9/18/2005 0.00 0.18 0.18 79.10 79.8 0.70 0.97 9/19/2005 0.63 0.15 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/20/2005 1.48 0.05 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/21/2005 0.01 0.13 0.12 52.66 79.8 27.14 0.00 9/22/2005 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/23/2005 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/24/2005 0.00 0.18 0.18 79.27 79.8 0.53 0.00 9/25/2005 0.05 0.15 0.10 42.61 79.8 37.19 0.00 9/26/2005 0.00 0.15 0.15 67.92 79.8 11.88 0.00

PAGE 97

97 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 9/27/2005 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/28/2005 0.02 0.11 0.09 40.89 79.8 38.91 0.00 9/29/2005 1.81 0.11 0.00 0.00 79.8 79.80 0.00 9/30/2005 0.01 0.16 0.15 64.71 79.8 15.09 0.00 10/1/2005 0.10 0.13 0.03 15.37 76.7 61.33 0.00 10/2/2005 1.93 0.11 0.00 0.00 76.7 76.70 0.00 10/3/2005 0.29 0.14 0.00 0.00 76.7 76.70 0.00 10/4/2005 0.36 0.09 0.00 0.00 76.7 76.70 0.00 10/5/2005 0.62 0.12 0.00 0.00 76.7 76.70 0.00 10/6/2005 0.49 0.08 0.00 0.00 76.7 76.70 0.00 10/7/2005 0.65 0.10 0.00 0.00 76.7 76.70 0.00 10/8/2005 0.00 0.14 0.14 62.69 76.7 14.01 0.00 10/9/2005 0.00 0.13 0.13 59.02 76.7 17.68 0.00 10/10/2005 0.00 0.14 0.14 60.24 76.7 16.46 0.00 10/12/2005 0.00 0.16 0.16 71.42 76.7 5.28 0.00 10/13/2005 0.00 0.14 0.14 62.16 76.7 14.54 0.00 10/14/2005 0.03 0.12 0.09 38.03 76.7 38.67 0.00 10/15/2005 0.58 0.06 0.00 0.00 76.7 76.70 0.00 10/16/2005 0.00 0.12 0.12 52.21 76.7 24.49 0.00 10/17/2005 0.00 0.13 0.13 56.40 76.7 20.30 0.00 10/18/2005 0.36 0.08 0.00 0.00 76.7 76.70 0.00 10/20/2005 0.03 0.11 0.08 35.59 76.7 41.11 0.00 10/21/2005 0.57 0.05 0.00 0.00 76.7 76.70 0.00 10/22/2005 0.92 0.09 0.00 0.00 76.7 76.70 0.00 10/23/2005 0.00 0.12 0.12 52.91 76.7 23.79 0.00 10/26/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.91 76.7 34.79 0.00 10/28/2005 0.00 0.10 0.10 42.78 76.7 33.92 0.00 10/29/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 47.15 76.7 29.55 0.00 10/30/2005 0.00 0.10 0.10 44.00 76.7 32.70 0.00 10/31/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.43 76.7 45.27 0.00 11/1/2005 1.89 0.06 0.00 0.00 91.1 91.10 0.00 11/2/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 48.54 91.1 42.56 0.00 11/3/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 38.42 91.1 52.68 0.00 11/4/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.21 91.1 49.89 0.00 11/5/2005 0.00 0.12 0.12 52.56 91.1 38.54 0.00 11/6/2005 0.00 0.10 0.10 45.57 91.1 45.53 0.00 11/7/2005 0.00 0.11 0.11 48.37 91.1 42.73 0.00 11/8/2005 0.02 0.09 0.07 32.69 91.1 58.41 0.00 11/9/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.51 91.1 50.59 0.00 11/10/2005 0.00 0.10 0.10 44.00 91.1 47.10 0.00 11/11/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.51 91.1 50.59 0.00 11/12/2005 0.00 0.09 0.09 39.81 91.1 51.29 0.00 11/13/2005 0.06 0.08 0.02 7.26 91.1 83.84 0.00 11/14/2005 0.21 0.08 0.00 0.00 91.1 91.10 0.00

PAGE 98

98 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 11/15/2005 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 91.1 91.10 0.00 11/16/2005 0.00 0.04 0.04 17.99 91.1 73.11 0.00 11/17/2005 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.00 91.1 91.10 0.00 11/18/2005 0.91 0.04 0.00 0.00 91.1 91.10 0.00 11/19/2005 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.00 91.1 91.10 0.00 11/20/2005 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 91.1 91.10 0.00 11/21/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 23.40 91.1 67.70 0.00 11/22/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 23.57 91.1 67.53 0.00 11/23/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 25.49 91.1 65.61 0.00 11/24/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 29.51 91.1 61.59 0.00 11/25/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 24.97 91.1 66.13 0.00 11/26/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 23.57 91.1 67.53 0.00 11/27/2005 0.00 0.04 0.04 15.54 91.1 75.56 0.00 11/28/2005 0.00 0.03 0.03 14.14 91.1 76.96 0.00 11/29/2005 1.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 91.1 91.10 0.00 11/30/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 26.37 91.1 64.73 0.00 12/1/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 27.94 68.7 40.76 0.00 12/2/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 25.32 68.7 43.38 0.00 12/3/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 25.49 68.7 43.21 0.00 12/4/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 25.67 68.7 43.03 0.00 12/5/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 23.57 68.7 45.13 0.00 12/6/2005 1.78 0.04 0.00 0.00 68.7 68.70 0.00 12/7/2005 0.41 0.04 0.00 0.00 68.7 68.70 0.00 12/8/2005 0.00 0.04 0.04 15.54 68.7 53.16 0.00 12/9/2005 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 68.7 68.70 0.00 12/10/2005 0.00 0.04 0.04 17.81 68.7 50.89 0.00 12/11/2005 0.00 0.04 0.04 18.68 68.7 50.02 0.00 12/12/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 21.48 68.7 47.22 0.00 12/14/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 22.18 68.7 46.52 0.00 12/15/2005 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.00 68.7 68.70 0.00 12/16/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 29.16 68.7 39.54 0.00 12/17/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 32.83 68.7 35.87 0.00 12/18/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 32.13 68.7 36.57 0.00 12/19/2005 0.00 0.04 0.04 19.03 68.7 49.67 0.00 12/20/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 24.45 68.7 44.25 0.00 12/21/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 21.30 68.7 47.40 0.00 12/22/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 20.43 68.7 48.27 0.00 12/23/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 23.05 68.7 45.65 0.00 12/24/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 26.02 68.7 42.68 0.00 12/25/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 29.34 68.7 39.36 0.00 12/26/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 23.92 68.7 44.78 0.00 12/27/2005 0.00 0.04 0.04 18.86 68.7 49.84 0.00 12/28/2005 0.00 0.05 0.05 22.00 68.7 46.70 0.00 12/29/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 28.29 68.7 40.41 0.00

PAGE 99

99 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 12/30/2005 0.00 0.06 0.06 25.32 68.7 43.38 0.00 12/31/2005 0.00 0.07 0.07 29.34 68.7 39.36 0.00 1/1/2006 0.00 0.07 0.07 33.00 73.5 40.50 0.00 1/2/2006 0.00 0.08 0.08 34.92 73.5 38.58 0.00 1/3/2006 0.00 0.08 0.08 34.40 73.5 39.10 0.00 1/4/2006 0.00 0.06 0.06 26.37 73.5 47.13 0.00 1/5/2006 0.00 0.06 0.06 26.54 73.5 46.96 0.00 1/6/2006 0.00 0.05 0.05 22.70 73.5 50.80 0.00 1/7/2006 0.00 0.04 0.04 17.81 73.5 55.69 0.00 1/8/2006 0.00 0.04 0.04 18.16 73.5 55.34 0.00 1/9/2006 0.00 0.06 0.06 26.37 73.5 47.13 0.00 1/10/2006 0.02 0.08 0.06 24.66 73.5 48.84 0.00 1/11/2006 0.00 0.08 0.08 37.02 73.5 36.48 0.00 1/12/2006 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.08 73.5 42.42 0.00 1/13/2006 0.31 0.08 0.00 0.00 73.5 73.50 0.00 1/14/2006 0.28 0.06 0.00 0.00 73.5 73.50 0.00 1/15/2006 0.00 0.05 0.05 21.83 73.5 51.67 0.00 1/16/2006 0.00 0.06 0.06 24.45 73.5 49.05 0.00 1/17/2006 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.61 73.5 41.89 0.00 1/18/2006 0.00 0.07 0.07 29.51 73.5 43.99 0.00 1/19/2006 0.00 0.06 0.06 26.89 73.5 46.61 0.00 1/20/2006 0.01 0.08 0.07 30.84 73.5 42.66 0.00 1/21/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.86 73.5 32.64 0.00 1/22/2006 0.00 0.08 0.08 33.35 73.5 40.15 0.00 1/23/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 38.07 73.5 35.43 0.00 1/24/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 37.72 73.5 35.78 0.00 1/25/2006 0.00 0.08 0.08 34.40 73.5 39.10 0.00 1/26/2006 0.00 0.07 0.07 33.18 73.5 40.32 0.00 1/27/2006 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.43 73.5 42.07 0.00 1/28/2006 0.00 0.08 0.08 34.92 73.5 38.58 0.00 1/30/2006 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.00 73.5 73.50 0.00 1/31/2006 0.00 0.08 0.08 36.49 73.5 37.01 0.00 2/1/2006 0.00 0.08 0.08 36.84 78.5 41.66 0.00 2/2/2006 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.26 78.5 47.24 0.00 2/3/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.56 78.5 36.94 0.00 2/4/2006 3.78 0.07 0.00 0.00 78.5 78.50 0.00 2/5/2006 0.00 0.08 0.08 36.32 78.5 42.18 0.00 2/6/2006 0.00 0.08 0.08 36.67 78.5 41.83 0.00 2/7/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.51 78.5 37.99 0.00 2/8/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 42.08 78.5 36.42 0.00 2/9/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 39.81 78.5 38.69 0.00 2/10/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.03 78.5 37.47 0.00 2/11/2006 0.00 0.10 0.10 45.05 78.5 33.45 0.00 2/12/2006 0.00 0.07 0.07 30.73 78.5 47.77 0.00

PAGE 100

100 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 2/13/2006 0.00 0.07 0.07 33.18 78.5 45.32 0.00 2/14/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 37.89 78.5 40.61 0.00 2/15/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 38.94 78.5 39.56 0.00 2/16/2006 0.00 0.10 0.10 44.53 78.5 33.97 0.00 2/17/2006 0.00 0.11 0.11 47.50 78.5 31.00 0.00 2/18/2006 0.00 0.12 0.12 52.38 78.5 26.12 0.00 2/19/2006 0.00 0.12 0.12 53.08 78.5 25.42 0.00 2/20/2006 0.00 0.12 0.12 53.26 78.5 25.24 0.00 2/21/2006 0.00 0.11 0.11 50.81 78.5 27.69 0.00 2/22/2006 0.00 0.11 0.11 48.54 78.5 29.96 0.00 2/23/2006 0.00 0.14 0.14 61.99 78.5 16.51 0.00 2/24/2006 0.33 0.12 0.00 0.00 78.5 78.50 0.00 2/25/2006 0.07 0.10 0.03 14.53 78.5 63.97 0.00 2/26/2006 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.00 78.5 78.50 0.00 2/27/2006 0.00 0.10 0.10 45.92 78.5 32.58 0.00 2/28/2006 0.00 0.11 0.11 50.46 78.5 28.04 0.00 3/1/2006 0.00 0.10 0.10 46.10 76.8 30.70 0.00 3/2/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 57.27 76.8 19.53 0.00 3/3/2006 0.00 0.11 0.11 50.11 76.8 26.69 0.00 3/4/2006 0.01 0.12 0.11 47.95 76.8 28.85 0.00 3/5/2006 0.00 0.12 0.12 52.38 76.8 24.42 0.00 3/6/2006 0.00 0.12 0.12 53.61 76.8 23.19 0.00 3/7/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 57.62 76.8 19.18 0.00 3/8/2006 0.00 0.12 0.12 53.26 76.8 23.54 0.00 3/9/2006 0.00 0.12 0.12 52.56 76.8 24.24 0.00 3/10/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 56.75 76.8 20.05 0.00 3/11/2006 0.00 0.14 0.14 63.91 76.8 12.89 0.00 3/12/2006 0.00 0.15 0.15 67.92 76.8 8.88 0.00 3/13/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 57.80 76.8 19.00 0.00 3/14/2006 0.00 0.15 0.15 66.00 76.8 10.80 0.00 3/15/2006 0.00 0.12 0.12 52.38 76.8 24.42 0.00 3/16/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 56.57 76.8 20.23 0.00 3/17/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 57.97 76.8 18.83 0.00 3/18/2006 0.00 0.14 0.14 63.21 76.8 13.59 0.00 3/19/2006 0.00 0.11 0.11 46.97 76.8 29.83 0.00 3/20/2006 0.00 0.14 0.14 62.69 76.8 14.11 0.00 3/21/2006 0.00 0.18 0.18 79.10 76.8 -2.30 2.30 3/22/2006 0.02 0.15 0.13 57.13 76.8 19.67 0.00 3/23/2006 0.06 0.09 0.03 14.60 76.8 62.20 0.00 3/24/2006 0.00 0.12 0.12 51.69 76.8 25.11 0.00 3/25/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 59.02 76.8 17.78 0.00 3/26/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 59.37 76.8 17.43 0.00 3/27/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 55.53 76.8 21.27 0.00 3/28/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 57.97 76.8 18.83 0.00

PAGE 101

101 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 3/29/2006 0.01 0.13 0.12 51.09 76.8 25.71 0.00 3/30/2006 0.00 0.14 0.14 61.11 76.8 15.69 0.00 3/31/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 71.77 76.8 5.03 0.00 4/1/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 72.12 75.9 3.78 0.00 4/2/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 73.34 75.9 2.56 0.00 4/4/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 75.08 75.9 0.82 0.00 4/5/2006 0.00 0.19 0.19 83.12 75.9 -7.22 7.22 4/6/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 69.15 75.9 6.75 0.46 4/7/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 74.73 75.9 1.17 0.00 4/8/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 69.32 75.9 6.58 0.00 4/9/2006 0.10 0.16 0.06 27.24 75.9 48.66 0.00 4/10/2006 0.94 0.11 0.00 0.00 75.9 75.90 0.00 4/11/2006 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.00 75.9 75.90 0.00 4/12/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 71.42 75.9 4.48 0.00 4/13/2006 0.05 0.16 0.11 49.24 75.9 26.66 0.00 4/14/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 72.46 75.9 3.44 0.00 4/16/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 87.66 75.9 -11.76 11.76 4/17/2006 0.00 0.19 0.19 85.21 75.9 -9.31 21.07 4/18/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 76.13 75.9 -0.23 21.30 4/19/2006 0.01 0.17 0.16 72.57 75.9 3.33 17.97 4/20/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.53 75.9 -12.63 30.60 4/21/2006 0.00 0.19 0.19 86.26 75.9 -10.36 40.96 4/22/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 89.05 75.9 -13.15 54.11 4/23/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 70.89 75.9 5.01 49.10 4/24/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 74.21 75.9 1.69 47.42 4/25/2006 0.00 0.15 0.15 64.43 75.9 11.47 35.95 4/26/2006 0.00 0.14 0.14 62.86 75.9 13.04 22.91 4/27/2006 0.00 0.19 0.19 86.43 75.9 -10.53 33.44 4/28/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 74.04 75.9 1.86 31.58 4/29/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 73.51 75.9 2.39 29.19 4/30/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 71.59 75.9 4.31 24.88 5/1/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 77.00 76.9 -0.10 24.99 5/2/2006 0.00 0.18 0.18 78.93 76.9 -2.03 27.01 5/3/2006 0.00 0.19 0.19 84.69 76.9 -7.79 34.80 5/4/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 89.40 76.9 -12.50 47.31 5/5/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 91.15 76.9 -14.25 61.55 5/6/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 87.31 76.9 -10.41 71.96 5/7/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 93.94 76.9 -17.04 89.00 5/8/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 92.20 76.9 -15.30 104.30 5/9/2006 0.00 0.19 0.19 82.59 76.9 -5.69 109.99 5/10/2006 0.00 0.13 0.13 57.27 76.9 19.63 90.37 5/11/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 87.13 76.9 -10.23 100.60 5/13/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 76.48 76.9 0.42 100.18 5/14/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 93.59 76.9 -16.69 116.87

PAGE 102

102 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 5/15/2006 1.07 0.17 0.00 0.00 76.9 76.90 39.97 5/16/2006 2.57 0.07 0.00 0.00 76.9 76.90 0.00 5/17/2006 0.08 0.15 0.07 30.00 76.9 46.90 0.00 5/18/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.53 76.9 -11.63 11.63 5/19/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 93.94 76.9 -17.04 28.67 5/20/2006 0.03 0.22 0.19 83.78 76.9 -6.88 35.55 5/21/2006 0.01 0.21 0.20 89.16 76.9 -12.26 47.81 5/22/2006 0.03 0.18 0.15 65.97 76.9 10.93 36.88 5/23/2006 0.04 0.12 0.08 33.94 76.9 42.96 0.00 5/24/2006 0.03 0.19 0.16 69.46 76.9 7.44 0.00 5/25/2006 0.08 0.09 0.01 2.76 76.9 74.14 0.00 5/26/2006 0.08 0.11 0.03 11.84 76.9 65.06 0.00 5/27/2006 1.22 0.17 0.00 0.00 76.9 76.90 0.00 5/28/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 91.85 76.9 -14.95 14.95 5/29/2006 0.00 0.19 0.19 84.86 76.9 -7.96 22.91 5/30/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 92.37 76.9 -15.47 38.38 5/31/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 73.51 76.9 3.39 34.99 6/1/2006 0.94 0.17 0.00 0.00 73.6 73.60 0.00 6/2/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 86.96 73.6 -13.36 13.36 6/3/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 95.34 73.6 -21.74 35.10 6/4/2006 0.08 0.19 0.11 48.86 73.6 24.74 10.35 6/5/2006 0.54 0.18 0.00 0.00 73.6 73.60 0.00 6/6/2006 0.00 0.23 0.23 103.55 73.6 -29.95 29.95 6/7/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.53 73.6 -14.93 44.88 6/8/2006 0.00 0.19 0.19 84.69 73.6 -11.09 55.96 6/9/2006 0.57 0.17 0.00 0.00 73.6 73.60 0.00 6/10/2006 0.04 0.16 0.12 51.23 73.6 22.37 0.00 6/11/2006 0.50 0.07 0.00 0.00 73.6 73.60 0.00 6/12/2006 0.00 0.09 0.09 39.29 73.6 34.31 0.00 6/13/2006 0.57 0.15 0.00 0.00 73.6 73.60 0.00 6/14/2006 0.00 0.24 0.24 105.99 73.6 -32.39 32.39 6/15/2006 0.00 0.23 0.23 100.58 73.6 -26.98 59.37 6/19/2006 0.00 0.23 0.23 103.37 73.6 -29.77 89.14 6/20/2006 0.11 0.16 0.05 22.80 73.6 50.80 38.34 6/21/2006 0.01 0.24 0.23 101.90 73.6 -28.30 66.65 6/22/2006 0.01 0.23 0.22 95.97 73.6 -22.37 89.02 6/23/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 93.24 73.6 -19.64 108.66 6/24/2006 0.10 0.12 0.02 10.13 73.6 63.47 45.19 6/25/2006 1.71 0.08 0.00 0.00 73.6 73.60 0.00 6/26/2006 0.01 0.17 0.16 72.22 73.6 1.38 0.00 6/27/2006 0.13 0.17 0.04 16.03 73.6 57.57 0.00 6/28/2006 0.00 0.10 0.10 44.18 73.6 29.42 0.00 6/29/2006 0.04 0.13 0.09 41.10 73.6 32.50 0.00 6/30/2006 0.08 0.14 0.06 26.68 73.6 46.92 0.00

PAGE 103

103 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 7/1/2006 0.03 0.21 0.18 82.03 80.2 -1.83 1.83 7/2/2006 1.43 0.10 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/3/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 90.97 80.2 -10.77 10.77 7/4/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 86.78 80.2 -6.58 17.36 7/5/2006 0.73 0.18 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/6/2006 0.87 0.08 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/7/2006 0.46 0.11 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/8/2006 0.49 0.11 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/9/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.70 80.2 -8.50 8.50 7/10/2006 0.05 0.20 0.15 68.62 80.2 11.58 0.00 7/11/2006 0.90 0.16 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/12/2006 1.11 0.09 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/13/2006 0.69 0.11 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/14/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 91.50 80.2 -11.30 11.30 7/15/2006 0.00 0.23 0.23 103.02 80.2 -22.82 34.12 7/16/2006 0.01 0.23 0.22 96.67 80.2 -16.47 50.59 7/17/2006 0.73 0.14 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/18/2006 0.01 0.12 0.11 48.82 80.2 31.38 0.00 7/19/2006 0.03 0.12 0.09 39.08 80.2 41.12 0.00 7/20/2006 1.74 0.16 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/21/2006 2.48 0.10 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/22/2006 0.07 0.15 0.08 36.01 80.2 44.19 0.00 7/23/2006 0.69 0.19 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/24/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 88.18 80.2 -7.98 7.98 7/25/2006 0.00 0.23 0.23 101.63 80.2 -21.43 29.41 7/26/2006 0.00 0.23 0.23 100.05 80.2 -19.85 49.26 7/27/2006 0.00 0.18 0.18 78.75 80.2 1.45 47.81 7/28/2006 1.43 0.17 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/29/2006 0.26 0.13 0.00 0.00 80.2 80.20 0.00 7/30/2006 0.00 0.19 0.19 85.91 80.2 -5.71 5.71 7/31/2006 0.00 0.21 0.21 91.67 80.2 -11.47 17.18 8/1/2006 0.00 0.22 0.22 99.36 74.4 -24.96 42.14 8/2/2006 0.00 0.22 0.22 97.61 74.4 -23.21 65.35 8/3/2006 0.00 0.17 0.17 74.21 74.4 0.19 65.16 8/4/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 71.24 74.4 3.16 62.00 8/5/2006 0.06 0.22 0.16 71.70 74.4 2.70 59.30 8/6/2006 0.63 0.19 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/7/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 89.93 74.4 -15.53 15.53 8/8/2006 0.51 0.15 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/9/2006 0.45 0.16 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/10/2006 0.00 0.20 0.20 86.61 74.4 -12.21 12.21 8/11/2006 0.00 0.23 0.23 103.02 74.4 -28.62 40.83 8/12/2006 0.00 0.23 0.23 100.58 74.4 -26.18 67.01 8/13/2006 2.06 0.21 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00

PAGE 104

104 Table B-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Precip in/d (C) ET in/d (D) Irrigation demand in/d (E) Irrigation volume MGD (F) Wastewater flow MGD (G) S-D MGD (H) Storage MG 8/14/2006 0.10 0.14 0.04 18.68 74.4 55.72 0.00 8/15/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 71.77 74.4 2.63 0.00 8/16/2006 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/17/2006 0.03 0.18 0.15 67.54 74.4 6.86 0.00 8/18/2006 0.00 0.15 0.15 67.75 74.4 6.65 0.00 8/19/2006 0.06 0.13 0.07 29.96 74.4 44.44 0.00 8/20/2006 0.04 0.12 0.08 36.21 74.4 38.19 0.00 8/21/2006 0.41 0.12 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/22/2006 0.02 0.10 0.08 36.53 74.4 37.87 0.00 8/23/2006 0.21 0.14 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/24/2006 1.20 0.12 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/25/2006 0.77 0.13 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/27/2006 0.00 0.19 0.19 86.43 74.4 -12.03 12.03 8/28/2006 0.25 0.17 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/29/2006 1.35 0.12 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/30/2006 0.13 0.09 0.00 0.00 74.4 74.40 0.00 8/31/2006 0.00 0.16 0.16 70.19 74.4 4.21 0.00

PAGE 105

105 APPENDIX C WEEKLY SIMULATION Table C-1. Total weekly data. (A) Date (B) Total weekly rainfall in/wk (C) Total weekly ET in/wk June 2004 0.64 0.88 June 2004 0.51 1.12 June 2004 0.11 1.39 June 2004 1.79 1.42 July 2004 0.18 1.14 July 2004 0.80 1.28 July 2004 0.04 0.49 July 2004 2.87 1.14 July 2004 2.50 1.08 August 2004 4.65 0.87 August 2004 1.09 0.94 August 2004 0.69 0.42 August 2004 0.95 0.98 September 2004 2.91 0.92 September 2004 4.16 0.87 September 2004 0.01 0.61 September 2004 2.90 0.67 October 2004 2.39 0.90 October 2004 0.49 0.79 October 2004 0.76 0.79 October 2004 1.75 0.63 October 2004 0.00 0.75 November 2004 0.09 0.71 November 2004 0.07 0.55 November 2004 0.16 0.53 November 2004 0.12 0.45 December 2004 0.00 0.41 December 2004 0.00 0.37 December 2004 0.00 0.29 December 2004 0.00 0.37 December 2004 1.44 0.40 January 2005 0.02 0.52 January 2005 1.06 0.45 January 2005 0.00 0.42 January 2005 0.00 0.41 February 2005 0.00 0.52 February 2005 0.00 0.61 February 2005 0.00 0.59 February 2005 0.44 0.69 March 2005 1.06 0.65 March 2005 1.14 0.69

PAGE 106

106 Table C-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Total weekly rainfall in/wk (C) Total weekly ET in/wk March 2005 1.94 0.61 March 2005 0.00 0.85 April 2005 0.13 1.04 April 2005 1.50 0.69 April 2005 0.00 0.66 April 2005 0.01 0.79 April 2005 0.02 1.09 May 2005 1.97 0.91 May 2005 0.15 1.03 May 2005 0.84 1.28 May 2005 1.06 1.33 June 2005 3.71 0.87 June 2005 3.45 0.69 June 2005 1.38 1.40 June 2005 2.73 0.90 July 2005 4.19 1.02 July 2005 4.20 1.29 July 2005 0.44 1.29 July 2005 0.12 1.42 July 2005 0.07 1.17 August 2005 2.69 1.09 August 2005 1.84 0.66 August 2005 0.09 1.03 August 2005 1.09 1.00 September 2005 0.97 0.92 September 2005 2.51 0.98 September 2005 0.09 1.24 September 2005 2.42 0.90 October 2005 2.14 0.91 October 2005 4.34 0.79 October 2005 0.61 0.75 October 2005 1.88 0.57 October 2005 0.00 0.42 November 2005 1.89 0.64 November 2005 0.02 0.68 November 2005 1.57 0.36 November 2005 0.09 0.38 December 2005 1.00 0.34 December 2005 2.27 0.31 December 2005 0.10 0.34 December 2005 0.00 0.38 December 2005 0.00 0.40 January 2006 0.00 0.44 January 2006 0.61 0.47

PAGE 107

107 Table C-1. Continued (A) Date (B) Total weekly rainfall in/wk (C) Total weekly ET in/wk January 2006 0.01 0.47 January 2006 0.00 0.55 February 2006 3.87 0.47 February 2006 0.00 0.63 February 2006 0.00 0.64 February 2006 0.40 0.83 March 2006 0.14 0.78 March 2006 0.00 0.88 March 2006 0.00 0.95 March 2006 0.08 0.92 April 2006 0.01 0.98 April 2006 0.00 1.00 April 2006 1.29 0.90 April 2006 0.01 1.33 April 2006 0.00 1.14 May 2006 0.00 1.31 May 2006 0.00 1.10 May 2006 3.75 1.22 May 2006 1.49 1.06 June 2006 0.94 1.35 June 2006 1.23 1.31 June 2006 1.07 0.77 June 2006 0.23 1.19 July 2006 2.00 1.01 July 2006 3.98 0.98 July 2006 2.75 1.20 July 2006 5.07 1.01 July 2006 2.38 1.32 August 2006 0.06 1.39 August 2006 1.59 1.35 August 2006 2.36 1.09 August 2006 2.65 0.73 August 2006 1.73 0.73

PAGE 108

108 Table C-2. Average weekly data. (A) Week # (B) Average weekly rainfall in/wk (C) Total weekly ET in/wk (D) Average weekly effective rainfall in/wk (E) Average weekly irrigation requirements in/wk 1 0.01 0.48 0.00 0.48 2 0.84 0.46 0.37 0.09 3 0.01 0.45 0.00 0.45 4 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.48 5 1.94 0.50 0.82 0.00 6 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.62 7 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.61 8 0.42 0.76 0.17 0.58 9 0.60 0.72 0.26 0.45 10 0.57 0.78 0.25 0.54 11 0.97 0.78 0.43 0.35 12 0.04 0.88 0.00 0.88 13 0.07 1.01 0.00 1.01 14 0.75 0.84 0.34 0.51 15 0.65 0.78 0.28 0.50 16 0.01 1.06 0.00 1.06 17 0.01 1.12 0.00 1.12 18 0.99 1.11 0.45 0.66 19 0.08 1.07 0.00 1.07 20 2.30 1.25 1.00 0.26 21 1.28 1.19 0.58 0.62 22 2.33 1.11 1.00 0.11 23 1.77 0.96 0.78 0.18 24 0.99 1.10 0.45 0.65 25 1.02 1.16 0.47 0.69 26 2.66 1.15 1.13 0.02 27 2.79 1.14 1.18 0.00 28 1.33 1.26 0.60 0.65 29 1.74 0.97 0.76 0.21 30 1.77 1.21 0.79 0.42 31 1.75 1.19 0.78 0.41 32 2.69 0.96 1.13 0.00 33 1.18 1.02 0.53 0.49 34 1.48 0.71 0.65 0.07 35 1.22 0.88 0.54 0.33 36 2.71 0.95 1.14 0.00 37 2.13 1.05 0.92 0.13 38 1.22 0.75 0.54 0.21 39 2.52 0.79 1.06 0.00 40 3.37 0.85 1.37 0.00 41 0.55 0.77 0.24 0.53 42 1.32 0.68 0.58 0.10

PAGE 109

109 Table C-2. Continued (A) Week # (B) Average weekly rainfall in/wk (C) Total weekly ET in/wk (D) Average weekly effective rainfall in/wk (E) Average weekly irrigation requirements in/wk 43 0.88 0.52 0.39 0.14 44 0.95 0.70 0.42 0.28 45 0.06 0.69 0.00 0.69 46 0.82 0.46 0.36 0.10 47 0.13 0.45 0.01 0.44 48 0.56 0.39 0.24 0.16 49 1.14 0.36 0.49 0.00 50 0.05 0.35 0.00 0.35 51 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 52 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 53 1.44 0.40 0.62 0.00

PAGE 110

110 Table C-3. Irrigation volumes required for the four cases. (A) Week # (B) Case 1 MGD (C) Case 2 MGD (D) Case 3 MGD (E) Case 4 MGD 1 0 79.57 30.32 70.77 30.32 2 0 79.57 29.11 70.77 0 5.91 3 0 79.57 28.49 70.77 28.49 4 0 85.70 32.77 76.21 32.77 5 0 85.70 34.02 76.21 0 0.00 6 0 79.57 39.40 70.77 39.40 7 0 85.70 41.89 76.21 41.89 8 0 79.57 47.99 70.77 36.98 9 0 79.57 45.31 70.77 28.70 10 0 79.57 49.70 70.77 33.94 11 0 92.84 57.75 82.56 25.73 12 0 85.70 60.28 76.21 60.28 13 0 79.57 63.86 70.77 63.86 14 101.28 68.08 90.07 41.06 15 111.40 69.32 99.08 44.07 16 0 92.84 78.31 82.56 78.31 17 0 85.70 76.21 76.21 76.21 18 0 79.57 70.34 70.77 41.96 19 0 92.84 78.78 82.56 78.78 20 0 79.57 79.39 70.77 16.23 21 0 79.57 75.67 70.77 39.06 22 0 79.57 70.47 70.77 0 7.08 23 0 92.84 71.01 82.56 13.64 24 0 87.95 76.77 78.22 45.36 25 0 83.55 77.27 74.31 46.23 26 0 79.57 72.81 70.77 0 1.17 27 0 83.55 75.70 74.31 0 0.00 28 0 83.55 83.55 74.31 43.40 29 0 98.30 76.21 87.42 16.37 30 0 79.57 76.51 70.77 26.66 31 0 79.57 75.24 70.77 26.05 32 0 98.30 74.93 87.42 0 0.00 33 092.84 75.27 82.56 35.99 34 111.40 63.32 99.08 0 6.00 35 0 92.84 64.73 82.56 24.60 36 0 85.70 64.53 76.21 0 0.00 37 0 79.57 66.73 70.77 0 8.46 38 101.28 60.67 90.07 17.25 39 0 85.70 54.01 76.21 0 0.00 40 0 79.57 53.58 70.77 0 0.00 41 0 92.84 56.75 82.56 39.10 42 0 85.70 46.61 76.21 0 7.01 43 111.40 46.26 99.08 12.08 44 0 79.57 44.16 70.77 17.54 45 0 79.57 43.98 70.77 43.98

PAGE 111

111 Table C-3. Continued (A) Week # (B) Case 1 MGD (C) Case 2 MGD (D) Case 3 MGD (E) Case 4 MGD 46 0 85.70 31.08 76.21 0 6.56 47 0 79.57 28.66 70.77 28.09 48 0 85.70 26.89 76.21 10.61 49 0 85.70 24.69 76.21 0 0.00 50 101.28 28.60 90.07 28.60 51 0 85.70 22.55 76.21 22.55 52 0 79.57 24.52 70.77 24.52 53 0 79.57 25.49 70.77 0 0.00

PAGE 112

112 Table C-4. Storage si mulation for Case 2. (A) Week # (B) WW flow MGD (C) Irrigation Volume MGD (D) S-D MGD (E) Deficit MGD (F) Surplus MGD (G) Volume from storage MGD (H) Total demand MGD 1 71.05 30.32 40.73 0.00 40.73 0.00 30.32 2 71.05 29.11 41.94 0.00 41.94 0.00 29.11 3 71.05 28.49 42.56 0.00 42.56 0.00 28.49 4 71.24 32.77 38.46 0.00 38.46 0.00 32.77 5 72.25 34.02 38.23 0.00 38.23 0.00 34.02 6 72.70 39.40 33.30 0.00 33.30 0.00 39.40 7 73.15 41.89 31.25 0.00 31.25 0.00 41.89 8 72.70 47.99 24.71 0.00 24.71 0.00 47.99 9 74.70 45.31 29.39 0.00 29.39 0.00 45.31 10 74.70 49.70 25.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 49.70 11 75.05 57.75 17.30 0.00 17.30 0.00 57.75 12 74.86 60.28 14.58 0.00 14.58 0.00 60.28 13 71.80 63.86 0 7.94 0.00 0 7.94 0.00 63.86 14 72.17 68.08 0 4.09 0.00 0 4.09 0.00 68.08 15 72.62 69.32 0 3.30 0.00 0 3.30 0.00 69.32 16 72.48 78.31 0 -5.83 5.83 0 0.00 0.00 78.31 17 72.12 76.21 0 -4.10 4.10 0 0.00 0.00 76.21 18 73.15 70.34 0 2.81 0.00 0 2.81 0.00 70.34 19 73.15 78.78 0 -5.63 5.63 0 0.00 0.00 78.78 20 73.15 79.39 0 -6.24 6.24 0 0.00 0.00 79.39 21 73.15 75.67 0 -2.52 2.52 0 0.00 0.00 75.67 22 82.40 70.47 11.93 0.00 11.93 0.00 70.47 23 76.88 71.01 0 5.87 0.00 0 5.87 0.00 71.01 24 76.66 76.77 0 -0.11 0.11 0 0.00 0.00 76.77 25 76.51 77.27 0 -0.76 0.76 0 0.00 0.00 77.27 26 73.80 72.81 0 0.99 0.00 0 0.99 0.00 72.81 27 74.88 75.70 0 -0.82 0.82 0 0.00 0.00 75.70 28 74.88 83.55 0 -8.68 8.68 0 0.00 0.00 83.55 29 76.39 76.21 0 0.17 0.00 0 0.17 0.00 76.21 30 74.47 76.51 0 -2.05 2.05 0 0.00 0.00 76.51 31 72.77 75.24 0 -2.48 2.48 0 0.00 0.00 75.24 32 76.39 74.93 0 1.46 0.00 0 1.46 0.00 74.93 33 76.46 75.27 0 1.19 0.00 0 1.19 0.00 75.27 34 76.38 63.32 13.06 0.00 13.06 0.00 63.32 35 77.56 64.73 12.83 0.00 12.83 0.00 64.73 36 79.52 64.53 15.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 64.53 37 79.50 66.73 12.77 0.00 12.77 0.00 66.73 38 79.58 60.67 18.91 0.00 18.91 0.00 60.67 39 77.85 54.01 23.84 0.00 23.84 0.00 54.01 40 77.55 53.58 23.97 0.00 23.97 0.00 53.58 41 77.55 56.75 20.80 0.00 20.80 0.00 56.75 42 77.62 46.61 31.01 0.00 31.01 0.00 46.61 43 77.72 46.26 31.46 0.00 31.46 0.00 46.26

PAGE 113

113 Table C-4. Continued (A) Week # (B) WW flow MGD (C) Irrigation Volume MGD (D) S-D MGD (E) Deficit MGD (F) Surplus MGD (G) Volume from storage MGD (H) Total demand MGD 44 84.75 44.16 40.59 0.00 40.59 0.00 44.16 45 80.30 43.98 36.32 0.00 36.32 0.00 43.98 46 81.13 31.08 50.05 0.00 50.05 0.00 31.08 47 80.30 28.66 51.64 0.00 51.64 0.00 28.66 48 69.07 26.89 42.18 0.00 42.18 0.00 26.89 49 69.07 24.69 44.38 0.00 44.38 0.00 24.69 50 69.06 28.60 40.46 0.00 40.46 0.00 28.60 51 69.07 22.55 46.52 0.00 46.52 0.00 22.55 52 69.10 24.52 44.58 0.00 44.58 0.00 24.52 53 68.60 25.49 43.11 0.00 43.11 0.00 25.49

PAGE 114

114 LIST OF REFERENCES Ammerman, D.K. (2007). A closer look at water use. Proceedings of the Water Reuse Balancing Act: Matching Supply and Demand Conference ., Florida Water Environment Association, Orlando, FL. Arthur, J.D., Dabous, A.A., and Cowart, J.B. (2002). Mobilization of arsenic and other trace elements during aquifer storage and recovery, Southwest Florida. Proceedings of the Artificial Recharge Workshop ., U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA., 47-50. Brown and Caldwell. (1995). Northwest reuse system preliminary design report. Prepared for the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board, Delray Beach, FL. Busey, P. (1996). Wilt avoidance in St. Augustinegrass germplasm. HortScience 31, 1135-1138. Cadmus Group. (2006). drinking wa ter infrastructure needs survey and assessment: Modeling the cost of infrastr ucture. Prepared for the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Camp, Dresser, and McKee (CDM). (1990). Reclaimed water system master plan. Prepared for the City of Boca Raton, Boca Raton, FL. Cardenas-Lailhacar, B., D ukes, M.D., and Miller, G.L. (2007). Sensor-based automation of irrigation on Bermudagra ss, during wet weather conditions. Journal of Irrigation an d Drainage Engineering. In press. Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection (FL DEP). (2006a). reuse inventory. Florida Department of E nvironmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Environmen tal Protection (FL DEP). (2006b). Permits, Chapter 62-4, Florida Administrative Code, Fl orida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Environmenta l Protection (FL DEP). (2006c). Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application Chapter 62-610, Florida Administrative Code, Florida Department of Enviro nmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Environmen tal Protection (FL DEP). (2006d). Surface Water Quality Standards Chapter 62-302, Florida Ad ministrative Code, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Environmenta l Protection (FL DEP). (2006e). Water Resource Implementation Rule Chapter 62-40, Florida Ad ministrative Code, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL.

PAGE 115

115 Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection (FL DEP). (2002). Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit for the C ity of Hollywood, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection Permit FL0026255, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Environmen tal Protection (FL DEP). (1991). Guidelines for preparation of reuse feasibility studies for applicants having responsibility for wastewater management Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Legislature. Water Resources Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Florida Legislature, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Legislature. Environmental Control Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, Florida Legislature, Tallahassee, FL. Haley, M.B., Dukes, M.D., and Miller, G. (2007 ). Residential irri gation water use in Central Florida. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering In press. Hazen and Sawyer. (2004). Reuse feasibili ty study. Prepared for the Broward County Office of Environmental Services, Pompano Beach, FL. Koopman, B., Heaney, J.P., Cakir, F.Y., Re mbold, M.D., Indeglia, P.A., and Kini, G. (2006). Ocean outfall study. Prepar ed for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Mayer, P.W., DeOreo, W.B., Optiz, E.M., Kiefer J.C., Davis, W.Y., Dziegielewski, B., and Nelson, J.O. (1999). Residential end uses of water American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Ameri can Water Works Association, Denver, CO. Mays, L.M. (2005). Water resources engineering, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Metcalf and Eddy. (2007). Water reuse: Issues, t echnologies, and applications McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan (PBS&J). (1992). Wastewater reuse feasibility study. Prepared for the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority Department, Miami, FL. Public Utility Management and Planning Se rvices and Hazen and Sawyer. (2001). facilities plan update amendmen t: Fiscal Year 2000 treatment plant improvement program, sanitary sewer progr am, and infiltration/inflow reduction program improvements. Prepared for the City of Hollywood, Hollywood, FL.

PAGE 116

116 Reuse Coordinating Committee (RCC) and th e Water Conservation Initiative Water Reuse Work Group. (2003). Water reuse for Florida: Strategies for effective use of reclaimed water. Florida Depa rtment of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Reuse Coordinating Committee (RCC). (1996). Guidelines for preparation of reuse feasibility studies for consumptive use permit applicants Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Sample, D.J., and Heaney, J.P. (2005). Int egrated management of irrigation and urban stormwater infiltration . Journal of Water Re sources Planning and Management 131(4), 307-315. Sample, D.J., Heaney, J.P., Wright, L.T., Fan, C.Y., Lai, F.H., and Field, R. (2003). Costs of best management practices a nd associated land for urban stormwater control. Journal of Water Resour ces Planning and Management, 129(1), 59-68. Southwest Florida Water Management Di strict (SWFWMD). (2003). Average reclaimed water flows and rates for reside ntial customers in Pinellas, Pasco, and Hillsborough County. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL. Swartz, J.S. (1999). LANDAP 98: A computer water balance model for the evaluation of slow-rate land application systems in Fl orida. Prepared for the Division of Water Facilities, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1993). Irrigation water requirements Chapter 2: National Engineering Handbook, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. United States Environmental Protec tion Agency (US EPA). (2004). Guidelines for water reuse United States Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. Whitcomb, J.B. (2005). Florida water ra tes evaluation of single-family homes. Prepared for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Northwest Florida Water Management District. Whittwer, J.W. (2004). Graphing a normal distribution in Excel. Available at http://vertex42.com/ExcelArticles/mc/Nor malDistribution-Excel.html. Accessed on March 30, 2007.

PAGE 117

117 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Matthew Rembold was born June 21, 1982, in th e Midwestern United States. He was born the son of two teachers and ther efore always had a thirst for knowledge. He attended public school in Steubenville, Ohioa small town to the west of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. After graduation from high school in 2000, Matt decide d to study in the Civil and Environmental Engineering program at the University of Cincinnati. Matt enjoyed his time in the Queen City. He flourished in the engineering program and met some lifelong friends. He participated in the co-op program, in which he had the opportunity to apply the engineeri ng knowledge he learned in school to real world applications. He worked at Kleingers and Associates, a land de velopment consulting firm, for four years while attending school. His interest fo r water resources grew while wo rking for the engineering firm and by participating in several different classes. On the advice of family and professors, he looked into furthering his education. After graduating in 2005, Matt d ecided to attend the University of Florida where he was given the opportunity to work with Dr. James P. Heaney. He grew academically as well as professionally in his two years in Gainesville. He had the chan ce to work on several water reuse projects. At the same time, he met some incr edible people and also had the chance to enjoy several championships from the football and basket ball teams. He hopes to take his experiences and the qualities of those he has met with him into the professional world, while at the same time never losing his drive to increase his knowledge.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020149/00001

Material Information

Title: The Feasibility of Water Reuse in Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020149:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020149/00001

Material Information

Title: The Feasibility of Water Reuse in Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020149:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





THE FEASIBILITY OF WATER REUSE IN FLORIDA


By

MATTHEW DAVID REMBOLD














A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007


































2007 Matthew D. Rembold









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my committee chair and advisor, Dr. James P. Heaney. Dr.

Heaney provided a learning and a working environment that made it possible to succeed. He

challenged me to produce the best work possible. At the same time, he always provided the

encouragement needed to help me get through some tough spots. His enthusiasm for anything he

did was contagious. I am extremely thankful to him for the opportunity to come to the

University of Florida and for everything he has provided me during my time here. I hope to take

many of his qualities with me outside of school.

I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Koopman and Dr. Sansalone. I

have had the pleasure of learning from both. In addition, I had the chance to work extensively

with Dr. Koopman. I thank him for always challenging me and for his patience. I also thank Dr.

Sansalone for always taking the time to meet with me when I needed it.

I would also like to express thanks to Dr. David York from the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection for the opportunity to work with him on two separate projects and his

invaluable insight during these tasks. In addition, I acknowledge Donna Rickabus from the

South Florida Water Management District, Lisa Self from the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, and Andy King from the University of Florida's Institute of Food and

Agricultural Sciences for providing me with the data needed to complete this thesis.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family for always placing a high value

in education. I would particularly like to thank my parents, Rob and Karen, and my sister,

Megan, for providing me with all of their support and encouragement over the years. I would

not be where I am today without them.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ...............................................................................................................3

LIST OF TA BLES ....................... ....................................................... 6

LIST O F FIG U RE S ................................................................. 8

ABSTRAC T ................................................... ............... 10

CHAPTER

S IN T R O D U C T IO N .......................................................................................... .................... 12

2 WATER REUSE IN SOUTHEAST FLORIDA................................................................14

Introduction and B background ........................................................................ ...................14
C current R ules and G guidelines ............................................................................... ..... .... 16
Identifying Potential Users of Reclaimed Water ..................................... ...............18
Consum ptive U se Perm it D atabases.................................................................... ...... 19
Potential for Reuse in Southeast Florida ........................................ ...... ............... 22
Determining the Optimal Amount of Reuse to Provide ..................................................23
North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Case Study.............................................24
The Relationship between Distance and Feasibility................................ ..............27
Sum m ary and C onclu sions .......................................................................... .....................30

3 STORAGE IN RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEMS IN FLORIDA.................. .............47

In tro d u ctio n ................... ...................4...................7..........
C u rre n t R u le s ..........................................................................................................4 7
L A N D A P .............. .... ...............................................................4 8
D iu rn al S to rag e ............................... ............. ..........................................5 0
Previous W ork .......... ..... .............................................................................................51
H ourly W after B balance .............. ................................................................. ......... 52
S ea so n al S to rag e ................................ ............. .........................................5 5
P reviou s W ork .............. ...................................................................................55
D aily Sim ulation ............................................................................ 56
B est M anagem ent Practices ......................................... ............................... 60
Irrig atio n P ra ctic e s..................................................................................................... 6 0
Effective precipitation .............. ......... ......... ........63
R liability .................. ....... .. .................................................................................66
Storage require ents to increase reliability ........................................ ............ 67
Meters and Volume-Based Rates ................................................69
Providing Storage at Customer's Site ....... ................................ ..70
Sum m ary and C onclu sion s ............................................................................................... 70



4









4 SU M M ARY AN D CON CLU SION S ............................................................ ....................81

APPENDIX

A INDIVIDUAL UNIT COSTS FOR WATER REUSE SYSTEMS............... ..... ..............85

B D A IL Y SIM U L A T IO N ......... ...... ........... ................. ......................................................87

C W E EK L Y SIM U L A TIO N ................................................................... ............................105

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... ................. ..................................... ..................... ............... 114

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ....... ........ ...... .............117









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Percent of wastewater reused in Southeast Florida.............. ................... .................32

2-2 Summary of 2003 flows for the six ocean outfall facilities................ ...... ............32

2-3 Reuse alternatives and reclaimed water flows for North Regional service area...............32

2-4 Treatment costs for the six options. ............................................................................32

2-5 Storage and land costs for the six options................................... ........................ ......... 33

2-6 Transmission and distribution and indirect costs for the six options.............................33

2-7 Operation and maintenance costs for the six options .....................................................33

2-8 Total present value, annual costs, and daily costs for the six options. ...........................33

2-9 C ost savings for the six options. ............................................................. .....................34

2-10 W after system costs in Florida. ............................................. .........................................34

2-11 Present and annual costs for the Moderate Reuse Alternative.........................................35

2-12 Marginal costs for the Moderate Reuse Alternative. ................................. ...............36

3-1 Irrigable area and daily and hourly demand. ........................................ ............... 73

3-2 D iurnal storage analy sis ........................................................................... .................... 73

3-3 Storage requirements based on time interval used for the 10,000-acre case study............73

3-4 Effective precipitation for various evapotranspiration and total precipitation values
using soil w ater storage factor of 0.72. ........................................................................74

3-5 Statistics of the four cases using average weekly data ...............................................74

3-6 Reliabilities of the four cases using average weekly data............................ ............74

A R euse treatm ent expansion costs. ........................................................... .....................85

A-2 Transmission system unit construction costs................................................ 85

A -3 O operation and m maintenance costs............................................. .............................. 85

A-4 M miscellaneous costs. ..................................... ... .. .......... ...... ....... 85









B -l D aily storage sim ulation. ......................................................................... ....................87

C-1 Total weekly data ............... .................................................... 105

C -2 A average w weekly data ......................................................................................... ......108

C-3 Irrigation volumes required for the four cases............................................................. 110

C-4 Storage sim ulation for Case 2. ........................................................................... ..... 112









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p e

2-1 Florida's W ater Resource Caution Areas. ................................................. ............... 37

2-2 Countyw ide irrigation dem and. ............................................... .............................. 37

2-3 Consumptive use permit holders with demands greater than 0.05 MGD in Palm
B each C county ........................................................ .................. 38

2-4 Consumptive use permit holders with demands greater than 0.05 MGD in Broward
C ou nty ................... ........................................................... ................ 3 9

2-5 Consumptive use permit holders with demands greater than 0.05 MGD in Miami-
D ade C county ........................................................... ................. 40

2-6 Potential water reuse in service areas and reuse districts. ............................................41

2-7 Distribution of distance of large users from wastewater treatment plant. .......................41

2-8 Cumulative daily demand versus metropolitan distance. .............................................42

2-9 Proposed North Regional reuse system ........................................ ....................... 43

2-10 Daily cost versus reclaimed water flow. ........................................ ......................... 44

2-11 M marginal cost curve............ ....................................... ....44

2-12 Daily costs and benefits versus reclaimed water flow ............................................. 45

2-13 Cost function for the Moderate Reuse Alternative. ................................ .................45

2-14 Cumulative daily demand versus metropolitan distance with potential cut-offs ..............46

2-15 Current and potential reclaimed water flow ........................... .. ................. ............... 46

3-1 D iurnal supply and dem and. ..................................................................... ...................75

3-2 Typical seasonal patterns of reclaimed water supply and irrigation demand in
F lorid a .......................................................... .................................. 7 5

3-3 Effect of reclaimed water utilization on storage required ..............................................76

3-4 Differences in storage volume required depending on time interval used.......................76

3-5 Effect of not meeting irrigation demands on damage to St. Augustinegrass...................77

3-6 Effect of soil water storage on the soil water storage factor............................................77









3-7 Irrigation demand for the four cases based on average weekly data. .............................78

3-8 Illustration of reliability determ nation ................................................. ....................79

3-9 Reliability versus volume of reclaimed water storage provided for Case 2 ...................80

3-10 Potable quality water demands as a function of potable quality water rates ...................80









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering

THE FEASIBILITY OF WATER REUSE IN FLORIDA

By

Matthew David Rembold

May 2007

Chair: James P. Heaney
Major: Environmental Engineering Sciences

Several methodologies were developed to better define the feasibility of implementing a

reuse project. The methods were conceived by conducting several case studies within Southeast

Florida. These techniques can enhance current guidelines that are in place to determine the

feasibility of such projects. These methodologies are relevant for wastewater managers, water

supply utilities, and large users of water that are required to determine project practicality under

current Florida laws and Florida Department of Environmental Protection rules.

Two issues water planners face in implementing reuse systems are the identification of

potential demand for reclaimed water and the amount to provide given economic constraints. A

case study in Southeast Florida yielded a method to effectively identify potential users and their

demands. The utilization of consumptive use permits found upwards of 17 MGD of potable

quality water that could be substituted with reclaimed water.

Current guidelines dictate that water planners identify different reuse alternatives based on

defined percentages of reclaimed water utilization rates and their associated costs. The reuse

alternatives are then compared to the no action alternative. Instead, a method was developed in

which all of the reuse alternatives are considered together and compared with the benefits of

providing reclaimed water. This method will determine the optimal amount of reuse to provide.









A case study was conducted in the Pompano Beach area, in which after finding the costs of

several different levels of reuse, it was concluded that approximately 26 MGD of reuse could be

provided while considering economic constraints.

Providing reclaimed water storage is not only an important aspect in planning for a reuse

system, but also has a major effect on the feasibility of a project. Diurnal and seasonal storage

patterns were examined. A method is presented in which the optimal amount of storage was

found in order to meet reclaimed water demands as compared to the supply. The use of these

techniques can result in a significant cost savings by more accurately modeling the storage

needs.

The results of the seasonal storage analysis determined that the time interval is a

significant factor in determining storage requirements. Studies have shown that a weekly time

interval will not produce any adverse effects on Florida turf and therefore provides the

appropriate time step for estimating the volume of storage to provide.

Finally, best management practices from the customer and utility points of view were

examined. It was determined that if the customer initiates an irrigation practice in which

historical evapotranspiration and precipitation data are taken into account, the demands of the

reuse system are reduced, the reliability increases, and the need for storage decreases. This has a

significant impact on whether a project is economically feasible. Additionally, the introduction

of meters and volume-based rates affect feasibility.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The conservation of Florida's water resources is vital to the livelihood of the state.

Florida, one of the fastest growing states in the country, relies on a finite source of potable

quality water to meet the needs of its citizens. In response, Florida has made it a state objective

to reuse reclaimed water. The State is one of the national leaders in this field and has enacted

several laws and rules requiring the implementation of reuse if it is feasible. Current guidelines

pertaining to the determination of feasibility of employing reuse were examined and

strengthened through two projects.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection first tasked the University of Florida

to develop alternatives to disposing treated effluent through ocean outfalls in the southeastern

portion of the state. Water reuse for public access activities, such as landscape and agricultural

irrigation and industrial uses, were among the alternatives considered. In order to enhance

current guidelines, a methodology that allows water planners to identify large users of potable

quality water that could possibly be suited for reclaimed water needed to be developed. In

addition, a technique to determine the optimal amount of reuse to provide would offer a means to

better determine the feasibility of initiating these projects.

After the initial reuse project, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection asked

the University of Florida to examine their current guidelines and develop a refined document that

was to be used by any entity required to determine the feasibility of implementing a reuse

project. This document was to import the methodologies developed during the original project,

but also allowed the University of Florida to modify and/or expand on other topics as

appropriate. Current guidelines for determining feasibility address storage of reclaimed water

minimally. Provision of diurnal and seasonal storage increases the supply capacity of the reuse









system. Best management practices, such as using soil moisture sensors for irrigation systems,

can reduce the demand for reclaimed water. Methods need to be developed to show how utilities

can determine storage requirements and overall system reliability.

The aim of this study was to develop methodologies that can be added to current guidelines

pertaining to the feasibility of providing reuse. Techniques to identify large water users,

methods to define an optimal amount of reuse to provide, and the relationship between storage

and best management practices to reuse feasibility were examined. The methodologies were

developed by examining case studies in Southeast Florida, but can be applied elsewhere in the

State of Florida or in other areas.









CHAPTER 2
WATER REUSE IN SOUTHEAST FLORIDA

Introduction and Background

The State of Florida is recognized as a national leader in water reuse (RCC et al. 2003).

The reuse of reclaimed water is encouraged and promoted as state objectives in Sections 403.064

and 373.250 of the Florida Statutes (Florida Legislature). The State currently reuses 660 million

gallons per day (MGD) of reclaimed water and has set a goal of reusing one billion gallons per

day by the year 2010 (FL DEP 2006a; US EPA 2004). The 660 MGD of reuse represents 41%

of Florida's current domestic wastewater. By the year 2020, Florida is expected to reclaim and

reuse 65% of its domestic wastewater (FL DEP 2006a). At the same time, Florida's reuse

capacity has increased significantly in the past twenty years. As of 2005, 465 domestic

wastewater facilities with a permitted capacity of 0.1 MGD or greater have made reclaimed

water available for reuse (FL DEP 2006a). The total reuse capacity associated with these

facilities is 1,325 MGD (FL DEP 2006a).

The implementation of reuse systems varies widely among Florida's sixty-seven counties.

Florida's three most populous counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach, are located in

the southeast portion of the state. These counties constitute approximately 30% of the state's

total population and generate approximately 40% of the state's domestic wastewater (FL DEP

2006a). In addition, population in these three counties is growing at a rapid rate. The increasing

population and the fact that Florida's public water suppliers depend on finite ground waters for

90% of their total supply causes concern regarding the sustainability of this resource (RCC et al.

2003). Some areas within this region are projected to experience water shortages by 2020 and

will have to seek new potable quality water supplies (Koopman et al. 2006). However, as of

2005, Miami-Dade and Broward Counties ranked in the bottom twelve counties by reusing only









6% and 5% of their domestic wastewater, respectively (RCC et al. 2003). Overall, the combined

amount of reclaimed water in these two counties account for 5% of the state's 660 MGD reuse

flow (FL DEP 2006a). A summary of the 2005 reuse statistics for the three counties is given in

Table 2-1.

Six wastewater treatment facilities within the three-county area currently dispose of 290

MGD of treated effluent via ocean outfalls (FL DEP 2006a). This water could be reclaimed to

meet a significant part of the water demand and prevent negative environmental impacts

associated with ocean disposal. In order to prevent detrimental effects, the Florida Department

of Environmental Protection is considering increasing the treatment standards on effluent

discharge to ocean outfalls from secondary treatment with basic disinfection to intermediate or

full nutrient control with basic disinfection.

The continuing increase in Florida's population, particularly in the three southeast

counties, the current disposal methods, and the potential to substitute reclaimed water for potable

quality water for irrigation and industrial applications make the region an excellent case study for

water reuse. This chapter will explore the six facilities which currently dispose of treated

effluent through ocean outfalls:

* The South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Delray Beach

* The Glades Road Wastewater Treatment Plant in Boca Raton

* The North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pompano Beach

* The Southern Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Hollywood

* The Miami-Dade North District Wastewater Treatment Plant in North Miami

* The Miami-Dade Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant on Virginia Key

A breakdown of these facilities and their current flows is presented in Table 2-2. This

chapter will first review the current rules that require utilities and large water users to determine









whether a reuse project is technically, environmentally, and economically feasible and the

current guidelines that aid in this determination. A methodology for determining the identities,

locations, and demands of potential large users of reclaimed water using readily available

information will then be introduced. The methodology will be presented for those users with

large demands in Southeast Florida, but can be expanded to other areas in the state. Finally, an

approach for optimizing the reclaimed water system size in relation to economic constraints will

be presented.

Current Rules and Guidelines

In order to fulfill Florida's objective of encouraging and promoting water conservation and

the reuse of reclaimed water, several laws have been enacted that require domestic wastewater

facilities, potable quality water supply facilities, and end-users of potable quality water to

evaluate the feasibility of providing or using reclaimed water. Under Section 403.064, Florida

Statutes and Rule 62-40, Florida Administrative Code, domestic wastewater facilities located

within, serving a population within, or discharging within a water resource caution area are

required to determine the feasibility of implementing reuse (Florida Legislature; FL DEP 2006e).

Water resource caution areas, as shown in Figure 2-1, have been identified by local water

management districts under Florida's Reuse Program as areas in which water resource problems

are projected to develop over the next twenty years. The Florida Department of Environmental

Protection applies the Antidegradation Policy, contained in Chapters 62-4 and 62-302, Florida

Administrative Code, to those wastewater utilities currently not within a water resource caution

area (FL DEP 2006b, 2006d). Under this rule, wastewater utilities seeking a new or expanded

surface water discharge permit must show the feasibility of providing reuse. In addition, Rule

62-40, F.A.C. requires that water supply utilities and other consumptive use permit holders









statewide evaluate the technical, environmental, and economic feasibility of implementing a

reuse project (FL DEP 2006e).

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, under Rule 62-610, F.A.C., requires

those responsible for evaluating the feasibility of reuse to follow one of two published guidelines

(FL DEP 2006c):

* Guidelines for Preparation of Reuse Feasibility Studies for Domestic Wastewater Facilities
(FL DEP 1991). This also includes provisions for combined wastewater and water
facilities.

* Guidelines for Preparation of Reuse Feasibility Studies for Consumptive Use Permit
Applicants (RCC 1996). Currently water supply utilities with consumptive use permits
currently follow these guidelines.

The feasibility studies must include evaluations of different alternatives for water reuse,

with assessment of technical constraints, environmental impacts, and present values for each

alternative. The current Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1991) Guidelines for

wastewater facilities prescribe that the following four alternatives be evaluated:

* No Action current level of reuse

* Minimal Reuse less than 40% of the average annual daily wastewater flow

* Medium Reuse 40 to 75% of the average annual daily wastewater flow

* Maximum Reuse greater than 75% of the average annual daily wastewater flow

In order to determine technical and economical feasibility, the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (1991) methodology requires the use of a net present value analysis, in

which all costs associated with a reuse project that will be incurred over a twenty-year study

period be expressed in current dollars using the discount rate published by the Federal

government for water resource projects. The costs that are considered include capital costs for

wastewater treatment, transmission costs to transport reclaimed water to the end users, and

operation and maintenance costs of these systems. A contingency allowance is also prescribed.









The cost of facilities to pump and store the reclaimed water are included in the capital costs. The

guidelines consider the value of treatment facilities already in operation as sunk costs. Salvage

and replacement values are determined using the straight-line depreciation method. Revenues

from the sale of reclaimed water, connection fees, crops produced, and the lease of lands are

considered in the net present value analysis.

The initial present value is then compared to an adjusted present value. The adjusted value

takes into account the value of potable quality water saved by implementing a reuse system. The

potable quality water usage for a reuse alternative is subtracted from the potable quality water

usage for the no action alternative. This flow is multiplied by the average residential potable

quality water rate to quantify the annual benefit, which is converted to a present value on the

basis of project duration and discount rate. The present value of the potable quality water

savings is subtracted from the original present value to give the adjusted present value.

Identifying Potential Users of Reclaimed Water

An essential step in implementing a reuse system is identifying users that could potentially

supplant part of or all of their current potable quality water supply with reclaimed water.

Metcalf and Eddy (2007) describe the four important characteristics of major water users to

consider when planning a reuse system as:

* The quantity of reclaimed water required

* The physical location of the major water users

* The operating schedule of reclaimed water use

* The required operating pressures

The methodology presented in this chapter directly addresses the first two characteristics

and indirectly aids in the identification of the final two attributes. Southeast Florida is utilized as









a case study. A methodology to identify those candidates that are particularly attractive as

reclaimed water customers is also presented.

Consumptive Use Permit Databases

Consumptive use permits allow a user to withdraw a specified amount of potable quality

water. These permits are typically compiled into a database and are available from most of the

water management districts.

Consumptive use permit databases contain a wealth of information, although the amount of

data varies depending on the water management district. These databases will typically contain,

at a minimum, the project name and permit number, the project's land use, the acreage of the

project, and the annual allocation of potable quality water. The databases also contain

geographic coordinates that can be plotted using a geographic information system (GIS)

program. Analysis of data from these permits enables effective identification of potable quality

water users that can substitute reclaimed water for potable quality water.

In order to identify potential users in Southeast Florida, consumptive use permit data were

obtained from the South Florida Water Management District. Attention was focused on the

permit holders located within or near the service areas of the six wastewater treatment facilities

that discharge to ocean outfalls.

The database was first arranged by land use. The specification of land use aids in the

estimation of operating schedules and pressure requirements. Six types of land uses were

initially analyzed from the South Florida Water Management District data: golf courses,

landscaped areas, agricultural areas, aquaculture areas, nurseries, and industrial users. The study

focused on golf courses and landscaped areas, as they constitute a large proportion of the permit

holders and tend to be located closer in distance to the wastewater treatment plants. The

demands of these users are fairly constant as they use between 40 and 50 inches of water









annually. Industrial and agricultural uses also represent attractive reuse alternatives statewide.

However, the demands for these applications must be identified on a case by case basis.

The remaining golf and landscape areas were arranged by daily allocation. A golf course

or landscaped area was considered a "large user" if its demand was 0.05 MGD or higher. Urban

users with demands of 0.05 MGD or more comprised 80-90% of the total consumptive use

permit demand in each of the three counties.

Golf courses and landscaped areas within the urban areas of Palm Beach, Broward, and

Miami-Dade Counties are summarized in Figure 2-2. The number of golf courses with

consumptive use permits varies widely, ranging from 98 for Palm Beach County to 26 for

Miami-Dade County, and totals 164 for the three counties. Water use per golf course is fairly

consistent across the three service areas, averaging 0.47 MGD. The total water demand for golf

courses is 77.5 MGD, with Palm Beach County accounting for 47.9 MGD of this total. The 396

landscape large users have a total demand of 70.2 MGD, with an average demand of about 0.18

MGD per user. Palm Beach and Broward Counties account for 35.4 and 30.4 MGD,

respectively, of this amount. The total demand for all large users is 148 MGD. Palm Beach

County accounts for 83.3 MGD of this total.

The large users were then entered into a GIS program along with the service areas of the

six wastewater treatment plants that use ocean outfalls, as can be seen in Figures 2-3 through 2-5.

The service areas were described in reuse feasibility studies for the South Central Regional

Wastewater Treatment Plant (Brown and Caldwell 1995), the Glades Road Wastewater

Treatment Plant (CDM 1990), the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (Hazen and

Sawyer 2004), the Hollywood Wastewater Treatment Plant (Public Utility Management and









Planning Services and Hazen and Sawyer 2001), and the Miami-Dade North and Central

Districts Wastewater Treatment Plants (PBS&J 1992).

The large users were then categorized according to their location. The first category

included users that are located within the service areas of the six wastewater treatment plants

under consideration, with two exceptions. The Town of Davie and Cooper City in Broward

County were considered part of the Hollywood Wastewater Treatment Plant service area.

According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2002), these two areas send

wastewater to the Hollywood Wastewater Treatment Plant. Similarly, Boynton Beach in Palm

Beach County was included as part of the Boynton-Delray Wastewater Treatment Plant (Brown

and Caldwell 1995).

The next category of large users included those lying outside these service areas, but still

within areas that could be potentially served with reclaimed water. These outlying areas are

typically fulfilling their daily demand through individual wells; however, upcoming legislation

could limit the availability of this water source. In addition, current laws require these

consumptive use permit holders to implement reuse if it is practical (FL DEP 2006e). An area

was considered as a possible annexation target for water reuse provided that it did not lie within

the service area of another wastewater treatment plant. The expanded service areas can be seen

as parts of Figures 2-3 through 2-5. Palm Beach County has several users in this outlying area

that are candidates to receive reclaimed water. Broward County has fewer expansion candidates

because there are several other wastewater treatment plants in this area. The service areas of the

two Miami-Dade Wastewater Treatment Plants encompass all large users. The expanded service

areas coupled with the originally defined service area are called reuse districts.









The potential large users located within the service area and within the reuse districts for

the six wastewater treatment plants with ocean outfalls are summarized in Figure 2-6. The first

row shows the number of large users and their corresponding demands within each of the six

service areas. The service areas for the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Broward

County and the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Delray Beach include the

greatest amount of large users. The next row gives the number of large users and reclaimed

water demand for the expanded service areas. The two service areas within Palm Beach County

have the greatest potential for reuse by expansion. The South Central Regional Wastewater

Treatment Plant could add a possible 50 users by expanding its service area, followed by the

Glades Road Wastewater Treatment Plant with a potential of 41 additional users. The two plants

in Broward County are surrounded by other wastewater treatment plants and therefore have

lesser potential. The Miami-Dade North and Central Districts Wastewater Treatment Plants have

no expansion potential as their combined service area encompasses all consumptive use permit

holders.

Potential for Reuse in Southeast Florida

Large users occupy 18% of the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant reuse district

in Broward County, which consists of the defined service area plus the expanded area. Palm

Beach County has the second largest proportion of large users; 13% of the reuse districts of the

South Central Regional and Glades Road Wastewater Treatment Plants are occupied by large

users. In contrast, only 5% of the reuse district of the Hollywood Wastewater Treatment Plant is

occupied by large users. The reuse districts of the two wastewater treatment plants in Miami-

Dade County that are under consideration have the lowest proportion of large users-

approximately 2%.









Large users are located randomly throughout the reuse districts, as evident by Figure 2-7.

The histogram shows a breakdown of distance from the wastewater treatment plant for all large

users in the three-county area under consideration.

The cumulative average demand of the large users, as given by permit data, was then

plotted versus metropolitan distance1 from the large users' respective wastewater treatment

plants, as seen in Figure 2-8. The reuse districts served by the South Central Regional, Glades

Road, and the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plants have much higher increments of

water demand per mile than the districts served by the other three facilities.

The slopes of the lines (MGD/mile) in Figure 2-8 fall into two groups. The cumulative

demand of large users within ten miles of the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment

Plant is 20 MGD. Cumulative demands for the reuse districts around the Glades Road and North

Regional Wastewater Treatment Plants have similar slopes. In contrast, the cumulative demand

of large users within ten miles of the Hollywood Wastewater Treatment Plant is only 3 MGD, or

15% of the South Central Regional value. Similar relationships are seen for reuse districts

around the Miami-Dade North and Central Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Accordingly, the

more promising opportunities for water reuse are in Palm Beach County and northern Broward

County. The determination of the actual amount of reuse to provide for the six wastewater

treatment plant reuse districts is decided during an economic feasibility analysis.

Determining the Optimal Amount of Reuse to Provide

This section presents a methodology to identify the optimal amount of reuse to provide by

identifying the costs associated with the reuse project alone and comparing it to the potable

quality water savings. The proposed methodology is then applied to one of the six wastewater



1 Distance measured in the directions of the street grid.









service areas in Southeast Florida. Finally, conclusions are drawn from this service district

throughout the other five service areas.

North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Case Study

A case study was conducted on the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in

Broward County. This was a particularly attractive area to analyze as the feasibility study

conducted by Hazen and Sawyer (2004) was thorough and gave excellent cost estimating data.

This methodology follows the 1991 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Guidelines

for cost estimating and present value analysis, with a few notable exceptions. First, the number

of alternatives analyzed is increased in order to more accurately determine the optimal amount of

reuse to provide. Also, salvage and replacement and revenues were not taken into account.

Instead of using the specified percentages of average annual wastewater flow as the 1991

Guidelines prescribe, the net present value was determined for a variety of reuse percentages.

The addition of more points along a net cost function graph will show to what degree an option is

cost effective. The following list describes the six different reuse alternatives identified:

* No Action the current amount of reuse provided by the wastewater treatment plant as
determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report

* Low large users, as determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report, are identified to
increase reuse production to the wastewater treatment plant's capacity

* Moderate large users to the north of the facility, as determined by the Hazen and Sawyer
(2004) report, are selected and will cause the reuse capacity of the wastewater treatment
plant to expand

* Medium large users to the north and west of the facility, as determined by the Hazen and
Sawyer (2004) report, are selected and will cause the reuse capacity of the wastewater
treatment plant to expand

* High expands the reuse system to serve all large users within the wastewater treatment
plant's service area, including those determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report as
well as those identified in the consumptive use permit database analysis. In addition, a
portion of the residential group identified by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report was
included.









* Maximum expands the reuse system to serve all large users within the wastewater
treatment plant's service area, including those determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004)
report as well as those identified in the consumptive use permit database analysis. In
addition, a group of residential customers, as identified by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004)
report were included.

Table 2-3 lists these reuse alternatives and their corresponding flows.

After the large users and their corresponding flows were determined, the information from

the consumptive use permit database in the GIS program aided in the determination of the reuse

network. The GIS program was used to estimate the lengths and locations of transmission and

distribution lines. The estimated location of the reuse network is illustrated in Figure 2-9.

The capital costs determined in this project include the cost to expand the capacity of the

reuse facility, the cost to pump the water on-site and throughout the reuse network, the cost of

storage tanks, if needed, along with booster stations throughout the service area, the cost of

transmission and distribution lines required to provide the demand, and land costs. A

contingency was added to all capital costs, except that for land. The cost estimating data used

were obtained from the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report and are listed in Appendix A. In

addition, the size of transmission and distribution components and quantity of storage tanks were

determined by the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report. Tables 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7 show the

corresponding costs for treatment, storage and land, transmission and distribution, and operation

and maintenance, respectively. It was assumed that land is to be leased and that it will hold its

value over time (Sample et al. 2003). Therefore, the annual cost of the lease was calculated as

the investment cost multiplied by the discount rate. The present value of the land lease was

determined by multiplying the annual cost by the capital recovery factor.

All costs in 2004 dollars were added, and were converted to 2005 dollars using the

Engineering News Record index. The present value over the twenty-year period was calculated

in Table 2-8 using a 7% discount rate. This present value can then be converted to a daily cost









and plotted versus flow rate in thousands of gallons per day. The resulting graph, shown as

Figure 2-10, has an excellent coefficient of determination (R2) when a power function is fit to the

data.

The resulting power function was found to be:

C = 0.00000583623Q2 24859 (2-1)

where C equals total daily costs and Q equals flow in thousand of gallons per day.

The derivative of this total cost function gives the marginal cost curve, as seen in Equation

2-2.

MC = ab Qb (2-2)
aQ

Using the parameters from the total cost function, i.e., a = 5.83623 E-06 and b=2.24859,

the equation for the marginal cost is

MC = 1.29901E 05 Q124859 (2-3)

where MC = marginal cost, $/1,000 gallons, and Q = demand in 1,000 gallons/day.

The marginal cost curve is shown in Figure 2-11. In economics parlance, the marginal cost

curve is the supply curve. Customers who decrease irrigation demand on the central water

system save an estimated $4.04 per 1,000 gallons in 2002 dollars, or $4.58 per 1,000 gallons in

2005 dollars. Thus, the optimal amount of reuse to provide corresponds to the intersection of the

marginal benefit and the supply curves, or in this case approximately 26.5 MGD. If user savings

are $2.00 per 1,000 gallons, then the optimal amount is about 14 MGD. Similarly, if the user

savings are $6.00 per 1,000 gallons, then the optimal amount of reuse is about 34 MGD. The use

of intermediate data points allows these total and marginal cost curves to be generated more

accurately.









Another, and equivalent, way to evaluate the benefits and costs is to look at total values.

The total daily benefits and costs are presented in Table 2-9. Present values of potable quality

water rates for customers within the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant are identified

in the Hazen and Sawyer (2004) report. If total values are used, then the objective function is to

maximize total benefits minus total costs. If the value of water reuse is $4.58 per 1,000 gallons,

then the total benefits of reuse exceed the total costs over the entire range of flows. However,

the best solution is where net benefits are maximized. For the indicated data, this occurs at

approximately 30 MGD. Using the fitted equation, as was done for the marginal cost analysis,

the actual optimal amount turns out to be 26.2 MGD.

However, public utilities typically seek to break even rather than maximizing net revenues,

that is, the daily benefits equaling the daily costs. As evident in Table 2-9, additional reuse flow

can be added until this situation occurs. Daily costs and daily benefits are plotted as a function

of flow in Figure 2-12. If the two regression lines are set equal to one another, the total flow to

satisfy a break-even condition is 52.6 MGD. This value should be used with caution, however.

If additional residential users are added to achieve this optimal flow, the costs will exceed the

benefits before 52.6 MGD, as the transmission and distribution costs required are greater for

residential reuse applications.

The Relationship between Distance and Feasibility

By looking at the analysis thus far, it can be seen that transmission costs, and therefore,

distance away from the wastewater treatment plant plays a vital role in determining whether a

user should be considered for reuse. This is confirmed in a study by the Cadmus Group (2006)

which showed that transmission lines account for a large percentage of the total costs for water

systems. The findings of the study are summarized in Table 2-10.









The users and their corresponding demands are spread throughout the North Regional

Wastewater Treatment Plant service area. However at $2.87 per thousand gallons to provide

reclaimed water for the Medium alternative, water reuse is considered quite attractive in spite of

the distance from the wastewater treatment plant. It can also be seen from Figure 2-9 that while

some users may be at larger distances from the wastewater treatment plant, they tend to be

grouped together.

An analysis was conducted on the Moderate reuse alternative, which consists of a group of

large users located to the north of the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Broward

County, in order to determine the effect of distance on marginal costs. The same methodology

described before was used in this analysis. The expansion of the reuse distribution network

along with the present and annual values can be seen in Table 2-11. The flows shown in this

table are the cumulative total flows and the large users are arranged in increasing distance from

the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.

A total cost function can again be plotted using daily costs versus flow in thousands of

gallons per day as shown in Figure 2-13.

The power function fit to this equation is shown in Equation 2-4.

C = 0.0000108498Q222477 (2-4)

The marginal costs for each expanded segment of the distribution network can then be

calculated by taking the derivative of this total cost function. The resulting marginal cost

equation is shown as Equation 2-5.

MC = 0.000024138Q1 22477 (2-5)

The marginal costs at the various distances are shown in Table 2-12. They range from

$0.90 to $2.41 per thousand gallons at a distance of 13.9 miles. Distances are measured using









the metropolitan metric to more accurately represent that pipeline would follow north-south and

east-west pathways. Marginal costs increase with metropolitan distance from the wastewater

treatment plant. However, due to the density of large users in this area, there are certain places

where marginal cost remains relatively constant as distance increases. The large user is

considered more attractive to serve with reclaimed water if it is surrounded by other large users

that can share the costs of the system.

In order to extrapolate the results of the North Regional case study to the other five reuse

districts, a distance of twelve miles from the wastewater treatment plant was used as a

conservative cut-off. The twelve-mile cut-off is based on the marginal cost curve of Figure 2-11

for the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The case study found that the benefits of

using water reuse were $4.58 per thousand gallons. If the benefits of using public access reuse

were higher, as is the case in other counties, the optimal amount of flow would be greater, and

the twelve-mile cut-off would be extended.

The cumulative daily demand versus distance from the wastewater treatment plant graph

(Figure 2-8) for all six reuse districts is used in the extrapolation. The South Central Regional,

Glades Road, and North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plants exhibit high flow per mile

values. In addition, all of the large users could be reached with a transmission line that was less

than twelve miles in length. Therefore, all of the large users identified in these service areas

were determined to be feasible for reuse. Several large users in the remaining three reuse

districts went beyond twelve miles, as seen in Figure 2-14. Therefore, the highest flow per mile

value was found near this twelve-mile mark, and the users outside this mark were considered

infeasible and were excluded. Figure 2-15 shows the demand for users that were considered

feasible for reclaimed water service.









Summary and Conclusions

A methodology is presented for determining the potential users of reclaimed water within a

reuse district and to aid in the determination of the important characteristics necessary in

planning a reuse distribution network, including the quantity demanded, the location, operating

schedules, and operating pressures required. The current Florida Department of Environmental

Protection (1991) guidance document offers no guidance in this determination.

This chapter also presented a method for determining the optimal amount of reuse to

provide. The North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant's reuse district was analyzed using

the general concepts within the current guidelines. However, instead of determining the present

value for each reuse alternative, the methodology took it a step further and looked at the costs for

all the reuse alternatives and calculated the supply curve for the region. The supply curve was

then compared to the benefits associated with the alternatives and the optimal amount of reuse

was determined. A similar method for comparing the costs and benefits of all reuse alternatives

on one chart is also presented. Additionally, the effect of distance from the source of reclaimed

water on costs was explored.

The described methodology presented can be applied statewide and elsewhere. The

method of finding potential large users is extremely helpful in the planning stages, and the use of

a GIS program will also aid in estimating transmission length requirements. Each region should

work through the economic analysis. The optimal system radius is likely to vary depending on

facility location; therefore, the twelve mile distance found to be optimum for Southeast Florida

should not be assumed to be optimal elsewhere.

In working through the feasibility analysis portion, several other methods could be

developed to add to current guidelines. Storage is a very important concept that not only affects

the economic analysis, but also affects the reliability of the system. In addition, there are best









management practices on both the consumer and utility side that should be explored in order to

better determine the demands of the system. These concepts will be explored further in the

following chapter.









Table 2-1. Percent of wastewater reused in Southeast Florida (Adapted from FL DEP 2006a).
County Population Reuse rank Reuse flow Percent of
rank (gallons/day/ wastewater
person) reused
Miami-Dade 1 56 7.82 6
Broward 2 60 5.91 5
Palm Beach 3 36 25.77 26

Table 2-2. Summary of 2003 flows for the six ocean outfall facilities (Adapted from Koopman
et al. 2006).
Facility name Total Ocean Reuse Reuse
treated outfall design flow
flow flow capacity (MGD)
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
South Central Regional 16.6 12.3 10.0 4.3
Glades Road 16.3 10.7 9.0 5.6
North Regional 69.8 36.5 10.0 4.5
Southern Regional 42.1 39.5 4.0 2.6
Miami-Dade North District 82.9 80.6 4.4 2.3
Miami-Dade Central District 113.5 104.6 8.5 8.9

Table 2-3. Reuse alternatives and reclaimed water flows for North Regional service area.
Reuse Reclaimed
alternative water
demand
(MGD)
No action 4.46
Low 9.34
Moderate 11.34
Medium 19.31
High 30.00
Maximum 41.98


Table 2-4. Treatment costs for the six options.
Reuse Reclaimed Process Auxiliary Pumps
alternative water equipment equipment
treatment
No action $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Low $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Moderate $ 1,105,500 $ 294,800 $ 73,700 $2,781,655
Medium $ 7,680,750 $2,048,200 $ 512,050 $4,037,585
High $16,500,000 $4,400,000 $1,100,000 $5,496,155
Maximum $26,383,500 $7,035,600 $1,758,900 $6,953,506









Table 2-5. Storage and land costs for the six options.
Reuse Storage Booster Booster Land
alternative costs stations pump costs
required station
costs
No action $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 0
Low $ 1,250,000 0 $ 0 $ 0
Moderate $11,431,458 2 $1,500,000 $ 370,790
Medium $16,592,816 3 $2,250,000 $ 556,186
High $22,586,939 5 $3,750,000 $ 926,976
Maximum $28,576,050 6 $4,500,000 $1,112,371

Table 2-6. Transmission and distribution and indirect costs for the six options.
Reuse Transmission Indirect


alternative


costs


distribution
costs
No action $ 0 $ 0
Low $ 1,231,500 $ 620,375
Moderate $ 9,419,866 $ 6,651,745
Medium $ 44,351,236 $ 19,368,159
High $ 76,764,865 $ 32,649,490
Maximum $349,886,170 $106,273,431


Table 2-7. Operation and maintenance costs for the six options.
Reuse O&M O&M O&M O&M O&M
alternative Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Present value
No action $ 284,883 $ 341,859 $ 396,556 $ 452,074 $ 3,665,843
Low $ 596,593 $ 715,911 $ 830,457 $ 946,721 $ 7,676,900
Moderate $ 889,907 $1,067,888 $1,238,750 $1,412,175 $11,451,238
Medium $1,515,352 $1,818,423 $2,109,370 $2,404,682 $19,499,419
High $2,354,250 $2,825,100 $3,277,116 $3,735,912 $30,294,282
Maximum $3,294,381 $3,953,257 $4,585,778 $5,227,787 $42,391,798

Table 2-8. Total present value, annual costs, and daily costs for the six options.
Reuse Total cost Total cost Annual Daily
alternative (2004$) (2005$) cost cost
No action $ 3,665,843 $ 3,815,259 $ 360,133 $ 987
Low $ 10,778,775 $ 11,218,106 $ 1,058,910 $ 2,901
Moderate $ 45,080,753 $ 46,918,197 $ 4,428,746 $ 12,134
Medium $116,896,401 $121,660,977 $11,483,936 $ 31,463
High $194,468,706 $202,395,049 $19,104,661 $ 52,342
Maximum $574,871,327 $598,302,484 $56,475,522 $154,727









Table 2-9. Cost savings for the six options.
Reuse Reclaimed Potable Daily Daily Daily
alternative water quality water benefits benefits benefits -
demand cost (2002$) (2005$) daily
(MGD) (2002$/1,000 costs
gallons) ($/day)
No action 4.46 $4.04 $ 18,018 $ 20,408 $19,421
Low 9.34 $4.04 $ 37,734 $ 42,737 $39,836
Moderate 11.34 $4.04 $ 45,814 $ 51,889 $39,755
Medium 19.31 $4.04 $ 78,015 $ 88,358 $56,895
High 30.00 $4.04 $121,200 $137,272 $84,931
Maximum 41.98 $4.04 $169,599 $192,090 $37,362

Table 2-10. Water system costs in Florida (Adapted from The Cadmus Group 2006).
Item Cost Percent of
total
Transmission and distribution $10,387,000,000 69.1
Treatment $ 2,596,000,000 17.3
Storage $ 983,000,000 6.5
Source Development $ 937,000,000 6.2
Other $ 138,000,000 0.9
Total $15,041,000,000 100.0











Table 2-11. Present and annual costs for the Moderate Reuse Alternative.
From To node (j) Distance Reclaimed Total cost Annual
node (i) (mi) water (2005$) cost
demand (2005$/yr)
(MGD)


NRWWTP (on-site)
Central Sanitary Landfill
WES
Crystal Lake Country Club/Tam O'Shanter
Meadows of Crystal Lake
Highland Village Mobile Park
Deerfield Beach High School
Century Village East
Deer Creek Country Club Community
Deer Creek Golf Course
Deerfield Country Club
The Waterways
Quiet Waters Park
Adios Golf Club


0.000
1.412
2.501
3.560
4.586
5.717
6.343
7.907
8.874
9.036
10.027
12.023
12.473
13.934


5.390
5.468
7.768
8.450
8.506
8.570
8.620
10.124
10.441
10.880
11.104
11.517
11.847
12.088


$ 4,610,817
$14,330,881
$20,634,402
$23,344,288
$23,975,514
$24,677,764
$25,092,357
$34,708,050
$36,798,925
$39,732,984
$41,608,800
$44,451,327
$46,153,783
$47,730,422


$ 435,229
$1,352,734
$1,947,742
$2,203,536
$2,263,119
$2,329,406
$2,368,541
$3,276,194
$3,473,558
$3,750,513
$3,927,576
$4,195,891
$4,356,591
$4,505,414


NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP










Marginal costs for the Moderate Reuse Alternative.
To node (j) Distance
(mi)


NRWWTP (on-site)
Central Sanitary Landfill
WES
Crystal Lake Country Club/Tam O'Shanter
Meadows of Crystal Lake
Highland Village Mobile Park
Deerfield Beach High School
Century Village East
Deer Creek Country Club Community
Deer Creek Golf Course
Deerfield Country Club
The Waterways
Quiet Waters Park
Adios Golf Club


0.000
1.412
2.501
3.560
4.586
5.717
6.343
7.907
8.874
9.036
10.027
12.023
12.473
13.934


Table 2-12.
From
node (i)


NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP
NRWWTP


Reclaimed
water
demand
(MGD)
5.390
5.468
7.768
8.450
8.506
8.570
8.620
10.124
10.441
10.880
11.104
11.517
11.847
12.088


Marginal
cost
($/1,000
gallons)
$0.90
$0.91
$1.40
$1.56
$1.57
$1.58
$1.60
$1.94
$2.02
$2.12
$2.18
$2.27
$2.35
$2.41











1EV-b* 4


Water ResouLrce 1
Caution Areas




Figure 2-1. Florida's Water Resource Caution Areas (RCC et al. 2003).


* Golf Demand
* Landscape Demand


Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade
County


Figure 2-2. Countywide irrigation demand. Number of large users on graph.



























































Figure 2-3. Consumptive use permit holders with demands greater than 0.05 MGD in Palm
Beach County.



38



























































Figure 2-4. Consumptive use permit holders with demands greater than 0.05 MGD in Broward
County.



39



























































Figure 2-5. Consumptive use permit holders with demands greater than 0.05 MGD in Miami-
Dade County.



40
















*a


rt

o I













Figure 2-6


Dn .


u service t
N Z ervice strict







Wastewater Treatment Facility


Potential water reuse in service areas and reuse districts. Number of large users on
graph.


35


30


25


20


15


10


5


0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12+

Distance from WWTP (mi)



Figure 2-7. Distribution of distance of large users from wastewater treatment plant.



















20






15





-o
* 10



5
U


5-






0


S ----- 1.76MGD/mi



IX
x--- 1.4 MGD/mi

1.82 MGD
* 1


giGiw~"

'V:


3 E*
Eu


it

U


0.35 MG)/mi


MGD/mi


I U


0.25


* Miami/North

* Miami/Central

North Regional

0 Hollywood

x South Central

* Glades Road




MGD/mi


10

Distance (mi)


Figure 2-8. Cumulative daily demand versus metropolitan distance.


f.










a g .
. -rrpe ^






















0.4H)9 *1 8 ~ *


Legend

VWVTP
Service Area
Expanded Service Area
CUP Large Users


Out of County


Figure 2-9. Proposed North Regional reuse system.





43











180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0


0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Reclaimed Water Flow (1,000 gal/d)


Figure 2-10.

$9.00

$8.00

$7.00

$6.00 -

^ $5.00
o
U $4.00

S$3.00

$2.00

$1.00

$0.00


Daily cost versus reclaimed water flow.


0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Traditional Reuse Demand (1000 gal/day)

Figure 2-11. Marginal cost curve.


35000 40000 45000


-










$250,000


$200,000



S$150,000 -
Costs
0 0 Benefits
S$100,000ooo

Costs
S= y=5.83623E-06x224859
$50,000 5.83623E_06x--41--



$0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Flow (1,000 gal/day)
Figure 2-12. Daily costs and benefits versus reclaimed water flow.

$14,000


$12,000 2.22477
y = 1.08498E-05x2

$10,000 -R2 = 0.874


o $8,000


S$6,000


$4,000


$2,000


$0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

FlowDemand (1,000 gal/d)
Figure 2-13. Cost function for the Moderate Reuse Alternative.


Benefits
y = 4.5757x

































0 4 1
0 5 10 15 20
Cut-off Miami-Dade Central
Distance (mi) 0.27 MGD/mi

Figure 2-14. Cumulative daily demand versus metropolitan distance with potential cut-offs.


* Current Flow
* Potential Feasible Flow


Wastewater Treatment Plant


Figure 2-15. Current and potential reclaimed water flow.









CHAPTER 3
STORAGE IN RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEMS IN FLORIDA

Introduction

The need for and size of storage facilities play a vital role in the planning and feasibility

determination of a reuse system. Storage of reclaimed water will increase the proportion of

reclaimed water that can be reused because it provides a better match of reclaimed water supply

availability to user demands. It also decreases the costs of treatment, transmission, and pumping

by reducing peak demands. Two types of storage should be evaluated: diurnal and seasonal.

This chapter will explore the rule requirements and current practices behind both of these

concepts in the State of Florida, as well as introduce methodologies to more accurately determine

the reuse system's needs for storage. These methodologies will show where the common

practices fall short in storage estimations. Best management practices, from the viewpoint of

both the customer and the facility, will also be explored to determine how they affect storage

requirements, reliability of the reuse system, and overall feasibility of reuse alternatives.

Current Rules

The State of Florida's rules pertaining to storage requirements are discussed within

Sections 62-610.414, 62-610.464, and 62-610.656 for restricted slow-rate land applications,

public access slow-rate land applications, and industrial uses, respectively (FL DEP 2006c).

Storage is not required at a domestic wastewater treatment plant under these rules if the

facility has an alternative disposal method to ensure continuous facility operation. Such disposal

methods include surface water discharges, if permitted by the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, and deep-well injection. However, storage or other flow equalization

methods must be evaluated to ensure that the reclaimed water supply matches the demand on a

diurnal cycle, despite the availability of alternate disposal methods.









Facilities that do not have alternate disposal methods for reclaimed water must provide

storage to maintain constant facility operation. Periods of facility inactivity may include adverse

weather conditions, malfunctions of the reuse system such as pump breakdown, harvesting

conditions, irrigation system maintenance, or other activities that would prevent the application

of reclaimed water. Florida Department of Environmental Protection rules require that a water

balance calculation be carried out in order to determine storage capacity (FL DEP 2006c). This

water balance must account for all water in and out of the system. A minimum of twenty years

of monthly climatic data must be used. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has

developed a program called LANDAP that will complete this calculation using monthly data

(Swartz 1999). At a minimum, the storage capacity must be three times the average daily flow

for which there is no alternate disposal method. Irrigation or precipitation efficiencies are not to

be used in the storage calculation.

All current rules are in place to ensure continuous facility operation. There are no current

rule requirements that discuss the need or the methods to calculate seasonal storage. In addition,

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1991) Guidelines on determining the

feasibility of reuse only mention that storage costs should be taken into consideration, but no

methods are offered to properly size the tanks for diurnal or seasonal storage needs.

LANDAP

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection produced a program called LANDAP

in 1998 to calculate the amount of storage required for a wastewater facility providing reclaimed

water without an alternate disposal method (Swartz 1999). The program contains sixty weather

stations spread across the state, each with several decades of climatic data. The program

calculates a monthly water balance and returns the maximum monthly storage requirement for

each year on record. In addition, the program can also determine the monthly amount of









reclaimed water that can be discharged if a storage tank is already sized and if the facility is

permitted to discharge during wet-weather events. The monthly water balance is calculated

using Equation 3-1 (Swartz 1999).

R +EF = PET+GRO +SRO +or -S (3-1)

where R = rainfall, EF = applied reclaimed water, PET = evapotranspiration, GRO =

ground water outflow, SRO = surface runoff, and S = storage

LANDAP requires five inputs from the user: site hydrologic capacity, site area, a surface

runoff coefficient, the reclaimed water application rate, and the method to determine potential

evapotranspiration. Additionally, if wet-weather discharges are permitted, the program requires

the initial amount of storage that is to be provided.

There are several limitations to the current program. First, the model is set up to determine

wet weather storage and does not take into account the high variations in reclaimed water

demand. Therefore, this model does not assure that an adequate supply of reclaimed water will

be available to the end-users.

In addition, the model is very sensitive to site hydrologic capacity and design loading rate.

The site hydrologic capacity is a value which shows the amount of reclaimed water that can be

applied without causing surface water runoff. This value can be difficult to estimate in Florida

as the ground water table is shallow, thus limiting the amount of irrigation water required. The

Florida Department of Environmental Protection requires that this value be determined by a

professional engineer or geologist (Swartz 1999). It was determined that a 10% increase in the

value inputted for site hydrologic capacity will result in a 64% increase in storage required

(Swartz 1999).









LANDAP gives the user the option of using the Thomthwaite or McCloud equations to

calculate potential evapotranspiration. These empirical equations are designed for warm, humid

climates. However, these empirical equations tend to cause inaccuracies. Additionally, the

Thomthwaite equation requires monthly correction factors that depend on the amount of sunlight

received per day and per season. The program's design manual admits that an equation such as

the Penman method would yield more accurate evapotranspiration results; however, the amount

of climatic data that needs to be available for this equation made it infeasible to use in the

program.

Finally, the model distributes rainfall over the entire month, thereby decreasing the actual

irrigation requirements and producing inaccuracies in the volume of storage required. As an

example, a hurricane or strong storm that produces a large amount of precipitation over a few

days will show that no irrigation is needed for that month, thereby increasing the storage

requirements to ensure continuous facility operation; however, in actuality, there may be days

before and after the storm that require irrigation. As will be shown later, a shorter time-step is

more appropriate.

Diurnal Storage

Diurnal storage is provided to match the daily supply of wastewater entering a facility to

the reclaimed water demands of the end-users. This short-term storage is important to meet the

peak hourly demands associated with a reuse system. For instance, golf courses, which have

large reclaimed water demands, typically irrigate at night. This causes an imbalance with the

supply of reclaimed water as wastewater flows are typically at their lowest values during this

time and peak in the morning. The use of short-term diurnal storage will eliminate this

imbalance.









Previous Work

Several reuse feasibility reports prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection were examined during the Southeast Florida study to determine the methodology used

to determine short-term storage capacity. These facilities claim their ocean outfalls as alternate

disposal methods to the reclaimed water system and therefore are not required to provide storage

that ensures continuous facility operation. However, the rules state that storage is to be provided

to match the diurnal patterns of reclaimed water supply to demand.

Metcalf and Eddy (2007) state that utilities will commonly choose a percentage of the

maximum daily demand, typically between 25 to 50 percent, in order to estimate the required

diurnal storage. In the feasibility study for the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, each

reuse alternative going to public access applications gave an allowance of 40% of the daily

reclaimed water flow for diurnal storage (Hazen and Sawyer 2004). The Miami-Dade

wastewater treatment plants designed a storage system for six hours based on the reuse flow

during the high demand season (PBS&J 1992).

A more accurate method in which to predict the diurnal storage requirements is by

completing a water balance on an hourly basis. The balance simply models the amount of

wastewater flow into the facility that is treated for reuse and the demand of the system. Existing

wastewater facilities have historic data to determine the hourly fluctuations in wastewater flow

and the maximum capacity the utility can treat. The demands of end-users can be estimated by

the consumptive use permit method, described in Chapter 2, or more accurately determined in

consultation with the customer. The South Central Regional and Glades Road Wastewater

Treatment Plants modeled their storage needs on a diurnal pattern (Brown and Caldwell 1995).

By modeling storage on a diurnal pattern, not only will the demands of the system be more

accurately met, but typically a cost savings in storage requirements will be realized.









This diurnal storage is usually provided in one of four ways (Metcalf and Eddy 2007):

* Ground level steel or concrete tanks with auxiliary pumping

* Below ground level steel or concrete tanks with auxiliary pumping

* Elevated storage structures with or without auxiliary pumping

* Small ponds, such as those found at golf courses.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection rules require that ponds be lined so that

seepage of the reclaimed water is prevented (FL DEP 2006c). In addition, overflow devices are

required so that the reclaimed water level stays at least one foot below the surface of the pond.

In the design of storage systems, algae and mosquito breeding control must be addressed.

Hourly Water Balance

The example below models the diurnal storage requirements for the North Regional

Wastewater Treatment Plant. The facility is currently permitted at an annual average daily flow

of 84 MGD, although it is undergoing expansion to 100 MGD (Hazen and Sawyer 2004). As of

2004, the facility had a reuse capacity of 10 MGD, with only half the capacity being used. The

remaining treated effluent is either disposed of through ocean outfalls or through deep-well

injection. However, a feasibility study completed in 2004 identified a reuse alternative that

would send approximately 42 MGD of reclaimed water to beneficial purposes. This alternative

will be evaluated in the case study.

The storage tank was designed for this reuse alternative with an average daily supply of 42

MGD of reclaimed water required. Demand flows are taken directly from the Hazen and Sawyer

(2004) feasibility report for the wastewater treatment plant. The demand is split into three

categories: golf courses, landscape irrigation, and residential irrigation. A summary of the

required flows is shown in Table 3-1.









The diurnal analysis is completed within Table 3-2. In order to show hourly fluctuations

of wastewater supply, peak hour factors are used from Brown and Caldwell (1995) and are

displayed in Column B of Table 3-2. The resulting supply data, seen in Column C of Table 3-2

and as a plot in Figure 3-1, mimic hourly supply curves from other facilities in the region.

The three demand categories were each given different periods in which to irrigate. It was

assumed that the large landscape irrigators could water at any point in the day and therefore their

daily demand was split equally over the twenty-four hour period (Column D). As discussed

previously, golf courses typically irrigate over night and therefore their hourly demand was

uniformly distributed over the period from 9 pm to 5 am (Column E). Finally, it was assumed

that the residential customer is allowed two-hour blocks, three days a week in which to irrigate

with reclaimed water. The residential neighborhoods are split up into eight sections so that the

irrigation demand can be split over the course of the day and week. Therefore, one section of

residential users may irrigate within a two-hour block, three days a week (Column F). The total

reclaimed water demand is shown in Column G of Table 3-2.

Reclaimed water demand is subtracted from reclaimed water supply in Column H of Table

3-2. A plot of the reclaimed water demand is also compared to supply in Figure 3-1. The

amount of storage that is required to fulfill the diurnal patterns occurs when the demand exceeds

the supply, and is highlighted in Figure 3-1. There are two sections where this occurs. The first

such section occurs between 1 am and 8 am, where there is a cumulative reclaimed water deficit

of 10.529 MG. The next occurrence is between 6 pm and 10 pm, where there is a cumulative

reclaimed water deficit of 5.375 MG. The amount of storage required in this case is found by

taking the cumulative deficit volume from 6 pm to 8 am and subtracting the period of surplus









from 10 pm to 1 am. The storage requirements are simulated in Column I of Table 3-2 and total

14.876 MG.

There is a difference between the amount of storage determined by the hourly balance and

that required by taking a percentage of the average reuse flow. Earlier, it was discussed that the

feasibility study took 40% of the reuse flow for storage to match peak daily demands and

differing residential schedules. In this example, the required storage was estimated at 40% of 42

MGD or approximately 17 MG. The difference in this example is minimal; however, completing

an hourly simulation more accurately determines the short-term storage needs of a water reuse

system. Taking a percentage of the daily reclaimed water flow could either result in the demands

of the system not being met or in a significantly larger storage tank designed. The former leads

to a system that would not always be able to provide reclaimed water, thus making it unreliable.

The latter would result in larger expenditures for storage. Hazen and Sawyer (2004) estimated

storage costs at $1.25 per gallon. An overestimation in storage needs would produce additional

costs that could make the project infeasible. For example, if the feasibility report had estimated

diurnal storage at 50% of the daily reclaimed water flow, the storage tank would have been sized

at approximately 21.5 MG, resulting in an additional expenditure of over $8 million as compared

to the hourly simulation. No minimum storage requirements would be instituted for this design

by Florida Department of Environmental Protection rules as the wastewater treatment plant could

rely on the ocean outfall or deep-wells as a backup system to ensure continuous facility

operation.

The storage calculation presented in this section does not take into account the reliability of

the design; however, this will be shown in this chapter and could be taken into account to match

reclaimed water supplies and demands on a diurnal pattern. Additionally, best management









practices will be discussed within this chapter that could potentially reduce the amount of short-

term storage required.

Seasonal Storage

Florida receives an average rainfall of 55 inches per year. However, the rain is sporadic

throughout the year. In addition, the climate also produces 47-55 inches of evapotranspiration a

year. Therefore, the irrigation demand will typically exceed the available reclaimed water

supply. The reclaimed water supply and demand for a typical Florida year are shown in Figure

3-2. It can be seen that Florida's dry season, lasting from February through June, can cause a

reclaimed water shortage. The volume of seasonal storage of reclaimed water that is needed to

satisfy the demands of the system should also be evaluated.

Previous Work

Studies have shown that no seasonal storage is required if less than one-half of the

wastewater utility's annual average daily flow goes to reuse (Ammerman 2007). The amount of

seasonal storage required as a function of the reclaimed water utilization ratio (demand divided

by supply) is shown in Figure 3-3. If the ratio is less than 0.5, then no seasonal storage is needed

since the average demand is relatively small compared to the average supply. As the ratio

approaches 0.75, up to a few weeks of seasonal storage are needed. At a ratio of 90%, three

months of storage are needed. For 100% utilization, the seasonal storage increases to over one

year. Even though significant economies of scale exist in constructing storage systems, evidence

suggests that ratios beyond 0.75-0.80 become prohibitively expensive. The relationship shown

in Figure 3-3 depends on several key assumptions including:

* The time step used in the calculations, e.g., daily, weekly, or monthly

* The assumed nature of the irrigation demand, e.g., users set irrigation timers to the
maximum expected demand and leave it at this setting year round versus users employing
soil moisture sensors to irrigate only as needed by the plants









Thus, the nature of the utilization versus storage curve should be determined for the

appropriate set of circumstances. Such procedures are developed in this chapter.

The feasibility reports for the Southeast Florida wastewater treatment plants were

examined to determine if seasonal storage is typically taken into account. It was concluded that

as there are no rules requiring this additional cost, facilities will not take seasonal storage into

account. The only report that mentioned seasonal variations in reclaimed water supply and

demand was the study on the Miami-Dade wastewater treatment facilities (PBS&J 1992). This

report states that the facility keeps reuse supply at 70% of the capacity to ensure that seasonal

variations are met.

Depending on the quantity of long-term storage required, facilities can provide storage

systems as described for short-term storage, or it may be more feasible to store this reclaimed

water in reservoirs and lakes. Another option is through aquifer storage and recovery. The

varied climatic differences in Florida's seasons make this an attractive option as reclaimed water

that is produced during the dry season can be recharged into the ground and stored when demand

is low. Then, when demand increases during the dry period, this water can be recovered and

used in concert with current reclaimed water supplies to reduce the overall demands and increase

the reliability of the reuse system. Aquifer storage and recovery systems are permitted under

Rule 62-610.466 for public access reuse (FL DEP 2006c). The option is rapidly growing in

popularity in Florida and as of 2002, twenty-six such facilities were in operation and nineteen

were permitted for construction (Arthur et al. 2002).

Daily Simulation

A daily water balance was set up in order to model the storage needs of a water reuse

system. A case study was completed on the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant's reuse

district. Daily precipitation and evapotranspiration data were obtained from the Florida









Automated Weather Network for a period of twenty-seven months ranging from June 2004 to

August 2006. The climatic data were obtained for a weather station in Fort Lauderdale, which is

in close proximity to the wastewater treatment plant. The spreadsheet is contained in Appendix

B with raw precipitation and evapotranspiration data in Columns B and C, respectively. The

daily irrigation demand is modeled assuming that water users will need irrigation water equal to

the amount of total evapotranspiration on a daily basis, less any precipitation. The irrigation

demand, in Column D, was therefore calculated as the evapotranspiration minus any

precipitation for that day. If precipitation exceeded evapotranspiration, it was assumed that no

irrigation would be required for that day. This method of estimating irrigation demand assumes

that very efficient irrigation practices are being used. The effect of other irrigation practices will

be discussed later in this chapter.

The daily water balance was simulated for a selected area within the North Regional

Wastewater Treatment Plant's reuse district. A total irrigable area of 10,000 acres was chosen

for the case study. Fifty-five percent of this total land area is considered landscape irrigation by

large users, such as golf courses and schools. The remaining 45% is assumed to go to residential

irrigation. The irrigation demand from Column D was then applied over this irrigable area to

determine the volume of reclaimed water that would need to be supplied to serve this region.

The result, shown as Column E in Table B-l, takes into account irrigation efficiencies. As

discussed previously, these irrigation efficiencies are currently not taken into account under

Florida Department of Environmental Protection rules. However, the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection published the "Strategies for Effective Use of Reclaimed Water"

report in 2003 in which they acknowledge and identify these irrigation efficiencies (RCC et al.

2003). These factors are currently being published in updated guidelines and therefore are









included within this study. Golf course and landscape irrigation were given an efficiency of 75%

and residential irrigation was given an efficiency of 50%. The reclaimed water volume required

was determined by Equation 3-2. The irrigation volume was calculated for both landscaped

areas and residential area and then combined as part of Column E of Table B-1.

= (ID 100A 43,560f2 144in2 gal MG ) (32)
V= (ID* *A* *d(31-2)
IE lac Ift2 23 lin 1,000,000gal

where V = volume (MG), ID = irrigation demand (in/d), IE = irrigation efficiency (%), A =

irrigable area (acres).

In order to determine storage requirements, the reclaimed water demand was compared to

the flow of wastewater into the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. These data were

obtained from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection through monitoring reports

that wastewater facilities are required to complete. However, only monthly averages were

available for this study. The accuracies in results from this case study will not be affected

greatly by this input as wastewater flows are relatively constant over the month. The greatest

variance in these data occurs due to inflow and infiltration, which will also follow the seasonal

variations in precipitation data. Wastewater flow data are reported in Column F of Table B-1.

The difference between reclaimed water supply (Column F) and reclaimed water demand

(Column E) on a daily basis is calculated in Column G. Any deficits, or demands greater than

supplies, require storage in order to meet the needs of the system on a reliable basis. Therefore

storage required for a particular day is equal to the deficit, if any, for that day. In addition, if

there was a deficit on a previous day, the volume must be included into the present day's storage

requirements. Similarly, if there is a surplus on a particular day, the amount of storage required

reduces by that amount, until the storage requirements reach zero. The method for daily storage

requirements is presented as Equation 3-3 and the results are shown as Column H in Table B-1.









S = ABS((S D),)+ S if (S D) <0 (3-3a)

S = S (S D), if (S D) >0 (3-3b)

S = 0 if (S D) > 0 and So -(S D) < 0 (3-3c)

where Si = present day's storage requirements (MG), So = previous day's storage

requirements (MG), S = supply (MG), D = demand (MG).

The storage required for the entire system is therefore the maximum amount of storage

required on a particular day over the entire range of data. For the case study, the storage required

was approximately 232 MG. Obviously, system storage requirements may change with

additional climatic data, and indeed current rules require at least twenty years worth of data to be

analyzed. However, the climatic data analyzed for the case study illustrates how to determine

the amount of seasonal storage required to meet the demands of a water reuse system.

The same simulation was carried out for longer time intervals in order to show the

difference in storage requirements. Weekly and monthly totals were calculated for precipitation

and evapotranspiration data from the daily values. The required amount of storage decreases for

both the weekly and monthly simulations compared to the daily simulation, as summarized in

Table 3-3. Whereas 232 days of storage are required if a daily simulation is performed, only 118

day of storage are needed if a weekly time step is used and no storage is required if a monthly

time step is used. These results show the dramatic effect of the selected time step. Required

storage is shown for a variety of irrigable areas in Figure 3-4 to show these differences for

different demands.

As discussed previously, LANDAP uses a monthly time interval. However, plants cannot

withstand a monthly moisture deficit. Busey (1996) studied the effect of watering requirements

on different varieties of St. Augustinegrass-the prevalent type of turf in Florida. The study









concluded that there was relatively little damage to the turf up to seven to ten days without

watering. However, after this period, the damage rate increased dramatically, as seen in Figure

3-5. Therefore, it was concluded that a monthly simulation will underestimate the irrigation

needs of the system. Conversely, a daily simulation will overestimate the irrigation needs of the

system as plants can survive several days without watering. A weekly time-step will therefore

both accurately portray the storage requirements of the system and provide an adequate time

interval that will have little detrimental effect on grass.

These simulations and plots are very powerful in the determination of project feasibility.

Storage costs are expensive and can quickly cause rapidly escalating total costs. A daily

simulation will overestimate storage requirements, and therefore increase total project costs. On

the contrary, if the use of monthly simulations is continued, storage costs will be underestimated.

A weekly time interval will provide a system with the correct amount of storage required.

Project costs and overall project feasibility can therefore be estimated more precisely.

Best Management Practices

This section analyzes best management practices that can be implemented at both the

customer and utility level. These best management practices will reduce demands of the system,

thereby making it more reliable and more attractive to implement. Appropriately sized storage

facilities in conjunction with demand management practices to reduce the average demand can

enable this reclaimed water demand to be met in a more cost-effective manner.

Irrigation Practices

Application rates by the customer significantly affect reclaimed water demand and

therefore the storage requirements. This portion of the methodology examines how best

management practices from the customer point of view will affect storage requirements and

performance of the reuse system.









Significant work has been completed on irrigation practices in Florida. Haley et al. (2007)

studied residential neighborhoods in Marion, Lake, and Orange Counties. They set up three case

studies that examined: typical residential irrigation, residential irrigation that scheduled watering

based on historic evapotranspiration values, and residential irrigation with reduced turf area

combined with scheduled watering based on historic evapotranspiration values. They concluded

that by setting irrigation schedules based on historic evapotranspiration values, a 30% reduction

in average monthly water use occurred. In addition, the residents who reduced their irrigable turf

area in addition with the efficient water schedules reduced their average monthly water use by

50% as compared to the no action scenario. Cardenas-Lailhacar et al. (2007) also studied soil

moisture sensors in relation to amount of irrigation water demanded. The soil moisture sensors

are not set to historic climatic data values as done for traditional residential irrigation systems,

but instead use electromagnetic methods to measure the moisture content in soil. It was

determined that these systems resulted in a 69 to 92% water savings as compared to an automatic

system with no detrimental effects to the turf

In a similar fashion, this study examined four different irrigation practices to determine the

demands on the reuse system. The average available supply of reuse water is 74.76 MGD. The

four irrigation practices examined were:

* Case 1: Automatic irrigation systems that are set on a yearly basis depending on the
maximum average weekly evapotranspiration value for the year

* Case 2: Automatic irrigation system that are set on a weekly basis depending on average
evapotranspiration values for the week

* Case 3: Automatic irrigation systems that are set on a yearly basis depending on the
maximum average weekly evapotranspiration value for the year less the effective
precipitation

* Case 4: Automatic irrigation systems that are set on a weekly basis depending on the
average weekly evapotranspiration values less the effective precipitation









Irrigation practices impact the reliability of the system in meeting the demands of the

customer. In addition, these practices will have a significant impact on storage and transmission

line requirements and thus feasibility of the system.

The four different irrigation practices were calculated using the daily precipitation and

evapotranspiration data presented in Table B-1. Additionally, the irrigation application rates are

applied over the same 10,000 acres as described during the daily simulation. In order to

calculate irrigation requirements, the daily data for the irrigation practices were averaged on a

weekly basis for reasons discussed previously.

The total weekly precipitation (Column B) and evapotranspiration (Column C) values were

totaled for each of the 118 weeks of data and can be seen within Appendix C in Table C-1. The

data in this table is then averaged to show corresponding weekly precipitation (Column B) and

evapotranspiration (Column C) data for each week of the year, as show in Table C-2.

The first scenario examines the least efficient irrigation method in which an automatic

irrigation system is installed and set to the maximum average weekly evapotranspiration value.

Column C of Table C-2 lists the weekly evapotranspiration values for the wastewater treatment

plant reuse district. The maximum value is highlighted within the table (Week 28) and is

considered the application rate for all large and residential users within the system. Therefore,

for Case 1, it is assumed that each user will set their watering systems to irrigate 1.26 inches per

week for the entire year. The irrigation volume for this scenario is shown in Column B in Table

C-3 and is calculated as in Equation 3-2 except with a weekly conversion factor included.

The second scenario is an automatic irrigation system that is more efficient than the first as

it assumes that the customer resets the system on a weekly basis depending on historic

evapotranspiration data. The irrigation volume required under this situation is shown in Column









C of Table C-3. Instead of using the maximum evapotranspiration value of 1.26 inches per

week, Case 2 takes the weekly evapotranspiration values from Column C of Table C-2 and

calculates the required volume in a similar fashion as Case 1.

The third and fourth scenarios follow the evapotranspiration patterns of the first two

options, with the exception that effective precipitation is taken into account. This should lead to

a more effective irrigation system as the weekly irrigation demands will be reduced.

Effective precipitation

Effective precipitation is that rainfall that can be used to help meet the irrigation

requirements of plants and turf. It excludes rainfall that constitutes surface runoff or that

percolates below the root zone of the plant. There are several methods to calculate

effective precipitation. The USDA -SCS2 Method was developed in 1970 by analyzing fifty

years of rainfall data over twenty-two locations in the United States (USDA 1993). The

relationship is given in Equation 3-4.

Pe = SF (0.70917 *P 82416 0.11556) (1 0002426ET ) (3-4)

where Pe = average monthly effective monthly precipitation, Pt = monthly mean

precipitation, ET = average monthly evapotranspiration, and SF = soil water storage factor.

The soil water storage factor is defined as:

SF = 0.531747 + 0.295164D 0.057697D2 + 0.003804D3 (3-5)

where D = the usable soil water storage.

The first few inches of soil water storage have the most impact on the soil water storage

factor, as seen in Figure 3-6. However, at about 3 inches of soil moisture storage, the soil water


1 United States Department of Agriculture
2 Soil Conservation Service









storage factor begins to reach a limit of about 1.05. Typical turf in Florida has a soil moisture

storage of about 0.75 inches (Busey 1996). The corresponding soil water storage factor is

approximately 0.72.

A two-way table was set up using the soil water storage factor of 0.72. The table

calculates the ratio of effective precipitation to actual precipitation for various values of

precipitation and evapotranspiration. The results, shown in Table 3-4, indicate that for equal

amounts of precipitation and evapotranspiration values, the ratio of average monthly

precipitation to average monthly effective precipitation is approximately 0.5. This means that in

a time period that receives an equal amount of rainfall as evapotranspiration, approximately 50%

of the rain is used by the plant. During a drier period that receives very little rainfall compared

to the amount of evapotranspiration, approximately 75% of the rainfall is used by the plant.

Conversely, during a period that receives ample rain with small amounts of evapotranspiration,

approximately 33% of the rainfall is utilized by plants. These results were reasonable, and

therefore the soil water storage factor of 0.72 is used in the calculation of effective precipitation.

The effective precipitation is calculated in Column D of Table C-2 using the weekly

averages of precipitation (Column B) and evapotranspiration (Column C). The irrigation rates

are calculated in Column E of Table C-2, in which the average weekly effective rainfall is

subtracted from the average weekly evapotranspiration. The values of effective precipitation

should not to be greater than total precipitation values (USDA 1993). This is taken into account

in Column E by setting all negative values equal to zero.

The application rate for Case 3 is found by taking the maximum value of the average

weekly evapotranspiration values minus the effective precipitation over the same time frame.

The maximum value of 1.12, highlighted within Column E of Table C-2, is applied over the









entire irrigable area as discussed before. The results of this application rate are displayed within

Column D of Table C-3.

In a similar fashion, the application for Case 4 is found by taking the individual weekly

values of average weekly evapotranspiration minus the effective precipitation. These values,

shown in Column E of Table C-2, are then converted to a volume and are displayed in Column E

of Table C-3.

The volume of irrigation water required for the four different scenarios is contained within

a time-series plot in Figure 3-7. Additionally, the average demand for each case is compared

with the average wastewater supply in Table 3-5. Case 1, which sets the watering system once a

year, is the least efficient water management practice. This case represents the highest average

demand but the variability in demand is low since the users don't change the irrigation schedule.

The average demand for this case is 86.83 MGD, which exceeds the average wastewater flow

into the facility. Therefore, Case 1 is infeasible. Case 3, which also sets the watering system

once a year represents a reduction in average demand compared to Case 1 since effective

precipitation is included. This case also has a low variability in demand since the irrigation

setting is not changed. The average demand for this case is 77.22 MGD, which again exceeds

the available supply and therefore makes the practice infeasible in this example. Case 2 only

takes evapotranspiration into account, yet by resetting the water system on a weekly basis, the

volume of irrigation water required is much less than the previous two scenarios. The average

demand for this case is 55.48 MGD, an average that is 74% of the available supply. This

irrigation practice would make it feasible in the example. Finally, Case 4 is the most efficient

management practice to follow, as the watering system is reset on a weekly basis and effective

precipitation is taken into account. This case is comparable to employing soil moisture sensors









that trigger irrigation when it is needed. The average demand for Case 4 is 24.23 MGD, an

average of 32% of the available supply. Therefore, Case 4 is feasible.

Reliability

The provision of irrigation water throughout the entire year is paramount. Current

restrictions on irrigation practices on the potable water system make reclaimed water an

attractive alternative.

The reliability of these reuse systems is defined as the probability that the reclaimed water

supply exceeds the reclaimed water demand. Mays (2005) presents details about how to

determine the reliability of water systems. An illustration of this methodology is presented using

the supply and demand statistics for the weekly simulation of Case 2 in Figure 3-8. Reliability is

determined as the difference between the supply and demand probability distribution function.

The two probability distribution functions are plotted in Figure 3-8A. Then, a probability

distribution function is plotted for supply minus demand in Figure 3-8B. The area under this

curve that is to the left of the zero-axis is known as the failure zone. The area under the curve to

the right of the zero-axis is the reliability of the system.

Reliability in this study was computed using a safety margin. The safety margin is defined

as the difference between the supply and the demand (Mays 2005). First, the mean value and the

variance of the safety margin are calculated by Equations 3-6 and 3-7, respectively.

[tSM = Ps PD (3-6)

2SM =crs + o- (3-7)

The mean of the safety margin must be non-negative.

Then, the standard normal variate, z, is calculated using Equation 3-8, assuming that the

safety margin is normally distributed.










z = (3-8)
USM

Rearranging Equation 3-8, the reliability is defined as:


R = P(z > M) = (D(s) (3-9)


The reliability is determined by finding the area under the standard normal distribution

curve. These values are typically summarized in cumulative probability tables such as those by

Mays (2005).

The reliabilities of the system for the four different irrigation practices are summarized in

Table 3-6. Cases 1 and 3, with the largest irrigation demands, are infeasible since the means of

the safety margin are negative. The irrigation practices that reset the watering system on a

weekly basis have the highest reliabilities. Case 2 has a reliability of approximately 84% and

Case 4 has a reliability of approximately 99%.

Storage requirements to increase reliability

Reliability can be improved by changing the supply and/or demand relationships. As

shown above, the reliability can be improved dramatically be employing more efficient irrigation

practices that reduce the average demand. Alternatively, overall system reliability can be

improved by increasing the reliability of the supply by providing storage to reduce the variability

in supply as illustrated below for Case 2.

The addition of storage will increase the reliability of the water reuse system. A

simulation was set up in order to determine the effect of storage on the reliabilities of each of the

four irrigation practices. The simulation using average weekly data is contained in Table C-4.

First, the average weekly wastewater flows (Column B) are compared with the system

demands (Column C) for each irrigation practice. The reuse system demands are taken directly









from Column C of Table C-3. The demand is subtracted from the supply in Column D in order

to determine the deficits in reclaimed water. Any calculated deficits are determined to require

storage in order to make the system as reliable as possible. The total demand in Column H is

calculated by taking the irrigation demands (Column C) on the system minus any reclaimed

water that is released from storage (Column G).

An optimization process was set up in order to minimize the variations in the total demand

(Column H) of the system. In order to reduce these variations in total demand, additional

reclaimed water must be released from storage in order to compensate for large deficits. The

additional release of reclaimed water from storage not only reduces the variations in total

demand, but also reduces the average reclaimed water flow. The combination of these two

factors will increase the reliability of the overall system, as discussed previously.

The objective function of the optimization equation is to reduce the standard deviation of

the system over the 53-week period by changing the amount of reclaimed water that is released

from storage. Several constraints must be entered into the objective function. First, the amount

released from storage (Column G) must be greater than or equal to zero. In addition, the amount

of reclaimed water released from storage may not be greater than the irrigation demands

(Column C) of the system. This ensures that irrigation demands are met but not exceeded. In

addition, in order to get the most reliable system, the amount of reclaimed water released from

storage must be greater than or equal to the deficit (Column E) of the system for the particular

week. If this constraint is relaxed, the optimization function will not satisfy the demands of the

system every week.

Several different storage volumes are assumed for the system and the reliabilities

monitored. Figure 3-9 shows the effect that storage has on reliability. The reuse system without









storage has a reliability near 83% for Case 2. The reliability of the system increases to 90% with

a 10 MG storage tank and exceeds 98% with approximately 25 MG of storage.

This analysis differs between the different irrigation practices. Case 4 requires the least

amount of storage to provide the maximum system reliability.

Meters and Volume-Based Rates

There are best management practices that the utility can implement in order to keep storage

costs at a minimum, thus making a reuse project more feasible. One such practice is through the

use of metering reclaimed water and by charging for it by the volume used as opposed to a flat

fee. The Southwest Florida Water Management District found that the average flat-rate customer

uses twice as much reclaimed water as does the average metered customer (SWFWMD 2003).

The reuse system's capital costs, including storage requirements, will increase as a result. In

addition, Whitcomb (2005) conducted a detailed study of the impact on metered potable quality

water price on potable quality water demand throughout Florida. Total demand curves for

residential users were developed. The indoor potable quality water use can be separated from the

outdoor use by assuming the indoor demand ranges from 55-65 gallons per capital per day

(Mayer 1999). The indoor, outdoor, and total residential demand curves for potable quality

water are show in Figure 3-10. Outdoor demand ranges from about 700 gallons per household

per day if the water is unmetered to a virtual cessation of irrigation demand at a price of $10 per

1,000 gallons. The outdoor demand curve illustrates the dramatic sensitivity of outdoor use to

price. Metering can be an effective way to induce customers to use more efficient irrigation

practices to reduce demand. This curve is illustrative of the impact of metering reclaimed water

has on demand. If meters are included in the design of the reuse system and a relatively large

portion of the cost is levied as a commodity charge, then irrigation demand will be much lower.

Therefore, the reliability of the system will be greater and the amount of storage required will be









lower, following the same methodology discussed previously. Costs of the reuse system, as a

result, will decrease making the system more attractive.

A downside of using commodity charges to recover a significant portion of the cost of the

reuse system is that revenues may be harder to predict until the actual customer response to the

charges become known. This option increases the financial risk. The use of meters and volume-

based rates is encouraged in Florida.

Providing Storage at Customer's Site

Another best management practice related to storage is to set up agreements with the

reclaimed water customers to provide storage at their site. The South Central Regional

Wastewater Treatment Plant sought agreements with local golf courses that it was providing

reclaimed water (Brown and Caldwell 1995). The basis of the agreement was that if the golf

courses would store their reclaimed water demands on-site, such as in a pond, the treatment

facility would charge less for the reclaimed water provision. This agreement allows less short-

term storage required at the treatment facility, resulting in a smaller cost to the utility. A popular

low impact development option in urban stormwater management is to provide additional soil

moisture and surface storage on-site. This same storage can reduce irrigation demands (Sample

et al. 2003, 2005).

Summary and Conclusions

Provision of storage is an important consideration in the planning of a reuse system.

Storage not only keeps the costs of other reuse components, such as transmission and treatment,

down, but also increases the reliability of the system.

This chapter presented methodologies for calculating the optimal amount of storage to

provide on a daily or seasonal basis. Current rules require that reclaimed water demands be met

on a diurnal basis. Current practice typically takes a percentage of the average daily flow going









to reuse. The technique presented in this chapter examined the demands on an hourly basis and

calculated the optimal amount of storage to provide. This technique could result in a significant

cost savings.

Seasonal storage, although not required by current rules, is a very important aspect to

consider. Current potable quality water restrictions make a reuse system attractive if it can

meet the irrigation requirements during high demand times. The optimal amount of storage was

determined using a weekly analysis. This method differs from LANDAP, the current program

produced by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, in two main aspects:

* The simulation is set up to provide the storage necessary to meet all irrigation demands of
the system; LANDAP was developed to ensure continuous facility operation in times when
reclaimed water is unneeded or unable to be provided

* The simulation uses a weekly time-step, whereas LANDAP utilizes a monthly time-step.

The time interval came into question during the case study. Daily precipitation and

evapotranspiration data are available from weather stations around Florida on the Florida

Automated Weather Network. However, the use of a daily time interval may become data-

intensive as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection requires twenty years worth of

climatic data. Additionally, the use of a daily time interval overestimates the amount of storage

required. Conversely, the continued use of a monthly time step will underestimate the demands

of the system and thus underestimate storage requirements. A weekly time-step is adequate to

provide the irrigation demands of the system with little harm to the ground cover that requires

watering.

Finally, several best management irrigation practices were identified and related to storage

requirements. Customers of reclaimed water can reduce the load on the reuse system and

thereby increase the reliability of the system by initiating better irrigation practices. Following

historical precipitation and evapotranspiration records will drastically reduce the demand placed









on the reuse system and provide the highest system reliability. Good irrigation practices also

reduce the need for seasonal storage, thus making the alternative more attractive to implement.

Regardless of the irrigation practice used, storage will increase the overall reliability of the

system by reducing variability in the demand.

Additionally, the introduction of meters and the provision for volume-based rates as the

system matures should accompany the introduction of reclaimed water service. Customers

reduce overall consumption as price increases, as indicated by Whitcomb (2005). More efficient

irrigation practices will be utilized, thereby reducing system costs and increasing the overall

reliability of the system.











Table 3-1. Irrigable area and daily and hourly demand. Demand values from Hazen and Sawyer
(2004).
Irrigation category Total acreage Demand
MGD
Landscape 1762 10.090
Golf course 3166 9.270
Residential 3900 22.693

Table 3-2. Diurnal storage analysis.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I)
Hour Peak Qs Qd Qd Qd Qd S-D Storage
Factor Landscape Golf Residential total
irrigation courses
MGH MGH MGH MGH MGH MGH MG
0 0.040 1.684 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 0.105 4.347
1 0.031 1.297 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 -0.282 4.629
2 0.022 0.908 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 -0.671 5.301
3 0.015 0.648 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 -0.931 6.231
4 0.015 0.648 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 -0.931 7.162
5 0.014 0.584 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -2.673 9.835
6 0.017 0.713 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -2.544 12.379
7 0.043 1.814 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -1.443 13.822
8 0.052 2.203 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -1.054 14.876
9 0.062 2.592 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 2.172 12.705
10 0.049 2.073 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.653 11.052
11 0.048 2.008 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.588 9.464
12 0.051 2.138 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.718 7.746
13 0.046 1.944 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.523 6.223
14 0.046 1.944 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.523 4.700
15 0.048 2.008 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.588 3.112
16 0.046 1.944 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.523 1.588
17 0.048 2.008 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.420 1.588 0.000
18 0.049 2.073 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -1.184 1.184
19 0.052 2.203 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -1.054 2.238
20 0.055 2.333 0.420 0.000 2.837 3.257 -0.924 3.163
21 0.052 2.203 0.420 1.159 2.837 4.416 -2.213 5.375
22 0.049 2.073 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 0.494 4.881
23 0.048 2.008 0.420 1.159 0.000 1.579 0.429 4.452
Totals 1.000 42.053 10.090 9.270 22.693 42.053 0.000

Table 3-3. Storage requirements based on time interval used for the 10,000-acre case study.
Time interval Storage
MG
Daily 232
Weekly 118
Monthly 0











Table 3-4. Effective precipitation for various evapotranspiration and total precipitation values
using soil water storage factor of 0.72.
Total Precipitation (in)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 .
1 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.75
2 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.61 0.64 0.68 0.72
o 3 0.39 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.69
4 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.66
5 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.64
6 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.63
S 7 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61
^ 8 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.60
9 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59
10 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58


Table 3-5. Statistics of the four cases using average weekly data.
Qs Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Maximum (MGD) 84.75 111.40 83.55 99.08 78.78
Minimum (MGD) 68.60 79.57 22.55 70.77 0.00
Average (MGD) 74.76 86.83 55.48 77.22 24.23
Standard Deviation (MGD) 3.72 8.94 19.26 7.95 21.68
Coefficient of Variation 0.05 0.10 0.35 0.10 0.89
QD/Qs 1.16 0.74 1.03 0.32


Table 3-6. Reliabilities of the four cases using average weekly data.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
stsM -12.0761 19.2729 -2.4675 48.2862
CSM 19.6175 21.4356
LsM/CysM 0.9824 -2.2526
Reliability 0.8371 0.9879












5.000

4.500

4.000

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000


Cumulative Volume = 5.375 MG

Cumulative Volume = 10.529 MG



1I4
_I_ __ __ i









-------- .- --_ .i


10

Hour of Day


Figure 3-1. Diurnal supply and demand. Volume of storage required marked on graph.


Reclaimed Water Supply
- -- Irrigation Demand


1 3 5 7 9 11

Month


Figure 3-2. Typical seasonal patterns of reclaimed water supply and irrigation demand in Florida
(Adapted from US EPA 2004).


---Qs
-----Qd


II

I










450

400 -

350 i
/

L I
300 -

5 /

20 I

150 /




0 /

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Reclaimed Water Utilization

Figure 3-3. Effect of reclaimed water utilization on storage required (Adapted from Ammerman
2007).

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000






2,000
S6,000 Monthly

^ 5,000 W ............................. W eekly

4,000 D -*.. ... aily

t 3,000 ,"-....---.7..

o 2,000 -,,

1,000 -

0 -
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Irrigable Area (acres)
Figure 3-4. Differences in storage volume required depending on time interval used.










100

90

80

70

S60

50

& 40

30

20

10 -

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Duration Wilt (days)
Figure 3-5. Effect of not meeting irrigation demands on damage to St. Augustinegrass (Adapted
from Busey 1996).


0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Soil Water Storage (inches)


Figure 3-6. Effect of soil water storage on the soil water storage factor. USDA-SCS Method.












120.00




100.00


80.00




60.00




40.00


20.00




0.00
1 11 21 31 41 51

Week


Figure 3-7. Irrigation demand for the four cases based on average weekly data.


-- Case 1
---- Case 2
- Case 3
...... Case 3
.......................... C a se 4
---Qs










0.12


40 60


80 100


Flow(MGD)


0.005 -




-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Flow(MGD)

B
Figure 3-8. Illustration of reliability determination. A) Plot probability distribution functions for
supply and demand. B) Plot probability distribution function for supply minus
demand (Plotting software adapted from Wittwer 2004).


Ils


- Supply
- Demand


0.1


= 0.08


S0.06
S004

Z 0.04
09


0.02


0


0.025 -



0.02 -


-
. 0.015

'io
0
" 0.01


Failure Zone


Refiabhiliti











1.0000

0.9800

0.9600

0.9400

.a 0.9200

Z 0.9000

0.8800

0.8600

0.8400

0.8200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Storage Volume (MG)
Figure 3-9. Reliability versus volume of reclaimed water storage provided for Case 2.

$10

$9 -

$8 -

S $76 "

0 $6 Total

S I $5 'Indoor
S$4 Outdoor
$4

.a $3

S$2 $-

$1 ----

$0


0 200 400 600 800
Potable Quality Water Use
(Gallons per Household per Day)


1000


Figure 3-10. Potable quality water demands as a function of potable quality water rates (Adapted
from Whitcomb 2005).









CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The results presented in this thesis offer several refinements to existing procedures of the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection for evaluating the feasibility of implementing a

reuse system in the State of Florida. Current Florida rules and guidelines were examined.

Techniques were analyzed in the southeast portion of the state, but can be included in updated

guidelines for use elsewhere.

Chapter 2 offered a methodology which gives utilities and water planners a procedure to

identify large potable quality water users within their districts that could substitute some of their

current water demand with reclaimed water. Consumptive use permits are issued through

Florida's water management districts and are compiled in databases. These databases are

available for download on water management district websites. The databases aid in planning

for a reuse system in several ways. First, the information obtained from these permits aids in the

identification of the water demand, location, operating schedule, and pressure requirements for

large users. Also, the databases can be installed within a GIS program, which will aid in the

planning for the reuse network. The use of the consumptive use permit method in Southeast

Florida identified several additional golf courses and landscape irrigators that could be added to

the reuse systems of the six wastewater treatment plants that currently discharge their effluent

through ocean outfalls and deep-well injection. The more promising options for reuse occurred

in the reuse districts of the northern three facilities that have the potential to add between 17 and

19 MGD of reuse. Current rules offer no guidance is to the identification of these users.

A case study was then completed on the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in

Pompano Beach. The goal of the case study was to more accurately identify the optimal amount

of reuse that could be provided considering economic constraints. Current rules and guidelines









dictate that several reuse alternatives with varying reclaimed water utilization rates be identified

and examined. The present values of these alternatives are compared, including the no action

alternative.

A different method was presented in which the costs of all reuse alternatives are compared

together. A marginal cost curve, i.e., the supply curve, was produced for the facility and

compared to the costs of potable quality water. Potable quality water in the region costs $4.58

per 1,000 gallons. When compared to the supply curve, the optimal amount of reuse that would

be feasible to provide given these costs was approximately 26.5 MGD. If the costs of potable

quality water were higher, the optimal amount of reuse to provide would increase.

An equivalent way to present the results was to compare actual costs and benefits on the

same graph. The point at which the net benefits of providing reuse were greatest again occurred

around 26 MGD. However, if utilities try to break even instead of maximizing profit, the

optimal amount of reuse could be extended beyond 50 MGD.

The effect of customer distance away from the wastewater treatment plant and customer

density were studied and found to be significant. A portion of the reuse district in Pompano

Beach was examined and found that the marginal costs of customers close to one another

increased only slightly. Also, it was determined that customers up to 14 miles away could be

reached at a feasible cost. The results from this study were extrapolated to the other five reuse

districts; however, individual calculations should be completed if this methodology is applied

elsewhere.

Chapter 3 introduced a valuable aspect to the planning of a reuse system storage. Both

short-term (diurnal) and long-term (seasonal) storage were examined using the North Regional

Wastewater Treatment Plant as a case study.









Current rules require storage to ensure continuous facility operation; however, utilities are

required to show that reclaimed water demands will be met on a diurnal basis. Typically,

utilities take a certain percentage of the flow going to reuse as storage. An hourly simulation

was carried out on the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. It was found that

approximately 15 MG of storage would need to be provided to ensure that the demands were met

on a diurnal pattern. The use of the hourly simulation and site-specific diurnal variability data

will provide a more accurate estimate of diurnal storage needs.

In addition to short-term storage, seasonal storage was examined. Florida's seasonal

climatic difference often produces a reclaimed water shortage. In order to meet the demands on

a seasonal basis, thus making reuse an attractive alternative to potable quality water for

irrigation, storage must be provided. An analysis was carried out on a theoretical 10,000-acre

site using climatic data obtained from the Florida Automated Weather Network. Three different

trials were conducted using a different time interval with the following results for storage

obtained:

* Approximately 232 MG of seasonal storage was required using a daily time-step.

* Approximately 118 MG of seasonal storage was required using a weekly time-step.

* No seasonal storage is required was required using a monthly time-step.

Reports indicate that Florida turf can withstand a water shortage up to eight days without

detrimental effects. Therefore, the optimal amount of storage to provide is found using this

weekly time step and was approximately 118 MG for the case study. The existing procedure of

using LANDAP with a monthly time-step underestimates the requirements for storage.

Finally, best management practices on part of the customer and utility were examined to

determine their relationship to storage and overall project feasibility. Four different irrigation

practices were examined from the customer's viewpoint. It was determined that if the customer









used an automatic watering system and changed the settings on a weekly basis based on

historical evapotranspiration and precipitation values, the irrigation demand placed on the reuse

system would be reduced. This demand alleviation reduces component costs and increases the

reliability of the system. If less efficient irrigation practices are utilized, additional storage

volumes would be required to provide the same system reliability.

The use of meters and volume-based rates for reclaimed water is encouraged in Florida and

has a significant impact on irrigation demands. Studies show that outdoor water use in Florida

decreases as the price for the resource increases. Implementing this practice will again reduce

storage and other component costs, as well as increase system reliability and overall feasibility.

A future area of work would be to redevelop the LANDAP program so that it more

accurately models the storage requirements to meet the needs of a reuse system. This would

entail modeling storage as the period when supply exceeds demand and using a weekly time step.

In addition, the diurnal analysis should be expanded to show the effect that different irrigation

schedules have on storage requirements. The current calculation sets the customer demands on

typical patterns. The expanded methodology could allow different users to water at different

times and more accurately determine the storage needs of the system.










APPENDIX A
INDIVIDUAL UNIT COSTS FOR WATER REUSE SYSTEMS

Table A-1. Reuse treatment expansion costs (Hazen and Sawyer 2004).
Item Cost ($/gallon)
Facility structures $0.825
Process equipment $0.220
Auxiliary equipment $0.055


Table A-2. Transmission system unit construction costs (Hazen and Sawyer 2004).
Pipe Pipe installation Pipe installation Roadway Canal crossings
diameter paved ($/ft) unpaved ($/ft) crossings ($/ft) ($/ft)


(in)
6
8
10
12
16
18
20
24
30
36
42
48


37.50
50.00
62.50
75.00
100.00
112.50
125.00
150.00
187.50
225.00
262.50
300.00


1,140
1,330
1,370
1,600
1,670
1,980
2,280
2,340
2,520


1,240
1,330
1,520
1,770
2,150
2,280
2,510
2,730
2,960


Table A-3. Operation and maintenance costs (Hazen and Sawyer 2004).

Alternatives Operation and maintenance costs ($ per 1,000 gallons)
Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20
No Action 0.175 0.210 0.244 0.278
Low 0.175 0.210 0.244 0.278
Moderate 0.215 0.258 0.299 0.341
Medium 0.215 0.258 0.299 0.341
High 0.215 0.258 0.299 0.341
Maximum 0.215 0.258 0.299 0.341

Table A-4. Miscellaneous costs (Hazen and Sawyer 2004).
Component Cost Unit
Booster Station $750,000 Each
Land $250,000 Acre
Contingency 25% All capital costs excluding land

Costs for pumping and storage were based on the power function shown as Equation A-1.


C = aQb


(A-l)









The cost of the component, C, is determined by inserting the reclaimed water flow, Q, and

the power function parameters into Equation A-1. A typical exponent value for treatment

systems is 0.7 (Heaney et al. 2007). Pumping and storage was calculated by Hazen and Sawyer

(2004) for a 45 MGD alternative. The pumping system cost $7,300,000 and the storage was

estimated at $30,000,000. Substituting these system component costs into Equation A-i, the

coefficient was determined as 32.068 for pumps and 131.787 for storage. This coefficient and

exponent are then used in Equation A-i for various flow levels to determine system component

costs.










APPENDIX B
DAILY SIMULATION

Table B-1. Daily storage simulation. Precipitation and evapotranspiration data from Florida
Automated Weather Network.


(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


6/1/2004
6/2/2004
6/3/2004
6/4/2004
6/5/2004
6/6/2004
6/7/2004
6/8/2004
6/9/2004
6/10/2004
6/11/2004
6/12/2004
6/13/2004
6/14/2004
6/15/2004
6/16/2004
6/17/2004
6/18/2004
6/19/2004
6/20/2004
6/21/2004
6/22/2004
6/23/2004
6/24/2004
6/25/2004
6/26/2004
6/27/2004
6/28/2004
6/29/2004
7/1/2004
7/2/2004
7/3/2004
7/4/2004
7/5/2004
7/6/2004
7/7/2004
7/9/2004
7/10/2004
7/11/2004
7/16/2004


in/d
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.07
0.56
0.21
0.05
0.04
0.18
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.26
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.34
0.03
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


in/d
0.18
0.23
0.20
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.09
0.18
0.18
0.09
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.18
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.23
0.22
0.24
0.23
0.20
0.15
0.19
0.20
0.23
0.17
0.18
0.22
0.19
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.18
0.12


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.18
0.23
0.19
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.14
0.00
0.06
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.14
0.20
0.23
0.14
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.19
0.16
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.22
0.11
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.22
0.23
0.21
0.18
0.09


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
79.80
101.97
83.22
29.02
0.00
0.00
19.91
61.53
1.71
28.78
88.53
88.35
86.08
63.49
90.45
100.75
60.66
84.44
82.24
83.64
0.00
0.00
103.37
97.26
95.72
85.81
72.36
62.97
69.46
74.35
96.84
47.60
0.00
84.48
0.00
98.31
102.32
91.29
80.50
40.65


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
64.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3


MGD
-15.50
-37.67
-18.92
35.28
64.30
64.30
44.39
2.77
62.59
35.52
-24.23
-24.05
-21.78
0.81
-26.15
-36.45
3.64
-20.14
-17.94
-19.34
64.30
64.30
-39.07
-32.96
-31.42
-21.51
-8.06
1.33
-5.16
-8.05
-30.54
18.70
66.30
-18.18
66.30
-32.01
-36.02
-24.99
-14.20
25.65


MG
15.50
53.17
72.09
36.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.23
48.28
70.07
69.26
95.41
131.86
128.22
148.37
166.31
185.65
121.35
57.05
96.12
129.08
160.50
182.01
190.07
188.74
193.90
201.95
232.49
213.79
147.49
165.67
99.37
131.37
167.40
192.39
206.58
180.93










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


7/17/2004
7/18/2004
7/19/2004
7/20/2004
7/21/2004
7/22/2004
7/23/2004
7/24/2004
7/25/2004
7/26/2004
7/27/2004
7/28/2004
7/29/2004
7/30/2004
7/31/2004
8/1/2004
8/2/2004
8/3/2004
8/4/2004
8/6/2004
8/7/2004
8/8/2004
8/9/2004
8/10/2004
8/11/2004
8/12/2004
8/13/2004
8/16/2004
8/20/2004
8/21/2004
8/22/2004
8/23/2004
8/24/2004
8/25/2004
8/26/2004
8/27/2004
8/28/2004
8/29/2004
8/30/2004
9/1/2004
9/2/2004
9/3/2004
9/4/2004
9/5/2004


in/d
0.01
0.35
1.45
0.35
0.70
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.12
0.19
0.30
0.06
0.05
1.78
2.93
0.96
0.31
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.56
0.04
0.02
0.63
0.10
0.19
0.58
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.14
0.00
0.03
0.26
2.21
2.54


in/d
0.19
0.17
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.14
0.16
0.11
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.16
0.10
0.13
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.17
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.20
0.15
0.18
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.05
0.06


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.17
0.20
0.14
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.13
0.13
0.00
0.17
0.20
0.15
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.20
0.15
0.18
0.00
0.03
0.17
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
78.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
81.37
73.27
87.24
61.99
16.62
0.00
0.00
51.44
66.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
89.23
0.00
59.72
59.19
0.00
74.56
87.13
64.57
0.00
46.34
43.51
0.00
12.22
0.00
0.00
5.55
86.96
67.75
78.05
0.00
13.52
77.35
64.05
0.00
0.00
0.00


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
77.9
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2


MGD
-11.86
66.30
66.30
66.30
66.30
-15.07
-6.97
-20.94
4.31
49.68
66.30
66.30
14.86
-0.23
66.30
66.30
66.30
77.90
-11.33
77.90
18.18
18.71
77.90
3.34
-9.23
13.33
77.90
31.56
34.39
77.90
65.68
77.90
77.90
72.35
-9.06
10.15
-0.15
77.90
64.38
1.85
15.15
79.20
79.20
79.20


MG
192.79
126.49
60.19
0.00
0.00
15.07
22.04
42.98
38.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.06
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


9/6/2004
9/7/2004
9/8/2004
9/9/2004
9/10/2004
9/11/2004
9/12/2004
9/13/2004
9/17/2004
9/18/2004
9/20/2004
9/21/2004
9/22/2004
9/23/2004
9/24/2004
9/25/2004
9/26/2004
9/27/2004
9/28/2004
9/29/2004
9/30/2004
10/1/2004
10/2/2004
10/3/2004
10/4/2004
10/6/2004
10/7/2004
10/8/2004
10/9/2004
10/10/2004
10/11/2004
10/12/2004
10/13/2004
10/14/2004
10/15/2004
10/16/2004
10/17/2004
10/18/2004
10/19/2004
10/20/2004
10/22/2004
10/23/2004
10/24/2004
10/25/2004


in/d
0.05
0.28
1.03
0.00
0.01
0.25
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.19
1.21
0.00
0.00
1.46
1.23
0.00
0.24
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.31
0.14
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.46
1.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00


in/d
0.14
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.10
0.18
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.09
0.15
0.13
0.05
0.13
0.16
0.09
0.13
0.16
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.16
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.10
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.08
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.12
0.11


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.15
0.00
0.18
0.09
0.18
0.15
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.08
0.02
0.13
0.13
0.00
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.12
0.11


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
38.94
0.00
0.00
55.53
68.03
0.00
78.75
40.79
79.80
65.83
40.41
0.00
0.00
67.05
59.72
0.00
0.00
70.54
0.00
0.00
72.29
49.94
52.73
53.19
70.89
0.00
0.00
54.06
47.70
57.80
33.98
6.78
58.50
57.10
0.00
48.89
48.19
54.31
0.00
0.00
38.45
0.00
54.31
50.46


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
79.2
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4


MGD
40.26
79.20
79.20
23.67
11.17
79.20
0.45
38.41
-0.60
13.37
38.79
79.20
79.20
12.15
19.48
79.20
79.20
8.66
79.20
79.20
6.91
28.46
25.67
25.21
7.51
78.40
78.40
24.34
30.70
20.60
44.42
71.62
19.90
21.30
78.40
29.51
30.21
24.09
78.40
78.40
39.95
78.40
24.09
27.94


MG
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
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
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
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


10/26/2004
10/27/2004
10/28/2004
10/29/2004
10/30/2004
10/31/2004
11/1/2004
11/2/2004
11/3/2004
11/4/2004
11/5/2004
11/6/2004
11/7/2004
11/8/2004
11/10/2004
11/11/2004
11/12/2004
11/13/2004
11/14/2004
11/15/2004
11/16/2004
11/17/2004
11/18/2004
11/19/2004
11/20/2004
11/21/2004
11/23/2004
11/24/2004
11/25/2004
11/26/2004
11/27/2004
11/28/2004
11/29/2004
11/30/2004
12/1/2004
12/2/2004
12/3/2004
12/7/2004
12/8/2004
12/9/2004
12/10/2004
12/11/2004
12/12/2004
12/13/2004


in/d
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.05
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
0.00


in/d
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.04


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.03
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.03
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.00
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.04


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
42.43
48.02
43.65
49.07
46.27
14.77
50.64
42.82
51.51
50.99
38.24
26.47
41.56
43.13
13.13
37.72
45.23
31.43
0.00
36.32
43.13
28.81
0.00
29.16
35.97
36.67
36.15
4.23
8.21
27.94
31.08
35.97
31.78
26.02
27.94
29.51
30.03
32.65
33.00
36.67
34.40
27.41
18.16
17.99


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5


MGD
35.97
30.38
34.75
29.33
32.13
63.63
18.86
26.68
17.99
18.51
31.26
43.03
27.94
26.37
56.37
31.78
24.27
38.07
69.50
33.18
26.37
40.69
69.50
40.34
33.53
32.83
33.35
65.27
61.29
41.56
38.42
33.53
37.72
43.48
41.56
39.99
39.47
36.85
36.50
32.83
35.10
42.09
51.34
51.51


MG
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
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
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
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


12/14/2004
12/15/2004
12/16/2004
12/18/2004
12/19/2004
12/20/2004
12/21/2004
12/22/2004
12/23/2004
12/24/2004
12/25/2004
12/26/2004
12/27/2004
12/28/2004
12/29/2004
12/30/2004
12/31/2004
1/1/2005
1/2/2005
1/3/2005
1/4/2005
1/5/2005
1/6/2005
1/7/2005
1/8/2005
1/9/2005
1/10/2005
1/11/2005
1/12/2005
1/13/2005
1/14/2005
1/15/2005
1/16/2005
1/17/2005
1/18/2005
1/19/2005
1/20/2005
1/21/2005
1/22/2005
1/23/2005
1/24/2005
1/25/2005
1/27/2005
1/28/2005


in/d
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
0.01
0.43
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.84
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


in/d
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.07


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.07


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
22.53
18.33
22.70
27.07
22.00
16.76
22.00
26.72
23.92
27.76
27.07
26.72
21.30
23.57
21.93
0.00
0.00
28.81
30.03
28.92
29.16
34.92
35.27
28.22
33.35
28.81
30.21
34.92
34.57
25.14
0.00
0.00
23.92
24.45
25.49
25.49
25.32
31.61
32.13
29.86
25.67
28.29
35.27
31.43


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6
68.6


MGD
46.97
51.17
46.80
42.43
47.50
52.74
47.50
42.78
45.58
41.74
42.43
42.78
48.20
45.93
47.57
69.50
69.50
39.79
38.57
39.68
39.44
33.68
33.33
40.38
35.25
39.79
38.39
33.68
34.03
43.46
68.60
68.60
44.68
44.15
43.11
43.11
43.28
36.99
36.47
38.74
42.93
40.31
33.33
37.17


MG
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
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
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
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


1/29/2005
1/30/2005
1/31/2005
2/1/2005
2/2/2005
2/3/2005
2/4/2005
2/5/2005
2/6/2005
2/7/2005
2/8/2005
2/9/2005
2/10/2005
2/11/2005
2/12/2005
2/13/2005
2/14/2005
2/15/2005
2/16/2005
2/18/2005
2/19/2005
2/20/2005
2/21/2005
2/22/2005
2/23/2005
2/24/2005
2/25/2005
2/26/2005
2/27/2005
2/28/2005
3/1/2005
3/2/2005
3/3/2005
3/4/2005
3/5/2005
3/6/2005
3/7/2005
3/8/2005
3/9/2005
3/10/2005
3/11/2005
3/12/2005
3/13/2005
3/15/2005


in/d
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
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


in/d
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.08
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.14


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.00
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.12
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.14


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
32.48
35.27
37.37
34.92
33.70
31.43
24.80
34.22
38.07
39.46
33.53
40.86
42.26
37.19
38.76
40.34
41.03
49.07
43.83
42.61
42.61
39.50
50.46
45.92
49.77
39.11
0.00
36.84
25.00
36.67
51.69
48.19
0.00
0.00
54.65
47.32
50.11
0.00
0.00
49.94
49.59
59.37
56.75
60.94


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
68.6
68.6
68.6
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6


MGD
36.12
33.33
31.23
31.98
33.20
35.47
42.10
32.68
28.83
27.44
33.37
26.04
24.64
29.71
28.14
26.56
25.87
17.83
23.07
24.29
24.29
27.40
16.44
20.98
17.13
27.79
66.90
30.06
41.90
30.23
20.91
24.41
72.60
72.60
17.95
25.28
22.49
72.60
72.60
22.66
23.01
13.23
15.85
11.66


MG
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
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
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
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


3/17/2005
3/18/2005
3/19/2005
3/20/2005
3/21/2005
3/22/2005
3/24/2005
3/25/2005
3/26/2005
3/27/2005
3/28/2005
3/29/2005
3/30/2005
3/31/2005
4/1/2005
4/2/2005
4/3/2005
4/4/2005
4/5/2005
4/8/2005
4/9/2005
4/10/2005
4/11/2005
4/13/2005
4/14/2005
4/19/2005
4/20/2005
4/21/2005
4/22/2005
4/23/2005
4/24/2005
4/25/2005
4/26/2005
4/28/2005
4/29/2005
4/30/2005
5/1/2005
5/2/2005
5/3/2005
5/4/2005
5/5/2005
5/6/2005
5/7/2005
5/8/2005


in/d
1.91
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.30
1.41
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00


in/d
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.17
0.11
0.17
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.09
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.09
0.15
0.18
0.17
0.14
0.17
0.16
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.11
0.16
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.17
0.17
0.19


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.00
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.17
0.11
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.00
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.15
0.18
0.17
0.14
0.17
0.16
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.19
0.17
0.20
0.11
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.19


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
0.00
39.25
56.75
56.40
51.51
60.24
65.13
77.00
66.70
75.78
50.46
73.69
66.00
71.52
77.35
0.00
67.05
66.35
64.43
0.00
67.92
79.10
73.86
63.56
75.78
69.50
59.89
64.96
71.42
79.73
81.02
76.31
70.89
83.81
74.94
88.53
49.94
57.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
74.73
75.43
85.21


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.6
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4


MGD
72.60
33.35
15.85
16.20
21.09
12.36
7.47
-4.40
5.90
-3.18
22.14
-1.09
6.60
1.08
-9.65
67.70
0.65
1.35
3.27
67.70
-0.22
-11.40
-6.16
4.14
-8.08
-1.80
7.81
2.74
-3.72
-12.03
-13.32
-8.61
-3.19
-16.11
-7.24
-20.83
19.46
12.16
69.40
69.40
69.40
-5.33
-6.03
-15.81


MG
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.40
0.00
3.18
0.00
1.09
0.00
0.00
9.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
11.63
17.79
13.65
21.73
23.53
15.72
12.97
16.69
28.72
42.04
50.65
53.84
69.96
77.20
98.03
78.57
66.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.33
11.37
27.18










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


5/9/2005
5/10/2005
5/12/2005
5/13/2005
5/14/2005
5/15/2005
5/16/2005
5/17/2005
5/18/2005
5/19/2005
5/20/2005
5/21/2005
5/22/2005
5/23/2005
5/24/2005
5/25/2005
5/26/2005
5/27/2005
5/28/2005
5/29/2005
5/30/2005
5/31/2005
6/1/2005
6/2/2005
6/3/2005
6/4/2005
6/5/2005
6/6/2005
6/7/2005
6/8/2005
6/9/2005
6/11/2005
6/12/2005
6/13/2005
6/14/2005
6/15/2005
6/16/2005
6/17/2005
6/18/2005
6/19/2005
6/20/2005
6/21/2005
6/22/2005
6/23/2005


in/d
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.26
0.03
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.99
0.00
0.07
0.34
0.00
0.00
2.00
1.05
0.00
0.32
1.18
0.03
0.82
0.88
0.10
0.44
0.07
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.56
0.14
0.47
0.01
0.97
0.06
0.37
1.31


in/d
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.19
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.22
0.21
0.17
0.20
0.19
0.21
0.16
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.10
0.13
0.08
0.16
0.10
0.12
0.17
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.18
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.04
0.10
0.08
0.15


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.15
0.14
0.09
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.14
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.22
0.21
0.00
0.20
0.12
0.00
0.16
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.17
0.14
0.21
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
65.03
60.91
40.69
67.89
69.50
78.16
73.58
79.90
60.14
0.00
61.95
0.00
74.04
77.53
99.18
93.59
0.00
88.35
51.20
0.00
71.07
47.32
0.00
0.00
51.34
0.00
0.00
42.57
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
46.31
74.46
61.78
95.03
0.00
27.83
0.00
65.06
0.00
19.66
0.00
0.00


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2


MGD
4.37
8.49
28.71
1.51
-0.10
-8.76
-4.18
-10.50
9.26
69.40
7.45
69.40
-4.64
-8.13
-29.78
-24.19
69.40
-18.95
18.20
69.40
-1.67
22.08
91.20
91.20
39.86
91.20
91.20
48.63
91.20
91.20
91.03
91.20
44.89
16.74
29.42
-3.83
91.20
63.37
91.20
26.14
91.20
71.54
91.20
91.20


MG
22.81
14.31
0.00
0.00
0.10
8.85
13.04
23.54
14.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.64
12.77
42.55
66.74
0.00
18.95
0.75
0.00
1.67
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
3.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


6/24/2005
6/25/2005
6/26/2005
6/27/2005
6/28/2005
6/29/2005
6/30/2005
7/1/2005
7/2/2005
7/3/2005
7/4/2005
7/5/2005
7/6/2005
7/7/2005
7/8/2005
7/9/2005
7/10/2005
7/11/2005
7/12/2005
7/13/2005
7/14/2005
7/15/2005
7/16/2005
7/17/2005
7/18/2005
7/19/2005
7/20/2005
7/21/2005
7/22/2005
7/23/2005
7/24/2005
7/25/2005
7/26/2005
7/27/2005
7/28/2005
7/29/2005
7/30/2005
7/31/2005
8/1/2005
8/2/2005
8/3/2005
8/4/2005
8/5/2005
8/6/2005


in/d
0.00
0.01
0.01
1.20
0.66
0.00
1.06
1.20
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.69
3.48
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.00
0.97
0.35
1.18


in/d
0.17
0.20
0.12
0.11
0.15
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.13
0.23
0.24
0.23
0.17
0.19
0.11
0.09
0.23
0.21
0.16
0.18
0.22
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.22
0.20
0.22
0.19
0.23
0.20
0.18
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.16
0.12
0.20
0.18
0.13
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.17


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.17
0.19
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.12
0.23
0.24
0.21
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.22
0.09
0.22
0.19
0.23
0.20
0.18
0.08
0.20
0.15
0.16
0.12
0.18
0.16
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
73.86
83.40
50.39
0.00
0.00
48.54
0.00
0.00
57.90
54.58
102.67
105.64
91.36
75.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
103.20
95.34
71.94
69.71
81.27
76.52
85.04
74.14
96.04
38.00
96.56
84.69
102.50
88.70
81.89
33.91
88.18
68.45
71.59
54.65
79.14
68.83
0.00
74.04
0.00
0.00
0.00


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
76.9
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6


MGD
17.34
7.80
40.81
91.20
91.20
42.66
91.20
76.90
19.00
22.32
-25.77
-28.74
-14.46
1.82
76.90
76.90
76.90
-26.30
-18.44
4.96
7.19
-4.37
0.38
-8.14
2.76
-19.14
38.90
-19.66
-7.79
-25.60
-11.80
-4.99
42.99
-11.28
8.45
5.31
22.25
-2.24
8.77
77.60
3.56
77.60
77.60
77.60


MG
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.77
54.51
68.97
67.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.30
44.74
39.78
32.58
36.95
36.56
44.70
41.94
61.08
22.18
41.84
49.63
75.22
87.03
92.02
49.03
60.31
51.86
46.55
24.31
26.54
17.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


8/7/2005
8/8/2005
8/9/2005
8/10/2005
8/16/2005
8/17/2005
8/18/2005
8/19/2005
8/20/2005
8/21/2005
8/22/2005
8/23/2005
8/24/2005
8/26/2005
8/27/2005
8/28/2005
8/29/2005
8/30/2005
8/31/2005
9/2/2005
9/3/2005
9/4/2005
9/5/2005
9/6/2005
9/7/2005
9/8/2005
9/9/2005
9/10/2005
9/11/2005
9/12/2005
9/13/2005
9/14/2005
9/15/2005
9/16/2005
9/17/2005
9/18/2005
9/19/2005
9/20/2005
9/21/2005
9/22/2005
9/23/2005
9/24/2005
9/25/2005
9/26/2005


in/d
1.83
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.17
0.27
0.12
0.29
0.22
0.07
0.10
0.00
0.54
0.03
0.23
0.39
0.40
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.49
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.63
1.48
0.01
0.18
0.12
0.00
0.05
0.00


in/d
0.17
0.20
0.14
0.14
0.19
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.10
0.14
0.16
0.14
0.19
0.13
0.16
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.16
0.14
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.15
0.05
0.13
0.10
0.11
0.18
0.15
0.15


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.00
0.20
0.13
0.14
0.19
0.12
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.03
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.04
0.19
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.00
0.06
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.14
0.18
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.10
0.15


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
0.00
89.40
57.38
62.51
84.69
52.98
96.56
94.82
86.26
81.93
11.91
0.00
20.12
0.00
0.00
38.97
18.51
85.39
0.00
58.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
77.35
74.21
88.18
0.00
28.25
85.39
86.96
84.34
83.81
60.17
79.80
79.10
0.00
0.00
52.66
0.00
0.00
79.27
42.61
67.92


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8


MGD
77.60
-11.80
20.22
15.09
-7.09
24.62
-18.96
-17.22
-8.66
-4.33
65.69
77.60
57.48
77.60
77.60
38.63
59.09
-7.79
77.60
21.34
79.80
79.80
79.80
79.80
2.45
5.59
-8.38
79.80
51.55
-5.59
-7.16
-4.54
-4.01
19.63
0.00
0.70
79.80
79.80
27.14
79.80
79.80
0.53
37.19
11.88


MG
0.00
11.80
0.00
0.00
7.09
0.00
18.96
36.18
44.84
49.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.38
0.00
0.00
5.59
12.74
17.28
21.30
1.67
1.67
0.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


9/27/2005
9/28/2005
9/29/2005
9/30/2005
10/1/2005
10/2/2005
10/3/2005
10/4/2005
10/5/2005
10/6/2005
10/7/2005
10/8/2005
10/9/2005
10/10/2005
10/12/2005
10/13/2005
10/14/2005
10/15/2005
10/16/2005
10/17/2005
10/18/2005
10/20/2005
10/21/2005
10/22/2005
10/23/2005
10/26/2005
10/28/2005
10/29/2005
10/30/2005
10/31/2005
11/1/2005
11/2/2005
11/3/2005
11/4/2005
11/5/2005
11/6/2005
11/7/2005
11/8/2005
11/9/2005
11/10/2005
11/11/2005
11/12/2005
11/13/2005
11/14/2005


in/d
0.15
0.02
1.81
0.01
0.10
1.93
0.29
0.36
0.62
0.49
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.03
0.57
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.21


in/d
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.14
0.09
0.12
0.08
0.10
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.06
0.12
0.13
0.08
0.11
0.05
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.07
0.06
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.08


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.15
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.14
0.09
0.00
0.12
0.13
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.07
0.00
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.00


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
0.00
40.89
0.00
64.71
15.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
62.69
59.02
60.24
71.42
62.16
38.03
0.00
52.21
56.40
0.00
35.59
0.00
0.00
52.91
41.91
42.78
47.15
44.00
31.43
0.00
48.54
38.42
41.21
52.56
45.57
48.37
32.69
40.51
44.00
40.51
39.81
7.26
0.00


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1


MGD
79.80
38.91
79.80
15.09
61.33
76.70
76.70
76.70
76.70
76.70
76.70
14.01
17.68
16.46
5.28
14.54
38.67
76.70
24.49
20.30
76.70
41.11
76.70
76.70
23.79
34.79
33.92
29.55
32.70
45.27
91.10
42.56
52.68
49.89
38.54
45.53
42.73
58.41
50.59
47.10
50.59
51.29
83.84
91.10


MG
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
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
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
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


11/15/2005
11/16/2005
11/17/2005
11/18/2005
11/19/2005
11/20/2005
11/21/2005
11/22/2005
11/23/2005
11/24/2005
11/25/2005
11/26/2005
11/27/2005
11/28/2005
11/29/2005
11/30/2005
12/1/2005
12/2/2005
12/3/2005
12/4/2005
12/5/2005
12/6/2005
12/7/2005
12/8/2005
12/9/2005
12/10/2005
12/11/2005
12/12/2005
12/14/2005
12/15/2005
12/16/2005
12/17/2005
12/18/2005
12/19/2005
12/20/2005
12/21/2005
12/22/2005
12/23/2005
12/24/2005
12/25/2005
12/26/2005
12/27/2005
12/28/2005
12/29/2005


in/d
0.06
0.00
0.19
0.91
0.14
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.78
0.41
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
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


in/d
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.06


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.06


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
0.00
17.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.40
23.57
25.49
29.51
24.97
23.57
15.54
14.14
0.00
26.37
27.94
25.32
25.49
25.67
23.57
0.00
0.00
15.54
0.00
17.81
18.68
21.48
22.18
0.00
29.16
32.83
32.13
19.03
24.45
21.30
20.43
23.05
26.02
29.34
23.92
18.86
22.00
28.29


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7


MGD
91.10
73.11
91.10
91.10
91.10
91.10
67.70
67.53
65.61
61.59
66.13
67.53
75.56
76.96
91.10
64.73
40.76
43.38
43.21
43.03
45.13
68.70
68.70
53.16
68.70
50.89
50.02
47.22
46.52
68.70
39.54
35.87
36.57
49.67
44.25
47.40
48.27
45.65
42.68
39.36
44.78
49.84
46.70
40.41


MG
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
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
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
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


12/30/2005
12/31/2005
1/1/2006
1/2/2006
1/3/2006
1/4/2006
1/5/2006
1/6/2006
1/7/2006
1/8/2006
1/9/2006
1/10/2006
1/11/2006
1/12/2006
1/13/2006
1/14/2006
1/15/2006
1/16/2006
1/17/2006
1/18/2006
1/19/2006
1/20/2006
1/21/2006
1/22/2006
1/23/2006
1/24/2006
1/25/2006
1/26/2006
1/27/2006
1/28/2006
1/30/2006
1/31/2006
2/1/2006
2/2/2006
2/3/2006
2/4/2006
2/5/2006
2/6/2006
2/7/2006
2/8/2006
2/9/2006
2/10/2006
2/11/2006
2/12/2006


in/d
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


in/d
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.07


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.07


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
25.32
29.34
33.00
34.92
34.40
26.37
26.54
22.70
17.81
18.16
26.37
24.66
37.02
31.08
0.00
0.00
21.83
24.45
31.61
29.51
26.89
30.84
40.86
33.35
38.07
37.72
34.40
33.18
31.43
34.92
0.00
36.49
36.84
31.26
41.56
0.00
36.32
36.67
40.51
42.08
39.81
41.03
45.05
30.73


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
68.7
68.7
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5


MGD
43.38
39.36
40.50
38.58
39.10
47.13
46.96
50.80
55.69
55.34
47.13
48.84
36.48
42.42
73.50
73.50
51.67
49.05
41.89
43.99
46.61
42.66
32.64
40.15
35.43
35.78
39.10
40.32
42.07
38.58
73.50
37.01
41.66
47.24
36.94
78.50
42.18
41.83
37.99
36.42
38.69
37.47
33.45
47.77


MG
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
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
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
0.00
0.00










Table B-1. Continued
(A) (B) (C)
Date Precip ET


2/13/2006
2/14/2006
2/15/2006
2/16/2006
2/17/2006
2/18/2006
2/19/2006
2/20/2006
2/21/2006
2/22/2006
2/23/2006
2/24/2006
2/25/2006
2/26/2006
2/27/2006
2/28/2006
3/1/2006
3/2/2006
3/3/2006
3/4/2006
3/5/2006
3/6/2006
3/7/2006
3/8/2006
3/9/2006
3/10/2006
3/11/2006
3/12/2006
3/13/2006
3/14/2006
3/15/2006
3/16/2006
3/17/2006
3/18/2006
3/19/2006
3/20/2006
3/21/2006
3/22/2006
3/23/2006
3/24/2006
3/25/2006
3/26/2006
3/27/2006
3/28/2006


in/d
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.07
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
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
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


in/d
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.13
0.15
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.14
0.18
0.15
0.09
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13


(G) (H)
S-D Storage


(D)
Irrigation
demand
in/d
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.13
0.15
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.14
0.18
0.13
0.03
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13


(E)
Irrigation
volume
MGD
33.18
37.89
38.94
44.53
47.50
52.38
53.08
53.26
50.81
48.54
61.99
0.00
14.53
0.00
45.92
50.46
46.10
57.27
50.11
47.95
52.38
53.61
57.62
53.26
52.56
56.75
63.91
67.92
57.80
66.00
52.38
56.57
57.97
63.21
46.97
62.69
79.10
57.13
14.60
51.69
59.02
59.37
55.53
57.97


(F)
Wastewater
flow
MGD
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
78.5
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8
76.8


MGD
45.32
40.61
39.56
33.97
31.00
26.12
25.42
25.24
27.69
29.96
16.51
78.50
63.97
78.50
32.58
28.04
30.70
19.53
26.69
28.85
24.42
23.19
19.18
23.54
24.24
20.05
12.89
8.88
19.00
10.80
24.42
20.23
18.83
13.59
29.83
14.11
-2.30
19.67
62.20
25.11
17.78
17.43
21.27
18.83


MG
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
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
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00