Ordinance 009-1980ORDINANCE NO. 9 -1980
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ADOPTING THE MONROE COUNTY SERVICES AND UTILITY
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING LEGAL STATUS OF SAID
ELEMENT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, in conformity with, and in furtherance of,
the purposes of the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning
Act of 1975", Florida Statutes Sections 163.3161-163.3211;
and of Florida Statute Chapter 380, have after due con-
sideration and study with public participation completed the
Monroe County Services and Utility Element, and
WHEREAS, said element has been duly approved by the
Monroe County Planning and Zoning Department and the Monroe
County Zoning Board acting as the designated local planning
agency pursuant to F.S. 163.3174, said Board having held
numerous meetings with thepublic toward the end,that broad
dissemination of the land use proposals and alternatives and
open public discussion be had and received, and
WHEREAS, said Board having recommended to the Board of
Country Commissioners that said plan be approved and adopted
by the County Commissioners as an element to the Comprehen-
sive Plan for Monroe County, and
WHEREAS, the Board having duly considered the adoption
of said plan at a regular meeting held on May 6, 1980, May 20,
1980 and June 3, 1980, now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA as follows:
Section 1. That the MONROE COUNTY SERVICES AND UTILITY
ELEMENT be and the same is hereby adopted by reference as
the Seventh Element of the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Page 1 of 2 Pages
3 1(
Section 2. That said element to the Comprehensive Plan
shall be accorded and have the full legal status and effect
as set forth in Florida Statutes, Section 163.3194, and
particularly, no land development regulation, land develop-
ment code, or amendment thereto shall be adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, until such
regulation, code or amendment thereto has been referred to
the local planning agency for review and recommendation as to
the relationship of such proposal to the adopted element or
portion thereof of the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the
receipt of the official acknowledgment from the Department of
State acknowledging receipt of certified copy of this Ordinance
and that said Ordinance has been filed in said office by the
Department of Administration, Division of State Planning pur-
suant. to the requirements of Florida Statutes Section 380.05
and Florida Statutes Chpater 120.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE TY, RIDA
B u __
Y
ChaArman
(Seal.)
Attest:
Clerk
ADOPTED: June 3, 1980
FILED WITH DEPARTMENT OF STATE:
EFFECTIVE: June 19, 1980
June 11, 1980
Page 2 of 2 Pages
APPM D As rO FORA-1
AM t fML BUFFrsiENCY..
BY f`
Aff"tya ®thee
e
01-09 # 9-IrYa
0:09
vol
moirewe ��coui�ty
no
- I - ent 1
mces utmlmty
se, rvi 1 1
.78 (E (2)
MONROE COUNTY
SERVICES 8& UTILITY ELEMENT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 1978
Revised April, 1979
Prepared by the Monroe County Planning
Department under contract with the
Department of Community Affairs. The
preparation of this element was
financially aided through a Grant from
The State of Florida, under the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning Act
Assistance Fund authorized by Item 254A
of Chapter 77-465, Laws of Florida.
1.
MONROE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Puriegton Howanitz, Chairman
Richard A. Kerr, Vice Chairman
Gerald Hernandez
Don Schloesser
Jerome Shipley
MONROE COUNTY
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Edward Davidson, Chairman
Roy Anderson
Ted Carter
Paul Cates
Nathaniel Funke
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Kermit H. Lewin, Director
Henry F. Weinkam, Chief Planner (1)
Pravin C. Shah, Senior Planner (2)
Herman Sweeting, Assistant Planner (3)
Sheldon Kulik, Planning Assistant
Lorraine Rogers, Secretary
CONSULTANT
B,C&E/CH2M HILL
Responsible for (1) administrative coordination, (2) technical
coordination, and (3) graphics production
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Introduction
Summary
Chapter
1:
SANITARY SEWER
1-20
Existing Conditions and Problems
1
Goals and Objectives
13
Alternatives
14
Analysis of Alternatives
15
Policies and Implementation
19
Supporting Materials
20
Chapter
2:
SOLID WASTE
21-35
Existing Conditions and Needs
21
Goals and Objectives
27
Alternatives
28
Evaluation of Alternatives
30
Recommendations and Implementation
32
Intergovernmental Coordination
34
Supporting Materials
35
Chapter
3:
DRAINAGE
36-42
Existing Conditions and Needs
36
Alternatives
38 ,
Goals and Policies
40
Implementation
40
Chapter
4:
POTABLE WATER
43-52
Existing Conditions and Needs
43
Alternatives
47
Goals and Policies
51
Implementation
52
Chapter
5:
UTILITY
53-64
Existing Conditions and Trends
53
Goals and Policies
63
Implementation
64
INTRODUCTION
The Monroe County Public Services and Utility Element is prepared
pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975,
Chapter 163, F.S. This element addresses the requirements of two
required elements, Sections 163-3177(6)(c) and (i), which refer to
basic public services required to serve the existing and projected
needs. Specifically, these services include sanitary sewer, solid
waste, drainage, potable water, and utility (electric power facilities).
These two separate elements have been combined into a single "Public
Services and Utility Element" for Monroe County. The purpose of the
element is to document the most cost-effective, environmentally sound,
and implementable schedule for the public facilities and services
listed above. Problems will be identified, alternatives discussed,
and implementation measures identified to meet local, State, and
Federal pollution control standards and regulations.
The information contained in this element relies primarily on the
findings and recommendations of several recently completed studies
done for Monroe County. The element summarizes the information
presented in these studies, updates information where possible, and
presents the current status of water quality planning and development
in the County. The various studies used to prepare this element are
referenced in appropriate chapters.
iv
r
SUMMARY
The Public Services and Utility Element discusses several issues
relating to wastewater planning, solid waste, drainage, potable water,
and electric power. The element analyzes present problems, and
emphasizes what is being done to solve them. This element interfaces
with the Land Use Element, since proper design and location of public
facilities and services depends greatly on how many people and where
in Monroe County people will live.
Monroe County's wastewater treatment facilities are a mixture of public
and private ownership, and are scattered widely throughout the County.
The Monroe County 201 Wastewater Facility Plan inventoried existing
pollution sources, analyzed collection and treatment alternatives, and
estimated costs. A six -plant configuration proved to be the most cost-
effective means of providing centralized wastewater service. However,
implementation of a centralized wastewater system for all of the Keys
will not be implemented until water quality data confirms health hazards
and violations of water quality standards.
The County is actively engaged in developing and implementing its solid
waste management plan. The County has purchased one incinerator and
expects to have three operating by 1981. The incineration system will
decrease pressures on sanitary landfills and meet State and Federal
pollution control regulations.
Monroe County, because of its exposed coastal location and low elevation,
presents special drainage and flood hazard problems. Through its major
development and plat filing ordinances and disaster planning, the County
has sought to minimize property damage and loss of human life. The County
is committed to continually revise and update its Disaster Preparedness
Plan and to ensure that new development provides adequate drainage
facilities.
v
r
40
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority has the prime responsibility for
ensuring adequate potable water supplies are available in Monroe County.
The FKAA is currently examining feasible alternatives to expand the
water supply to a growing population and economy. The improvements may
require increased water rates, depending on the availability of supple-
mental grants and other income.
The City of Key West Electric System and Florida Keys Electric provide
electric power to Monroe County residents. Florida Keys Electric is
currently designing a new Marathon to Islamorada line which will com-
pletely tie the utilities to the mainland. The plans are close to being
culminated in a joint ownership and operational agreement between the
two utilities.
vi
CHAPTER I
SAN ITARY SEWER
Chapter 1
SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROBLEMS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Planning Area
The planning area studied in the 201 wastewater facilities plan includes
all of unincorporated Monroe County from Upper Key Largo to Big Coppitt
including two incorporated areas, Key Colony Beach and Layton. Key West
and Stock Island were excluded from the -area and are being studied
separately.
Inventory of Pollution Sources
The Monroe County 201 plan inventoried existing pollution sources within
the planning area. The inventory included both wastewater treatment
plant and industrial point source discharges. Figure 1 shows the
location of each of these facilities.
The inventory conducted in 1976 identified 106 wastewater treatment
plants within the study area, classified as follows:
Number
Type of Plants
Small operating plants
(less than 50,000 gpda) gg
Large operating plants
(greater than 50,000 gpd) 13
New construction 1
Abandoned plants 1
Partially completed 1
Planned facilities 1
TOTAL 106
�, aGallons per day.
w
U-
U)
w_
F--
U
F- U)
z r
w w
� w
w 0 N
O x
rr L fi
Q w J
J
w F- W
Z x
0
z
F-
X
w
0
0) -
N
w
w
w
�
J
c
N
U
J
z
U
a
z
o
z
z
z
J o
a
a
a
w
wEr
o
f—
J p
Q
Of
w
U
1—
z >
m
w
( a
a
Z
Ld
J 0
Ij
�
.V ?• wJr 1�G�4�` i
L
Sy'y
a
N
lv�
t
G
E
U
J
O
N
IA
The small wastewater treatment plants are concentrated mainly in Mara-
thon (28%) and in Key Largo (18%). The general location, number of
plants, and design flow capacity are summarized below:
SMALL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
General
Number
Design Flow
Locations
of Plants
Capacity, mgda
Marathon
25
0.210
Key Largo
16
0.283
Islamorada
9
0.141
Tavernier
7
0.134
Plantation Key
4
0.104
Long Key
4
0.015
Sugarleaf Key
4
0.042
Bahia Honda Key
4
0.020
Jewfish Creek
3
0.023
Grassy Key
2
0.045
Coco Plum Beach
2
0.018
Big Pine Key
2
0.010
Big Coppitt Key
2
0.024
Lower
Matecumbe Key
2
0.008
Boca Chica Key
1
0.006
Greyhound Key
1
0.040
Knights Key
1
0.007
TOTAL
89
1.13
a Design flow capacity less than 50,000 gpd.
bmgd = million gallons per day.
The large wastewater treatment plants are concentrated mainly in the Key
Largo area (Key Largo and Upper Key Largo) with five plants or 39% of
the total number of large plants located in that area. The distinction
between the large and small plants has been made based on the subjective
determination that only plants with flows greater than 50,000 gpd would
have any potential long-term use as part of a regional or centralized
2
wastewater treatment system. A detailed location and flow summary for
the operating large wastewater treatment plants in the study area is
given below.
LARGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
General
Number
Design Flow
Locations
of Plants
Capacity, mgd
Key Largo
3
0.22
Upper Key Largo
2
0.25
Boca Chica Key
1
0.40
Key Colony Beach
1
0.20
Cudjoe Key
1
0.07
Long Key
1
0.06
Marathon
1
0.06
Ohio Key
1
0.06
Duck Key
1
0.05
Fat Deer Key
1
0.05
TOTAL
13
1.42
a Design flow greater than 50,000 gpd
Source: BC&E.
The total average daily flow of all plants was 1.31 million gallons per
day, or 51.4% of the total design capacity. Most of the plants are
located in the urbanized and developed portions of the County.
'Effluent Disposal
Most small wastewater treatment plants discharge effluents into bore -
holes. Boreholes, or recharge wells, are shallow wells from 10 to 40
feet deep. The boreholes penetrate into the porous upper limestone
formations (Miami Limestone Formation in the Lower Keys and Key Largo
Limestone Formations in the Upper Keys). The plant effluents flow by
gravity into the boreholes, seep into the surrounding porous limestone,
and are probably dispersed by tidal flushing action.
3
_ Outfalls to bays or directly to the ocean comprise the second most
widely used effluent disposal method for the smaller plants.
Small Plant Number
Effluent Disposal of Plants
Boreholes
55
Outfalls
19
Drainfields
5
Boreholes and spray irrigation
4
Drainfield followed by borehole
2
Spray irrigation
2
Penetration --evaporation ponds
1
Polishing pond with overflow
to receiving water body
1
TOTAL
89
The majority of the large wastewater treatment plants also discharge
effluents into boreholes. Outfalls to bays or directly to the ocean is
the second most widely used method (see below).
Effluent Disposal Number
of Plants
Boreholes 7
Outfalls 5
Boreholes and spray irrigation 1
TOTAL 13
The efficiency of the large and small plants was also evaluated. Effluent
characteristics were evaluated for key parameters. With regard to
removal of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), all the larger plants and
at least 85% of the small plants have an effluent concentration of 20
mg/l or less. At least 50% of the plants have an effluent concentration
Of 10 mg/l or less, which is considered excellent. Suspended solids
concentrations were 20 mg/l or less in about 75% of the plants, and
excellent results of 10 mg/l or less occurred in about 60% of the
plants. Similar findings were made for fecal coliforms, ammonia nitrogen,
and total kjeldahl nitrogen. In general, the larger wastewater treatment
n
- plants were found to be in good condition, well operated, and producing
• good quality effluents. The smaller plants, though found to be in
generally good condition and well operated, showed much more variable
performance.
Collection Systems
Most of the wastewater collection systems in Monroe County are rela-
tively small, built primarily for campgrounds, trailer parks, motels,
condominiums, schools, and restaurants. The only relatively major
collection systems are in the City of Key Colony Beach and the Ocean
Reef Club, a private community in Upper Key Largo.
Wastewater volumes handled by each minor collection system are generally
small, with design capacities ranging from 2,000 gpd for a small trailer
park up to a maximum of 90,000 gpd for a condominium complex. Extraneous
flows (due to infiltration) are small and do not warrant rehabilitation
of lines.
The City of Key Colony Beach wastewater collection system has been
• subject to periodic high infiltration due to rainfall. These high
extraneous flows are of short duration, dropping off rapidly after
rainfall and are attributed to rapid percolation of rainwater through
the limestone substratum and into breaks in the collection system. Some
rehabilitation of this system has been conducted, but with unknown
success. Effluent chloride data show that seawater infiltration during
high tides is not a significant problem with the Key Colony Beach
collection system.
The Ocean Reef Club experienced serious seawater infiltration problems
in the past with its vitrified clay pipe sewer system. Most of this
pipe has since been replaced and infiltration into the system reduced
significantly.
5
Key West and Stock Island
The City of Key West wastewater system is centralized. Untreated
sewage is discharged into the ocean, and currently does not comply
with State and Federal wastewater and water quality regulations.
The City is in the process of upgrading its treatment facility and
capacity by constructing a new wastewater treatment plant on land leased
from the United States Navy. The new treatment plant will produce
effluent that complies with State and Federal regulations, and will
improve the water quality at the existing outfall discharge point.
Some of the treated wastewater will be recycled and used to water open
space and green areas. The reclaimed water will reduce, to some extent,
potable water demand which is currently being used for sprinkling these
areas.
The present collection systems have extremely high rates of salt water
infiltration and inflow. New lines will be constructed to abate this
problem.
Present and Projected Land Use and Population
Wastewater flow projections depend primarily on the extent and location
of development. These flows will determine the need, type, and size of
collection, treatment, and disposal facilities. Future flow projections
were based upon land use patterns prepared by Milo Smith and Associates
in the update of the County's land use plan. This base information was
supplemented by an inventory of dwelling and commercial units on each
key in the planning area, prepared from field investigations by the
Monroe County Municipal Services District. For 201 planning purposes,
the planning area was divided into 26 subdistricts. The existing land
use and projected future development were evaluated in each subdistrict.
_ Future land use designations and densities have been developed in the
updated land use plan and are divided into the lower, middle, and upper
Keys areas.
The lower Keys contain primarily preservation and conservation areas as
designated in the Coastal Zone Management Study. Protection of the area
will require low density development.
Marathon is the major developed area in the middle Keys. The area
contains a substantial amount of commercial development and is experiencing
significant population growth. It is expected to absorb some of the
more intensive new development in order to reduce pressures on other
areas. Expansion will require that Grassy Key, minimally developed at
present, be established as a new residential center.
The Upper Keys (Upper Matecumbe to Key Largo) are developed or committed
to development from its southern end to the middle of Key Largo.
Islamorada, Plantation -Tavernier, and Rock Harbor are the designated
development centers. Rock Harbor is expected to develop as the prin-
cipal commercial and service focus for the area.
Population projections were based on existing and projected growth
developed in the land use plan element. The Key West portion of the
plan was subtracted from the total County figures since this area is
being planned for independently by the City of Key West. The Key West
area is expected to incur only moderate growth between now and the year
2000.
Population projections for the planning area were prepared considering
permanent residents, seasonal residents, and peak tourist populations,
since wastewater facilities must be designed to handle peak flows. A
total peak population of 83,100 persons was determined for the year 2000
(Table 1). Using the land use plan and the inventory of dwelling and
commercial units, population in each subdistrict was then determined
7
Table 1
POPULATION PROJECTIONS ]976 - 2000
MONROE COUNTY
Permanent
Seasonal
Residential
Residential
Peak Tourist
Total Peak
Year
Population
Population
Population
Population
1976
27,600
9,600
20,300
57,500
1978
29,200
10,200
21,500
60,900
1980
30,800
10,700
22,600
64,100
1985
34,000
11,900
25,000
70,900
1990
36,500
12,700
26,800
76,000
1995
38,200
13,200
28,000
79,400
2000
39,900
13,900
29,300
83,100
IExcludes Key West and Stock Island.
subjectively, so that the total equalled population projected for the
s
whole planning area in 1985, 1990, and 2000. Population estimates and
distribution of population were aggregated into the 26 subdistricts
(Table 2). The percent of the population that is sewerable increases
from 42 percent in 1976 to 96 percent in 2000, assuming service is
provided to subdistricts with peak densities of 3 units per acre (8-10
people/acre) or greater, or total peak residential populations exceeding
1,000 people. The 3 unit/acre criteria is consistent with existing
State law (Chapter lOD-6,FAC)which limits septic tank use to 3 units/acre
where a public water supply is provided and where all other prerequisites
for septic tank use are met.
Current and Anticipated Flow Rates
Per capita wastewater generation and characteristics were developed from
existing and projected water usage and from results of field sampling
and analysis. By applying these values to population projections,
projected future wastewater loads and flows were determined for each
subdistrict.
The existing wastewater generation for the Keys is estimated to be 45
gallons per connection per day (gpcd) for tourists and 75 gpcd for
permanent residents. These per capita flows are expected to increase as
improvements to the water supply system make water more available. For
instance, the year 2000 characteristics will increase to 65 and 110,
respectively. The projected 5-year incremental increases are shown
below.
Per Capita Wastewater Generation, gpd
Year
Residents
Tourists
1976
75
45
1980
75
45
1985
95
52
1990
100
57
1995
105
61
2000
110
65
9
Table 2
MONROE COUNTY SUBDISTRICTS
Subdistrict
Area Description
I
Upper Key Largo
II
Key Largo City
III
Rock Harbor
IV
Tavernier
V
Plantation Key
VI
Windley Key
VII
Upper Matecumbe Key
VIII
Lower Matecumbe Key
IX
City of Layton
X
Long Key (excluding Layton)
XI
Conch Key
XII
Duck Key
XIII
Grassy Key
XIV
Crawl Key
XV
City of Key Colony Beach
XVI
Marathon (excluding Key Colony Beach)
XVII
Ohio, Bahia Honda and Pigeon Key
XVIII
Big Pine Key
XIV
Torch Keys
• XX
Ramrod Key
XXI
Summerland Key
XXII
Cudjoe Key
XXIII
Upper Sugarloaf Key
XXIV
Lower Sugarloaf Key
XXV
Saddlebunch Keys
XXVI
Big Coppitt Key
10
Summary of Standards and Needs
Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities are subject to
the standards and requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
Chapter 17-3 of the Florida Administrative Code establishes the appli-
cable water quality standards and criteria which all present and future
facilities must meet.
Septic tank installations in the Keys are subject to the requirements of
Chapter lOD-6 of the "Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services Standards for Individual Sewaqe and Disposal Facilities."
Septic tanks are currently the primary means of disposal for single-
family dwellings in Monroe County. State law requires that densities be
restricted to three dwelling units per acre where septic tanks are
primarily used in conjunction with a public water supply.
Summarized below are the subdistricts that need immediate centralized
collection and treatment facilities and those which can be sewered
later. This determination was based on providing immediate service to
existing, developed subdistricts with densities of greater than 3 units
or 8-10 people per acre, or with total populations exceeding 1,000 people.
The limestone substratum and lack of well -drained soils preclude effec-
tive septic tank operation and dictate the need to replace septic
systems with centralized collection and treatment.
The priority areas for collection and treatment are:
1. Ocean Reef Club in the Upper Key Largo areal.
2. Key Largo City area.
3. Rock Harbor area.
4. Tavernier area.
5. Windley Keyl.
6. Upper Matecumbe Key.
7. City of 4ayton.
8. Long Key .
9. Conch Key area.
11
10. Crawl Key area (westernm?st portion).
11. City of Key Colony Beach .
12. Marathon area.
13. Ohio, Bahia Honda, and Pigeon Key areal.
14. Big Pine Key area.
15. Big Coppitt Key area.
1Have at least one existing collection and treatment facility.
Subdistricts which presently do not have high population densities may
require sewering later, subjectively set at 1990. These subdistricts
include:
I. Upper Key Largo area (excluding the Ocean Reef Club).
2. Lower Matecumbe Key.
3. Grassy Key.
4. Duck Key (residential).
5. Torch Keys area.
6. Ramrod Key.
7. Summerland Key.
8. Cudjoe Key (residential).
9. Upper Sugarloaf Key area.
10. Lower Sugarloaf Key area.
Due to its isolation and low growth potential, no central facilities are
recommended for the Saddlebunch Keys area. Properly constructed and
installed septic tanks will meet the wastewater management needs of this
area until centralized wastewater collection and treatment facilities
are deemed necessary.
Another principal need at present is to further document existing water
quality problems. The water quality monitoring program conducted in the
201 plan was limited in scope and not in sufficient detail to allow
documentation of potential water quality or health problems associated
with septic tanks. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
has decided not to require construction of any centralized wastewater
collection, treatment, or disposal facilities until additional data is
generated to document violation of water quality standards or threats to
public health.
12
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
NATIONAL GOALS
Monroe County's wastewater planning has been developed in accordance
with water quality objectives and other water management goals promul-
gated by Public Law 92-500, The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendmentsof 1972. The National Goal of the Act is "to restore and
maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the
nation's waters."
In achieving this National Goal, PL 92-500 provide for several interim
goals, the most pertinent being the following.
1. "To attain by July 1, 1983 water quality which provides for the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
recreation in and on the water."
2. "To eliminate the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters by
1985."
MONROE COUNTY GOALS
To promote and protect public health, safety, and welfare. Monroe
County will direct its efforts to attaining the following goals.
1. To develop a timely, orderly, and efficient wastewater collection
and treatment system that best supports existing and projected land
uses.
2. To develop and implement an equitable pricing policy to provide
future services.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. The principal objective to be accomplished in the next year is to
undertake a comprehensive water quality monitoring program. The
purpose of the program is to document specific problem areas which
may be in violation of federal or state standards.
13
2. Upon confirmation of the problem areas, priorities for construction
• of centralized wastewater facilities will be reevaluated, with
those areas in greatest need given highest priority.
ALTERNATIVES
DISPOSAL, COLLECTION, AND TREATMENT
The 201 facilities plan investigated in detail potential collection,
treatment, and disposal alternatives. Each is discussed separately
below.
Disposal
Disposal methods evaluated included underground disposal to boreholes at
depths of up to about 40 feet; shallow well injection at depths of up to
900 feet; and deep -well injection at depths of 2,500 to 3,300 feet in
the Upper and Middle Keys and about 1,100 to 1,300 feet in the Lower
Keys. Other methods considered included septic tanks, land spreading,
ocean outfalls, and discharge to "surge channels," or natural channels
• between Keys where tidal mixing and net movement of water are sufficient
to convey effluent from the point of discharge to the Gulf Stream
without causing water quality or environmental problems. Technically
feasible disposal methods included boreholes and septic tanks in areas
with adequate flushing of canals and near -shore waters; deep -well
injection, and surge channels.
Due to questions concerning aesthetic viability of the surge channel
concept, the only acceptable disposal methods finally determined to be
acceptable are boreholes, septic tanks, and deep -well injection. Land
spreading of effluent on golf courses is not feasible due to lack of
available land area, however, use of a portion of the effluent from the
Marathon treatment plant for golf course irrigation is feasible and
desirable as a water conservation measure.
14
Collection
Collection system alternatives considered included a conventional
gravity system and a low pressure pipeline system. The latter approach
is relatively new and has certain advantages due to reduced excavation
requirements in the hard rock of the Upper and Middle Keys. However,
analysis of the two methods favors the conventional gravity system
approach due to lower operating costs and better reliability.
Treatment
Treatment system alternatives for centralized facilities included
consideration of cost-effective and reliable alternative secondary
treatment processes to achieve the required 90% removal of suspended
solids and biochemical oxygen demand. For small plants with average
flows less than 100,000 gallons per day, a conventional package extended
aeration process was selected. For larger plants a rotating biological
surface process was selected due to its energy efficiency and lower
operating costs. Individual home treatment processes were also inves-
tigated as an alternative to centralized facilities.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
COST
Following selection of feasible alternative collection, treatment, and
disposal methods, logical combinations of alternatives were prepared to
provide service to each subdistrict. Alternatives evaluated ranged from
a 'one -plant option to a 23-plant option. The subdistricts were ranked
in order of decreasing cost-effectiveness for providing centralized
wastewater treatment. A separate ranking of subdistricts was prepared
utilizing six qualitative criteria for water quality and environmental
sensitivity to assess the degree of known, existing, or probable problems.
Comparison of the two rankings indicated that, in general, subdistricts
15
T
LIJ
OW
' r '•
t ,
L� Y W
-- -----
o �
N z
Z)
Of O
OLL-
U
W
(n O
a z
LLJ
< 2
Q
W Z
U
cr W
W
_J
J U
a L
z cr
w
0 Q
w 3
0 W
a F-
O Q
a 3
Q
w
cr
W
Utr
>
Ld
W
� D
t
O •,n� ��D``� apt
../�9
c
w
Y
Q
w
= a
•
m U W
vl
V °
�g'•
c� w
• fey
�-L ���
x
16 A
with the greatest probable environmental and water quality problems are
those for which centralized wastewater facilities would be most cost-
effective (subdistricts with greatest development densities).
A six -plant configuration proved to be the most cost-effective means of
providing centralized wastewater service to the planning area through
the year 2000. Due to cost-effectiveness considerations, five plants
are recommended for intital service while one plant is recommended for
deferred construction, when population increases to the point where
implementation of the plan for that service area would be cost-effective.
Following is a summary of the service areas plant locations: (FIGURE 2)
PLANT LOCATION
Tavernier
• Long Key
Conch Key
Marathon
Big Pine Key
Saddlebunch Keys
Big Coppitt
SERVICE AREAS
1980 2000
Key Largo City
Rock Harbor
Tavernier
Plantation Key
Windley Key
Upper Matecumbe
Layton/Long Key
Conch Key
Marathon
Crawl Key
Key Colony Beach
Key Largo City
Rock Harbor
Tavernier
Plantation Key
Windley Key
Upper Matecumbe
Lower Matecumbe
Layton/Long Key
Delete
Marathon
Crawl Key
Key Colony Beach
Grassy Key
Duck Key
Conch Key
- Big Pine Key
Little Torch Key
Ramrod Key
Summerland Key
Cudjoe Key
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Lower Sugarloaf Key
Saddlebunch Keys Saddlebunch Keys
Big Coppitt Big Coppitt
16
The total cost (including engineering, legal, fiscal, contingencies,
etc.) of the recommended initial plan is $60.5 million, allocated as
follows:
Service
Plant
Total Cost
($ million)
Area
Location
Construction
Annual 0&M
1
Tavernier
$27,871,540
$ 688,260
2
Long Key
1,711,240
76,830
3
Conch Key
327,620
14,880
4
Marathon
12,774,650
424,450
5
Big Pine Key
Deferred
Deferred
6
Big Coppitt
4,913,866
108,540
TOTAL
$60,476,530
$1,312,960
Construction and operation costs are presented in the 201 plan for each
service area and methods of funding these costs are considered. The
Monroe County 201 plan indicates that EPA 75 percent grant money will
not be available to help fund the collection system. However, 50 percent
grant money could be available through the Farmers Home Administration
(FmHA). EPA and FmHA grants will pay for $37.8 million of the total
capital cost of $60.5 million, or 63 percent. Financing the local share
can be accomplished by several methods, but it was assumed for planning
purposes that a loan will be obtained from the FmHA at 5 percent for
40 years, secured by the revenues of the wastewater system. The amount
borrowed could be offset by an initial special front foot assessment on
properties benefiting from the construction of the wastewater system.
Assuming a special assessment of $8 per front foot, which is reasonable
based upon experience in other areas, the average monthly sewer service
charge per connection would be $9.81, decreasing to $7.66 by the year
2000 due to additional connections within the service area. Based upon
comparison of these costs to other areas of Florida, financing of the
centralized wastewater facilities appears reasonable.
17
Timing
Construction of improvements could affect the location of future
developments. Areas in which improvements are constructed first are
likely to provide the best opportunities for future development. The
County will review development requests to ensure conformance to other
plan policies and elements.
Management Requirements
Development and management of future wastewater facilities will require
cooperation among several agencies. The Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation is the primary regulatory agency responsible for
issuing permits and monitoring performance. Monroe County will work
closely with FDER to develop the comprehensive water quality sampling
program and in administering future design and construction grants.
Monroe County will also work closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and FmHA. These two federal agencies are expected to provide
grant and loan funds for future improvements. The County will be
responsible for operation and maintenance once facilities are developed.
Monroe County will continue to work with the incorporated Cities of Key
Colony Beach and Layton in developing and implementing the selected
plan.
Economic Assumptions
The Monroe County Land Use Plan element (1977) was the basis for the
population and economic growth projections utilized in the wastewater
planning program.
The assumptions for revenue and expenditure projections were outlined in
the cost section.
IN
POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
1. As discussed previously, the decision to require implementation of
a centralized wastewater system plan for Monroe County is within
the jurisdiction of FDER. FDER does not plan to require imple-
mentation of the recommended plan until water quality data confirms
the need for centralized facilities based upon violation of water
quality standards or threat to public health. At this time, data
is insufficient to support firm conclusions regarding water quality
in the Keys.
2. The County will conduct a comprehensive water quality monitoring
program through either the 201 or 208 program during the 1978-79
tourist season.
3. On 12 November 1975 Monroe County adopted the following resolutions
concerning wastewater treatment in the unincorporated County area.
Monroe County or the developer will provide for adequate wastewater
• treatment in existing and new development.
a. Centralized public treatment facilities will be developed in
urbanized areas as economic feasibility is evidenced. The
plan (Land Use Plan Update) will require -phasing out of septic
tanks and package treatment plants, with hook-ups to these new
treatment plants as they become available.
b. In new residential subdivisions where planned densities are
sufficient to eventually support a central treatment facility,
the use of septic tanks will be permitted only on an interim
basis until sufficient development has occurred to permit the
installation of the central treatment system by the developer.
C. New developments will be required to strictly conform to
County and State design and operating standards for septic
tanks and package treatment plants.
d. Development in which private central treatment facilities will
be required will be responsible for providing collection,
treatment, and disposal methods that meet design and performance
19
16
standards established by the County. New development in areas
• where public central treatment is available will be required
to provide collection lines at the developer's expense.
4. The "Monroe County Plant Filing Ordinance" requires new develop-
ments to bear the costs of new collection systems.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. "Monroe County Lane Use Plan Update, 1976," by Milo Smith and
Associates, Inc.
2. "Monroe County Lane Use Plan Update," by Howard, Needles, Tammen
and Bergendoff, Planners and Engineers, 1974.
3. "Environmental and Identity, a Plan for Development in the Florida
Keys," by Milo Smith and Associates, Inc., June 1970.
4. "Survey of Occupied Property in the Florida Keys, 1976," a 4-month
survey of housing and commercial units in Monroe County conducted
by the Monroe County Municipal Service District.
5. "Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study," by the State of
Florida Department of Natural Resources Coastal Coordinating
Council, June 1974.
6. "Monroe County Water Quality Management Plan," by Post, Buckley,
Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., April 1974.
7. "Engineering and Financial Report for the Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority," by Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., Engineers, April
1976.
8. "Summary Report of Alternative Water Supply Sources and Trans-
mission Options for the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority," by James
M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., May 1975.
9. "1976 Population Estimate of the Florida Keys Based on the Number
of Occupied Dwelling Units," by the Department of Planning and
Zoning, Monroe County, Florida, November 1976.
10. "Florida Statistical Abstracts," prepared by the Bureau of Economic
and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University
of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
11. 1970 U.S., Census computer printout population and housing unit
breakdown by enumeration districts.
20
CHAPTER 2
SOLID WASTE
Chapter 2
SOLID WASTE
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS _
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners established franchise
collection districts in 1964. The franchises were granted for 10-year
periods and required operators to comply with all applicable Florida
laws. Figure 3 shows the waste collection companies which presently
serve Monroe County and their respective service areas.
Residential collection service is provided once or twice weekly at the
customer's option. Collection for commercial customers is available
daily. Ordinance 1-1970 requires residents and businesses to use the
sanitation services provided and to pay the rate set and approved by the
• County Commissioners.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Figure 4 shows the solid waste disposal sites and transfer station in
Monroe County. The City of Key West operates a disposal site on Stock
Island. The U.S. Navy owns a disposal site on Fleming Key.
Open burning is the primary disposal means at all County sites. The
Navy landfills a portion of its wastes. State and federal laws require
that open burning be discontinued as soon as alternative plans can be
implemented.
21
a
wy
r
z
W
•
W
�
1
�
U
�
v� �>
Z
D ♦♦,�
o
Q� a,G`•
W
a
D
�
V
J�a
Z
n
a
O
a
I
p 0
�
e
c• •
4
cn
O
°
q
WI
U.
o 'o
A
>
'
;
�
w
VI
1
O
a
_
a
Z
O
i
a
I—
U)
ir
J O
4
p
O
U
vai �
F—
a a)
a g�
W
LL
no
J
O v`
3 v
z
O
_j
m
s•'•°
al�•1 -
W
_
� c
U
a-
W
U
>"�=°
4., -
to
U)
Z
cr
W
cn
cn
U
#
N
Q
O
Q
U)
a-t`"!
��
B
�y
cn
_
U—
Q
m
3
U
z Y
..
>
X
Ld
W
U)
21 A
Z-1
W
w
D
0
LL
J
O F-
F-
a. z
U) Z
25 o
W U
(W
Z
O
J
U) Z
0
Z (j)
W
_u) F-
X (f)
W
y. I
Q
F-
N
N
U
J
} cc
Q
to
w W
O
n.
L
\ r
o,�Y •
e n s0
°4
s
d
a
o
•
[> a
O a • e
0 �
I
W
W N
Y
J
C9 Q
Z N
00
J a.
U)
0
d t •>
cn
c�
,�X . • • • ' �;
� Oa
a
W
w
a
�ti
Y
N
a
21 B
• The Monroe Waste Collection and Disposal District was established in
April 1972. The Board of County Commissioners served as the District
Board of Supervisors in an ex officio capacity. The District had the
authority to buy equipment, regulate and establish waste collection and
disposal requirements, issue bonds, and impose taxes.
Solid waste responsibilities were recently transferred back to the
County Commission. The transfer was necessary to enable the County to
become eligible for Department of Commerce grant funds under the economic
adjustment program.
Population Projections
The original Monroe County Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (1973)
contained population projections from 1974 through the year 2000.
Resident and total population (including tourists) were estimated to be
55,900 and 71,500 in 1975 and 82,000 and 99,300 in the year 2000. The
Monroe County Land Use Plan Update completed in 1974 used the same
resident population as projected by the original solid waste report but
• increased tourist population, which resulted in a total resident and
tourist population of about 112,000.
The 1976 Update was based on a Department of Administration 1980 pro-
jection of 56,000 and a U.S. Department of Commerce 1985 population
projection of 57,600. Residential population after 1985 was projected
on a straight-line basis using the 1980-1985 growth rate. Tourist
population and projections were based on the Monroe County Land Use Plan
Update. Resident and tourist population growth was distributed between
the upper, middle, and lower keys using the distribution projected for
the year 2000 in the County Land Use Plan Update Report.
The Monroe County Housing Element completed in November 1977 (prelim-
inary draft) cites a permanent residential population in the County of
22
71,900 in the year 20001. This projection is 15 percent higher than the
assumptions used in the 1976 Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Most
of the projected growth is expected to occur outside Key West. Key West
is expected to experience only a moderate population increase by the
year 2000.
The latest population projection data were developed in the Monroe
County 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan prepared for Monroe County in
1977. Tables 3 and 4 show the past population trends of Monroe County,
Key West, and the unincorporated portion of Monroe County (201 study
area). For purposes of consistency, the 201 study figures have been
used throughout the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable
water sub -elements (excludes Stock Island and Key Haven and includes
Key Colony Beach and Layton).
SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES
Solid waste quantities and solid waste projections contained in the
original Solid Waste Management Report were based on a 1970 estimate of
• 5.4 lb/capita/day and were projected to reach 11.8 lb/capita/day in
1980. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory
agencies have revised the national average per capita waste generation
rate projections downward since the original report. Therefore, Monroe
County's per capita waste generation projections were reduced and are
now projected to grow from an estimated 5.6 pounds in 1975 to 8.1 pounds
in the year 2000. Solid waste projections, based on revised population
and per capita waste generation rates, are shown on Table 5. Projections
are based on a 6-day-per-week operation.
1Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida
23
Table 3
HISTORICAL
POPULATION 1940-1975
MONROE COUNTY
Population of
Unincorporated
Monroe County,
Monroe County
Key West
Key Colony Beach
Year
Population
Population
and Layton
1940a
14,100
12,900
1,200
1950a
29,900
26,400
3,500
1960a
47,900
33,900
14,000
1970a
52,600
29,300
23,300
1972b
55,100
29,570
25,530
1973b
56,430
30,040
26,390
1974b
53,600
27,900
25,700
1975b
55,700
28,800
26,900
aU.S. Census.
b"Florida Estimates of Population," Bulletins prepared by
the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
24
Table 4
POPULATION
PROJECTIONS*1976-2000
Permanent
Seasonal
Peak
Total
Residential
Residential
Tourist
Peak
Year
Population
Population
Population
Population
1976
27,600
9,600
20,300
57,500
1978
29,200
10,200
21,500
60,900
1980
30,800
10,700
22,600
64,100
1985
34,000
11,900
25,000
70,900
1990
36,500
12,700
26,800
76,000
1995
38,200
13,200
28,000
79,400
2000
39,900
13,900
29,300
83,100
Source: Monroe County, 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan..
*For unincorporated Monroe County, excluding Stock Island and
Key Haven, but including the incorporated communities of Key
Colony Beach and Layton.
25
Table 5
SOLID WASTE PROJECTIONS
MONROE COUNTY *
Peak
a
Per Capita
Annual Waste
Total
b
Year
Population
Generation
in Tons
Tons/Day
1976
57,500
5.7
59,814
192
1980
64,100
6.1
71,359
229
1985
70,900
6.6
85,399
274
1990
76,000
7.1
98,477
315
1995
79,400
7.6
110,128
353
2000
83,100
8.1
122,842
394
Source: Monroe County Regional Solid Waste Management Plan,
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., 1973.
a Includes tourists.
bBased on 6-day week.
*For unincorporated Monroe County, excluding Stock Island and
Key Haven, but including the incorporated communities of Key
Colony Beach and Layton.
26
Problems and Needs
The 1973 plan made 10 specific findings that summarized the problems and
needs of the regional solid waste system. Since the 1973 study, nearly
all the recommendations have been implemented.
The 1976 update cited four specific findings which required reevaluation
of the solid waste management system alternatives. These four findings
were:
1. The reduced weight limitations on the bridges in the Keys
rules out the possibility of any solid waste disposal alter-
native requiring a transfer operation.
2. Increases in the cost of oil have made resource recovery,
i.e., steam production from incineration of solid waste, a
more desirable and economical alternative (providing a market
for the steam is readily available).
3. Gross weight limitations have been increased to 80,000 pounds
on state roads allowing greater payloads for transfer vehicles
leaving the upper portion of the Keys traveling to Dade County
where there are no bridge restrictions.
4. Disposal costs in south Dade County have increased from about
$3.75 per ton in 1973 to the current charge of $5.00 per ton.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal and objectives of the County with respect to solid waste
management and planning are as follows:
GOAL
To provide for the orderly and efficient collection and disposal of all
residential, commercial, and industrial wastes.
27
_ OBJECTIVES
1. Complete the currently proposed action to dissolve the Waste
Board as soon as possible and transfer the responsibility for
solid waste back to the County Commission so that the County
will be eligible for grant funds from the Department of
Commerce under their economic adjustment program.
2. Keep in close contact with the City Electric Company officials
in Key West to determine as soon as possible whether or not
they will supply waste steam to the Aqueduct Authority.
3. Initiate an ordinance at the earliest possible date making
subscription to solid waste services mandatory.
4. Initiate County billing for solid waste collection as soon as
possible.
5. Purchase necessary land and construct additional incinerator
facilities.
6. Pursue funding to implement recommendations of the plan.
ALTERNATIVES
The 1976 Update reevaluated several alternatives in light of new infor-
mation and trends.
CENTRAL BALING
Alternative IIIA (outlined in the original report) provided for a central
baling facility located on Stock Island. Solid waste in the Middle and
Upper Keys areas was to be transferred from a transfer station in each
area to the Stock Island station by trailer.
The Florida Department of Transportation has reduced the allowable gross
weight limitations on highways from 66,600 to 50,000 pounds because of
bridge deterioration. The capital expense and annual operating and
maintenance costs now make this alternative impractical and uneconomical.
INCINERATION (NO ENERGY RECOVERY)
The second alternative provides for multiunit incineration facilities
located in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys areas. The proposed units
have a capacity of about 12-1/2 tons per 8-hour day and would be in
compliance with current State of Florida and federal emission standards.
Operating on an 8-hour basis, four units in the Upper and Middle Keys
and 12 units in the Lower Keys would be initially required.
INCINERATION (WITH ENERGY RECOVERY
The third alternative considered is similar to the above except that the
lower Keys facility would be equipped for energy recovery and this
facility would operate on a 24-hour basis, 6 days a week. Energy
recovered in the form of steam would then be sold to the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority for use in the desalination plant on Stock Island.
DISPOSAL IN DADE COUNTY
Another disposal alternative considered in this study was for the
disposal of Upper Keys waste in Dade County. Assuming that a transfer
station is constructed in the Tavernier area, transfer vehicles could be
operated without being restricted by the current reduced weight limi-
tations imposed due to the deteriorating condition of the bridges.
However, if selected, this alternative could be used only in the Upper
Keys area in conjunction with some other disposal system in the Middle
and Lower Keys.
RESOURCE RECOVERY
The reduction of weight limits on the bridges has virtually eliminated
the possibility of resource recovery and recycling utilizing transfer
operations and has encouraged the use of multilocation facilities such
as incinerators. There is a bridge relocation program underway, however,
` and this alternative could be reevaluated in the future.
29
•, The increased cost of oil has made energy recovery more attractive to
customers needing steam. However, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
is the only potential customer and they need about 60,000 to 80,000
pounds per hour at 250 psi, 7 days a week. The County could provide
only half of the daily steam requirements of the Aqueduct Authority and
only on a 6-day-per-week basis. This would not satisfy the total steam
demands of the Authority but could help reduce their oil consumption by
supplying supplementary steam at lower cost.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS OF DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
The reduced gross weight limitations on the bridges in the Keys elimi-
nates disposal systems utilizing transfer operations, such as transfer
and baling. The weight restrictions on the bridges and the unique
geographical arrangement of the Keys, with the low elevation and the
lack of available land and cover material for landfills, make incin-
eration facilities located throughout the Keys the most practical and
economical alternative.
Table 6 compares the estimated cost per ton for the various alternatives.
Incineration with energy recovery in the Lower Keys facility produces
the lowest cost per ton rate. This is primarily due to the 24-hour
operation in the Lower Keys facility which reduces fuel oil consumption.
The total capital investment is also slightly lower because of reduced
equipment needs.
The cost per ton for transfer to Dade County is generally higher than
that for incinceration. The cost per ton for transfer could also be
higher depending on the new Dade County landfill site.
Therefore, the viable solid waste disposal alternatives consist of
+ either straight incinceration or a combination of straight incineration
30
0
Table 6
ESTIMATED COST PER TON
SUMMARY FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Disposal Svstem
Incineration
(no energy
recovery)
Incineration
(with energy
recoveryb)
Transfer toc
Dade County
(Upper Keys
only)
1976 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
$12.88 $10.65 $10.51 $11.28 $ 9.93 $ 9.58
12.61 9.99 10.22 10.40 9.60 8.94
11.74 12.08 10.87 10.88 10.81 10.65
• aIncludes operating and capital expenses.
bEnergy recovery in Lower Keys facility only. Does not reflect
possible revenue from the sale of steam.
cIncludes only Upper Keys area. Does not include cost for any
type of service for the Middle or Lower Keys.
31
i
in the Upper and Middle Keys and incineration with energy recovery in
the Lower Keys.
ECONOMICS
The estimated cost of incinerators is about $3.3 million, excluding
land and transportation costs. Trailers cost about $62,000 each. Land
costs are variable, but is estimated to be about $5,000 per acre for
most sites. The cost per ton is lowest for incineration. The proposed
system is economically viable and practicable in the Keys.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1976 Solid Waste Management Plan Update presented the following
• recommendations for implementing the most viable alternative.
1. Complete the currently proposed action to dissolve the Waste
Board as soon as possible and transfer the responsibility for
solid waste back to the County Commission so that the County
will be eligible for grant funds from the Department of
Commerce under their economic adjustment program.
2. Keep in close contact with the City Electric Company officials
in Key West to determine as soon as possible whether or not
they will supply waste steam to the Aqueduct Authority.
3. Initiate an ordinance at the earliest possible date making
subscription to solid waste services mandatory.
4. Initiate County billing for solid waste collection as soon as
possible.
5. If the power company can supply the steam needed by the
Aqueduct Authority, the County should begin plans and speci-
fications for incineration facilities throughout the Keys
without energy recovery.
6. If the power company will not supply the steam needed by the
Aqueduct Authority, the County should begin negotiations for a
long-term agreement for the sale of steam to the Authority.
32
7. Following completion of the agreement with the Authority, the
• ' County should begin plans and specifications for incineration
facilities in the County with energy recovery units in the
Lower Keys.
8. Proceed with site selection for land acquisition.
9. Proceed with financial plans including grant applications to
the U.S. Department of Commerce and loan applications to the
State of Florida Bond Loan Program.
10. Purchase necessary land and construct incinerator facilities
(probably on Stock Island, Marathon, and Tavernier).
11. Purchase the necessary motor vehicle equipment.
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION
The status of each of the recommendations is as follows.
1. The Waste Board has been dissolved and responsibility returned
to the County Commission.
2. The City Electric System is considering possible supply of
waste steam to the Aqueduct Authority. The City will construct
and operate a compost plant.
3. The County has adopted an ordinance (No. 10-1977) requiring
mandatory solid waste service subscription.
4. County billing for solid waste has been initiated.
5-7. The County can proceed without the City of Key West in building
incinerators. Key West is pursuing independent solid waste
collection and disposal means.
8-11. The County has condemned property to construct the first
incinerator. It will be in operation soon. Other funds are
being pursued for future incinerators and equipment. The
second incinerator should be operational by early 1980 in Long
Key and the third in Cudjoe Key by 1981. Most of the necessary
motor vehicle equipment has been purchased.
33
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
GRANTS
Monroe County will continue to pursue funding and assistance through
several agencies and programs to implement its solid waste program and
to meet community goals and objectives. Some of the funding that is and
will be available includes the following.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
a. Solid Waste Research Grants.
b. Solid Waste Demonstration Grants.
C. Solid Waste Planning Grants.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce.
a. Economic Development Assistance Program.
3. State of Florida.
a. Department of Environmental Regulation.
b. Division of Bond Finance.
4. Local bond issues.
COORDINATION
It will be the policy of Monroe County to continue to work with federal,
state, and local agencies and with private enterprise to facilitate
implementation of the solid waste management plan.
The solid waste element will be reviewed periodically in light of other
plans, cost changes, and technology advances.
34
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
The following materials are used in support of this sub -element.
I. Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., Monroe County
Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, December 1973.
2. , Monroe County Regional Solid Waste Management Plan
Update, February 1976.
3. Ordinance No. 10-1977, requiring mandatory solid waste sub-
scription service.
35
CHAPTER 3
DRAINAGE
w
Chapter 3
DRAINAGE
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROBLEMS
Monroe County, because of its exposed coastal location and low ele-
vation, presents special drainage and flood hazard problems. The
greatest damage occurs during hurricane and storm surges. Storm surges
tend to be greater in the Upper keys and lowest in Key West. The anti-
cipated 100-year storm surge is 12 feet in the Upper Keys, 10 to 11 feet
in the Middle Keys, and 8 feet in the Lower Keys.
The combination of low elevations in the keys and high storm surge
creates severe flooding problems throughout the County. Except for
isolated knolls on Key Largo and a small portion of Key West, the entire
island chain is below the statistical 100 year flood level.
Past studies have evaluated flooding problems in the keys. To determine
the least hazardous areas of the keys, flooding potentials from lesser
storms were examined. Utilizing the 5-foot contour line, the following
information was developed:
Region
Table 7
AREAS BELOW 5 FOOT CONTOUR
MONROE COUNTY
Area
Statistical Flood Probability
Upper Keys
21,775 acres
(85%)
at least
once every
10
years
Middle Keys
5,070 acres
(84%)
at least
once every
12
years
Lower Keys
25,460 acres
(96%)
at least
once every
15
years
Key West
8,295 acres
(86%)
at least
once every
15
years
Source: Coastal Coordinating Council, "Florida Keys Coastal
Zone Management Study," June 1974.
36
Other factors compound the severity of potential flood hazards through-
out the County. Causeway construction between islands has restricted
storm surge passage in some areas. As development proceeds in unin-
corporated areas of the County, more natural areas will be developed and
more impervious layers created. The result will be both a greater
amount of runoff, fewer places to channel flow, and increased monetary
damage and loss of human life in the event of a major storm.
Emergency preparedness planning and development has occurred in the
County. The traditional method of providing public safety during
hurricane emergencies has been to give adequate warning and evacuate
residents as quickly as possible to shelters. As the County population
increases, evacuation will become more cumbersome and take more time.
Highway 1 could become impassable due to flooding or automobile accidents.
Only Key West, Tavernier, and Marathon have developed community storm
• drain systems. Drainage throughout the County is principally by means
of natural drainageways and ditches. There also are some areas and
subdivisions which provide storm drainage in certain areas. The County,
through its Plat Filing Ordinance, now requires positive drainage,
easements and other improvements to facilitate drainage.
There are several agencies which share drainage and stormwater manage-
ment responsibilities in the County. The Department of Environmental
Regulation requires for major subdivisions that the first inch of runoff
be retained by trenches, depressions, dams, or other means. DER's
primary responsibility is protection of water quality.
The South Florida Water Management District also reviews development proposals
to ensure adequate drainage i's provided. Projects beyond 500 feet from
mean high water and under 100 acres were generally exempted from its
review, but the recently adopted regulations (Chapter 16K-4.035, FAC)
require that all applications for permit for construction of works
serving projects with two or more acres of impervious area be reviewed
by the SFWMD in accordance with the criteria and guidelines established.
37
• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the responsibility for flood
management. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
administers the Federal Flood Insurance Program, which provides federally
subsidized flood insurance to those living in flood zones.
ALTERNATIVES
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE FLOOD DAMAGE
The most obvious way to lessen the impact of storm runoff and flooding
is to keep to a minimum both the amount of runoff and the number of
buildings in areas vulnerable to flooding. Unfortunately, nearly all of
Monroe County lies within the 100 year flood plain. However, the County
could require additional protection measures for new developments in
low-lying areas.
A conservation easement might be potentially useful in protecting
natural resources, drainage channels, and environmentally sensitive
areas. The conservation easement is an agreement between the landowner
and the County which compensates the owner for withholding his land from
uses which would create or worsen flooding. The owner could still use
his land for purposes not covered by the easement. Easements commonly
apply to a specific distance from drainage channels. Such provisions
would be possible through the County's Major Development Ordinance.
There are several ways to protect existing development and minimize
flood damage. The purpose of flood insurance is to provide low cost
insurance to people already in flood prone areas. One major advantage
of the program is its conversion of the highly irregular flood loss
pattern into a uniform series of annual insurance premiums. While the
program provides financial protection against floods, it does not
correct or prevent flood hazards. There is an existing County regula-
tion which requires the bottom part of lowest structural member to be
10 feet above mean high water.
Flood proofing might also have some application in certain areas.
Typical measures which can be taken to flood proof homes and other
structures include:
1. Closure of openings for doors, windows, and vents.
2. Waterproofing and reinforcement of basement walls.
3. Reinforcement of drainage of floor slab.
4. Valving of entering utilities.
5. Protection for immovable equipment.
6. Removal of contents with short lead time.
7. Anchorage of walls against uplift.
8. Use of water-resistant materials.
The disadvantages of flood -proofing techniques are that a significant
lead time is required and it can be very expensive. It is generally not
considered economical unless incorporated into a building at the time it
is constructed.
The County's emergency warning and evacuation plan is a most effective
tool to minimize loss of life and property.
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE EFFECTS AND CONTROL RUNOFF
Many stormwater management techniques are being used to various degrees
throughout the keys.
Natural topographic features (swales) and drainage courses are used
wherever possible to facilitate stormwater runoff. The purpose of a
channel is to increase conveyance to prevent flooding. Low-lying areas
also are used or constructed to retain runoff to prevent flooding
downstream.
Other potential techniques include maximizing natural vegetation to
allow infiltration, underground storage, and storm water reuse.
39
To minimize stormwater runoff of new development, the County has adopted
several measures as part of its plat filing ordinance. These are listed
in detail in the Implementation Section.
rnAi c
GOALS AND POLICIES
1. To protect life and property from natural disasters and
hazards.
2. To develop interagency cooperation to jointly provide flood
protection and stormwater management.
POLICIES
1. Develop a plan which provides orderly evacuation of hazard
areas and designates public shelters to be used during hur-
ricanes and flooding.
2. Regulate shoreline development, especially on lands adjacent
• to marine grass beds, to ensure stringent runoff controls to
filter excessive sediments and polluted discharges.
3. Review development proposals to ensure that adequate storm -
water management techniques are incorporated into the design.
IMPLEMENTATION
To implement the above policies, the County will:
1. Work with other affected agencies to obtain technical assistance
and financial assistance in developing additional flood pre-
vention and stormwater management techniques.
2. Continue participating in the HUD Flood Insurance Program.
3. Continue to revise and update a Disaster Preparedness Plan.
4. Enforce provisions established in the Major Development
Ordinance Plat Filing Ordinance. The ordinance contains the
following sections:
40
Article IV: Procedure for Plat Approval
1.3 Positive Drainage Reauired. The developer shall, at no
expense to the County, provide plans for such facilities as may be
needed to drain the subdivision including all rights -of -way,
easements, and necessary construction, to positive outlets that can
be legally maintained in permanent use, or into a public drainage
system of adequate capacity which discharges into such positive
outlets. Side ditches along public roads shall not necessarily be
considered as such public drainage systems or positive outlets.
Dry wells may be considered as positive outlets, with the special
approval of the Zoning Official.
1.4.5 Drainage Easements and Rights -of -Way. Easements and rights -
of -way for drainage ditches, canals and swales shall be of such
widths as to accommodate adequate drainage facilities plus fifteen
(15) feet on one side for maintenance purposes if required.
Drainage easements shall be identified on the plat as such.
Maintenance easements are not required for underground storm
drainage culverts.
Article VI: Section 3. Easements
3.1 Easements for drainage and utilities shall be provided along
lot lines of no less than six (6) feet on both sides of the lot
lines thus creating a minimum of twelve (12) feet wide easements
along said lot lines.
3.2 Where a subdivision is traversed by a water course, drainage
way, channel, or stream, there shall be provided a storm water
easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the
lines of such water course, and such further width or construction,
or both, as will be adequate for the purpose. Parallel streets or
parkways may be required in connection therewith. Fifteen (15)
feet maintenance easements may be required along drainage canals.
3.3 Only by special permission will runs of drainage tile in
excess of twenty-four feet be permitted. Request for permission to
exceed twenty-four feet shall be conditioned upon owner's sub-
mission of detailed information relative to the installation. The
information submitted shall include but not be limited to:
3.3.1 Length of run
3.3.2 Elevations
3.3.3.1 Existing tile inverts
3.3.3.2 Pavement's edge
3.3.2.3. Existing swale elevations
41
Article VI: Section 8. Drainage
A complete system shall be provided for positively draining the
roads, streets, alleys and other publicly owned areas in the
subdivision and for handling drainage run-off that flows into or
across the subdivision. The system shall be designed in accordance
with accepted engineering practice for rainstorms of the maximum
intensity predicted for the Monroe County area at three-year
intervals according to current Department of Transportation charts.
The runoff coefficients used shall be those that will be applicable
to the areas involved in the calculations after complete develop-
ment has occurred. The drainage system shall provide complete and
final positive disposal of all runoff whether into new outfall
ditches and canals, or into existing ditches and/or canals. The
drainage system shall be designed for long life, low maintenance
cost and ease of maintenance by normal methods. In order to mini-
mize the effects of water pollution from storm runoff from develop-
ment both during and after construction which results in degradation
of water quality, the following standards shall also be met:
(1) Retention of construction related runoff or discharge of such
runoff into adequately sized natural vegetative filtration
areas in a manner approximating the natural runoff regime.
• (2) Permanent drainage systems which make maximum use of natural
drainage patterns, vegetative retention and filtration.
42
CHAPTER 4
POTABLE WATER
Chapter 4
POTABLE WATER
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is responsible for water
supply and primary distribution in Monroe County. The Authority's water
treatment plant is located in Florida City. Seven shallow wells provide
the primary water source and are located on the plantsite. Treatment
facilities.include prechlorination, softening, filtration, chlorination,
and fluoridation. The maximum capacity of the pumping station at the
plant is 6.5 million gallons per day. Storage capacity includes
1.22 million gallons.
The plant is operated 24 hours a day, seven days per week. The plant
has been well maintained for the past 30 years (primarily under U.S.
Navy ownership), and is expected to continue operation for several
years. Present design and operation capacities are shown below.
Design Current Design
Treatment Unit Capacity Operation (%)
Raw water pumping, mgd 9.0 6.2 69
Softening capacity, mgd 7.0 6.2 89
Filtration capacity, mgd 6.0 6.2 103
Transfer pumping capacity, mgd 6.0 6.2 103
High service pumping capacity, mgd 6.5 6.2 95
Chlorination capacity, lb/24 hr 300 140 47
The Rock Harbor Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant was completed and
began operating'in summer 1976. Nearly all of the production capacity
will be used in the Rock Harbor/Tavernier area, with extra water being
pumped into the Aqueduct for distribution in the Lower Keys. The plant
generates approximately one million gallons per day.
43
The FKAA operates a desalination plant at Key West, which consists of a
multi -stage flash process. Its peak production capacity is about
1.3 million gallons per day (mgd). This is about one-half the original
design capacity of 2.62 mgd. This was the direct result of the past
operating philosophy of maximum on-line time at the expense of preven-
tative maintenance in an attempt to meet the constant water shortage.
However, upon completion of repairs the plant is now capable of pro-
ducing an average of 2.1 mgd.
Water is distributed to Monroe County through a pipeline which extends
primarily along the U.S. Highway 1 right-of-way. The pipeline currently
carries an average flow of about 6.2 mgd in the upper Keys at a pressure
of 250 pounds per square inch (psi), 4.3 mgd in the middle Keys at
200 psi, and 2.5 mgd in the lower Keys at 175 psi.
The pipeline has virtually reached its capacity. The existing 18-inch
pipeline is approaching the end of its normal life expectancy, and needs
repair and reconstruction in certain areas. The life expectancy of the
line is more than 5 years with proper maintenance.
In addition to the water treatment plant and pipeline, several pumping
stations are required to transmit water. The FKAA operates the following
pumping stations:
Pumping Station
Key West - Downtown
Key West - Ft. Village
Key West - J.Y. Porter Place
Big Coppitt
Geiger Key
Bay Point
Big Pine No. 1
Big Pine No. 2
Big Pine No. 3
Marathon West
Marathon East
Vaca Cut (Marathon)
Crawl Key
44
Lower Matacumbe
Isla Morada
Tavernier
Rock Harbor
Anglers Club
Ocean Reef Club
Some of these pump stations are in need of major and minor repairs.
The FKAA distribution system is divided into five geographical areas as
shown in Table 8:
Table 8
FKAA GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS
Area 1 - Key West, Stock Island
Area 2 - Big Coppitt Key to Seven Mile Bridge
• Area 3 - Marathon to Duck Dey
Area 4 - Lower Matecumbe Key to Plantation Key
Area 5 - Tavernier to Key Largo to just within the Dade County line
Source: B,C,&E
The Area One system is an independent distribution system. Water is
obtained from the desalt plant and the transmission pipeline and stored
in tanks. The distribution system pumps maintain the system pressure
independent from the transmission line pressure.
There are approximately 110 separate distribution systems in the re-
maining geographic areas. Most obtain the system water pressure directly
from the transmission line. The balance have ground storage tanks and
distribution pumps to maintain system pressure.
45
The major water distribution system problem is the large number of
leaking pipelines and continued deterioration. The Authority has made a
significant construction effort during the past several years, however,
funding limitations have restricted this work.
POPULATION ESTIMATES
The recent "Engineering and Financial Report" for the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority" (Black, Crow, and Eidsness, 1976) projected future
population growth in Monroe County. The projections were developed in
cooperation with the County Planning Department and other agencies. The
Keys were divided into subareas and the population disaggregated.
Figure 5 illustrates the area breakdowns and Table 9 summarizes the
projected population growth.
Table 9
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH 1974-1998
MONROE COUNTY
Area
1974
1998
Key West
27,900
32,000
2A
2,100
2,500
2B
1,230
5,370
2C
1,833
5,845
3A
5,320
6,829
3B
1,473
5,969
4A
85
202
4B
1,575
2,629
4C
2,233
4,511
5A
2,195
3,138
5B
5,883
8,051
5C
1,773
5,656
53,600* 82,700*
*Permanent residents, including military (estimated at 10,000).
Source: Black, Crow, and Eidsness
Monroe County Planning Department
ir.
LN
W
w
D
0
LL
2Q
O
Q U
Q w
0
a 0
wg
cr-
Q Z
Z
O
a ``'
_F—
J
a. U
A U-
m .y
1 0
a
rc
a
E
d •n
� 1
e �
!J
Y
O
a
N
•Q
H
{ a
m
�a
W N
N
LyJ
•
Q
N
3
}
Y
YJ
Wlry
Y w
W
Y
46 A
The tourist population was estimated to be 18,000 in 1974 and 31,000 in
1998. These numbers compare pretty well with current (1978) estimates
developed by Monroe County and used in other planning elements.
WATER USE
Table 10 shows per capita usage and consumption in the service area.
About 8 percent of the water pumped from Florida City is lost in the
aqueduct due to leakage. The leakage loss was about 18 percent in 1976
in the FKAA distribution system.
Water consumption and demand are projected to increase in the future.
Table 11 summarizes the resident and tourist populations and flow
requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
The 1976 Engineering and Financial Report conducted by FKAA identified
•• six primary alternatives for expansion to meet projected needs and
demand. The alternatives fall into two broad categories. The first
category includes expansion of the supply and treatment facilities at
Florida City and the construction of a new pipeline from Florida City to
Key West.
The second category involves the construction of new reverse osmosis
(RO) water treatment plants at various points throughout the Keys to
either provide the total water supply for the Aqueduct Authority or to
supplement the treatment and supply facilities at Florida City.
The alternatives providing expansion of the supply and treatment facil-
ities at Florida City and new pipelines provide the advantage of a very
dependable water supply and relatively low operation and maintenance
cost in future years.
47
Water pumped from
Florida City
(million gallons)
Less prod. water
and unaccounted
water
Metered water
Desalt production
Less amount to Navy
To FKAA
Population
Less military on
Federal property
Less Ocean Reef
Population
Tourist population
Averaqe to FKAA
Less leakage @ 18%
Less tourists @
60 gpcd
Per capita flow =
Table 10
PER CAPITA WATER USAGE
MONROE COUNTY
1973 1974
2,200.2 2,209.3
186.2
2,014.1
584.8
632.2
1,966.7
56,400
9,100
47,300
1,700
45,600
17,000
5.39 mqd
0.83
4.56
.85
3.71
3.71 mgd
45,600
81.4 gpcd
Source: Black, Crow and Eidsness
192.8
2,016.5
537.2
607.6
1,946.2
53,600
8,900
44,700
1,700
43,000
18,400
5.33 mqd
0.82
4.51
.92
3.59
3.59 mgd
43,000
83.5 gpcd
1975
2,171.3
166.0
2,005.3
624.3
551.3
2,078.3
55,700
8,000
47,700
1,800
45,900
19,800
5.69 mqd
0.86
4.83
.99
3.84
3.84 mqd
45,900
83.7 gpcd
0
. 0
E C
Co
O
r
r
•r ro
r
to
Ln
CD
X E
t6 N
m
r
M
Cn
m
r
r
r
r
d'
00
m
00
co
CD
CV
�
r
n
,
^
00
C31
O
r I
r�-
r
•r 11
LL_
ro 41
II
II
II
II
� N
r
CD
CD
co
:Zi-
a, S-
O
CV
�
C)
U) :3
CV
CM
Ln
to
CV
> E
Ql
CD
O
co
Q S-
Glk
C.o
r
I. -
cm
N
CU
CT
CV
Ln
Z
a_
cr
Ln
Co
00
�r-
LLJ
r
0
r
O
J
r
d_
Q
LZ
C]
C:)
C)
C]
r
O
O
O
CD
1—
V)
rt5
I�
O
I\
d-)
O
Ln
O
m
CM
LLJ
00
00
r
F-
r
3
r
M 4-3
O
•I-) = c
•r
N c N
O
O
O
C)
4
•r C r
CO
O
CO
CO
CO
S- Q (Z
O
O
O
C)
O • •r
O
CV
Gt
r
OL
F— iT =3
CV
CV
CV
M
O
>
a.
Q LLJ
3=
N
O
O
O
O
C)
C)
C)
C)
M
I\
CD
I"
rl
E
S_
Ln
00
Ln
CV
N
Ln
Ln
4.0
00
a.
Ln 00 M co
I� I� 00 On
C11 CT CT (T
r r r r
a
CV
E
4-)
N
O
•�r1
Q M
a r-
Sr .�
•r- E
r S`
•r (V
a_
+
U
n S?
M C)
r
C�
X >
Q
a
fo x
0
C)
• O
01)C)
Q C]
LJ r Ln
� N
II u N
C
>> I N
rCf T3
cm O •r
Ch LLJ
E
CV '0
E
•r II tC
X
� � o
N Si
LO -� U
I� N
S- Q r
O m
4- a
-I--) CO
C14--) v
N •r U
U r S-
X •� O
W O
•k Cn
49
The RO treatment plant alternatives have the advantage of a much lower
first cost than the pipeline alternatives. However, these alternatives
require relatively high operation and maintenance costs and in some
cases require a dependence on an as yet unproven source of supply. In
the upper Keys, there is a proven source of supply of brackish water
with a range of total dissolved solids (TDS) from 3,000 to 5,000 ppm.
However, in the lower Keys, extensive testing must be done before the
existence of a dependable source of brackish water with a TDS not
exceeding 6,000 ppm can be proven. RO treatment in the lower Keys is
included in the alternatives studied in this report to determine if the
cost advantage of this alternative warrants the risk and the extensive
investigation that will be required.
The alternatives examined in the feasibility study are summarized below:
Alternative I: Expand supply and treatment capacity at Florida City and
construct 42-inch, 36-inch, and 30-inch water transmission main from
Florida City to Key West.
Alternative II: Expand supply and treatment capacity at Florida City
and construct 36-inch, 30-inch, and 24-inch transmission main from
Florida City to Key West.
Alternative III: Expand supply and treatment capacity at Florida City
and construct 30-inch and 24-inch transmission main from Florida City to
Key West.
Alternative IV: Construct reverse osmosis water treatment plants at
various points in the lower, middle, and upper Keys and provide trans-
mission facilities as required.
Alternative V: Continue to use the Florida City treatment plant at
present capacity and provide future needs with existing RO water plants
and construction of new RO water plants in upper Keys only, with 30-inch
and 24-inch transmission main from Islamorada to Key West.
50
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
An economic assessment of the proposed alternatives was conducted as
part of the engineering feasibility report in 1976. The economic assessment
included fi.nanci.al data on interest rates, energy costs, operation and
maintenance costs, and other economic data.
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority has selected Alternative II as the
most feasible and logical for development. The alternative includes a
36" line from Florida City to Tavernier, a 30 inch line from Tavernier
to Marathon, and a 24 inch line from Marathon to Key West. Funding for
the project is currently being sought through a Farmer's Home Administration
loan. If loan funds are secured, there may be little or no increase in
water rates.
Timing and actual increases, if any, will depend on future recommendations
of the Authority's fiscal agents. It is possible that some additional
outside funding sources may also be obtained.
GOALS
GOALS AND POLICIES
1. To develop an adequate water supply, treatment, and distri-
bution system to meet the projected needs of Monroe County
citizens.
2. To develop an adequate and timely provision of water facil-
ities and services which coincide with land use policies and
decisions.
51
POLICIES
I. The County supports construction of upgraded supply, treat-
ment, and distribution facilities and services to facilitate
orderly growth.
2. The County supports, and will cooperate with, the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority to develop the necessary facilities and to
serve Monroe County residents.
3. The County supports water conservation programs and practices
to reduce consumption and minimize costs.
IMPLEMENTATION
To support implementation of the selected alternative and policies, the
County will:
I. Work with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority in planning and
• developing new facilities and services.
2. Enforce provisions of the Plat Filing Ordinance, Major Develop-
ment Ordinance, and other regulations and ordinances to ensure
proper installation and maintenance of new facilities.
52
CHAPTER 5
UTILITY
Chapter 5
UTILITY
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
EXISTING REGULATIONS
Electric power companies are extensively regulated by several agencies.
Two specific documents are required by law. An annual document entitled
Ten Year Site Plan is an estimate of power generation needs and general
location of proposed new sites. The Ten Year Site Plan must contain:
1. The need, including the need as determined by the Public
Service Commission, for electric power in the area to be
served.
• 2. The anticipated environmental impact of an electrical power
plant on the area.
3. Possible alternatives to the proposed plan.
4. The views of appropriate local, state, and federal agencies.
5. Whether there is conformance with the state comprehensive
plan.
A second document, a Site Certification Plan, is published prior to the
construction of any new electrical power plant or expansion in steam
generating capacity of any existing power plant. The Department of
Environmental Regulation studies proposed facilities, including:
1. Cooling systems requirements
2. Proximity to load centers
3. Proximity to navigable waters and other transportation systems
4. Soil and foundation conditions
5. Availability of water
53
♦ 4
6. Land use
7. Accessibility to transmission
8. Environmental impact
EXISTING CONDITIONS
There are two electric utilities which serve Monroe County (Figure 6).
The City of Key West Electric System (CES) serves Key West north to
Marathon. Florida Keys Electric (FKE) serves the rest of the County
from Marathon north to the County line.
CES has had almost zero load growth over the past five years due to a
reduction in military (primarily Navy) forces in Key West. During the
past year the Navy announced that further reductions of operations were
under consideration for the Key West area. Discussions with repre-
sentatives of the Navy have failed to provide any firm information
concerning the amount of effect this might have on the Navy sales of
electrical energy by CEA or the timing of any further reductions.
Table 12 shows City Electric's historical system demand from 1968 to
1977. Demand has increased from 43 megawatts in 1968 to 62.2 megawatts
in 1977, a 44.7 percent increase in nine years.
54
s
a
VI Q
Z
•
LL N
W m
O O
Q
Q�
4n
Y
off' i
�9. db'
4
Y N
•
>,4r
•
't �
0
O
Z, Q
Wr
W h
UWm
O
a
z
1 o
�4
W
0
,
w V
O
w $
n 0
Q s
m
�(1
Y
�eY N
Q
W
o o w
Q
s
i
G
5
d
o ,y A�-•o �.1
S
p
a
Q
o,
U
•-o A a '
�
°
U
o
J
W
Q e
�
's
�
f
0
•
�► �tl
� Y
$
0
�
O
Fo
ZJ
w
z
=
Q
z
�-
D
{J I [ F
F�
W
VO
J
O
m
a
m
P l h
•°
Q
Z
0
U
�r
?
F—
• q
C)
e
o
W
Q
�►.
N Z
_l
W
_-
F
W
HO
Oe ��.
£
$
a
cY.�a
d
O
-F
>
o
n
F
V
UN
Z
U'
m(n
U
�
..
X
W
W
(n
N a
J
w
3a
z
rQ
w
Y E
54 A
Table 12
CES
ANNUAL SYSTEM DEMAND AND ENERGY
Historical
Total System
Demand
Energy
Year
MW
MWH x 1000
1968
43.0
221.9
1969
50.1
246.7
1970
57.5
297.1
1971
57.8
288.3
1972
60.2
302.2
1973
60.5
317.3
1974
65.5
314.4
1975
60.5
298.9
1976
61.0
302.9
1977
62.2
301.4
Source:
Reynolds, Smith, and Hills,
"Feasibility Report of
a Mainland Transmission Tie
Line System Expansion
••
Program," 1978.
Tables 13 and 14 list City Electric's generation equipment age and
ratings. Firm system capability is defined as the total system genera-
tion less the largest unit for an isolated system such as Key West.
Total installed capacity is 110.8 MW. At projected growth rates, the
system's firm capacity will be exceeded in 1984. However, Key West
Units No. 1 and 2 are presently 25 years old and will reach normal
maximum economic service life at 30 years in 1982. At that time, an
economic and operational practical decision must be made concerning
their continued operation at greatly increased maintenance and repair
costs versus alternative power sources: If they are retired, the system
load will exceed the system firm capability by about 5 MW.
55
Z
O
U
M O
r CY-'
0_
a) to
r W W
.0 W U
� 3
!-- O
0_
4 0
a)
r
"O 3
O
O
O
O
O
CD
O
=.lG
O
CD
O
CDI.0
LO
O
a) �--
O
CD
O
M
r�
I—
00
O.
>> a)
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
•r
r
'r
r
(tl
4-)
d a)
O
(0 +-)
F
U cC)
a. 3
Y
O
O
O
O
O
O
(D
O
O
O
O
m
LO
E
O
O
O
M
I"
n
ro
Z
N
N
N
N
N
N
4-3
c
v) a) a) cn
O I� 1�
=D
_1
W
N
W
'p
�
a)
r S-
r >-
C'3
c6 \
Z
+�
LO
I..f)
M
Cfl
dl
Ql
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
�L
►-+
N
N
N
Ol
M
M
W
0_
S_
>
>
>
>
>
>
Q)
•r
•r
•r
•r
•r
•r
+-)
E
E
E
E
E
E
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
(o
S-
S-
S_
S_
S.
S_
4-
a-J
4-)
+•>
i-)
4--)
•I-)
U
U
U
U
U
U
a)
m
a)
a)
a)
a)
RS
r
r
r
r
r
r
W
W
W
W
W
W
•r
r
N
M
CV
CM
r
r
�
fn
Y
4-)
Y
O
3
U
•ram
a�
N
U
Y
56
Ln
W
H
J
U
Q
LL_
Z
O
H
U
O
O
a.
L/)
LIJ
W U
3
O
0_
Ln
f---
►-ti
Z
O
H
Q
LLJ
Z
W
cD
W
Z_
C.'C]
O
H
Q
W
H
LN
S- O O O O O O
aJ O O O 00 O
E 3 0 C) Ln Ln O O
U') Ln Ln Ln C 1:
C
•r
Y
co
a1 L (:D00000
a. a) 000000
+�3 OOLnLnOo
C Y ^
•r `U') Ll Ln U') LT rl
3 .--1 r+ . 1 L")
aJ I
to O O O O O O
r 0 0 0 0 0 0
cl 3 o O Ln Ln In O
O Y ^
E Ln Lc) ' j r,
Z
(A
C— Ln Ln 0000
O O LL N N '-•i ri r• Ln
U•ro 00 co m(nmm
•r 4-3 \\\\\\
>-- LD Ln Ln 0000
S..-0r NNLn Ln LO LO
aJ C LN Lp 1.0 00 00 co N
L/) O 0_ 1-7
U—
C
Q) a) N
0 m S_ Ln Ln O cr -4 Ln
w Q >- N N N
S_
0_
a1
N N (*- M L,0 N
>- Ln M Ln LO l0
L6 rl �--� r• .-1
4J
•r
C
.4 N co d Lf) '-4
3 3 3 3 3
Y..]C.Y-le Y Ln
+-J
C >,-
0 4-) S. 00000 O
U•r-C 000000
U\ O O O O O O
fp N r lZ.n �--� r1 O^ O Ln O
co ru r- Ln Ln Ln LO ^ LO
OU -4 r-ia 4 M
U
Q
Lo
O
r
L 4-) S_ 00 C)0C) O
O•rJr 000000
> U\ 0 0 0 C) C) 0
O rt N
LZ-0 U)Ln Ln Ln O O
Lo r- LO L.0 L,O L.0 LT LO
N U r•+ .--� ri M
� 1
N
C— ")LnOOOO
LL O I - N N .-4 rl —4 Ln
U •ro coco m(n O1 m
> •r CD Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
S_ -o M M r� 1\ 1\ 1\
N C L/) LO l0 co 00 00 N
L/) O d +
U
C
� � N
N l'7) S_ LO Ln O V• O
LL Q } N N N
0_
tL
r Sr
r>-
N Nf�MlON
to \
LC) Ln Ln 110 L0 1\
4J
CA
N
N co N r
S=
r1 rl rl rl r
C
r
.0
Q1
4-•)
S- Si W
E
aJ a)
LN
Y Y C
O O O >> >) >)
N
-W 4-) •r +-) +-) 4-)
T7
LN LN +J •r •r •r
r
N U U U
O
O QJ -0 a) a) Q)
>)
r- r E •r •r •r
a)
•r •r O S- S- S_
Of 2 U W W W
Lv
U
M z*' Ln •--4 S-
3 3 :3: :m O
_]C Y Y Y Y V) I Ln
57
In addition to the considerations of total system loads versus capa-
bilities, a special problem exists within the CES service area on the
lower keys served by the 13.8 kV "Keys Line." This circuit extends from
Big Coppitt Substation to the end of the CES service area to the west
end of Seven Mile Bridge, a distance of some 32 miles. This load
reached about 6 MW during the sumrher of 1976 and connot continue to be
served with the existing facilities.
Figure 6 shows the Florida Keys Electric (FKE) system. FKE has one 16
MW generating plant in Marathon (13 MW firm capacity), and buys its
remaining power from Florida Power and Light, whose franchise area
begins immediately north of Monroe County.
The present FKE transmission system consists of one 138 kV line (normal
service) and one 69 kV line (backup service) from the FP&L substation at
Florida City of Jewfish, 69 kV line from Jewfish to Tavernier, 69 kV
cable from Tavernier to Islamorada and a 25 kV distribution circuit from
Islamorada to Marathon with a 16 MW diesel plant at Marathon. A five -
mile section of 69 kV circuit presently extends east out of the Marathon
Substation that will be utilized until the need for conversion to 138 kV
operation.
Table 15 shows Florida Keys Electric historical system demand from 1967
to 1975. Demand has increased from 18.6 megawatts in 1967 to 48.9
megawatts in 1975, a 161.3 percent increase in eight years.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND FACILITIES
The CES projected demand is shown in Table 16. CES forecasts an overall
average system growth rate of 1 percent per year through 1980, and 3
percent per year through 1991. The table assumes that after 1986, the
anticipated new transmission tie line discussed below will be completed
and the additional power can be purchased from Florida Power and Light
as needed.
AE
Table 15
Florida Keys Electric
Annual System Demand and Energy
Historical Total System
Demand
Energy
Year
MW
MWH x 1000
1967
18.6
80
1968
18.6
87.1
1969
22.3
102.9
1970
29.2
122.9
1971
31.7
144.3
1972
37.7
172.9
1973
47.1
204.3
1974
46
222.9
1975
48.9
248.1
Source:
Pederson, Young
and Associates, Inc.
"System Planning
Report for Florida
Keys Electric Cooperative
Associa-
tion Inc.," July
1976.
59
1 lD
ri
a)
rC3
F--
•
O
o
a1
t\nOONN
•r
Z
k a1 X
1 )c k K ## k r� r� c*- O O
r•-
C
"0
LLB Lr) M M �" �
a
O
LLI 2
r► -� ri ri N N
•r
U
VI
J coCL
—�
Z
L.L.
LL Z
o
C1
4-
4-
ty
3
o
O
rn
�
rti 3
1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 0 0 Ln LLB O O
r
�-
•r
:
MMMM-:d-�
1(=
r
QEJ
O
a1
i-)
3
C
Z
cO
a)
3
O
Z
O
O
O
a
� O
•k -k -k � jc � �c
ri
Z
m
O O LO r� N-I :T -I LO CO N N Ln N
L
O
o
Z
a1 X
MLr)r�l0lD1010lDC U)M
C
N
Z
C C
000-INctLr7Q'NM-4C\j 4N
41
W Z
O W3
MMMMMMMMNNNNNN
Q�
Y
ui
LL- a
3
W Z
W
O
N
r Q1
N
34
uN V)
r W
r
flo
a-) U
O
r�M�tOOONrt l0 CS1MMzj-0
O
S.-. C
p
r11
r rs 3
E x
M M Ct Lt7 f, CTl r,� CSl " O
.r
+-)
+1 .r
C
F
(31
LO LD l0 LD LD r� r� r-� " c! - cJ- cf M
r
O a)
U
W
O
•O
U -C
M
M)
4-)
4-)O
>1
a
a1
E
r=
a1 a
a1 0
O
a
Z o
O
0)—
>) O
0)'-1
OOLOr� rr--zjr+NLr)NNt\�
d->
OL
Z
a)X
M Lr) r� LD O LD LD rl CO cI 1r LI) M
�
� +�
C
O O O rr N-c:l- Lo tD r-- Cp O r1N M
O
Q') CT
W S
M MMMMMr'>MMMz:j-d'
U
C C
3
U
•r •r
�
E
rrs
C N
a1
O O
-a a--)
a1 N
O
+-)
r r
ti U
-1-i >O
u V)
•-
N W
N
W Y
n� C
r�M�OOON� l0 CTMOOtYO
O rc 3.
Z a-> E i
. . . . . . .
M M -tt Lo r� -a M LA r-- M N d- r, 0
--I'dULL
+-)
00
rl O a1
LDLDlD.DLDnr--nr�M00M
h-- O
0
O
+•>
Q1 C
4-)
b
r 00
•r Q1
4- Cn
-0 i.
MmO.-+N�LoLDr--MmOriL\r
•r'""�
a1 a1
S.- c
r-r�MMMMMMMMMC1�CTCT
o a
a a
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
���
��rir.r,r.r,r,�r♦r.r,r.r-,
•E
• In order to better serve the load in the area between Big Coppitt Substation
and the Seven Mile Bridge prior to any connections to any future tie
line, CES plans to relocate the two diesel generating units from Cudjoe
Key to Big Pine Key and to improve the distribution lines in the same
area by 1979. CES also plans to add a new 22 MW gas turbine generating
unit at the Key West plant by 1979.1
The FKE has been planning a system expansion program for the past
several years to accommodate their system projected growth. FKE is
currently designing and/or building the Marathon to Islamorada line in
order to meet an in-service date before the summer of 1980.
The FKE projected demand is shown in Table 17. FKE forecasts an overall
average system growth rate of 11 percent per year through 1995. FKE
plans to retire the Marathon generating plant as soon as the transmission
lines are completed down to Marathon.
Power will be purchased normally from Florida Power and Light Company
and the Marathon plant will be used for emergency purposes only.2
The proposed line (Figure 6) would follow the U.S. Highway 1 alignment
from Marathon to the Islamorada Substation. The additional transmission
capacity is needed to accommodate the projected system demand growth
over the next few years. Population growth is expected to be greater in
this portion of the keys than in Key West, which the projected system
demand growth reflects.
The 69 kV line from Jewfish to Islamorada will be upgraded over the next
few years to allow future utilization of a higher voltage (138 kV) to
supply power (from Florida Power and Light Company) all the way down to
Marathon by about 1993. The backup transmission line will also be
upgraded at that time from 69 kV to 138 kV.
1Personal interview with Mr. Robert Padron, Supt. of Engineering
CES.
2Personal interview with Mr. Fred Kray, General Manager, FKE,
March 1979.
X
I
Table 17
PROJECTED SYSTEM DEMAND
FLORIDA KEYS ELECTRIC
Demand
Energy
Year
MW
MWH x 1000
1976
53.7
277.0
1977
58
305.0
1978
60.3
318.4
1979
63.5
331.8
1980
66.3
345.1
1981
69.0
358.5
1982
71.8
371.4
1983
74.5
385.3
1984
77.8
398.7
1985
80.0
412.0
1986
82.8
425.4
1987
85.5
438.8
1988
88.3
452.2
1989
91.0
465.6
1990
93.8
478.9
1991
96.5
492.3
1992
99.3
505.7
1993
102.0
519.1
1994
104.8
532.5
1995
107.6
545.9
Source: Pedersen, Young and Associate, Inc.
"System Planning Report for Florida
Keys Electric Corporation Associa-
tion Inc.," July 1976.
62
Discussions have taken place concerning joint participation in a
complete tie line from mainland to CES and FKE.
GOALS AND POLICIES
The purpose of the utility element is not to create an additional layer
of government and regulation for CES and FKE. It is essential to develop
and continue a working relationship between the County and utilities to
maximize public benefit, conserve energy, and reduce costs.
GOALS
1. To provide the necessary electrical facilities and services to
meet the needs of Monroe County citizens.
2. Develop close cooperation and coordination with the City
Electric System and Florida Keys Electric.
POLICIES
1. Cooperate with CES and FKE in developing long-range plans for
new construction and for expansion of additional electrical
generation and transmission facilities.
2. Completed, revised, and updated Ten Year Site Plans and Site
Certification Plans with the local utilities shall be submitted
for information and coordination.
3. Inform utilities of land use policy and comprehensive plan
changes which could affect utility operations.
4. Locate new transmission facilities and corridors in areas
r `
which minimize land use conflicts and aesthetic impacts.
e q
63
P.
r
5. Ensure the integrity of coastal and ecologically sensitive
areas through proper design and location.
6. Encourage energy conservation through sound land use planning
policies, effective building codes,.and citizen awareness.
IMPLEMENTATION
To implement the plan's policies, the County will:
1. Request that the proposals for new additions to the transmission
grid, new construction and development be submitted by the
utilites to the County for information and coordination.
2. Provide staff liaison to the utilities to coordinate and
review new development, 10-year Site Plans, etc.
3. Review subdivision and development proposals within the County
to ensure they can be served by utilities.
4. Cooperate with the utilities and seek assistance from state
and federal agencies in developing and providing educational
materials on energy conservation.
5. Develop an Energy Conservation Plan to include a contingency
provision that can be implemented during crisis situations.
64
THE Sr,,
FO
` o
w
0
GFORCE FIRESTONE.
SECRETARY OF STATE
June 191, 1980
Srrrrtaq of Statr
STATE OF FLORIDA
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE 32304
(904) 488-3680
Honorable Ralph W. White
Clerk of Circuit Court
Monroe County Courthouse
500 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Attention: Virginia M. Pinder, Deputy Clerk
Dear Mr'. White:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes,
this will acknowledge:
vx�l. Receipt of your letter/s of June 11,
and certified copy/ies of Mnnrnp
County Ordinance/s No./s Rn-R an " n-A
2. Receipt of County Ordinance/s
relative to:
(a)
which we have numbered
(b)
which we have numbered
)/3. We have filed t-h-i�/these Ordinance/s in this office
June 19, 1980.
4. The original/duplicate copy/ies showing the filing date
is/are being returned for your records.
Cordially,
(Mrs.) Nancy Kavanaugh
Chief, Bureau of Laws
NK/ mb
. 3�3