The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutH. Project Management BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 21Apri12010 Division: County Administration Bulk Item: Yes No -2L Department: Proiect Management Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Wilson x8797 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion of current status and possible actions in response to proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) published by USEP A. ITEM BACKGROUND: On 26 January 2010, USEPA published proposed limits for Nitrogen and Phosphorus nutrients in lakes, stream, springs, and canals on a schedule dictated by their consent agreement with a number of environmental groups. They plan to publish limits for coastal waters and estuaries in January 2011. The effective date of these latter limits is scheduled to be Fall 2011. Monroe County "stakeholders" comprised of the County, five municipalities, FKAA, KL WTD, and FDOT collaborated with FDEP during 2000-2009 to develop a realistic but challenging plan for nutrient discharge reduction in Florida Keys waters. Comments on the initial rule proposals (for fresh water bodies) are due to EP A by 28 April 2010. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On 08 December 2008 the commission authorized execution of the "Reasonable Assurance Documents" for three of three (3) of the four (4) areas of the County in which the County was a stakeholder in the actions proposed. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff continues to believe that adoption ofthe "Reasonable Assurance Plan Documents" by all County stakeholders is the course of action most likely to provide maximum cost effective environmental benefits for Monroe County waters. TOTAL COST: NONE INDIRECT COST: NONE BUDGETED: Yes _No DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: N/A COST TO COUNTY: NONE SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNTPERMONTH_ Year APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _ DOCUMENT A TION: Included Not Required--X_ DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # Revised 7/09 o~~ ~2~~2E (305) 294-4641 BOARD.O'F COUNTY~QM"~SSI0NERS Mayor Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5 Mayor Pro Tem Heather Carruthersl District 3 Kim Wigington, District 1 George Neugent,District 2 MarioDi. Gennaro, District 4 21 1\pril2010 Lf . S. Environl11cntalProtection AgC1IC)l Docket ID No.: E'Pl\...HQ....".O\\-'-- 2009-0596 SlJBJE(;T: EJP A-lIQ--OW -- 2009-0596 -- P'ublic Comm,e"nts on Federal Ptoposal to Establish NUlneric Nutrient Criteria: 'Florida"s Lakes and Flo\ving W~aters, including Canals Secretary Jackson: 'Please incorporate .fvlon.roeC(}unty';s C.~the COlUlty'S'') CO.ln.1n,en.ts rela.ted to the l~nvironrrlental 'Protection Agency's ("EI)A,'s~~) proposedWat.er Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes an,dFlovling Waters, 40 CPR Part 131. ,\.slam sure you are a\vare, the Cou:ntyhas a vested interest in clean '~tater. /\s such, the (~01.lnty Sllpports theestablishm.ent ofcriteriaf()f ntl.trients th.atprotect th,e \\/aters in and around the COtlnty for current and futuregetlerationsof.residentsand touristsalik.c.The C:oun(y's econOll1Y is al.rnost el1tirely d.ependent on ,:vater-based to~urismand it has no agricultural orn1anufacturing land uses. Because of our econo'nlicbase, it is i.m,portant to note that .man,y of the 'prim.ary sources of 11utrients in tht~ County' S\\laters stem trom sources located outside of tIle County 's jurisdiction atld control. Because oft11e relationship be:t\VeCl1 the health oftllC environm.ent and ec(}oomy in the County, we supp;ort EP A's objectives i.nde'veloping numeric nutrient c.riteria (NNC) that are protective of our \-vater resourc.es and improve o'ur \~rater quality ~ The County (and a number of other County stakeholders) "viII primarily be affected by the upcoming ndemakingf()r water quality' criteria in estuarine. and cO&'ital \vaters that \vill be.proposed in 2011. \\lhile the County 'understallds that the cun"el1t proposed criteria address :prill1arily fresh.\vater systel11S, '\ve feel that it is critical to provide these comments now for several reasons. First. the County is in the unique position of alre:ady bein.g required to .m,eet c.ertainnumeric nu.trien.t standards in relation to its efforts to centralizeVv~aste,vater service. Second, \ve believe that the ,process to ,prolnulga.te statldards for estuarine and coastal systems \vil1 be similar to the approach to arrive at standards for predOluinately fresh\~later system.s. .Finally, \ve believe tl1a.t thevv'ork th.at has alread.y been conlpleted related to the (;ounty~s \vater quality issues rnust serve as a fundaIl1ental basis for establishing any fUlther water quality criteria in this area. The comments contained in this correspondence are. aimed partially at these future proposals for estuarine and coastal waters and at someproced.ural.jssues in the.culTentproposed rulenlakin.g which, if calTied over into the 20 II cycle 1113Y significantly affect the C::OU11ty. y\'\ PromulestioJl. of Rules ..fo.r.Coast:al..Waters. and Estuaries : ~rhe County in collab{}ration '"lithother sta:k.eholders (cities, agencies~ and utilities) and the FIJEP developed. cornprehe.nsive reasonable assurance plal1s for all areas of the County to lneet identified water quality targets for our \vaters. Tllese plans inc.luded specific nUfllel"ic targets and the actions required to achie\'e o.utrient load redu:ctions reqltiredto 111eetthose target levels. I"hese p.lans \\lere a.ggressive, challenging, and based on all available scientific data. These plans have been adopted and are in the process of sub.nlittal to EPl\. for approval wilen tllis rulelnakillgprocCSSC01l1111enced. The County rClnains cornmitted to the proposed plans and recomnlendsth.atEPA. ad.opt. the targets in the proposed rules directly, or as SiteSpecitic Alternative C;riteria C{.SSp\C"), for Monroe C~Otlnty \-vaters due to the significatlt scilence serving as their basis. Rule Makine Procedurefs'}= Unfunded M~lndates& Effect on Small Go'vernmcotall2ntities.. - l~he .lJro:posed rules \vill undo'ubtedly r(~quire capital expenditures. Some ofUlose expenditures may already be anticipated, oth.ers nlay be additional ex.penditures requiring changes to th.e(;oun.ty~s capital plans. '"[he (:ounty's Comprehensive Plan is required to be fiscally feasible'. TIle addition of new and more stringent water quality requirements will require revisions the County's near term capital planning priorities. The County does not c.onCllf with EPA's conclusions that the proposed rules do not contain any unfunded mandates or create additional requiremel1tsol1 small goverrunental agencies because they merely set requirements to be used by FDEP. Clearly the County's experiellce has shown that meeting our existing water quality requirements will necessitate asignificant.comrriitmcnt of resources, and meeting more stringent requirements w'ill require more .resources. As an example of this amplified financial impact, while the drinking water pr<Jvided in theCOul1ty l11eets or exceeds aU dri.nking \vater stalldards, the concentratio:n of phosphorus in that drinking water (>0.2 mgll) exceeds the criteria proposed for lakes, springs, and canals (0.01-0.05 mg/I) in EPA's proposed rule. Even if the County's drinking water were used as an irrigation source, it wOlIld require Inore trea.tlllcnt andc()st to. l'neet the requircl11cl1ts COl1templated in EPA's rule" .Proposed '2010 .Ru.l.es for.Streams, IJakes" (Janals~andSprin2s.: Lakes/Pond - - The County is concerned that the proposed criteria for lakes do not specify a lower size limit in the deflnition of lakes nor do the criteria differentiate between manmade ponds and naturally occurring pOllds. While the County has a linlited in.ventory of fresh, \vate:r bodies, \ve are concerned abo.ut the application of nutrient limitsto small isolated (usually man-made) ponds. If interpreted to apply to small manmade ponds (such as on golf courses or individual properties) the limits on nutrients might discourage the re-use of treated \vater on the surrounding vegetation. In the County, virtually all of the potable water used is transported from the mainland. Any reuse of treated wastewater displaces a use of imported freshwater. As a policy matter, the reuse of treated wastewater is encouraged in the South Florida "'Tater M'anagement District'spennittin.gcriteria2 and Basis of Revie\v3. The reuse of wastewater is also a condition of our consumptive use pennit. Application of stringent nut.rient limits to th.ese water 'bodiesmayprohibit t.he use of 1.5 - 2~5 !vlGDofreclaimed\tvaterf()r irrigation, in turn, preventing the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority from meeting obligations within its ".~."';"".aJ....",.."......".."".."..............................,u""..n..~..",,,,,,"-""""~"'-""--__N'-"N__ 1 Section 163.3177(2), F.S. 2 Rule 40E..20.30 I, F.i\,C:. and Rule 40E..2.30 1, F.}\.C:. 3 Basis of Revie\v for W'atcr Use Perrn.it Application, 3,2.3.2 Reuse ,Requirements consumptive Tlse permit. 'This fin.an.cial im.pa.ct can.notbe .understatedbecau.se these existing "\vaste"\\later systelns Inight bave to undergo significantmodification.s including additional treatnlent and storage facilities. Ivlonroe C:ou.nt)! renlains C0:111111itted to supporting.E.Pr\'s efforts to d.eve.lop nUlneric nutrient criteria for the State of Florida, but tIle criteria Inust beacllievable, based 011 sou.ud. SCiCllC.C, and In'ustcollsider tIle impacts to local govemm.cnts in. tenns .of actuallybein.g able to effectuate meaningful benefits. .'Ve believe the Cou.nty is hahead: of the Ctlrve'':an.d bas already placed tre.rneo.dolls eftort into substantiating and meeth1g very stringent water q'uality criteria. V.le '\vould ask thaty'o'u build .upon Ulat science and tll0SC efforts .as you move fonvard" .We remain com.mitte.d to \vor.kin.g \vith you and your statl:' as this process moves forward. 'For any additionalqtlestion.s,please do not h.esitate to callm.yself or :Kevin ~liIson (305- 453-8797) for any further questiollS )fOU m'. 11ave. ';7 /;/ s ~:~~~;t y ~^'_~. <;f/G~ /1 / ~~as~i Administrator cc: County )\.ttoll1ey County (~lerk