Loading...
Resolution 147-2012RESOLUTION NO. 147 - 2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA ADOPTING THE CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM FACILITIES PLAN WHEREAS, Florida's water pollution control revolving loan program is authorized under Sec. 403.1835, Florida Statutes which establishes the Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Management Revolving Loan Trust Fund for projects and activities eligible for funding under Section 603 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the amended Clean Water Act); and WHEREAS, Section 62-503.700, Florida Administrative Code, describes the planning, design, construction and procurement requirements to obtain borrowed funding from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP's) State Revolving Loan Program for Water Pollution Control (SRF); and WHEREAS, Section 62-503.700 (2)(g), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the planning documentation include a description of the public participation process used to explain the project and the financial impacts to affected parties prior to the project sponsor's acceptance of the planning recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted the Sumerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Interlocal Agreement (ILA) on September 20, 2006 appropriating an initial $3 million for design; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreements are provided in the Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2008, the BOCC adopted the First Amendment to the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf ILA expanding the scope to include design for Big Pine Key through Ramrod Key and Lower Sugarloaf and appropriated an additional $4.5 million for expanded design; and WHEREAS, based onflhe BOCC's concurrence of the recommendations in the Lower Keys Wastewater Master Plan Update on November 19, 2008, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority held public meetings on December 8, 2008 and December 11, 2008 describing the collection system alternatives analysis which resulted in the recommendation to expand the central service area boundary to include those properties for which central service was more cost effective than onsite system upgrades; and WHEREAS, the presentation sited the AWT Plant on North Cudjoe Key at the existing landfill site "centrally" located to treat effluent from north and south of the WWTP; and WHEREAS, a substantial completion date during the second half of 2011 was projected based on projects being ready to bid in the fall of 2009; and WHEREAS, a copy of the public presentation from December 8 and 11, 2008 is included in the Facilities Plan; and 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the BOCC approved the update to the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan on January 19, 2008; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2009 the Initial Assessment Resolution (IAR) for the levy of System Development Fees (SDFs) ranging from $4,500 to $6,500 for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System failed during an advertised hearing due to incomplete project funding; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2009 the BOCC approved the Second Amendment for the (Expanded) Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System further expanding the project to include Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems for which owners of properties not in the Master Plan but located in the Cudjoe Regional area from No Name Key through Lower Sugarloaf Key, plus Boca Chica parcels identified as RE ID # 122880-000000, 122890-000000, and 122870-000000, contract with FKAA for operation and maintenance; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2011 a scheduled agenda discussion occurred following the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Funding presentation; and WHEREAS, a copy of the public presentation from January 19, 2011 is included in the Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the BOCC's consensus was to develop the funding plan using System Development Fee of $5,700 per EDU for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area; and WHEREAS, the anticipated State of Florida FY13 General Appropriation Act in the amount of $30 million requires construction contracts for Unincorporated Monroe County by March 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2012, a summary presentation was made to BOCC depicting the service area and WWTP location, confirming the reduced estimated cost to implement of $156 million, and specifying a target date for bid opening of December 2012; and WHEREAS, a copy of the public presentation from April 18, 2012 is included in the Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the BOCC intends to fund a portion of the Cudjoe Regional Central Wastewater using future non -ad valorem revenue; and WHEREAS, the future non -ad valorem revenue includes System Development Fees collected as special assessments and sales tax revenue; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2012 the BOCC approved the Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement establishing the System Development Fee to be paid by the property owners for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Project to be no more than $5,700; and WHEREAS, the anticipated construction schedule requires the BOCC to borrow a portion of the funds to be collected as future non -ad valorem revenue; and WHEREAS, the BOCC intends to borrow funds from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State Revolving Fund Loan Program for Water Pollution Control if financing costs prove favorable; and 2of3 WHEREAS, notice of the public meeting held by the BOCC on May 16, 2012 and the notice of intention to consider approval of this Resolution on the date hereof was published, said proof of publication(s) being attached hereto and made part of this Resolution as Attachment A; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 62-503.700(2)(a)-(g), Florida Administrative Code and Sec. 403.1835(6)(b)(d)(h), (7)(a)-(h) and (11) Florida Statutes, a Facilities Plan was developed and included in the Agenda Package for this resolution consideration; and WHEREAS, the Executive Summary is attached hereto and made part of this Resolution as Attachment B, for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida; and, WHEREAS, Section 62-503-700(2) 6), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the planning documentation include an adopting resolution or other action establishing a commitment to implement the planning recommendations in order to obtain borrowed funding from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State Revolving Fund Loan Program for Water Pollution Control; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan, included in the Agenda Package for this resolution consideration, is hereby adopted. 2. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State Revolving Fund Loan Program for Water Pollution Control. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County Florida at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 16th day of May, 2012. --t ru w Mayor David Rice Yes Mayor Pro Tem Kim Wigington YpR Commissioner George Neugent Yes .cY co Commissioner Heather Carruthers Yes r ry Commissioner Sylvia Murphy VPn v ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA B By: Deputy Clerk Mayor David Rice 3 of 0 M 0 Attachment A — Notice for Facilities Plan Adoption Hearing EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER , , - , APPk1ONAL OF COUNTY RESOLUTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN that on May 16,2012 at 3:00 p.m., , • or as soon thereafter as may be heard, at the Murray E.Nelson Government Center,102050 • Overseas Highway,Mile Marker 102, Key Largo, Monroe County,Florida,the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida intends to consider approval of the following County • resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA ADOPTINGTHE CUDJOE REGIONALWASTEWATERTREATMENT SYSTEM FACILITIES PLAN. • The purpose of this meeting is to satisfy the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State Revolving Loan Program requirement for public participation prior to the acceptance of the planning recommendations by the project sponsor.An advanced wastewater treatment facility with a hybrid gravity and low pressure collection system is planned for construction in early 2013. The figure below depicts the limits of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Service Area to;include developed parcels from Lower!Sugarloaf north.to Big Pine Key.The central service [ boundary is as delineated in the Master Plan Update approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 28,2009. _ V Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Service Areal ,h N �zt �k- = _ • '''4 i'l, Viv \, 11-7 %) �• -� i (5 {. {f7 \ `.,,1 . .\., -. i-i,,,,i, ,,,;.. . .. :,-1 -,31--,.- -...--,'.7'. ':. i''::)?', + n fudloe / BIg D ne gey ti, ,..- t, .i'.`, Torches, r ' .. ,e^ Upper spe rl of .,.,, -,n ji ' Ramrod� _ y' x x Mtower 5 g baf :V,' titi rf:+=.'� �ffi_ Legend :.. ..spas -Net spas All affected property owners have a right to appear and provide input at the hearing and may file written objections with the County Administrator anytime prior to the public meeting. The Facilities Plan can ` be viewed on the Monroe County website at http://fl-monroecounty.civicplus.com/agendacenter upon I publication of the May 16,2012 BOCC agenda and no later than May 4,2012. i ADA ASSISTANCE:If you are a person with a disability who needs special accommodations in order , to participate in this proceeding,please contact the County Administrator's Office,by phoning(305) ' 292-4441,between the hours of 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.,no later than five(5)calendar days prior to the i scheduled meeting;if you are hearing or voice impaired,call"711". ' Dated at Key West, Florida this 24th day of April,2012. DANNY L.KOLHAGE,Clerk of the Circuit Court and ex officio Clerk of.the Board of County . NW, . '� ^f Commissioners of Monroe County,Florida 374028 April 27,2012 Key West Citizen wesr Cooke Communications, LLC Florida Keys PO Box 1800 Key West FI 33041 Office .... 305-292-7777 Extension ........ x219 Fax ....... 305-295-8025 leaals kevsnews.com INTERNET PUBLISHING keywest.com keysnews.com floriciakeys.com key-west.com Web Design Services NEWSPAPERS The Citizen Southernmost Flyer Solares Hill Big Pine Free Press Marathon Free Press Islamorada Free Press Key Largo Free Press MARKETING SERVICES Commercial Printing Citizen Locals Card Direct Mail FLORIDA KEYS OFFICES Printing / Main Facility 3420 Northside Drive Key West, FL 33040-1800 Tel 305-292-7777 Fax 305-294-0768 citizen(i,kevwest.com Internet Division 33040-3328 Tel 305-292-1880 Fax 305-294-1699 sales@keywest.com Upper Keys Office 91731 Overseas Hwy Tavernier, FL 33070 Tel 305-853-7277 Fax 305-853-0556 freepress@floridakeys.com STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Randy G. Erickson, who on oath says that he is Vice -President of Operations of the Key West Citizen, a daily newspaper published in Key West, in Monroe County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a legal notice in the matter of was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of Z6)Z Affiant further says that the Key West Citizen is a newspaper published in Key West, in said Monroe County, Florida and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Monroe County, Florida every day, and has been entered as second-class mail matter at the post office in Key West, in said Monroe County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Signature of Affiant Sworn and subscribed before me this _� 7 day of M , 2012 Notary Public: DAWN KAWZINSKY NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA Comm# EE157233 19 Expires 1/4/20t1; Expires: 1/4/16 Notary Seal Personally Known x Produced Identification Type of Identification Produced THE REPORTER P.O. Box 1197; Tavernier, F133070 92655 Overseas Hwy, Tavernier F133070 Phone 305- 852-3216, Fax 305- 852-0199 www.keysnet.com PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE Before the undersigned authority personally appeared WAYNE MARKHAM who on oath, says that he is PUBLISHER of the THE REPORTER, a weekly newspaper published in Tavernier, in Monroe County, Florida: that the attached copy , of advertisement was published in said newspaper in the issues of: (date(s) ofpublication) y-a 7-ice Affiant further says that the said THE REPORTER is a newspaper published at Tavernier, in said Monroe County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Monroe County, Florida, each week (on Friday) and has been entered as a second class mail matter at the post office in Tavernier, in Monroe County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement. The affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper(s) and that The THE REPORTER is in full compliance with Chapter 50 of the Florida State Statutes on Legal and Official Advertisements. Wayne Markha bli er Sworn to and subscribeo. before me this =<� 7 Day of (.Cwlxj e, 2012 (SEAL) Notary ......... ►y BEVERLYTRAEGER .. ;: MY COMMISSION S DD 969749 EXPIRES: April 18, 2014 "'� o � ;? ' Bonded Thru Notary Public Undermilers NOTICE OF INTENTION TO 'COt, D ER , APPROVAL Or Call:NTY RESOLUTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN that on May 16,2012 at 300 p.m.,or ' as soon thereafter as may be heard, at the Murray E. Nelson Government Center, 102050 Overseas Highway,Mile Marker 102,Key Largo,Monroe County,Florida,the Board of County Commissioners of. Monroe County,Florida intends to consider approval of the following County resolution: ' _ 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS L_OF MONROE COUNTY,—FLORIDA ADOPTING THE CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM FACILITIES PLAN. , . The purpose of this meeting is to satisfy the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State Revolving Loan Program requirement for public participation prior to the acceptance of the planning recommendations ' by the project sponsor. An advanced'wastewater treatment facility with a hybrid gravity and low'pressure collection system is planned for construction in early 2013. • \ • - The figure below depicts the limits of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Service Area to *, include developed parcels from Lower Sugarloaf north to Big Pine Key. The central service boundary is as delineated in the Master Plan Update approved by the Board of ç2ounty Commissioners on January 28,2009. Cudjoe Regional.Wastewater Treatment System Service Area s '4 1, k: 1/ .k il " ,..: 1:11:j -,,k t::, (', 1111- , vi , •, 41 ,,\-'--., N' e. :fl IA•'''";41,',-'.,i,,,.':t?)',:): kI. ' 4 t'I)4 VV -$'0-' . •' 1'7'7 •. k'i'cll,iW<4 'ii••',•-•r-. 11: ' ' '''14' ',, ,,eriA%\,, 4,.,2-,••',., ' _ t.:, : - . ---fi,r- , '' ' ' . '-. r-i:'•uPiPersugar,tog,,\ . , , c„,••,-- - ' ;'-'•• , ' ' , , -V:Iii :,.0 • .- ,^,,,„,.;„-.:.),,,,;a-Alr.- , /-‘)z 1 • • * r-)•.';'.'a eail:''P- I-'^ , ' *: Low erstigOna4 ‘''''''':1- ,•s:4.p...• -•-.:,„- s-r-, . 4,s„,TPV' - r MI. •. r.."6...? • . • • . al R.isp. _ All affected property ownets have a right to apPear•and provide inpiut at the hearing and niay file written i objections with the County Administrator anytime prior to the public meeting'. The Facilities Plan'can be viewed on the Monroe County website at http!//fl-monroecounty.civicplus.com/agendacenter upon publication ' of the May 16,2012 BOCC agenda and no later than May 4,2012. • , . . , ADA ASSISTANCE:If you are a person with a disability who needs special accommodations in order to participate in this proceeding,please contact the CoufityAdministrator's Office,by phoning(305)292-4441, between the hours Of 8:30 a.m. - 500 p.m., no later than five (5), calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting;if you are hearing or voice impaired, call"711". : . Dated at Key West,Florida this 24th day of April,2012. . : , ' ,:•-ti, DANNY L.KOLHAGE,Clerk of the Circuit ' . • i.-A-v.,,', . Court and ex officio Clerk of the Board of County A-4 .-= ,• . , ,•ez, ,1 ,,,. Commissioners of Monroe County;Florida • -1›,:i .:-. $ • ' : , , , . Published Reporte:i 4/27/12 . - - - ///1/1)I (1/, PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE Before the undersigned authority person- ally appeared WAYNE MARKHAM who on oath, says that he is PUBLISHER of the FLORIDA KEYS KEYNOTER, a twice weekly newspaper published in Marathon, in Monroe County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement was published in said newspaper in the issues of: (date(s) of publication) WIM Affiant further says that the said FLORIDA KEYS KEYNOTER is a newspaper published at Marathon, in said Monroe County, Florida, and that the said ne:^,spaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Monroe County, Florida, twice each week (on Wednesday and Saturday) and has been entered as a second class mail matter at the post office in Marathon, in Monroe County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement. The affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper(s) and that The Florida Keys Keynoter is in full compliance with Chapter 50 of the Florida State Statutes on Legal and Official Advertisements. Swo�tond "ubscribed before me thisay of , 2012 (SEAL) Y' := MY COMMISSION DD 969749 z EXPIRES: April 18, 2014 „ '� Bonded ThruNotary Public Undeiwriters Notary . . a ' , NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF COUNTY RESOLUTION= - . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN that on May 16,2012 at 3:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as may be heard, at the Murray.E. Nelson Government Center, 102050 Overseas, Highway,Mile Marker 102,Key Largo,Monroe County,Florida,the Board of County'Commissioners of • Monroe County,Florida intends to consider approval of the following County resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA ADOPTING THE CUDJOE REGIONAL'WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM'FACILITIES PLAN. . ' ' , Tile purpose of this meeting is to satisfy the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State Revolving Loan Program requirement for public participation prior to the acceptance of the planning recommendations by,the project sponsor An advanced wastewater,treatment,facility with a hybrid gravity and low pressure collection system is planned for construction in early.2013. , The figure below depicts the limits of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Service Area to include-developed parcels from Lower Sugarloaf north to Big Pine Key.The central service boundary is,as delineated in the Master Plan Update approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 28,2009. w Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System`ServiceArea •",; d 1 as fr 1E • , u ' 'sy r .f,, _L. , t4" �} ,,� S� f f - r.,.� .,summerian' � , -X�.5� 5 1. .,,.,tea :x` S`; S�} i �y'�` ,.}�' f f3 _��,.,....'^-v, 1 (.r otto • '- --- - - p . 'C djoe _`z. u 7 Pig Pine Key 1 '�o ,:,�.-� ,,,.--r~ .�1: .. f 'µ TLorci es; �.`5 ,,.' r UpperSu�ailo t• 4 PI r • wet Sullarloaf �. „;1 '`,/- . • c.1 - - ,. _'4.' A - I ,• I 1 ,Legend . _. Ana sPod All affected property owners have a•eight to appear and provide input at the,hearing and may'file written objections with the County Administrator anytime prior to the public meeting.• The Facilities Plan can be viewed on the Monroe County website at http://fl=monroecounty.civicplus.com/agendacenter.upon publication of the May 16,2012 BOCC.agenda and no later than May 4,2012. ADAASSISTANCE:If you are a person with a disability who needs special accomznodation in order to participate-in this proceeding,please contact the County Administrator's Office,by phoning(305)292-4441, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. .5:00•p.m., no later than five (5)_calendar days prior to the scheduled. - meeting;if you are hearing or voice unpaired, call"711". . • '' • • ' Dated at Key West,:Florida this 24th day of April',2012. - - , .„ DANNY L. KOLHAGE,Clerk of the Circuit Court`and ex officio Clerk of the Board of County • - Commissioners of Monroe County,Florida . , • ., i Published Keynoter 428/12 t:-.._- , '.1Cil�6 1. Attachment B — Facilities Plan Executive Summary EXHIBIT a Attachment A -- Notice for Facilities Plan Adoption Hearing t � w � ■ W w M Adis a � � � A �M � � �■ ■ PPR VAL OF COUNTY RESOLUTI N NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN that on May 189 2012 at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard, at the Murray E. Nelson Government Center, 102050 Overseas Highway, Mile Marker 102, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida intends to consider approval of the following County resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA ADOPTINGTHE CUDJOE REGIONALWAaTEWATERTREATMENT SYSTEM FACILITIES PLAN. The purpose of this meeting is to satisfy the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State Revolving Loan Program requirement for public participation prior to the acceptance of the planning recommendations by the project sponsor. An advanced wastewater treatment facility with a hybrid gravity and low pressure collection system is planned for construction in early 2013. The figure below depicts the limits of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Service Area to include developed parcels from Lower Sugarloaf north to Big Pine Key. The central service boundary is as delineated in the Master Plan Update approved bythe Board of County Commissioner e on January 28, 2009. Nudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Service Area ti .fir f =•{ � j ik { r. 01 t " + ti a, •. � ��� dl �.�.v..� ••�. �. V M • � as �-r` � . � ��� �ry v� 0• •' ti� �i� �a a.'��+ ,f R� wNJK oe l All affected property owners have a right to appear and provide input at the hearing and may file written objections with the County Administrator anytime prior to the public meeting. The Facilities Plan can be viewed on the Monroe County website at upon publication of the May 16, 2012 BOCC agenda and no later than May 4, 2012. ADA ASSISTANCE: N you are a person with a disability who needs opeclal accommodations In order to participate in this proceeding, please contact the County Administistoes Office, by phoning (305) 292-4441, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., no later than five (5) calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting, N you are hearing or voice Impaired, call "711 Dated at Key West, Florida this 24th day of April, 2012. r L DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk of the Circuit Court and ex officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida April 27.2012 Key west Citizen 314#f22B /V` KEYVWEST - - - - Il II o I ITIZEN STATE OF FLORIDA Tim Florida Kays Orgy DaihNN\vsp9P..Eat.1876 COUNTY OF MONROE Cooke Communications,LLC Florida Keys Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Randy G. Erickson, PO Box 1800 who on oath says that he is Vice-President of Operations of the Key West Key West Fl 33041 Office....305-292-7777 Citizen, a daily newspaper published in Key West, in Monroe County, Extension x219 Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a legal notice in the Fax 305-295-8025 matter of legals a(�kevsnews,com p l 9 AJ 6- 1,ce sl -e,�-�-1 on1 ) ut,, (No c a i �1-7,7 INTERNET PUBLISHING IJ keywest.com 2 ),(tA. keysnews.com CL� Jb- 7 c floridakeys.com "\ WA-SwAr ,.e � S�✓r1 key-west.com Web Design Services was published in said 7news'paper in the issue(s) of NEWSPAPERSA- oid z C _u The Citizen ' Southernmost. Flyer c Solares Hill Affiant further says that the Key West Citizen is a newspaper published in Big Pine Free Press. Marathon Free Press Key West, in said Monroe County; Florida and that the said newspaper has Islamorada Free Press heretofore been continuously published in said Monroe County,Florida every Key Largo Free Press day, and has been entered as second-class mail matter at the post office in Key MARKETING SERVICES West, in.said Monroe County, Florida, for a period of 1. year next preceding Commercial Printing . Citizen Locals Card the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further Direct Mail says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any FLORIDA KEYS OFFICES discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this Printing/Main Facility advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 3420 Northside Drive Key West, FL 33040-1800 Tel 305-292.-7777 Fax 305-294-0768 citizen akeywest.com Signature of Affiant Internet Division 33040-3328 Tel 305-292-1880 Sworn and subscribed before me this z 7 day of 4 p It1) , 2012 Fax 305-294-1699 J sales@keywest.com Upper Keys Office NotaryPublic: DAWN KAWZINSKY 91731 Overseas Hwy �,ott�tr ' Tavernier,FL 33070.- o< t•- o NOTARY PUBLIC f,`., s Tel 305-853-7277 �V = ; =STATE OF FLORIDA Fax 305-853-0556 e\ ?Comm#EE157233 freepress@floridakeys.com i I� 4�CE191e Expires 1/4/2016 Expires: 1/4/16 c . Notary Seal Personally Known x Produced Identification Type of Identification Produced NO co T( N M C E. OF-,: in • + yQF -C 4 -,. . A '0 NasO TIMher7 WHOA ', ': � . - 1 L,,r { y.• i ti , tafte 5. r ti e S n t`r may• , heard '-.: ; A ..� k ;1 y k H sway; � � _Xq •L n• � d •t , # a�■•'r- p it J `t µ: , ti' 114 "' C+ + ■_ , a `, y 'k ■ Y-. L 4 on Came. on k o t 1 - �' i - ; .any rM1 ! }S - , �P , •. "5_ .ti � 1.. _ ,. .S 1-� I.Mo.& , f , +' k a � *� • a, �' + r.;k � 1 ., ,,,� - s_ •y •� *. ��', r R1 � _ � R' ' # A a., •.i q•,qN._ L" OF UN f i + + couxry,., FL. M'"I +' # TUAXM2NrsysTM_'x ... - r - y , a „ 'L yy a1 F r 5 } ° - • , _T 7- l y 1 ,1 �. F•+. 'i „� r ar ' s• � ,.. �. _• .L,,y;' rr �'I •��•"''' �{ r�r i - t _1' `�` _ '•" '� r ' �r _ -• ^' i fl, �. Thepose of t ` s •, t e a, a � �t �"-,'�. A �, r_ { ■ a L t `� +', 4... L4.1 r .p'•'M1rfr• .■ ^1 ,;■°• .. ' Pm . �t Mid flie in , bile - .. •• • �.. r lic.61flection- sysitem is P=ied -for -t4mftu i - *_ &q. 0. p.-ft y d. Ir i*e" " I _,, " ffi hie El u 5", . . . •.I L y • , L a r, �i•y�, - . z , �.• , . - - + L _ 'h - rL' �' tit +a :k r J "a•i- •■t_r-, _A.+,,. - ,1 .k €ate .41, EREI i 1• _I ` i. k1 -.4 .y; •4 '_3 _. -,,. 3° - _�J. ?y....- ' Fa'. •- r' +l•y":ti' •• .". .r ' al 6, .1_ ' -7-n 4 LFf r r'rx 'y° ice" ,�'- -` •lea- "- .i' a• • A �`' `:ti • •r re_r. __ ' ,#•,,y _ ° _ri . �4 i+ +4'I •7' � ,`+• r - .� kr+ ,r _ , 1_ . _ ..','Y: , .. ; •+:, • y ?.:M1�1 t` a .t.• .,t_ •.� .. k- 7 r- TL_,t. - T•,Y`' • - J k. ', 'I L.a r f•'.k', "45 ."a 1: - _-1 -�.•� + F•} .. 4 7i y ! . vti, r _ . '•%,.aP a•L ^5 i'-,ice -a •r Y • ' _y� �P'M1, F L L 1.. �' •h ki }.{-`" •r - 1a "i{ _ ; :. °'. F'' �..- 1 `�� f" _•..lam y'Y'- �.� _}�._■r.=ti hLt ,°._ ... a_} •'y. R.. r . F '•1 ,._ti _i .:.'JfS ,'• r 'iiL ��, ,a� ,I ++} �,• Y{4' y, } r i "f - wjr �J 1' 1�,+ `< ��ii L. LJJ'1 aS .F5° 1 -yr ' L u :, +' E+ F ; I ' • r ,Led'' - _ •t r • �'°■ - �r'75 .., • _-�3� .k• 7 .J'F - 1 a� - ; ,. r �r ll. i , A •.. � y a. VIL r r'i AL f. _ ,, s �r• • ,-I y„�a� ��� �y ,�,?.-+d;•t•` • •�. ,. 51 '7:°IF 4.r'ff'�° 4-,� A. 7.. � .$. Lill . ° sJp L- L. 7 ,. • _ Inn- %: ' L f. L, •r Si • iTF 1 _ ' '1116�. °.r .•� ° 13 • ��,. J. 11 °M1L n ., �^.` r'..:'r _ r- . I _. •, , e Fr j�', - _ LGfi. •t• � Lx°}�..• ._ ��R•.}, -' TL.;""`�'�' "F , 1 � 5 - • 1 -_ Fi' _ �, 4�. .■p.�+� r:�",'..; '_ ' 11 ' °-' '+11 �' • .• .� - � °'� - _. LJ r 4f �L*cr-, f_ r { ,'� , �.r _�,rp yLy r e r41 ~ Y, r,.lL+. �•�, Pti '1 - , !• i rl �'1!f' �i� - • `�■•,*,-++, 1l�1 € fir. "•+� - - ,:, 7 y � � �. • L aJ��''J IJMN.� •+ - = 4 i r :.. r h . - , •Yyq r-.,e-, - ,F+< •'G - v7 L L : rlr'. , }. 8 r - -;�•' 1--. ,1-r � r P L ,_- ,... �•�;��_ i'a`�'f� ,Y. 3��"+ �° ;{ }�" '� � �� - E.�,•,� 1,�°� j_Fr �•1 1 �.+'�. .■.41 '�,±� -� .�' ++■'• A #yr,� •F�;, _ �P� r '�L M P am•. a_ a�' .4#'I y ,:a .r I. °. L. t rlal .. i r "�� '! p. •+* .�M1+ aL� L�• y •, ' •y. i. ' _ _'WA. .r.... �.:� �ti•. '' Y: . � ., r � .,.- •A,4 3yL z' 'If `Y 1 +, Y,�.+y. � j�y� f7 _ `?t' tj .� 7i{ +'+• �c• ti.l �� +, .y, `•�+ .. ': _■P`�I `�' 5 ' 7"°�- . vl' a - , 5 r d i" Jlf 1 ' . tif.' J ,. - ry +y. .. - %�{fe"'r �• 1 � y, _ _ a - rr ��i� I• 'rtlr� r�' +,.. r L�y�+. ';• ,yl _.4 ��L 1.r i ' + ° I�ar'r,r}•J I`yi .. .. + • 1 .11 IF 4' } ''1 •" -, .. is _ ' 5 � 1�• � { rr}- �, _ it v'.�-,µ■�'. ",.{.1•+ r i �, ',- � a i. I tr - Jill 11' J y r. + yv i.,+r _■ '1 M1I rY t 1 1 4 `:r a'' L 1 a- L, I R• r • _ F.I _ _ z 5 - Y. • i • a+` y t 4 I l • ry a� , fra.; ' r �L,A 7 ` 5 }- " a ,7.: _: 4 F y ,+•- 4,. _ •-1Jc�' M Ll F _ y r r`' L.1 .tip ■ t Fr 1.4 LW. 1.4-4, at�` 4:i•4- .t'•1 •' F' , T 5 � + r l:_ .�' • L L r. ' s ■ -.J L' '+'�S,S Y ._ .l. y .. - • a-Y'M1• c L -.Y', ,L Lr�•,-" 1 - A F �c '' +' r Fa_ Lk,!' r.••.- a• ` 4 °+ 1 .•° :•� a _ r, , ,� 1. L ,. .+'� • r_ ,r •'' '._4 * `.,L °tiv a ' 7 -:,c- • ' . _.r. +' • r, _ 4. ;' +NL• I" , a.' �'- .3 rF �' :'1 _ °�,rf ri Y" ■ t rq al• `• K� , r 'j •{•+,"~r, - ■y {,.* �•, i. a : i .L.,f_, F• A }' #'tJ■ �- yi :L',� d•!,�°• L�[°Y r •1 ; •I �' .'P F.`i •r �" i+i.� 1 71f•r •:1 • {`i:l+l3 ° �r'� .F••� ��6L. t .� ' X yL� ° °�?_ + F ' 7''�" - Ja;•.yl-.'- 3N � � r5 , 1 ei ... I L• }ti.. A' � '• {JjL•I' r� ' T ' 1 �, 1 { } }a •. •Jdz •� _r. .�. 1.3 i. ., ��.r L• rk•'�,� °{ J, F i• - +'y" 3 ' i`; ,Mm+��� , taJF�' �+,y ■rfjaL+ _ •, r• 1 R - 6.. I. '"aF ,:+yi J• #r -; •• .:r_'rl r a ~i J'�:.• .■ - a I�,L•�_ ° ,_ Ar ' •5 _ - ° i' , .i M1a ��• ,�■iF � `� r: �'F,�.�� ", �I °� •.�. ��rlt�� r� � C•;"'�F•�rAr■1.� 7 - ;_ • • ■•}, � r" � p - '.• _* -,• -1" °P r .{ _ ter■ f +... 4 4 +^ �.��, �r � 'kf° {'A"� i ��j jj''!�� i rr ■ � ,�i�=j "f ` }6Ji+16+YM1F•' ,', •' •k t Fac. l �, e llft1'.a. • �Ir +' T :r1•- L •,ifl} y -- , '.•F _' ' - +4IF. f .f f{� .. �� ••EGO ar �.;• +_LIY+iY� a of Irvr - •. $- ,�' � .•..: +•L _ •F •,. _ • '���' A• { I ■y # i f. •' 4.ra - .• _ i. Lr Y RRR , IL 1 , 4 "+• ei i P�� 'f.a •1-, + " ar;� r_jr:4 - _ i .•sit ry : �•, _y ' f' , °r '•.. _ , 1 , r L e•f P• a:,� 1' '` G; + i' q '':t y_ M1 1 t 1 r A 1111 4. e ti vo-t i .. •, * <r' •'•1 ti - 0 :-r+ ■i '_'�5+ °' +•,. '�i _ • 1 ,..r '.1 21 _ •� , S 4 QA 147 i '5k. I OPf. `' Jr RJoWd K + r {#' r '''Y •€*a-'• ey r.1 A�;` yr - e- V., ' {. ' r -.r' ` I •'•^ •f r{. F1 - it an ' , r, , J -1.r\ •� A z , _ I - _F s� ' r - 1 . ` , ' i f4 Y L a ti ,� + i '.ti' ' r -' '• t �7 . jl j + - 1"' .. 1„ i -' '� •� YI:,. i' ' F .• S•- #{f W� - � ° •+ .° L 7uF r _ Jil . ... ,.' -�.Ron r " Aaj - tei �L+ y5 } 4 1. , �ryLL'■•y� r york2o.1 � d4r. I�' "'! r ti / a •• y a - +° °r 7 �+. • y _ l ., •, 6 l _•°7 ee ! a L a I r ' • -7Ji.. '•y .� ti ,, . L._I rt .. i.-y,, Irr - +r '' r'�7 - 7' + M e'+�'y r �I-'_ .L 1 a 9 gal -., °■. +■ t P A. + Y . • . _ , I:. _ ,+ _ a r' , r. `�r•et `; ` r ' •y "•41r , •+ -�L ' p 'S -1�"y a, ' e - 9 + r.: r rl•f .. L. i.■'Ti y �■t.Rf•� r °I i i 1 R ' ■ ' i M Ti , L F - .,r µ° .f ., t _ I ax ` •i - - ` -� r•� .. I. r •a FLORIDA KEYS •.-.... r�wr•r�.... : �r$ :x r;r� • •ni't3 ni?;i�t i•...�+t.�.•.w.re i�it xsii kt.•s:;., ry:: y u.....'l:stl u t-:IX..,.:;yr-is:aci r _ir%r:..H-ni:ss.�:a �►i r;.e •tN= •s:•;r i•t—s•:-' ttt! ;::..; .s:. _ram. 13 Eff Zvi 2.mAt F..•:4 i ..a L.. .— .i, r :a,..��� •'�i wi•1 !� i•�::: :i+fi�.F.f�►.^+. �.;,t� Published Twice Weekly Marathon, Monroe County, Florida PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE Before the undersigned authority person- ally appeared WAYNE MARKHAM who on oath, says that he is PUBLISHER of the FLORIDA KEYS KEYNOTER, a twice weekly newspaper published in Marathon, in Monroe County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement was published in said newspaper In the issues of: (date(s) of publication) Re"N' Affiant further says that the said FLORIDA KEYS KEYNOTER is a newspaper published at Marathon, in said Monroe County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Monroe County, Florida, twice each week (on Wednesday and Saturday) and has been entered as a second class mail matter at the post office in Marathon, in Monroe County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement. The affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper(s) and that The Fi rida Keys Keyn2t r is in full compliance with_ Chap Wr So of the Florida State Statutes on Legal and Offici11 al Advertisements. J4 101 Sworn to . nd u scribed ,before me this ay 0 of 2012 (SEAL) J �� 00 Vv�4A Notary . - �' HEMY TR*W :� MY COMMAI # DO 969746 ' ' = EXPIRES: Apr#1 18, 2014 u . e 7 TF n', D AL -k At 1. . _ _ v Y . i I r_ e•t-. a r`t ,r }.� * . {. ; .s d L .Nj=.-. M.-B WGMN-10, d }Or ''ion MI. 0­vwftm� Li Mbafi-Govaspent •' W Tooww UDt - 4 y fcfflo E OF .0 4 Mm W., 'Ef. t E. .. • 0 OF UNW aope.yMAI TDYOE REGION" 3 SYS 7 e ' 1 �. kJ _3 e•. 1 r 1• - .e•LL •i_ '• .• . s _ + jy■R7�{ °'. ��jy,�'��.l1,l�[!'� +ryes* tit 1 f •,'� �'.�" :d, ti� 7!'�°�d'�++� vor T a EaVMMMMWa r PC In • • 1 �°IM -dons r ``'' `i 'mod �'� i • ° k ' cp y�i + 4�- _* . '}, `w ~• _ 'r' _ - _ ti - r • ,� v'� yy S. y 4 a •.,?, d}.. Y ' • . k e. i • • LiL,' �• F y • 5.. i �. v L '' • . T. _ L jjj•••���� k •} �; �-� .tea 1.'• - 4.,i "'.� ; r•• ,�' ! - { bounfty is as .•¢ . + r• # . L �i,L{(a^-28 ve e �' ,tee 'r�� +1 r � ` + '{, •_ , + , T. eM• �:� � , e• -a k• 4'` 4 ,,1 � - # � SG �,. 'i. • e�' ' le �d � , F.+ {' L � a ••y `ry. �. 1 "; - , .:4_ +•,� _,•_ � h e-eh r _ •Jyl; Y L .i e.. ', ti° 1- :. r+. '.. �. r,_ti• a �_, , J ," — Lr L _ , i. TW k. IN plamed TJ •r , •}" ,' RG{�. :�,rk.e ey� � r ,_ - _ ,y�ik` .•Je ' � f • ! , ' k•° Tls3 '• •yq , a ry . T q�•_ } .' r �" �.. a i. ��• 1 ' ry L'Y _ e. { , 1 e �•I + } e: . 1r { �5• * +' .Y'L r- �i S.�Ti µ' ai � - �" �� *'' �, o ,� , ' k �. _• F _ _ _ L 63 y Y .' r. , , , 5' j ,'L, t.,Y�,e,.I •' �dF.'- • 1'A; r : L 1, " q ',4 ~•''! + -, y.y4 1, .e y. ••3 r-y* - jr, - ,•1.., J.f, • il�e•' �'''',� - �1®' F', , • - L _ e .•r `• +d y-,S# �r 1L •'q T�,Iy _��' - •'a''e�.. v _ ••e+Y- {. S `�y F e.t, J °•t+" '. F - Y..'F+ * - i+� '— i, e_ ,• ,�#' .. ky + P r}' •� •, r� 4 .�} 1 - �• a .. ,k r '''I y 1 'r --��III6. ., c. ..' ter, . S7 •+ —, .�Y CLYIY,rL 'yG k ° L JyCla ;. i �e 4 w; .._., �r i"_• L'_,'i 1! •e T i •, If ,�. y-. - � L._ r.,l. y '• .. d- `'�'. k�+� r'r _ _ •!'S T', ■tom 1-■ - TM�'?`.{ r �f i / 11 'Td 5#r eo.` yt ,+.IeL k$ •, •° Ih,: • lk S•d y • yr y ' i �. 4 • 4 . 5 •M1 .+,°'L 7 Fe+rt ` , 'i 1{ ''y ks J 'iaj, ''i. P .. - P �� .T a '� F s �- �. � :•... i -' �• ..s ,+� . � _ _ �� {' J•�L, .•r'}i';-xIFeL .1 _i '�' e.16 6 - jr , a r - -_ i", �5, - ;r �,� a i-. .,. :L •._ 4 � :Y' e. ar`z- - ••e 6 PI - .y a 1'• '; e ` •• - f,•.- , � ;. ,+1 -e e+ k e •e - - M1 •. :, "' � _� ' '�-I q ' aL, _ti• , �•k r r k J. ' y J r + .a,�Y. i } y C ... _ e "l•�- '.' e .� a• - p,. y T .?� a.�d i- "t• M1�,ti i•a '�: .�, �� `•� a-J..' - + M1 -f .5 '*. 1:• e _ e•' ,4 P., 71 1 F •� L •i Li�{ ,� Lr { + ti- -.r� ��,� r _� •'.� a '.r�Y • 1 +ti - ' .: L -. y a •, k, +- y.! � ' , e �- :_ � �. J q ,- a ' - L 5 � L .. 5 ' - { L• a� x L • e v 7 I• y • F i e _ y i 'i• f. ,,y _ _ d',r •7 F, 'i ' {• .1 - •r ,5',��.'.. - „ e. e• 7 +• '40 : a} tii J }� a; , •'l i- k+_, _ e{L —; .. . e.•^.Jfl — i' — - e 3 { `_ ' e -: L e , v w d , r _ u. andL y • ! ... _ •,•• Ir `-!•l•"� '• a �,,.. �_ie ' .L... '� 'Y'1,.' • : ,f ° ' e •{ 4. to • c. "• ..1 1_ , 3: ; + ram•' { ` 'a -: L I �-+ rt••`�+ L, •,� w , . _ `•'• L 'ram - r MMIDWIP&OM it. 4€ Ni �,I�r}kr■ i� - e li, ,.1 e••.,... {,�• -.Ti 4+ ^,� ye it ;'r ^ e ,Fr J 1 :{,lai,i� J•i it , tiq ° rv.l \ e al„ ° �, l •�' 14 , *, r7 }•d l i +;' a e• r _ `*, •'izowr Iwo ` 0 r• a °.per 292.dW]o 00 o. rAn It.* V r A .3 -thei 6)6 k •`- •'•a �l ' �y`. -{ 1 ti.. 1 y-r I�Ay� i} ky k, + k .. ,.,r- ,� , F. ..� L y''_� � ��+��•�'��.r * . �' 1,' � d 1�-'�• yk4e�r: - 4,• "• _.',.,, ,a k� -. _ '� { { .L;{ 4 .r' 1 -�• i . °, `� a !� � _ F - 5 ., , • k 'L1 qq � t k � ', , . •` r ti ,e Lyv L .. __ L' { - - � - .y4 }f+ , - .. . + �°' : �'e _ • '• ..' a ;'ry - .i ..r , - n eyLF .� ' .,}- • - , ! - e. •Yf N, r - �,%' *� ' Jea.•: i r L a . k , 1 eI. �' -. i :-i• �,� } +:.r i .Ri.: •im,e LA y ,' W. 4 : `J, -7 .'.kTr k • eY 1 4' �+'D. r. "1 �. �jY,� a 7 of -Obt4h*' r -L,} �•,L. {_ e� • .L Re;,i kk.�' ,e• -1 iT �'_k.e 1 '°I � JL .A�-,4_ ', 'THE REPORTER P.O. Box 1197; Tavernier, F1 33 070 92655 Overseas Hwy, Tavernier F133070 Phone 305- 852--3216, Fax 305- 852-0199 www.keysnet.com PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE . Before the undersigned authority personally appeared WAYNE MARKHAM who on oath, says that he is PUBLISHED of the THE REPORTER, a weekly newspaper published in Tavernier, in Monroe County, Florida: _ that the attached copy I. -of rti advesement was published in said newspaper in the issues of: (date{s) of publication) Affitant further says that the said THE REPORTER is a newspaper published at Tavenner, in said Monroe County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Monroe County, Florida, each week (on Friday) and has been entered as a second class mail matter at the post office in Tavenner, in Monroe County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement. The afff.ant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, fam, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper(s) and that The THE REPORTER is in full compliance with Chapter 50 of the Florida State Statutes on Legal and Official Advertisements. pia a Marldi bli r Sworn to and subscri-beg before me ' ,a.�this x<'7 Day of .,,2012 Notary �* LREIYT�R *; = MY ON8 D969749E: APrN tS, 2014B=WPMc Underwriters Attachment B -- Facilities Plan Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • A project specific.ILA between Monroe.County and the Florida Keys Aqueduct.Authority for the.:. Summerlan'd/Cudjoe%Upper:Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System was executed on • . September 20,2006:Through a series of Amendments, the project was expanded to include Lower Sugarloaf and Ramrod to Big Pine Key. The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2M, 2000) recommended 3 treatment plants for these areas. By'evaluating treatment.system alternatives,the overall project cost estimate was:reduced from $194 million to $156 millibri,1 The total construction estimate of$156 million includes$18M for the reclamation facility and $132M,in transmission/collection system.costs. The'estimated cost for • onsite system upgrades:in cold spots is $6M: The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System consists of a wastewater reclamation plant to be constructed at the Cudjoe Solid Waste Transfer Station, transmission mains and collection systems to serve.the hot spot areas in the Inner Islands located from Upper Sugarloaf to Summerland and the Outer Islands.which include Lower Sugarloaf Key and Ramrod to Big Pine Key: The Cudjoe Regional:Wastewater Service Area and Reclamation Plant are depicted on Figure 1 below. . NI `` Cudjoe Reclamation Facility "{ yv17 la ,' t • ( F7.._. Legertel Figure 1 Cudjoe Regional:Wastewater Treatment System Service Area The funding:sources:for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater-Treatment System:include the FY12- 13 State:of Florida Appropriation subject to line item 1592A,'non-ad:valorem revenue including sales:tax revenue and system development:fees levied as special assessments and any other available source of revenue identified by Monroe County, Construction is anticipated:to begin in early 201:3 and will require:3-5 years to complete: :. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 PARTNERSHIP..........................................................................................................1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................1 SPONSORSHIP......................................................................................................... 2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION..........................................................................................2 PROJECTLOCATION...............................................................................................2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................... 3 PROJECTCOST.......................................................................................................3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED.................................................................................. 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant...................................................................................... 3 CollectionSystem......................................................................................................4 PROJECTSCHEDULE..............................................................................................4 FUNDINGSOURCES................................................................................................4 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Facilities Plan Compiled By: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 1100 Kennedy Drive Key West, FL 33040 Monroe County Engineering Division 102050 Overseas Highway, Suite 2-223 Key Largo, FL 33037 May 2012 Kevin Wilson PE# Monroe County, Director of Engineering Tom Walker PE# Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Director of Engineering Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System DRAFT Facilities Plan Compiled By: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 1100 Kennedy Drive Key West, FL- 33040 Monroe County Engineering Division 102050 Overseas Highway, Suite 2-223 Key Largo, FL 33037 May 2012 tosiglizill N. No.60687 • c S rE F •'� sa MdAtoe Cotintty, Director of Engineering Tom- alto"r!`PE#: 4y&Aqueduct-Authonty, Director of Engineering TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 PARTNERSHIP..........................................................................................................1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................1 SPONSORSHIP......................................................................................................... 2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION..........................................................................................2 PROJECTLOCATION...............................................................................................2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................... 3 PROJECTCOST.......................................................................................................3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED.................................................................................. 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant...................................................................................... 3 CollectionSystem......................................................................................................4 PROJECTSCHEDULE..............................................................................................4 FUNDINGSOURCES................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandated that a Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan be prepared to determine acceptable levels of sanitary service and treatment for all developed and undeveloped land in Monroe County. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan was 1) To establish more stringent loads that can be tolerated by the County's nutrient -sensitive waters and ecosystems without experiencing short- or long- term adverse effects; 2) To prevent further degradation of groundwater, as well as confined, nearshore, and offshore waters; and 3) To ensure improvement of these water to levels that have been demonstrated to support healthy, diverse, and productive populations of fish and other marine resources. The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2M, March 2000) analysis of wastewater management alternatives concluded that it is more cost effective and environmentally sound to provide centralized wastewater collection and central Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) in most areas of the Keys than to upgrade or replace all existing onsite systems and existing treatment plants. PARTNERSHIP The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) entered into a "Master" Interlocal Agreement (ILA) on September 6, 2005 with Monroe County setting forth the commitments of the parties to work together to achieve the 2010 mandate to sewer the Florida Keys. The ILA tasks Monroe County with funding and FKAA with design, construction, operation and maintenance of unincorporated Monroe County wastewater systems other than those in the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District and the Key West Resort Utilities service area. The ILA was amended on September 19, 2007 to include the State Revolving Fund Loan Program for Pollution Control as a funding source and to increase the County's financial commitment. The Second Amendment approved on April 18, 2012 set the System Development Fee (SDF) to no more than $57700. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT A project specific ILA for the Sum merland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System was executed on September 20, 2006. The First Amendment to the ILA was adopted on April 16, 2008 and expanded the service area to include Lower Sugarloaf and Ramrod to Big Pine Key based on anticipated capital and operation/maintenance cost savings. The ILA Second Amendment was adopted on August 3, 2009 expanding the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System to include onsite 1 systems for property owners who contract with FKAA. The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System related ILAs are included in Appendix A. SPONSORSHIP Monroe County is the public sponsor for project funds to be borrowed using revenue collected by Monroe County. FKAA is the project sponsor for funds to be borrowed using revenue collected by FKAA. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FKAA hosted two, advertised public meetings to inform affected property owners of the recommendation to expand the central wastewater system collection. The meetings were advertised and held on December 8 and 11 t", 2008. The recommendation to expand the central wastewater collection system was based on FKAAs review of alternative collection system technologies. The review concluded that low pressure collection systems could be used to connect some of the less densely populated areas at a reduced overall cost. At the time, the objective was to have the project shovel ready to utilize federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. The presentation included a schedule that included preparation of bid packages for advertisement in Summer 2009 and a substantial completion date of February 2009. The anticipated project costs presented was $194 million. The public meeting advertisement and presentation are included in Appendix B. Monroe County held an advertised public meeting to collect the SDFs as non -ad valorem special assessments on August 3, 2009 as a first step toward funding the project. Discussion occurred to proceed with project based on collection of $4,500 to $6,500 SDFs per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). The resolution failed due to incomplete funding to complete construction. In April 2012, the BOCC approved the Second Amendment to the general project ILA with FKAA setting the SDF at no more than $5,700. Public meetings to necessary to collect the SDFs are scheduled for June 201 2012 and July 18, 2012. PROJECT LOCATION The Florida Keys form an arcuate chain of small islands, composed primarily of limestone, extending from Miami to Key West, a distance of 150 miles. The Keys are bounded on the southeast by the Atlantic Ocean and the Straits of Florida, and on the northwest by the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Bay. Geologically, the Keys are divided into the Upper and Middle Keys - narrow, elongate islands parallel to the trend of the arc; and the Lower Keys - land masses with an axis perpendicular to the arc. The Upper and Middle Keys include the islands from Soldier Key in Biscayne Bay, located just north of 2 Key Largo, to Long Key, with the Lower Keys beginning at Big Pine Key, extending to Key West. The overall Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Service Area is located in the Lower Florida Keys, and extends from MM 17 to MM 33. Refer to Figure 1. The Service Area is bordered on the north by Florida Bay and on the south by the Atlantic Ocean. Additionally, most of the Service Area lies with the fragmented boundaries of the Florida Keys Wildlife Refuges Complex, which includes the National Key Deer Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area consists of two design areas. The Inner Islands located from Upper Sugarloaf to Summerland and the Outer Islands which include Lower Sugarloaf Key and Ramrod to Big Pine Key. The hot spot areas are within the boundaries of the central collection systems. The selected treatment process is a five -stage Bardenpho system capable of meeting Advanced Wastewater Treatment Standards of 5 parts per million (ppm) Total Suspended Solids, 5 ppm Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), 3 ppm Total Nitrogen (TN) and 3 ppm Total Phosphorus (TP). The proposed design capacity of the wastewater treatment plant is one MGD and the maximum anticipated flows will be 0.94 MGD, with athree-month average daily flow of 0.84 MGD. The wastewater treatment system has been designed to provide high level disinfection such that reclaimed water can be made available for non -potable water use. Four, 90-ft injection wells will also be constructed at the VWVfP site. Gravity sewers have been selected as the method of wastewater collection in densely populated areas. Low-pressure systems will be used to provide wastewater service to less densely populated areas. PROJECT COST The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Collection System is estimated to cost $156 million and includes the treatment plant at $18 million, the Inner Collection/Transmission system at $42 million, the Outer Collection/Transmission system at $90 million, and the Onsite Wastewater Nutrient Reducing Systems at $6 million. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED Wastewater Treatment Plant The Master Plan recommended separate treatment plants for Lower Sugarloaf, Upper Sugarloaf to Summerland, and Ramrod to Big Pine Key. An alternative identified was a centrally located wastewater treatment plant at the Cudjoe Solid Waste Transfer facility. 3 The estimated capital cost for 3 treatment plants was $187 million and one plant was $176 million. The present worth cost for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System with 3 treatment plants was $230 million and one plant was $204 million. The single plant alternative was selected. The Wastewater Master Plan Treatment Plant Alternatives' Review is included in Appendix C. Collection System A comparison of present worth cost to construct and operate low pressure, septic tank effluent pump, vacuum, and gravity collection systems for study areas on Upper Sugarloaf, Cudjoe and Summerland Keys was performed. The recommendation was a hybrid system consisting of a combination of gravity sewers in more densely developed areas and low pressure in less dense areas. A Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree was developed based on the results of the comparison. The collection system designs were finalized using the Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree. It was determined that compliance for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System hot and cold spots could be achieved at a lower overall cost by expanding the central service area based on the decision tree. The Central Cudjoe Waster Collection System Analysis of Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems is included in Appendix D. PROJECT SCHEDULE The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System will be ready to bid in December 2012. A 3-5 year construction schedule is anticipated. FUNDING SOURCES The State of Florida FY12-13 Appropriation of $30 million, non -ad valorem revenue and any other revenue sources identify by Monroe County or FKAA will be used to fund the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System described in this Facilities Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Refer to Appendix E for the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority's Draft Environmental Assessment for the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program (FKWQIP) Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System project. The Environmental Section of this Facilities Plan was submitted in April 2011. The Notice of Availability for the Federal Finding of No Significant Impact for the Draft Cudjoe Regional Facilities Plan was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 29, 2011. 4 APPENDIX A INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MONROE COUNTY AND FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY FOR THE SUM1dIERI.AND/CUDJOE/UPPER SUGARLOAF REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM 4(S INTERLOC.A.L AGREEMENT (Agreement) �s entered into this AO`may of Yo, T,- y 2006, pursuant to Florida Statute Sec. 163.01, by and between. Monroe County ounty), a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), an independent special district. WHEREAS, the County is authorized by Florida Statute Sec. 125.01(1) to provide, assist in providing, and fund centralized wastewater treatment systems; and WHEREAS, Section 61, Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, and the County's Comprehensive Plan require that certain wastewater treatment levels be achieved by the year 2010, which levels can best be achieved by central wastewater treatment systems; and WHEREAS, the FKAA is authorized by Chap. 76-441, Laws of Florida, as amended, and Chapter 98-519, Laws of Florida, to design, construct, and operate, wastewater treatment systems; and r WHEREAS, the FKAA and the County have entered into previous interlocal agreements p �' establishing and confirming their ongoing partnership in providing wastewater facilities in the Florida Keys; and WHEREAS, the County adopted ordinance No. 35-2004, authorizing the levy of ad valorem taxes in the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Municipal Service Taxing Unit, in order to provide an initial source of funding for the Summerland/Cudj oe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional wastewater Project (Project); and WHEREAS, FKAA has initiated plannaing, design and other services for the Project for which it may be paid with taxing unit funds; and WHEREAS, the County by Interlocal Agreement dated September 6, 2005, and by Master Lease dated as of September 6, 2005, has committed to seek funding through federal and state grants and loans and the issuance of revenue bonds backed by the pledge of infrastructure sales tax; and will be providing additional funds to the FKAA for the administration, planning g and construction of future wastewater projects in unincorporated Monroe County; and WHEREAS, the County may have other funding mechanisms, including but not limited to infrastructure sales tax, grant and loan funding and ad valorem taxes, available to it for the provision of sewers and wastewater treatment; and VIEREAS, County and FKAA desire to put in place procedures for the allocation, expenditure, and reimbursement of funds for the Project; NOW, TPIEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual consideration and promises set forth below, the parties agree as follows: 1. COUNTY FUNDING. The County by resolution of its Board of County Commissioners, shall appropriate from any lawfully available source, those funds which have been duly approved for the estimated costs of administration, planning and construction of the Project, which shall not exceed Forty -Five million Dollars ($45,000,000). Summerland/CudjoelUpper Sugarloaf Municipal Service Taxing Unit ad valorem tax proceeds collected by County shall be provided to FKAA as part of the funding under this Agreement and shall be disbursed as described in paragraph 3 below. Before such disbursement, County may deduct its costs of administration and professional costs from the MSTU funds collected. As the Project progresses, and estimates are altered to reflect a combination of actual costs incurred and changes in pricing due to contracts resulting from bid processes, or other changed conditions, the FKAA shall provide such information to the County. This Agreement shall be modified as necessary to reflect such changes in the estimates in order to provide for adequate funding to be available for the timely and efficient construction of the project. The amount of the funding may be changed by written amendment to this Agreement approved by the parties. 2. PROJECT. The Project shall consist of a collection system, transmission main and method of treatment to Advanced wastewater Treatment standards sufficient to serve the needs of the residents and businesses in the Summerland/CudjoelUpper Sugarloaf wastewater Service District. Both FKAA and County shall perform their respective obligations and responsibilities under the Interlocal Agreement dated September 6, 2005. Attached are a project area map and project description (Exhibit A). 2. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS. The FKAA shall initially be funded *in the amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) for the administration, planning, design and construction of the Project. Thereafter, during the course of the Project, the FKAA may request reimbursement for payments made by FKAA upon submission of documentation of previous expenditures from the Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) until the total amount allocated by the County is exhausted. The FKAA shall submit this documentation to the County Senior Administrator (CSA) for Sewer Projects describing the services performed and stating for which wastewater district/Project the funds were expended. The submission must be in a form satisfactory to the CSA and Clerk of the Circuit Court (Clerk). If the CSA approves the submission, she shall forward the same to the Clerk. If the CSA or the Clerk determine that the submission is unacceptable, either of them shall return it to the FKAA in writing with a written description of the deficiency(ies). 3. FISCAL CONTROLS AND -QUARTERLY REPORTS. The FKAA shall establish fiscal controls and fund accounting procedures that comply with generally accepted government accounting principles, satisfactory to the Clerk, in order to assure that the funds provided to the FKAA are spent for the purposes set forth in this Agreement. All FKAA financial records pertaining to this Agreement must be made available, upon request, to the Clerk, an auditor employed by the County or the State of Florida. The records must be retained by the FKAA for five years following the receipt by the FKAA of its last payment pursuant to this Agreement. Any funds transferred by the County to the FKAA under this Agreement that are determined by the Clerk, or an auditor employed by the County or employed by the State to have been spent on a purpose not contemplated by this Agreement must be paid back to the County with interest calculated pursuant to Florida Statute Sec. 55.03(l), from the date the auditor determines the funds were expended for a purpose not authorized by this Agreement. The FKAA agrees to provide the Clerk with qu_-.,erly status reports concerning the ex,, ..Inditure of these funds in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. 4. RECORDS ACCESS AND AUDITS. FKAA shall maintain adequate and complete records for a period of five years after termination of this Agreement. The State, the County, their officers, employees, agents and contractors shall have access to FKAA's books, records, and documents related to this Agreement upon request. The access to and inspection of such books, records, and documents by the aforementioned government representatives shall occur at any reasonable time. S. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. FKAA is, and shall be an independent contractor and not an agent or servant of the County. FKAA shall exercise control, direction, and supervision over the means and manner that its personnel, contractors and volunteers perform the work for the purpose of this Agreement. FKAA shall have no authority whatsoever to act on behalf of or as agent of the County in any promise, Agreement or representation other than specifically provided for in this Agreement. The County shall at no time be legally responsible for any negligence on the part of FKAA, its employees, agents or volunteers resulting in either bodily or personal inj*ury or property damage to any individual, property or corporation. 6. TAXES. FKAA must pay all taxes and assessments, if any, including any sales or use tax, levied by any government agency with respect to FKAA's operations related to this Agreement. 7. INSURANCE. The parties to this Agreement stipulate that each is a state governmental agency as defined by Florida Statutes and represents to the other that it has purchased suitable Public Liability, Vehicle Liability, and workers' Compensation insurance, or is self -insured in amounts adequate to respond to any and all claims under federal or state actions for civil rights violations not limited by Florida Statutes Section 768.28 and Chapter 440, as well as any and all claims within the limitations of Florida Statutes Section 768.28 and Chapter 440, arising out of the activities governed by this Agreement. To the extent allowed by law, each party shall be responsible for any acts of negligence on the part of its employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors and shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from all claims arising out of such actions. FKAA agrees to keep in full force and effect the required insurance coverage during the term of this Agreement. If the insurance policies originally purchased which meet the requirements of this lease are canceled, terminated or reduced in coverage, then FKAA must immediate) . y substitute complying policies so that no gap 'n coverage occurs. Copies of current policy .. p P y certificates shall be filed with the County whenever acquired or amended. 8. HOLD HARM.LESS. To the extent allowed by law, is liable for and must full , y defend, release, discharge, indemnify and hold harmless the County, the members of the County y Commission, County officers and employees, County agents and contractors, and the Sheriff's Office, its officers and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, costs and expenses of whatever type - including investigation and witness costs and expenses and attorneys' fees and costs - that arise out of or are attributable to FKAA's operations in connection with this Agreement except for those claims, demands, damages, liabilities, actiesgons, causes of action, losses, costs and expenses that are the result of the sole negligence of the County. FKAA's purchase of the insurance required under this Agreement does not release or vitiate its obligations under this paragraph. FKAA does not waive an of its p y sovereign immunity rights , Jtuding but not limited to those express_ _ in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. 9. NON-DISCRIMINATION. FKAA and County agree that there will be no discrimination against any person, and it is expressly understood that upon a determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that discrimination has occurred, this Agreement automatically terminates without any further action on the part of any party, effective the date of the court order. FKAA and County agree to comply with all Federal and Florida statutes, and all local ordinances, as applicable, relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: 1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; 2) Title Ix of the Education Amendment of 1972, as amended (20 USC ss. 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; 3) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (20 USC s. 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps; 4) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 USC ss. 6101- 6107) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; 5) The Drug Abuse office and Treatment Act of 1972 (PL 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; 6) The Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (PL 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; 7) The Public Health Service Act of 1912, ss. 523 and 527 (42 USC ss. 690dd-3 and 290ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patent records; 8) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 USC s. et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; 9) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC s. 1201 Note), as maybe amended from time to time, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; 10) Monroe County Code Ch. 13, Art. VI, prohibiting discrimination on the bases of race, color, sex, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status or age; and 11) any other nondiscrimination provisions in any Federal or state statutes which may apply to the parties to, or the subject matter of, this Agreement. 10. GOVERNING LAW, -VENUE INTERPRETATION, COSTS AND FEES. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely in the State. In the event that any cause of action or administrative proceeding is instituted for the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, the County and FKAA agree that venue shall lie in the appropriate court or before the appropriate administrative body in Monroe County, Florida. Neither this Agreement nor any of its terms is subject to arbitration. The County and FAA agree that, in the event of conflicting interpretations of the terms or a term of this Agreement by or between any of them the issue shall be submitted to mediation prior to the institution of any other administrative or legal proceeding. Mediation proceedings initiated and conducted pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and usual and customary procedures required by the circuit court of Monroe County. 11. SEVERABILITY. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement (or the application thereof to any circumstance or person) shall be declared invalid or unenforceable to any extent by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, shall not be affected thereby; and each remaining terra, covenant, condition and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law unless the enforcement of the remaining terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Agreement would prevent the accomplishment of the original intent of this Agreement. The County and FKAA agree to reform the Agreement to replace an stricken provision with a valid provision that comes as close as possible to the intent of the stricken provision. 1 Z. ATTORNEY' S FEES AND COSTS. The County and FKAA agree that in the event any cause of action or administrative proceeding is initiated or defended by any party relative to the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, investigative, and out-of-pocket expenses, as an award against the non -prevailing party, and shall include attorney's fees, courts costs, investigative, and out-of-pocket expenses in appellate proceedings. 13. BINDING EFFECT. The terms, covenants, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the County and FKAA and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns. 15. AUTHORITY. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary County and corporate action, as required by law. 16. CLAIMS FOR FEDERAL OR STATE AID. FIAA and County agree that each shall be, and is, empowered to apply for, seek, and obtain federal and state funds to further the purpose of this Agreement; provided that all applications, requests, grant proposals, and funding solicitations shall be approved by each party prior to submission. 17. ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES OR DISAGREEMENTS. County and FK A agree that all disputes and disagreements shall be attempted to be resolved by meet and confer sessions between representatives of each of the parties. If no resolution can be agreed upon within 30 days after the first meet and confer session, the issue or issues shall be discussed at a public meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. If the issue or issues are still not resolved to the satisfaction of the parties, then any party shall have the right to seek such relief or remedy as may be provided by this Agreement or by Florida law. 18. COOPERATION. In the event any administrative or legal proceeding is instituted against either party relating to the formation, execution, performance, or breach of this Agreement, County and FIAA agree to participate, to the extent required by the other party, in all proceedings, hearings, processes, meetings, and other activities related to the substance of this Agreement or provision of the services under this Agreement. County and FIAA specifically agree that no party to this Agreement shall be required to enter into any arbitration proceedings related to this Agreement. 19. COVENANT OF NO INTEREST. County and FKAA covenant that neither presently has any interest, and shall not acquire any interest, which would conflict in any manner or degree with its performance under this Agreement, and that only interest of each is to perform and receive benefits as recited in this Agreement. 20. CODE OF ETHICS. County agrees that officers and employees of the County recognize and will be required to comply with the standards of conduct for public officers and employees as delineated in Section 112.313, Florida Statutes, regarding, but not limited to, solicitation or acceptance of gifts; doing business with one's agency; unauthorized compensation; misuse of public position, conflicting employment or contractual relationship; and disclosure or use of certain information. 21. NO SOLICITATIONIPAYMENT. The County and warrant that, in respect to ........_.r,-.._ p itself, it has neither employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for it, to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any person, ,jmpany, corporation, individual, or I. -A, other than a bona fide employee working solely for it, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For the breach or violation of the provision, the FKAA agrees that the County shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability and, at its discretion, to offset from monies owed, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, gift, or consideration. 22. PUBLIC ACCESS, The County and FKAA shall allow and permit reasonable access to, and inspection of, all documents, papers, letters or other materials in its possession or under its control subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received by the County and FKAA in conjunction with this Agreement; and the County shall have the right to unilaterally cancel this Agreement upon violation of this provision by FKAA. 23. NON -WAIVER OF IMMUNITY. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 786.28, Florida Statutes, the participation of the County and the FKAA in this Agreement and the acquisition of any commercial liability insurance coverage, self-insurance coverage, or local government liability insurance pool coverage shall not be deemed a waiver of immunity to the extent of liability coverage, nor shall any contract entered into by the County or the FKAA be required to contain any provision for waiver. 24. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES. All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances, and rules and pensions and relief, disability, workers' compensation, and other benefits which apply to the activity of officers, agents, or employees of any public agents or employees of the County or the FKAA, when performing their respective functions under this Agreement within the territorial limits of the County shall apply to the same degree and extent to the performance of such functions and duties of such officers, agents, volunteers, or employees outside the territorial limits of the County. 25. LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Non -Delegation of Constitutional or Statutory Duties. This Agreement is not intended to, nor shall it be construed as, relieving any participating entity from any obligation or responsibility imposed upon the entity by law except to the extent of actual and timely performance thereof by any participating entity, in which case the performance may be offered in satisfaction of the obligation or responsibility. Further, this Agreement is not intended to, nor shall it be construed as, authorizing the delegation of the constitutional or statutory duties of the County, except to the extent permitted by the Florida constitution, state statute, and case law. 26. NON -RELIANCE BY NON-PARTIES. No person or entity shall be entitled to rely upon the terms, or any of them, of this Agreement to enforce or attempt to enforce any third - party claim or entitlement to or benefit of any service or program contemplated hereunder, and the County and the FKAA agree that neither the County nor the FKAA or any agent, officer, or employee of either shall have the authority to inform, counsel, or otherwise indicate that any particular individual or group of individuals, entity or entities, have entitlements or benefits under this Agreement separate and apart, inferior to, or superior to the community in general or for the purposes contemplated in this Agreement. 27. ATTESTATIONS. FKAA agrees to execute such documents as the County may reasonably require, to include a Public Entity Crime Statement, an Ethics Statement, and a Drug - Free workplace Statement. 28. NO PERSONAL LIABILITY. No covenant or agreement contained herein shall be deemed to be a covenant or agreement of any member, officer, agent or employee of Monroe County or the FKAA in s or her individual capacity, and no tiember, officer, agent or employee of Monroe County or the FKAA shall be liable personally on this Agreement or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the execution of this Agreement. 29. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be regarded as an original, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument and any of the parties hereto may execute this Agreement by singing any such counterpart. 30. SECTION HEADINGS. Section headings have been inserted in this Agreement as a matter of convenience of reference only, and it is agreed that such section headings are not a part of this Agreement and will not be used in the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement. 31. TERMINATION. The County may treat FKAA in default and terminate this Agreement immediately, without prior notice, upon failure of FKAA to comply with any provision related to compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. This Agreement may be terminated by County due to breaches of other provisions of this Agreement if, after written notice of the breach is delivered to FKAA, FKAA does not cure the breach within 7 days following delivery of notice of breach. The County may terminate this Agreement upon giving sixty (60) days prior written notice to FKAA. Any waiver of any breach of covenants herein contained shall not be deemed to be a continuing waiver and shall not operate to bar either party from declaring a forfeiture for any succeeding breach either of the same conditions or covenants or otherwise. Should the Agreement be terminated, County shall pay for reimbursable costs to the effective date of termination. Termination of this Agreement for this project shall have no effect on any other agreement between the County and the FKAA. 32. ASSIGNMENT. FKAA may not assign this Agreement or assign or subcontract any of its obligations under this Agreement without the approval of the Count 's Board of Count pP Y Y Commissioners. All the obligations of this Agreement will extend to and bind the legal representatives, successors and assigns of FKAA and the County. 33. SUBORDINATION. This Agreement is subordinate to the laws and regulations of the United States, the State of Florida, and the County, whether in effect on commencement of this Agreement or adopted after that date. 34. INCONSISTENCY. If any item, condition or obligation of this Agreement is in conflict with other items in this Agreement, the inconsistencies shall be construed so as to give meaning to those terms which limit the County s responsibility and liability. 35. GOVERNING LAWS/VENUE. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Florida and the United States. Venue for any dispute arising under this Agreement must be in Monroe County, Florida. In the event of any litigation, the prevailing party is entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. 36. ETHICS CLAUSE. FKAA warrants that it has not employed, retained or otherwise had act on its behalf any former County officer or employee subject to the prohibition of Section 2 of ordinance No. 010-1990 or any County officer or employee in violation of Section 3 of Ordinance No. Y may, 010-�1990. For breach or violation of this provision, the Count , in its .. Y discretion, terminate this Agreement without liability and may also, in its discretion, deduct from the Agreement or purchase price, or otherwise recover, the full amount of an fee, commission, s percentage, gift or consideration paid to the former County officer or employees 37. CONSTRUCTION - p his Agreement has been carefully revs, , ed by F AA and County. Therefore, this Agreement is not to be construed against any party on the basis of authorship. 38. NOTICES. Notices in this Agreement, unless otherwise specified, must be sent by certified mail to the following: Co I TN Tv - County Administrator 1100 Simonton Street Key west, FL 33040 FKAA Executive Director 1100 Kennedy Drive .Key west, FL 33040 39. FULL UNDERSTANDING. This Agreement is the parties' final mutual understanding. It replaces any earlier agreements or understandings, whether written or oral. This Agreement cannot be modified or replaced except by another written and signed agreement. �" ANNUAL APPROPRIATION: Funding bv County is subject to an annual appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. (SEAL) Danny-L. Kolhage, Clerk f By: __'46 Deput5rClerk BOARD OF COUWY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE C ITY, FLORIDA By. Mayor/Chairfkrson FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY ATTEST: / By: By; 4cl n �y�rive "'IrtE�r� FKAA Board Approved September 21, 2006 MONPOE COUNTY A7iOwNEY APEBOVED AS TO � U NNt A. HUT ON UNT Date EXHIBIT "A" PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMIERLAND/CUDJOE/UPPER SUGARLOAF REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM Gravity wastewater collection and transmission system to serve Summerland Key/Cudjoe Key/Upper Sugarloaf. New wastewater treatment plant at the Cudjoe Key Transfer Station to treat flows to meet advanced wastewater treatment standards. See ATTACHED PROJECT AREA MAP ra > _ " w v - _ as - :■ w y '✓� IL : a! Ad `#' Y - . n ,. r w • T a r ■ �: � • , i 1 ,F �. � _' �� ��6 �'�'N,�Y-�� e, "- � � y .ram ,r■iIIJ-�. `11 #r 'n .. * J*$ { 6 # y � A^ Y y � �� � a ',� + li e ' ' •• i ra Y i a} _ " • - `- :ice f ■ ■ i !' y rr 1 - .F' t e _ F e 70 IL pf .a a• p r + F;� _ s. .� .J �.,r _1 - e .. _ .•■ �M1}..:.�a. i � i y a - � y �-� ,�,a" : y 'ai �� _ `qq . d -�• ��..r q _r • . a- . .._: 4 5,r� - , f .•ram•_-�� • r,F• ry -' ! ' ` •, . ram#_, •rF r _ 4L � f ■ e i=.'-•.. — _ !.'e'" _ ■, • ' �'.# fir Ir w ! P F a R f k �AA - dh W. •^ r w z f r ar i r i an e e s a_.� �� �4 'A a ' 7 � n �.` r '�-"u'4 i*. �I - �., •,` � � r " i ' �'-M : f , - 1 ` .� F � � ! f :JF.•..i .. - .�..�+ .,��a..+ �� �. T -e ,.. . , nee! �'z .,.... _ " �. �.���—. � ..�a«r-� _.,��._ � �.... —r—•� .: �° z I r � +; � jib Y! � � ■ ,� ��r_.,' " " . k t gr at No rG�KVY" - .'. • F ; r + a rr ° �y j; air r : e Y e r ri r der ,. to -�F � t �� } �k ey •'4. I IL 1 - �..�,.y.� ■ °" LO °.Irt, , a—+ . - - - �- , # rYY►i e �y e '6 ` , M r T ram: -+ s dr,' + _go�e # ■. J . r. y'. y IF t'k �JL , qL 4 , , ;pit a 1 c 6 - , e -1? # . P I�� Y� tea. +� r _ If' X d F • 1' +' F ' F !.• !I`•y"�, 1-� �'�� � 'i a '� - � �� k � ... a ��a 777���rrr r+•�, r a �_C + n a ti• � n • _ .. ^ r � r y t7 Ir 114, pq - + t �6fk Aw, s y + � kjib 9 P �� -• ■ rya y - �-.■ �' r- ■ :°° _ . � e- . a _ , 1p- L 1. - r • n r r - +e t jti 2 go a r� ___ - 1 P ' ..4 , . A '. -7;•11e. • '" ' ' ‘• ..'".'" • ii•4 S•S 9".it' .t..1 1 ' " ;.11 't •,`' " ... ". * ',,A..„*-' - .,,.:.'y.,, --A.-ATA•— .' A. • - , , ;, '•- i , 1• ,.tait1,4 A 'A,t 1. .-------- -- t7 . ... 'At: i I; V*42. lf,1 gr .' . ''' ' 1 , - " ''.-1%..4-.- " 1 " .4" "4*`""/ , ,,,. $*4 •••,.... ... . •• • •-•,., " . •• - 4' .„.. 4.,.,-• •,.* ,, ,...4,,. • 4 , . r' 44 '-'%.::'..."'Ir. •';'..› lo ' ! ' `' *." l'' ' ' •,... 'It* '1,0\'ost': r t*1„•,,, : '',44 i -tt- ',..' '.11r.',' ....Mft.L. .,"? ',. , .....*, • -; ' is • s. . „1 .. '1.Ne t .4y. '' . , ••• 0* :,4'. _.,'; , "r, "I''', i " .':,. *L. . ."' ,,. 4-, '°''`• - ..•`,.",„•.... '•r''•.„ c". ' • •, ".",;t1,, *' i •*• ,,,,-", O.; ' . g.. , 4 I tot I'd — .. •.. -,-..:.",..tt •,. t 4. • ' , .70.7.1 . ,...‘t7.,z, ; „::, .,...,,, , ., , :7; :.,**:,:... ....ta`''r 1.43. .,..i...'.., ..• ,-*:':.1. •7e't if":• '')shlt: ' ) -1.1." 1 ;' ' •• . ..'W.' r:. .:' ‘1::l.l• 4;1'''' ::_,..lri• ' -.:4 ..Prt•••".. . ., ...r •„„.`" '-`" . 4. _, , ....., -•..-:•Akt 0-..v.,,,,, 4"-4 -,' . .`4, •..,"•„,4:: .* .--*4. • ", ., ,t..' .,:,-.4-- .-r.--•••• 41 , •• ' -'''',...., -°- fit•41114 -I, -, .. - ,... , t--,„.(•••,,,•„, .. . -• ':14iS•-i' -*, ,- 1 . '••*.,44 ,44,7. `4b:••••--• ' , ' t- 7 k91 .. ' A 1, . r- •-- -- - - _ ‘,..._ ---:-.,.-.::, ...,...........:. 1 . ,1, 4 7,y , •.. -. . -, —i :'• ...; : i.*4 " o'l_ -,.•",t4,..k.o.,.,'„ ,t. .-101., -t.:.,... -4.4. ie., • # 1,: 4 -: , ,,,. .i.,-• .. , 7'„. ,,,,,' ' .,&,•F •*1-...,, •°-• *,--i-104n" - 1 *••• •-4.'' , -'...-....-1:•-,,••••• •"".'-.4444,,...„,-.`-• • - - i • .4,.. -•,, 4- 414, ` tax_ • '' ° -•- •-t,'**r • .7'7'i. "•,•-•••`-•-.- , • •"-•t 4 , • ,• • • i • ;-',..''''' '' ' ''' -''• - 'zit, -' ... " • 4.,' , i , -..7 .4., "1. . . .... -.1z.144i•Al".;lki4;rr r•"7- "1-"ar- • 4. 411'''. -•'"' ......- . -'4. '''''' • r ,, .,....i.. i... , _u._,,,>•,..4.,....Ag0.149."*„. ,, 1,,i•;•_t ,„.,,,.1,..,-..„*., •,, • '4 •_ , - •,• - • *.i".;* • ° , -•:-•••":,, ' •4-, 'r .-pak**/...J. -.,.- I s--*L•w------* -" , ,... ',,,;.„4,,....„ • .1 4 i . ..aer.,*-••• La- C-4„:".......•-•'•,...er, ,•:',• -.4. L. 7-' -- 4/ii . arn't 174 .. * ''-_,. ':... ''''"Ift,:'''' -- _ . -. '.....w.....L...L, 4 •i,„t, 44,,„„ 1 ,..,_...,_.,,-..." 4 v.*dir-;•,,,,r..74,.......4.-AL„.-„,„••• 4...'„it ' i I .„.,,,J. ...„. , - - - . - . t , ,-,-1 ., 4Arit. •W.-.0.i k 5"..--a k10, f r 741,04• '44"•11. ' ''. r .. ,. ... , , .44••• , • ,c-...g...4.1,,,.. - - .&...-- -_, ,....... ,,.— ...v-r--1 •.-.-co* - ••' • • \ .w,'. ''''•- ... ....." -- 4,fti.:•:. ,iil ;/i ...."`*414,4,4'-i-i-°*,-;:i:-.4:;.--- i: - • . - • --t 1-1, - „,-----f„I. 0 (;,,, , • --,:* _- 1 "" "I'--•-•-- AL"..'• - - ",,,A ",,,, it..!47,7,,,-....,....,-r;,1,7-.........-•;- _,— - ,rt ti'"Alat.r. 4... oar t -","`-•". \s' ' ' ' **"___.."-` 71.„,„.. '...),t .-,- ..L'A••••..fi" i • ., , , ,.._ ,:..,..! a • .`,.$ - , , r:„0„,...4., 4 '1 ' 4,-- ''..- -, i % .:, 40 ) , '- ' — . .",40411-4L.1-1' ". '. I" 4•-• P':-'' s;,;,441. '''''' '*"' - '' ' * / ,„,r- ,• „ . :" • o'':‘‘-'4' el . t• " - . .;''..` _. s , .,„..•,. ) , i,t.%,„ .. r '', "r:,,, '.' .,..i,:: -' •°.-i.a. ,&',.tz''tp!':-.celi:itti,''.. . .t.,...-.*' : , :. .--.. '4- .:,-.-t- , •.. .. ...,,16,.-,,ts,.:,, ,.. I---,,....44.-Qt '-'-'-':-J— , , 1 -.0„- . -•-tr.- -, : tzr.- ,', „,--. , .-:Vv..••- • .°,,,;:r4•4";.•''..',•°-:1".,;,**,, ''''` -....** '''''-• '''-•''''"•-'...,•t•so*" , ., • ,•,...-: .i• '`4',4°-'•,1*.'-'4';'*`• '' . -..". .;,--'..' •e.z.4' . ^'.-•:.,.-'.4 ''.3'"I'lln ',.**4 4. -, ,..:-.....,.-V's,.,'..„, ,4 , ANT-At"I':t' -4.," , I. :.,-. ,,,7 • • !,, , •••• -,-4`,,,, .4'47./ -=- -44„."-",' - '•,,4, , /4-;If,: .:•,: •'•,.'.•,'• • ...,“,•..•••••:. ..-,•;',- 1":"0,-,• •;',!".-- :f=tr*Yi.-";•4›.4"-4,:"*Zi'7^ * ''`'. *.: ' `, ... '. • .;r,•,..1,' . ..FA., ' . ,,,,' .6,-,.:r•,,„;4 f..••,..***'•'..' , !' , a--,.: ,-*,z.w.; 1.1‘,*-k.-,11',='.-i.4:541:0-;:i..,-.:-,$ .4' - • ,-.4-', -": . :7.: ,,, - ' -••'.•4,•'''''••'•***. -IP-. ' *.1 ,°":,..1-::•• '1.„`:,..0"14...••:.4;•:,--•,t,,,thittl-•,°'••-••'''.*", ''/2•.•4' ',- '7,•4.-.•*:•`'..-1 44*,4,4'.'" '' a, • '''''' ^iF ;V, ; ;NI ,.,..'t` /4,,,,:,...14.-,fx,-.1:--?-'•;-:‘, ,- . ,-‘,-,(-3-' , ,,,w:,t„--,ki,:-'7, -- .t.k,"kA.1;cti,:,,,4%,,-, '".. , ,.. ' ' ,i,54V-451, . ..-04t, . ,,:,!.---„,- --' s- t . - - , ,.,,....'' - ..,,, of ,„. ,' ' ,'.%, , ' ' t .. ? s{ D ' „ 4 �+ t•A 1•7v. �•'.*- „ .y",''e •f y - ': .y • 1 \ / `r. 1 ...,, ri- -4;' 1••.-.,,-,.. ,,' '.• ••••i;;-01:•''''''•., t it 47 • • i .t:----;---TIT':?3,11- "1 Vitkiiir+2.' s .. 4.%- :-.'-'-.. . ., ••:: • .' . ' ' v ' '7;9" ....' :,:..P"-1.;: .:..yr.• 4 .; 7:r.r .- .1 r. ._ ..0, .:..„ . .._ , ,:: .t_ ,,,,..,.... .„.,,.,. . ....7,...,..,:i ,::::.:..;:•,..,,:iiii.....,..,..,•.,i1:,::::„...z.,..,:.--k:--..'...i.,.:.,,, .; 4 } ' ;, r Wit- ;�'- s " ��� tom__ • �r-'� .er • �r INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE SUMMERLAND/CUD,jpEJiJppER SUGARLQAF REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM TO BE EXPANDED TO COVER DESIGN FOR BIG PINE KEY THROUGH RAMROD KEy AND LOWER SUGARLQAF THIS AMENDMENT TO INTERLDCAL A.GRE 1��.�1 EME1�iT IS entered into pursuant to Sec. FS, by and between Monroe County, a political subdivision Florida,and the Florida° , clan of the State of Flori(County), da Keys Aqueduct Authority, Inc., an independent s ' pe special district, (FKAA). WHEREAS, an September , 2�, the artier e ` . for the u � ' P entered into an Inter -local agreement(ILA)p tease of funding the costs associated With the adn�ustrat�on, planning and develo pm of a regional wastewater protect; and p WHEREAS, the timing, costs of construction` land acquisition ' and operation of the system, permitting and Issues, and funding availabilitycontemplated ' be conducted p for this project and future projects to by the parties pursuant to a Se texnber � � have b P 005 ILA and September 25 Master Lease been impacted by a variety of factors during the interim; and WHEREAS, it is estimated that the acquisition . an BigPin � of land and permitting far a treatment loot e Key may exacerbate delays 'n completing a project f F P g p I for that area; and WHEREAS, combining three regional proposed $� ystems Into one I.s expected to produce over $11,000,000 in savings for capital costs as well � . P as produce more cost-effective operations after the required connections are made thereto; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that obtaininga deli • Lowrer Sugarloaf design to Incorporate Big Pine, Ramrod and ga with the Sunma.erland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional �V • provide sufficient cyst savingsin � Wastewater System will formation with which to make the final. determination t regional. plant, which would be a a bud one subject of another amendment to this ILA; now, therefore IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual consideration and promises set Earth below, the parties agree as follows. g 1. Paragraph 1, Jaunty Funding, of the ILA g dated September 20, 2006, for the Sumume rland/Cud joe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional wastewater System • following sentences: y em shall be amended by adding the The County shall appropriate from an lawfully available 4Y y a�lable source, a sure not to exceed 500,E for the design to add to the S • ummerland./Cud oe/Upper Sugarloaf inter -local Regional Wastewater System. necessary collections stems to a � Laver Sugarloaf, y accommodate from Big Fine fey to i r ga af, to be paid to the FAA. 'These funds are additional to the dollars set forth in the original agreement dated September 20, 2006. The amount of ` may be changed b written amen the funding 3� amendment to this Agreement approved by the artier. p 2. Paragraph 2, Project, Paragraph 1 fount Funding, the Su , Y undmng, of the ILA dated September �C� , 6 for mmerland,/CudjoelUpper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewat the followin sentences: � er System shall be amended by adding g nces: The Project shall include design and cost estimates to expand the Surnmerlau Coe . p � ud'� mapper Sugarloaf Regional wastewater System to encompass Big Pine Key through Lower Sugarloaf. The Parties will amend the original ILA dated September 20 2006 to include clu de planning and construction of those components of the expanded design to be 'incorporated into the Final Project. p l� rpo ted 3. Paragraph 2, Expenditure of Funds, of the ILA dated September p 006, shall be re- numbered to Paragraph 3. 4. The numbers of all remaining paragraphs of the ILA dated September F 0, 2006, shall be amended to run consecutively from the paragraph above. S. All other provisions of the ILA dated September 20 P , 2006� for the Sumrn erland/Cudjoef Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System, not inconsistent herewith remain in full Y nth shall force and effect. 6. This Agreement will take effect on the Iip.X dayo f , 2008. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT ORITY KEY WEST, FLO A BY: Jame .Rey ,Executive Director DATE A APPROVED AS To Fo BY: 0 Kirk C. Zu c FKAACre al counsel Date: FKAA Board Approved April 2 4,, 2008 BOARD of COUNTY COMNUSSIONERS of MONRO UNTY9 FLORIDA BY: nr Mayor les "Sonny" McCoy APR 1 2008 DATE AT MTs 1E,CLE r; BY. WNW wwwo .� APR 1 6 2008W mlmw� 1,-) = --, DATE APPROVED AS To FORM BY: -�'oaf/ A. u tton County At q� Date: �0/ _e INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE SUMMERLAND/CUDJOE/UPPER SUGARI,OAF REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM TO BE EXPANDED TO COVER DESIGN FOR BIG PINE KEY THROUGH RAMROD KEY AND LOWER SUGARLOAF THIS AMENDMENT To INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is entered into pursuant to sec. 1 3.01, FS, by and between Monroe County, a political subdivision of the State Florida, County, and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Inc., an independent special district, p t act, FIA. WHEREAS, on September 20, 2006, the parties entered into an inter -local agreement ILA for the purpose of funding the costs associated with the administration ` planning and development of a regional wastewater project; and WHEREAS, the tuning, costs of construction and operation of . the system, permitting and land acquisition issues, and funding availability contemplated for this project and future projects to be conducted by the parties pursuant to a September 6, 2005 ILA and September 25 master lease have been impacted by a a ety of factors during the interim; and WHEREAS, it is estimated that the acquisition of land and permitting for a treatment plant on Big Pine Ivey may exacerbate delays in completing a project for that ar • g , and WHEREAS, combining three proposed regional systems into one i i expected to produce over$11,000,000 in savings for capital costs as well s rodue more •,cost-effective operations after the required connections are made thereto; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that obtaining a design to incorporate i F' g � g one, Ramrod and Lover Sugarloaf with the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System will provide sufficient cost savings information with which to make the final determination. to build one regional plant, which would be a subject of another amendment to this ILA; now, therefore IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual consideration and promises set forth below, the parties agree as follows. 1. Paragraph 1, County Funding, of the ILA dated September 20 2006, for the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System shall be amended by adding the following sentences: The County shall appropriate from any lawfully available source a surn not to exceed $4,500,000 for the design to add to the Surnmerland Cud'oe ,� lier Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System necessary collection systems to accommodate from • �g Pine fey to laver Sugarloaf, to be paid to the FKAA. These funds are additional to the dollars set forth in the original inter -local agreement elated September 20 2006. The amount of the funding may be changed by written amendment to this Agreement approved b the parties. pp ties. 2. Paragraph 2, Project, Paragraph 1, County Funding, of the 11A dated atd September 20, 2006, for the hum erland Cudjoe Up er Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater shall the f Systemall be amended by adding following sentences: The Project shall include design and cost estimates to expand the Summerland Cudjoc/Tpp r Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System to encompass Big Pine Key through Lover Sugarloaf, The Parties will amend the original ILA dated September 20, 2006, to include planning and construction of those components of the expanded design to be incorporated into the Final Project. . Paragraph 2, Expenditure of Funds, of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, shall be re- numbered to Paragraph 3. . The numbers of all remaining paragraphs of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, shall be amended to run consecutively from the paragraph above. . All other provisions of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, for the Summerland Cudjoe Upp r Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System, not inconsistent herewith shall remain 1n full force and effect. i 6. This Agreement will take effect on the 4AYL day of 2 o . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT THORITY KEY WEST, FLO A BY: Jame . Reyno ,Executive Director DATE APPROVED AS To FO 0 Y. Kirk C. Zu c FKAAAACie al (Counsel Date: FKAA Board Approved April 24,, 200 BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONRo UNTY, FLORIDA BY: .T Mayor les "Sonny" McCoy APR 1 6 2008 DATE ATTEST: D KO E, CL�- BY. APR 1 6 2008�. DATE #. F'CD APPROVED AS To FORM BY. �;ISQnne A. utton County At)orney Date. INTERLdCAL AGREEMENT SECOND AMENDMENT FOR THE (EXPANDED) CUDJOE REGIONAI, WASTEWATER SYSTEM INCLUDING BIG PINE KEY, RAMROD KEY, SUMMERI,AND KEY, CUDJOE KEY, THE TORCH KEYS (LITTLE, NIIDDLE AND BIG), AND UPPER AND LOWER SUGARLOAF KEYS THIS AM[ENDNMM To EATERLO AL AGREE i s entered into the P day of August, 2009, pursuant to Sec. 163.01, FS, by and between Monroe County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (County), and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Inc., an independent special district, )! WHEREAS, on September 20, 2006, the parties entered into an interlocal agreement (11A) for the purpose of funding the costs associated with the administration# planning and development of a regional wastewater project-, and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2008 the County approved an amendment to the ILA to expand the areas encompassed in the Cudjoe regional wastewater System, which amendment was approved by FKAA on April 24, 008; and VKRER A , it has been determwed that there are a high proportion of properties in the area of the Cudioe regional wastewater System which are not slated for centred sewer but which will have to upgrade their onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OS at a similar per BIT cost as the centralized system; and it has been determined that it is equitable to include the OSTD to the Cudjoe Regional area in the overall project to enable the FKAA to enter into installation and maintenance agreements and to allow the same degree of subsid ation to those costly projects which are on a par with centralized system EDU costs; now, therefore IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual consideration and promises set forth below, the parties agree as follows: 1. paragraph Z project, of the Inter -local Agreement (ILA) dated September 20, 2006, for the u erland/ ud joe/Upper Sugarloaf regional Wastewater System, as previously amended on April 16, 2008, shall be amended as follows: The project shall be called the Cudjoe regional wastewater System and consist of centralized collection systems, transmission mains and method of treatment to Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards sufficient to serve the needs of the residents and businesses included for centralized systems In the blaster wastewater plan in the wastewater Service Districts from Big Pine Key through Lower Sugarloaf Key, and Onsite Sewage Treatment And Disposal Systems for which owners of properties not in the blaster plan but located in the CudJoe regional area from No Name Key through Lower Sugarloaf Key, plus Boca hiea Key parcels identified as RE# 122880-OOMp 122890-000000, and 1287 o , contract with F AA for installation and maintenance. The Project may be developed in phases in accordance with ava ability of funding} Both FKAA and County shall perform their respective obligations under the Mterloeal agreement dated September 6, 2005. . All other Provisions of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, for the ummerlandl udioe/Upper Sugarloaf Reional Wastewater System, as previously mended, not inconsistent herewith shall remain in f fli force and effect. 3, This Agreement will take effect on the 3rd day of August, 2009, IN WITLESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. FLORIDA KEYS KEY WEST, F" AUTHORITY James CAeyno1W,,"9xecutive Director BOARD of COUNTY CONMISSIONERS OF MONROE CO � FLORIDA BY: r DATE 18 ATTEST: s BY: *t 1 + Mayor Sylvia J. Murphy 3 2009 1rx OLHAOE, CLER �--AUG 3 2009 DATE DATE APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFUCIEENCY F Kfik C. Ic FIi�AA e "PROVED AS TO FORAM fr7lj'!�A ink I 1 9 V 91 4� County Attorney Date : k-74,dzyl� 9- APPENDIX B NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD WASTEWATER MEETING ,-. - ' FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC MONDAY, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008 DECEMBER 11, 2008 6:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m. VINEYARD COMMUNITY SUGARLOAF SCHOOL CHURCH CAFETERIA 100 COUNTY ROAD 255 CRANE BOULEVARD BIG PINE KEY, FL 33043 SUMMERLAND KEY, FL 33042 The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority will conduct Neighborhood Meetings for the purpose of presenting the Master Plan Update for the Cudjoe Regional System and to receive/respond to additional public comments. This meeting is open to the public. For additional information, please contact Kathryn Ovide at 295-2202 or Kovide@fkaa.com. --- 286655 LOWER KEYS WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Neighborhood Meeting PURPOSE To update residents regarding project status and discuss extent of the Regional System LOWER KEYS WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE - TEAM MEMBERS •Jim Reynolds — FKAA Executive Director •Tom Walker — FKAA Director of Engineering •Don Hubbs — FKAA Project Manager •Ray Shimokubo — FKAA Senior Technical Manager •Colleen Tagle — FKAA Public Information Director •Julie Cheon — FKAA Environmental Specialist LOWER KEYS WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE - TEAM MEMBERS •Roman Gastesi — Monroe County Administrator •Dave Koppel — County Engineer •Judy Clarke — Assistant County Engineer •Liz Wood — County Wastewater Administrator •Bob Eadie — Director of Health Dept, Monroe County •Gus Rios — FDEP Environmental Administrator Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority LOWER KEYS WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE -FKAA AREA- rAt December 2008 Workshop Workshop Outline Lower Keys Master Plan Update — Collection System alternative analysis • Gravity sewers • Vacuum sewers • Low pressure system • STEP (septic tank effluent pumping) system — Evaluation of on-site systems — Evaluation of expanding central sewer system into existing cold spot areas Cudjoe Regional System On-site System Partnership with County and DOH Objectives • Provide Cost-effective and Reliable Option to Complete Wastewater Program 00, • Provide Central Service to the Maximum Number of Residents and Businesses within Feasible Economics • Provide residents assistance with DOH approved on-site systems Master Plan Service Area , , , > ,\. 4,1 s_. �, �, ) , . .., ,, , , , .„ 1- Legend "ti NO -., Parcels r, QVacant Land or not included k ) NJ • Studied Sites `` na' . ',b , ` t BAT Compliant Sites S �' -Hot Spots (J ��. '�� warm Spots J III:• . A u("C 1I11 I.t.i911 111.• \ C t J • a4. 11114 - W its 7 MIL k 11 r 1 r ram'' eat' t p, ■uul 111 t~ _ Poi7 _ . s. 1 f _ _ ... r r� - �I P L Sri��� ( � ,� �v Lower Keys Regional Sewer System Study Area Collection System Alternative Analysis Alternative Systems Under Consideration • Gravity sewers • Vacuum sewers • Low pressure system • STEP (septic tank effluent pumping) system What is a : Gravity Sewer Vacuum Sewer System ? System ? ems .. cam mempor .441c. Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP ) Low Pressure Sewer System ? SyStem ? - _{ ., , Comparison of Collection Systems Within Lower Keys Reliability Life Construction O&M Private Cycle Issues Issues Property System Costs Issues Gravity High Average Average Low Low Low Average Average Low Average Average Pressure Vacuum Average Average Average Average Average STEP Average High Average High High Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree Is the avera. „ Use on-site Is the number of force main No treatment or a small connections No > LF/developed . neighborhood >80? lot < 5.00 ft.?..M..;, cluster treatment system w/ STEP I collection system Yes No * No Is the average Is the number of number of connections/ Is the number of connections/ lift NO vacuum station > connections/ vacuum station > 40? 750? station >1000? 1 1---i—, Yes Yes Yes No / ' Yes Is the average y Is the average vacuum sewer main gravity sewer ) LF/developed lot < Is the average main 80? vacuum sewer main LF/developed lot - LF/developed lot < > 65 ft.? 100 ft.? Yes Yes Yes PROVIDE LOW PROVIDE GRAVIT. PROVIDE VACUUM PRESSURE SEWER SEWE`; SEWER COLLECTION COLLECTI. ' "F COLLECTION SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM Note: The maximum average linear feet of force main per developed lot was calculated based on a life cycle cost of $36,000 for an on-site OWNRS treatment system. Recommended Option - Hybrid Alternatives • Conventional Gravity Systems in Higher Density Areas • Low Pressure Systems in Lower Density Areas • OWNRS for Homes in Outer Reaches - Not Cost effective for Central Sewer Systems DEVELOPMENT OF ON -SITE WASTEWATER NUTRIENT REMOVAL SYSTEMS ( OWNRS ) BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ( BAT) FKAA was tasked to develop approximate costs to retrofit a typical household to become 2010 Compliant. NEW BAT AEROBIC INSTALLATION 10,10,10,1 Standards s ] � - • �� • PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL PROCESS TANK K . •' INSTALLATION ' • ;,../.. • ", NorilA -.. • liff • .. ---- _...„, . ,, `� \ / '` :` ;.. rt 4"111rirje Being filled with LECA (light expanded clay aggregate) media , ,,4111111111w*SA or -}O,. - - 44440 1 ti fir► .� ;. • . ,ry.� ^.a n 'ay.w..veIM11."Y"'yn;. it 4., ` ,.. .� ~ ..o.i ; aa- �'+ ,. • of . .1! ) 4,,,. 4L1l !, ^7 Ready for phosphorus treatment ,, 0. �y .-. t 'v On-Site Cost SUMMARY Average Estimated Costs for "typical" OWNRS • Capital cost of about $22,000 • Annual operating costs expected at about $2,200 • 20 year life cycle cost ranged widely but expected to average about $36,000 per household . These values are expected to vary widely depending on complexity of installation . Increasing Central System Boundary . - - , ing "warm" areas out of "cold" areas. o reduce number of on-site systems o connect more homes to central sewer system for higher level treatment Method of Analysis Compare costs — Sewer connection cost to on-site system cost Consider other benefits — More nutrient reduction — Larger customer base — Frees up space in yards IncreasingCentral System Boundary — Reach out into cold spots to determine potential added connections — Approximately 500 LF for single connection — Template for adding additional units laid upon aerial maps with existing homes — Potential for hooking additional 200-300 cold spot units Focused Master Planning Service Area Current " Hot Spot" Area >About 10,000 equivalent dwelling units Current "Cold Spot" Areas '- 540 buildings is ` VI!®®!k Legend li! i `r■ Parcels '= I '-�_ r' =Vacant land fat not',Stood 1 ; Z. Studied Sites • - ""f BAT Compo.nt Sims 111$ t , IMO Hot Spots Q • V.yrm Spots II b?l l - ��! ilia r. 4 "rrmr AM� <\ ::w ;ri..ail Plfhillimi.. i L a } , E C, d ,w M to +i s 4 '/-4!..k a u it I NOt Lower Keys Regional Sewer System Study Area Cold and Warm Spot Areas IA, -,, ,,,,- , _ . ..,.. „.. „ . ....W. .14,,, . I , .4 'f,.. r.i.... 4' , . . . . Legend w ,i• Parcels w► 'W, lit 11 '`S I Z ' y mi Vacant Land or not included "r►r r ;, 1. ''Studied Sites�, l'itY BAT Compliant Sites ''tie ' ' Hot Spots " ` - V Warm Spots L. A , • ti • w s w ,?" •w^ M "fir. + ,� �' y r'4 • k it 1Z • - _ ( ,ea �- u •Ilh �l . . +' )• ,„, � , ..tie‘' � , rF W '�•1 Cold and Warm Spot Areas !i 'e ;,t :Ir.,: ,l ' it 'li1e' a �r r _- _i i .,_.._.. /11w:. lir, . r ff. .y: .• - r• v!r Legend sell. , e, ! e s, —- A :+ ,. ' •i.�_.L.... is r ?.::.s Parcels . ►i�' I _� , .•; , ma Vacant Land or not included 'r • -"`. 1 ' i��. ` 1.•.r�. Studied Sites .. , • -.1_ ,k__ ,� �t 4'•' 1 `f? BAT Compliant Sites • t . +- I� • 0 \ " o ,. . ' •� i `• . "Ps), Hot Spots k 1�, :- �..').� r;.' . N _. -- .. ✓ '• !_. .1 a ' ,. Warm Spots ilk I':— • _iy. 1 __ ; -—_.,r al •,• _ P. • _ ik ,I=-2/- - _ - i An �Y' .". 't,- /Ia 1it �I!,, W. i! .. ti ai 1r kUe : .•cl r'fir NO. * - - _ __ ..� �!.. ,...,, \... 'fc 1 � �Vs ti y 11 ' . � i . Ir ei 411a s ! : • \o ,.oLYtLYYY J� ,\ +s t�� �.r; . A r 1 — — v • .,, tigkiCYY\irellis, o� . 7i4 � r., " a - --. u t• .vase A . . a'fa■s.••Ce 1:,5 .ti_. 1..4M—l1.- 11F • •.... �•.. - `� � r arr — s•VJ Msmtli i• �yy ti • J!0]aYl�.a'p' .�.*•r R.. _ ., . ,. /Z, Oi[.LJ It -r! It I 11:l1 iiifR'.l'hls1... ' !! • •t _ '.! w� , r softie • e. ++er rwwrtsh am #►.aR tin .7� '1''`, rf fT /� s S •�'�' ._ .� rF.iir. :t,t.i1.' 1' ..'i i tat.- 1111.......11 .•i.'s .wilt' �••■ f� .1 � _ _ �lilI'S. _ le �ttriPy.it '•'s•t tit•4'+yh\►! i:.YliSi!. ".. .;l sr 4• . - - •• ■ • •_frail i t•'rr. u. •l :i .l' 'P.Y .•�a ti .WR,Y. ahN nlrY .a . ■ ■■_rt ^ r. r ->.,•r;. t11 Iinigt .1l 1 el 15 al •d 11.RZiY 7 - r y.1 ',• rl Pfur.R r . M +IPI- Ilt a; 1isYk. YC4sL1:as4at41a. ` ,+1, ai a ti... _,1. , '_ `::/ M•ie{lea r>`)an _1 .r.u•0 ..,.,r Y-4' r•r • - Ise .a: �.1�>1�-d 4 ' 'S• `-'. }. ,�'--- - `•r..•^--s.IL.•1: ~^ . . . ' r— - ir. III :as2� 4.Rf# .L:•lam 1►4 iyj 1. ` +'•�=� + —'[ ' i 1 1 "r • Y. • .r If. ,.�. __.. :,I !V aI ..�.. . ra -1,. _ s.�th.l �l ', l.a,7ly2 J...1 r.. re ' li, Middle Big Pine Key Cold and Warm Spot Areas-UPPER SUGARLOAF ~�. , � .r I. Legend • is it,t • 'Parcels . .. ' it > fi• Vacant Land or not included • ro •-=�-iM(}" T '.' -,'�.�; `• ';=Studied Sites ` 4.t `.* ;a �� .• O Ail.: BAT Compliant Sites • ... foxti‘ '*.. HOt Spots �. �'" - ,:= .-. . Warm Spots QITF. '• '4.. e. . .0 F, �'.�p. - ,. **ill III ', , ,,i, . ' --.•.."'-. - 11*--, i.r it 1 s' .r sea�u,f R qY t1 1�' rr��wrP Y�''' .. 7 •fY ��' r &' WV:i�Ctw;? • • 6 r IIV „. ., . liyonik,‘ , u-dw r' o`Y3h 400 /"^ AiIlit Upper Sugarloaf Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System AWT Plant on North Cudjoe Key r Existing Landfill Site Collect /Pump Flows from North and South Islands ➢ Reclaimed Water Provisions SCHEDULE AN D COSTS ESTIMATED COST TO COMPLETE 1) Lower Sugarloaf Key-- $ 18 million 2) Cudjoe Regional Service Area ( Central Keys)-- $ 44 million 3) Big Pine Regional Service Area ( North Lower Keys)-- $ 80 million 4) Treatment Facility and Master Stations $ 32 million 5) On-site system conversion $ 20 million GRAND TOTAL $ 194 million CUDJOE REGIONAL FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE — Transmission System Design and Construction — Collection System Design and Construction — Treatment Plant Design Substantial completion expected during the second — Treatment Plant Construction half of 2011 (Dependent on Funding) BOCC / DOH / FKAA Partnership To address remaining on-site systems — County and DOH to regulate and enforce administrative codes — County to handle assessment program — FKAA to design/construct/operate/own Allow for opt in or out provisions State funding for equity and service Equity for assessments— consistent monthly O&M costs PROGRAM ACTION • BOCC Consensus with Master Plan Update — Modify Service Area Boundaries — Confirm Collection System Hybrid Options • Determine Project Funding • Begin Final Designs for Lower Keys Service Area — Ready for Bidding in Summer/Fall 2009 • Implement On-Site System Program — Interagency Agreement — Develop List of Interested Residents Lower Keys Wastewater Master Plan Update Questions ? Property Owner Responsibilities •Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) - Provides design and development funding •System Development Charge - for your share of the projects capital costs •Based on Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) •Payable either in full or over 20 years through a non ad valorem assessment on your annual tax bill •Cost of installing lateral and decommissioning the septic tank •Monthly user charge for operation of the system Lateral Installation Costs •Permits - Septic/Cesspit Abandonment (DOH) $50 - Lateral Installation Permit (County) $66 •Plumber Installation -Varies depending on the length of the run and obstacles encountered -Past experience indicates costs between $1 ,500 & $5,000 •Owner/Builder Option -Property owners that live in the residential dwelling may be allowed to complete their own lateral installation -Consult with Monroe County Building Department Cold Spot On-Site System Options Proposed FKAA On-Site Program •Determine whether to opt in or opt out •If you opt in -Enter into an easement agreement with FKAA -Pay assessment and monthly bill •If you opt out -Hire engineer to design & contractor to install on-site system -Obtain all necessary permits -Contract with operator to perform required annual inspections -Service & maintain system to meet DOH requirements -All costs borne by property owner APPENDIX C /,-- J. Robert Dean Chairman Florida Keys d Key West � s Mary L. Rice 7— Post Office Box 1239 Elena Z. Herrera 110C Kennedy Drive Secretary/Treasurer Key West,Ronda 33041 1239 Rockland Key Telephone(305)296-2454 k Rose M. Dell �r.;+.v Ikaa.com ��k Q Big Pine Key 1-2 *.° David C. Ritz Key Largo E, March 5, 2008 James C. Reynolds Executive Director David S. Koppel, PE, County Engineer 1100 Simonton Street, Suite 2 -216 Key West, FL 33040 RE: Wastewater Master Plan Alternatives' Review Dear Mr. Koppel: FKAA received your letter dated February 6, 2008 requesting an evaluation of the possibility of connecting all wastewater areas from Lower Sugarloaf Key through Big Pine Key to a central WWTP located on Cudjoe Key. Your letter also referenced wastewater service for the south end of Long Key, including Outdoor Resorts(ODR), and potential cost savings associated with maintaining the ODR treatment facility in operation. Upon receiving your request for this evaluation, FKAA developed order-of-magnitude cost estimates for these alternatives. Lower Sugarloaf to Big Pine Attachment A is a Technical Memorandum (by CH2M Hill) providing a cost comparison of the expanded service area alternative versus the Master Plan provision of three separate systems. As determined in this cost analysis, the expanded Lower Keys option is estimated to provide service at lower capital and operating costs. However, when the entire collection and treatment system is considered, the net differences in estimated costs are 6%capital and 13 %Present Worth(20-yr, 6% 1), as herein summarized: Cost Item Master Plan Option -3 Alternative Plan-Single Systems S stem Total Capital Cost $187 million Present Worth(20-Yr $l 76 million 11 $230 million $204 million 1-(p In ddi ia n the enc���ts v1.— • Having existing County property adjacent to the Cudjoe landfill for the treatment plant; assuming a minimum of 2 acres is still available for the expanded plant. Obtaining and permitting two additional treatment plant sites would be time-consuming and possibly contentious. • Operating one AWT system for this service area instead of three. The added complexities of operating AWT systems and the limited pool of operational staff available in the Keys makes the one plant option a more reliable choice. Long Key Regarding the approach to serve the lower reaches of Long Key, FKAA has reviewed recent studies provided by Outdoor Resorts(ODR) for possible upgrade of its existing treatment plant to meet BAT standards. Questions were submitted by FKAA to ODR regarding their plans, yet no responses have been provided for our review of feasibility. In addition, FKAA has conducted a brief analysis of treating flows from lower Long Key at the Layton WWTP; inclusive of ODR. Based on this analysis, capital costs in the range of$4 to 5 million are estimated to build a collection system, force main and treatment expansion to handle this additional service area. This option is technically feasible and environmentally sound. We remain open to further input from Monroe County and stakeholders. We look forward to further discussing these issues with you, and should you need any further information please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Thomas G. Walker, PE, BCEE Director of Engineering cc: Monroe County Commissioners Debbie Fredericks, Acting County Administrator Andrew Trivette, Division Director/Growth Management Judy Clarke, Assistant County Engineer Liz Wood, Senior Administrator.-Sewer Projects Jim Reynolds, Kirk Zuelch, Donald Hubbs, Ray Shimokubo, FKAA Attachment APPENDIX D ( vor $- --- /-I Iry ' -F I Letter Report - Final - Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Central Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System Analysis of Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems (Task 3.2) February 2009 M A T H E W S CONSULTING INC. Civil end Environmental Engineers www.mathewsconsultinginc.com Table of Contents SECTION 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems 3.0 Study Area — Upper Sugarloaf Key 4.0 Study Area — Cudjoe Key 5.0 Study Area — Summerland Key 6.0 Wastewater Collection System Decision Analysis 7.0 Conclusions 8.0 Works Cited LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Service Area 2-1 Gravity Collection System 2-2 STEP Collection System 2-3 Typical STEP Installation 2-4 Low Pressure Collection System 2-5 Vacuum Collection System 3-1 Upper Sugarloaf Key Preliminary LPS Collection System Layout 3-2 Upper Sugarloaf Key Preliminary STEP Collection System Layout 3-3 Upper Sugarloaf Key Preliminary Vacuum Collection System Layout 3-4 Upper Sugarloaf Key Preliminary Gravity Collection System Layout 4-1 Cudjoe Key Preliminary LPS Collection System Layout 4-2 Cudjoe Key Preliminary STEP Collection System Layout 4-3 Cudjoe Key Preliminary Vacuum Collection System Layout 4-4 Cudjoe Key Preliminary Gravity Collection System Layout 5-1 Summerland Key Preliminary LPS Collection System Layout 5-2 Summerland Key Preliminary STEP Collection System Layout 5-3 Summerland Key Preliminary Vacuum Collection System Layout 5-4 Summerland Key Preliminary Gravity Collection System Layout 6-1 Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree 7-1 Project Schedule Mathews Consulting TOC - 1 Table of Contents APPENDIX A "Development of On-Site Wastewater Nutrient Removal Systems (OWNRS) Lifecycle Costs Using Best Available Technology (BAT)", FKAA — January 2009 B "FDEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a) Wastewater Collection/Transmission System Permit" C DEP Rule Chapter 62-604, F.A.C. "Collection Systems and Transmission Facilities" D Monroe County/FDEP/FKAA Meeting Minutes for Sugar Pine Wastewater Project (July 7, 2008) Mathews Consulting TOC - 2 I _� uoilDnpoalul 1.0 Introduction Recognizing that the economic health of Monroe County and its municipalities relies largely on the environmental health of a unique marine ecosystem, the County's Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandated that nutrient loading levels be reduced in the marine ecosystem of the Florida Keys. In June of 2000, the "Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan" (Master Plan) was finalized with a firm objective of eliminating approximately 23,000 private on-site septic systems by July 2010. Through interlocal agreement, Monroe County has requested that the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) design, build, and operate County-owned infrastructure on behalf of the citizens in the Master Plans prescribed service areas. The Master Plan identified Cudjoe Key/Summerland Key as a target service area for this effort. With the assistance of one of its wastewater consultants (CH2M HILL), FKAA completed a Preliminary Design Report (PDR), entitled "Cudjoe Wastewater Collection and Transmission System Project" in August 2008. In early 2008, County staff requested that the FKAA consider a change in the Master Plan to expand the service area to include the entire area between Sugarloaf Key and Big Pine Key. This change represented a dramatic enlargement of the original Cudjoe Key/Summerland Key service area. A PDR update completed on February 28, 2008 indicated a potential cost savings should the newly expanded service area prove serviceable, and in May 2008, an interlocal agreement amendment allowed for the procurement of professional engineering services necessary to implement the goals of the Master Plan. On behalf of Monroe County, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority will design, permit and construct wastewater projects for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Service Area, which encompasses the Lower Sugarloaf Key Community Service Area, the Central Cudjoe Key Regional Service Area (Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key and Summerland Key) and the Big Pine Regional Service Area (Ramrod Key, Little Torch Key and Big Pine Key). The proposed plan is to provide a wastewater collection/transmission system and a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to serve these areas. The goal will be a permitted conveyance and treatment system that will combine various wastewater collection system technologies in order to connect as many private on-site septic systems as possible for the lowest overall lifecycle cost. Lower Keys Upper Big Torch KeyiMiddle Sugarloaf Torch Cudjoe Little Torch Key Lower Key Sugarloaf Bay �i Point Stuck Island Ramrod\. „.-jorlrj Summerland Key Big Pine Key Key Boca Chlca Rockland Big Coppitt Geiger Mathews Consulting 1 - 1 1.0 Introduction Mathews Consulting, Inc. has been retained by FKAA to provide engineering services for the collection system for the Central Cudjoe Key Regional Service Area (Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key & Summerland Key). Located in the lower portion of the Florida Keys, these three islands consist of approximately 2,000 acres of developed and undeveloped land and span approximately 6.5 miles along U.S. Highway 1. The objective of this Letter Report is to review general alternative wastewater collection system technologies, select the best value technology or combination of technologies tailored to serving the global "Hot Spot" areas that are located in Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key & Summerland Key, and develop a "Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree" that can be used as a guideline in other sewer service areas in the Florida Keys. "Hot Spots" are defined as those areas that will receive a wastewater collection and treatment system. The wastewater collection systems evaluated included: ■ Conventional Gravity Sewer Systems ■ Septic Tank Effluent Gravity (STEG) Systems ■ Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) Systems ■ Low Pressure/Grinder Pump Systems ■ Vacuum Sewer Systems The final work product will be a permitted conveyance system that will combine various wastewater collection system technologies in order to connect as many on- site septic systems to the Regional System as possible for the lowest overall lifecycle costs. The combined strategic utilization of proper planning and technology, extending to the greatest number of sewer connections for the best value, is an approach developed by FKAA through its many years of experience in the utility business. For areas that will not be cost effective to be served by the Regional System (e.g. outer areas that are located far from the reach of the collection system) an On-Site Wastewater Nutrient Removal System (OWNRS) to meet the 2010 Best Available Technology (BAT) Standard (10 mg/I BOD, 10 mg/I TSS, 10 mg/I total N and 1 mg/I P) is recommended. The FKAA staff prepared the document titled "Development of On-Site Wastewater Nutrient Removal Systems (OWNRS) Lifecycle Costs Using Best Available Technology (BAT)", January 2009, which is included in Appendix A of this Letter Report. Conceptual design layouts for each of these collection alternatives were prepared for Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key and Summerland Key. Refer to Figure 1-1 for location map of the study areas. Cost estimates prepared include capital. operations, replacement and maintenance for a 20-year lifecycle period. The advantages and disadvantages of each system are also presented in this Letter Report. A wastewater collection system decision tree was also developed in order to establish the type of wastewater collection system that would be most viable for a particular neighborhood in the Florida Keys Service Area. Mathews Consulting 1 - 2 1.0 Introduction To facilitate review, the report has been divided into eight main sections. The content of each section is briefly summarized below. Section 1.0 Introduction: Presents a brief description of project history, project area and the wastewater collection systems evaluated. Section 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems: Presents detailed discussion of the wastewater collection systems (conventional gravity sewer systems, septic tank effluent pump [STEP] systems, low pressure/grinder pump systems and vacuum sewer systems. Advantages and disadvantages of each of these systems are provided along with FDEP permitting requirements. Section 3.0 Study Area — Upper Sugarloaf Key: Provides a preliminary design layout for each of the four wastewater collection systems. A preliminary initial construction cost opinion and a summary of present worth cost (including construction, operation and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer collection system is provided. Section 4.0 Study Area — Cudjoe Key: Provides a preliminary design layout for each of the four wastewater collection systems. A preliminary initial construction cost opinion and a summary of present worth cost (including construction, operation and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer collection system is provided. Section 5.0 Study Area — Summerland Key: Provides a preliminary design layout for each of the four wastewater collection systems. A preliminary initial construction cost opinion and a summary of present worth cost (including construction, operation and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer collection system is provided. Section 6 Wastewater Collection System Decision Analysis: Presents a Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree that can be used to determine the type of wastewater collection system best suited for neighborhoods or collection system areas in the Florida Keys based on such factors as number of connections, lot size, initial construction cost and present worth (i.e. Lifecycle) costs. Section 7 Conclusions: Recapitulates the recommended improvements and presents a schedule for proceeding with detailed design, permitting and bidding. A list of action items are also presented. Section 8 Works Cited: Provides list of information reviewed during the preparation of this Letter Report. Mathews Consulting 1 - 3 Y, ., :.APPRORIMAIF— 4,7 . a ` , ^r� •v i } .-.,.. _.. LOCATION Oi " ` t a �. WASTEWATER , . j 'pi-A I MEN PLANT I F. ' ` SUMMER�AN D . • - _ KEY - , " °: „ ., uai, ' KEY 4- T. ■ t I AtrsL '.INy .us .� y .,. 1 ' 6._ ■ -. \ r N ..a En US NO .•.nt<; i .'.-s .�. is 13 \ j _ i— i "� ♦ I --~—— 1 - �. ; 1 ; \ I t • 4 1' UPPER I Ali �`, t l t SUGARLOAF L—~____ t ' "—SERVICE AREA 1TYR1 / r 1 t.:'. I y, \ 9 f. • - MAT H E W S CUDJOE REGIONAL PROJ NO: 1474 r �NSUI TING ii c 3000' 1500' 0 3000 .� Florida Keys WASTEWATER SYSTEM o, ,r, �,w_ /�'�4 - DATE: FEB. 2009 — SCALE. 1%.3000. i s v e� t—mr Aqueduct Authority SERVICE AREA Yx — — _..® a� FIGURE 1-1 - illimN 10.:* Section 2fro , Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems u, 2 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems This Section evaluates alternative wastewater collection and transmission technologies that could be utilized in each of the Study Areas (Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key and Summerland Key). Conventional gravity sewer system and four (4) alternative wastewater conveyance systems (septic tank effluent gravity [STEG] systems, septic tank effluent pump [STEP] systems, low pressure/grinder pump systems, and vacuum collection systems) were reviewed and their characteristics are described in this Section. Advantages and disadvantages of these systems are listed in Table 2-1. Also, FDEP permitting requirements are discussed at the end of this section. Gravity Sewer Systems Conventional gravity flow sewer systems are the most widely used method of wastewater collection in residential and other developed areas. In a conventional gravity sewer system, wastewater is transported by gravity from each service connection (e.g. clean-out @ property) to a main gravity sewer. The main gravity sewer is sloped to provide a flow velocity adequate to convey solids and minimize settling, generally two (2) feet per second (fps). Manholes are placed on the sewer lines at intervals of 300 to 400 feet and at all intersections and changes of slopes. Figure 2-1 / Gravity Collection System \� ,09 _ / a�Qcom. \\// /\ V Lid , �i 0 ..tag, t� P� / /`��� MANHOLE III�pUMP S7�ATION ire (P�iic) 4 c , / G (: eye\ ,sP V\` / C� . / "yam Py 5" ". \ \ Mathews Consulting 2 - 1 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems 0 — V ;: ; Sanitary Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Manhole tit r -A -41G7 "'wog",R,• Fiberglass Lift Station Manholes allow access for inspection, cleaning and repair of the gravity collection piping. Because of the continuous slope, the depth of gravity sewers increases with distance downstream until the depth becomes too great for economical construction. Typically, for the Florida Keys this depth is 8 feet due to the challenging subsurface conditions (e.g. limestone bedrock & high water table). Once the maximum depth is reached, a lift station is required to pump the wastewater to a shallower gravity-sewer system manhole, or through a force main to another lift station (e.g. piggy-back system ), and then to a Master Lift Station, which will ultimately pump through a force main system to the Regional WWTP. A cost-effective design of a gravity sewer system requires optimizing the maximum gravity sewer depth with the number of lift stations utilized in the system. Maximizing the depth of gravity sewer construction minimizes the number of lift stations required, while maintaining minimum depth requires more lift stations. Deep sewer construction and lift stations are both associated with high costs, and the optimum balance between sewer depth and number of lift stations used is highly dependent on site-specific conditions. Factors adversely affecting deep sewer construction and use of gravity sewers in general include difficult excavation conditions (e.g. rock), high water tables, existing high-density development, and presence of extensive underground utilities in the area to be serviced. Mathews Consulting 2 - 2 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Septic Tank Effluent Gravity Systems Septic Tank Effluent Gravity (STEG) systems utilize septic tanks at the wastewater source to remove solids and floating materials, such as oil and grease. In addition to removing solids from the waste stream, septic tanks anaerobically decompose the waste into liquid and solid byproducts (e.g. producing a partially treated wastewater effluent). Effluent from the septic tanks is then discharged to small diameter gravity sewer system. Since solids are removed in the septic tanks, STEG lines do not need to be designed to transport solids. This reduces the velocity and gradient required, which reduces the depth of excavation. It also eliminates the need for manholes at all junctions, grade changes, and alignment changes, resulting in potential cost savings. Because the septic tanks provide for some attenuation of peak flow, STEG diameters can be reduced in comparison to a conventional gravity sewer line serving the same flow. The STEG lines can be constructed with some inflective gradient (i.e., dip and rise in gravity line), provided adequate head and velocity is available at peak daily flow to suspend solids and clean the line. One disadvantage of STEG collection systems is that each connected unit must have a septic tank. In order to avoid maintenance problems in the STEG lines, the septic tanks must be properly maintained, including pumping of septage at regular intervals. Costs of pumping, hauling, treating and disposing of septage must be included in the overall system operation and maintenance costs. Though STEG systems require less slope than conventional gravity sewer systems (typically 25 to 50 percent of gravity sewer slopes), they require greater burial depth than the minimum cover requirements for pressure sewers. STEG systems are designed to discharge into a gravity sewer collection system that is typically received and pumped by a lift station in order to convey the effluent wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant. STEG systems are advantageous in areas with a terrain that is sloped toward the wastewater treatment plant or large regional lift station (e.g. mountain-type areas). In areas that are flat, the gravity collections systems are sloped to each associated lift station. Since STEG effluent sewer require a gravity sewer system to receive its effluent, these systems are not economically feasible where the terrain is flat, such as the Florida Keys. This is based on the cost of each effluent septic tank added to the cost of a gravity sewer collection system. Therefore, STEG systems were not analyzed as a viable collection system for these study areas. Mathews Consulting 2 - 3 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Septic Tank Effluent Pump Systems Similar to the STEG systems, Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) systems also utilize septic tanks at the wastewater source for separation and decomposition of settleable and floating solids. STEP systems utilize small septic tank effluent pump stations and pressure sewers to convey partially decomposed wastewater. Pumps used in these systems are typically fractional horsepower submersible pumps with operating heads below 200 feet. The pumps are generally not designed for solids transport because the impellers, which operate under higher head conditions, have close tolerances and are not made to pass solids. Since they are not required to be sloped and because of the high head conditions, STEP pressure sewers can be installed with minimum cover (typically 30 to 36 inches) and can be easily routed over or under existing utilities to avoid conflicts since the pressure sewers are small diameter piping. 74. • -tW;v- - • M. i r Access Nicer Roar Figure 2-2 STEP Collection System s Inlet colifilintr qiipummir ,-. Normal LI. _ A ell I1 _ ' 1 , B 8'z , �i Sludge Figure 2-3 Typical STEP Installation Mathews Consulting 2 - 4 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Like STEG systems, STEP systems have the disadvantage of utilizing numerous septic tanks which must be regularly maintained to minimize problems in the pressure sewer collection system. Pumping, hauling, treatment, and disposal of septage must be included in the operation and maintenance costs for STEP systems. Another disadvantage of STEP systems is the large number of pumps in the system that must be maintained. Selection of standardized pumps for the system should be based on initial costs plus operation and maintenance costs over a 20-year period. .,.,. KtII .''''''. 41..: i-.'*::1114..,-..?1 S74?'", 1 ‘ .11 1111:if:1: -. il'-- • , t uv .. STEP System Installation STEP System Installation t 5 r1< ' STEP System Installation Control Panel on Side of House The characteristics of wastewater collected with a STEP system are nearly identical to that of an STEG system. The wastewater quality is weak with respect to suspended, settleable, and floating solids, but is readily biodegradable. It is also anaerobic and may emit hydrogen sulfide upon contact with air, potentially causing odor and corrosion problems. Wastewater collected with STEP systems can be treated by conventional methods, such as extended aeration (activated sludge process). Low Pressure Systems Low pressure/grinder pump systems utilize a small grinder pump station at each wastewater source (residential and/or commercial property) and small-diameter, low pressure force mains for transmission either to lift stations or directly to a WWTP. The grinder pump station accepts the entire wastewater stream from the residence or business and is not generally used in conjunction with a septic tank. Stations serving single residential units typically utilize fiberglass or high density Mathews Consulting 2 - 5 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems polyethylene (HDPE) wet-wells 24 to 30 inches in diameter. The grinder pumps typically range from 1 to 3 horsepower, depending on the type of pump selected and the number of units served by the pump station. All solids in the waste stream are ground to a slurry and pumped through small diameter pressure sewers similar in size to those utilized by STEP systems. Since these systems do not rely on gravity, the sewers can be constructed with minimum cover (30 to 36 inches). Since there are no septic tanks utilized in low pressure/grinder pump systems, installation costs and septage handling costs associated with the septic tanks are avoided. AV - ,. l a 1 , -�N l irr•ft-A„,..7- ---: ` " „ � _ 1:11r,... ..., ,.: ,, * J .Ao ...OP' 4 -x"'' Figure 2-4 Low Pressure Collection System Two common types of grinder pumps are in widespread use, submersible centrifugal grinder pumps and submersible progressive-cavity grinder pumps. Most manufacturers utilize submersible centrifugal grinder pumps. The submersible centrifugal grinder pumps for single residence applications are typically 1.0 to 2.0 horsepower and have shutoff heads between 90 and 105 feet. Flow rates of individual pumps in the system vary from near 60 gpm at low pressure to near zero gpm as pressure approaches the shutoff head. If pressures in the grinder pump system force mains approach the shutoff head of the pumps, pumps in those areas will discharge minimal volumes until other pumps in the system shut off and pressure in the force main decreases. These high-head conditions should only be reached under extreme conditions, most likely following a power outage, and should not present any operational problems if the force main system is properly sized. Mathews Consulting 2 - 6 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems • rjL • If 1 r • House Service Piping Low Pressure Pump Control Panel on Station Installation Side of House • Low Pressure Pump Station Cover The other pump type used in grinder pump systems is the submersible progressive cavity pump. This pump is a semi-positive displacement pump, which means that it will produce small changes in flow for relatively large changes in head. Typical operating characteristics for this pump are 15 gpm at zero head and 9 gpm at 180 feet of head. The low pump discharge compared to centrifugal pumps and the ability to operate at higher heads maintains steadier flow conditions in the force mains and reduces the probability of pumps not being able to pump against the head conditions. The ability to operate at higher heads also minimizes the number of lift or repump stations necessary for a large grinder pump collection system. Disadvantages of grinder pump systems are primarily associated with maintenance of the numerous grinder pump stations in the system. As with STEP systems, pump selection should be based on initial costs plus 20 year operation and maintenance costs. The use of high-quality grinder pumps is generally cost-effective because of the potentially high maintenance costs associated with the cutting/grinding mechanism. Wastewater delivered to treatment plants by grinder pump systems differs from that delivered by STEP or STEG systems because solids removal does not occur Mathews Consulting 2 - 7 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems in the grinder pump system. In addition, the wastewater at the source will not have the anaerobic characteristics of STEP and STEG system wastewater. Grinder pump system wastewater is similar to wastewater delivered by conventional gravity sewer systems, except that the solids are ground by the pumps. Advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) processes are capable of treating wastewater delivered by grinder pump stations. Vacuum Sewer Systems Vacuum sewer collection systems have been used for commercial applications since 1959 and for residential applications since the early 1970's. A vacuum sewer system consists of one or more vacuum stations, collection system piping, and vacuum sewer services. Vacuum stations provide vacuum pumping to draw wastewater to the station and discharge pumping to pump wastewater to a WWTP through a pressure force main. Vacuum valves regulate the entry of wastewater and air into the collection system piping. Each of these three components is described in the following paragraphs. A typical residential vacuum sewer service consists of a gravity line from one or more structures to a 30-gallon holding tank equipped with a vacuum valve. Opening of the valve is initiated by a pressure sensor in the holding tank. When liquid in the tank reaches a preset level, the sensor activates, opening the valve to discharge waste and air into the vacuum collection system. The time that the vacuum valve is open is normally adjusted to twice the time required to discharge wastewater from the holding tank. This allows air to enter the system behind the wastewater. This air is necessary to drive wastewater in the line to the vacuum station. As a benefit, this air provides some aeration of wastewater as it passes through the vacuum collection system. Vacuum valve pits are typically located on or near property lines so that they can serve two or more adjacent homes. How A traditional gravity When 1Q gal of w•astew•ater Wastewater travels at 15 to 18 fps Wastewater enters the collection Vacuum pumps cycle on and tine earns wastewater collects in the sump,the in the vacuum main,which is lank.When the tank fills to a off as needed to maintain a Vacuum from the customer valve opens and differential laid in a sawtooth fashion to predetermined level,pumps constant level of vacuum on systems to a valve pit package pressure propels the contents insure adequate vacuum levels transfer the contents to the the entire collection system. into the vacuum main. at the end of each line. treatment plant via a font main. Work s Vacuum Station Collection Tank Air Intake Valve Pit `t Lk fir. Package 'lacuum -''`iii Flexible Connector Profile - K s interface— __ vcvum Valve 'lass c s Pumps Service Line 5uction P{Pe ? __Su im3Pht V..- =a Force from Customer sensor Pipe Sewer - - Main to Main .. -. - Treatment Plant Figure 2-5 Vacuum Collection System Diagram Mathews Consulting 2 - 8 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Vacuum collection piping typically consists of 4-inch to 10-inch solvent weld or push-on, rubber-gasketed PVC pipe laid on a minimum 0.2 percent slope in a sawtooth profile. In order to minimize excavation depth in flat topography or to provide wastewater transport up an incline, lifts are used in the lines. The lifts consist of two 45° bends with the lift pipe section in between, resulting in a sawtooth profile configuration. This section acts as an airlift and provides some additional aeration as wastewater is forced through the lift by rising air. Valving for vacuum collection lines is similar to that for pressure sewers, with plug or resilient wedge gate valves on branches and at intervals on the mains to allow isolation for repairs or troubleshooting. rt kOtirtit ,r, l A Trencher in Operation � . Vacuum Pit Installation Collection Piping Installation lei► _ t , 6'u< 1111n1 .Station Mathews Consulting 2 - 9 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Vacuum stations in the Keys are usually constructed of concrete block buildings on elevated concrete foundations with plan dimensions of approximately 25 feet by 30 feet. Part of the structure is constructed below grade to accommodate entry of the vacuum sewer. Two (2) alternating liquid ring or sliding vane vacuum pumps withdraw air from a vacuum reservoir tank, which is connected in turn to a fiberglass or steel collection tank. The reservoir tank serves two purposes. First, it provides a vacuum reservoir to limit the number of vacuum pump starts much like the pressure storage tank of a compressed air system. Second, it keeps the vacuum pumps from contacting the air/sewage mix being collected into the collection tank. This separation prevents droplets from damaging the vacuum pumps. Vacuum switches on this reservoir tank control operation of the vacuum pumps. The collection tank receives the air and sewage transported by the collection piping and serves the same purpose as a wet well in a conventional lift station. Two (2) alternating, non-clog wastewater pumps remove wastewater from the collection tank, and discharge it to the force main. These pumps are controlled by level probes in the wastewater collection tank. Equipment for the vacuum stations is typically skid-mounted for ease of installation. Non-submersible components of the vacuum station (e.g., pump motors and control panels) are located above the 100-year flood elevation. The advantages and disadvantages of vacuum collection systems over pressure collection systems (STEP or grinder systems) are summarized in Table 2-1 . A major advantage is that pump stations at the wastewater source are eliminated, which greatly reduces the number of pumps in the collection system that must be maintained. The vacuum valves at the service connection do not require any power, which not only eliminates the cost of electrical service and use, but facilitates using one vacuum valve pit to serve two or more residences and allows for continuity of service during power outages. If multiple connections were used with STEP or grinder system, one of the residences served would have to pay for the power used and seek reimbursement from the other residences. Another advantage of vacuum sewers is aeration of the wastewater that is provided throughout the collection system, minimizing anaerobic conditions and associated odor and corrosion problems. Vacuum collection system piping has similar advantages over conventional gravity systems as do STEP and grinder systems, i.e., smaller diameters and shallower cover requirements. Disadvantages of vacuum sewer systems include the need for relatively large vacuum stations and the potential difficulties in locating these stations in an area that is already developed. Vacuum collection system piping is somewhat more costly than small-diameter pressure systems because of the need to maintain 0.2 percent slopes (which requires grade control and somewhat greater depth), the need to install numerous lift sections, and the slightly larger pipe diameters required to serve comparable flows. Mathews Consulting 2 - 10 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Hybrid or Mixed Systems Combinations of the conventional and alternative wastewater collection systems described in this section are possible and in some cases can help lower the costs of the collection system. The primary concern in combining systems is that the wastewater characteristics of an upstream system must be compatible with the downstream system into which it is discharged. For example, a low pressure/grinder pump system can be discharged to a conventional gravity system. Also, a vacuum collection system can be discharged to a conventional gravity system. A low pressure/grinder pump system that is only serving 8-10 houses could discharge into a vacuum collection system. A STEP system discharging to a conventional gravity system may require additional precautions for corrosion and odor control. Advantages/Disadvantages of Each Collection System A comparison of advantages and disadvantages of the four collection system alternatives is presented in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Collection System Alternatives Wastewater Collection Advantages Disadvantages Method 1 Well established technology, lowest 1 Higher initial construction costs in areas O&M cost of all technologies. of difficult excavation (rock), high water tables and flat topography. 2 Collectors contained within the public 2 Disruption of community during right-of-way. construction (entire ROW utilized). c,2 3 Minimal facilities required at point of 3 Increased potential for infiltration and service (gravity service connection). inflow. Salinity can be high in coastal areas. a) 4 Entire waste stream conveyed from 4 Manholes required at all junctions, grade property. changes and alignment changes. Numerous small lift stations required. 0 5 No power required from individual 5 Placement of regional "Master" lift c residence. stations within communities may require changes in zoning and the acquisition of valuable property. 6 Excess capacity is typically built in 6 Collection areas may be restricted by 0 allowing easy expansion. The additional canals and drainage structures. storage also allows a few days of continued operation during mechanical or electrical failures. 7 The life of a conventional gravity system 7 Performance affected by low flows. is typically 40 years before repairs, such as slip lining or replacement is required. Mathews Consulting 2 - 11 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Table 2-1 Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Collection System Alternatives Wastewater Collection Advantages Disadvantages Method 1 Collector mains may be laid at constant 1 Interceptor tank located on private depth to conform to topography. property with easement required. A significant amount of owners property is required. This will require excavation on private property. This area will not be available for pool, driveway, boat parking, etc. Installation logistics may be difficult on small lots. 2 Performance not affected by low flows. 2 Power required at each connection supplied by homeowner. 3 Reduction in BOD and TSS in WWTP 3 Individual service lost with power outage. w influent. 4 Manholes & lift stations eliminated. 4 Historically, maintenance requirements 0- for STEP systems have been higher than most alternatives. Also. numerous units o_ to handle. a) 5 Infiltration/inflow are minimized. 5 Settleable solids retained on private property that require periodic removal. 6 Smaller pipe diameters than gravity 6 Septic, settled wastewater collected that systems are utilized. Pressure sewers requires odor control at receiving can be constructed with minimum cover manholes and lift stations. `—' (30"-36"). a cco 7 Collector mains are usually installed in 7 May require additional WWTP chemical R/W off of road pavement. feed, significant private property construction disruption potential. 8 Roadway restoration costs are 8 With older homes, there may be a need to significantly reduced when compared upgrade electrical service at the with conventional gravity sewer residence to allow for addition of the installations. pump unit. 9 Reduces peak flow pumping. 1 Collector mains may be laid at constant 1 Some installations may need to be on 1:7C' depth to conform to topography. private property with the easement a required due to long lateral runs. 2 Performance not affected by low flows. 2 Power required at each connection supplied by homeowner. E ‘,5) 3 Manholes eliminated. 3 Long detention and travel times may m require odor control at air release valves. n' 4 Infiltration eliminated. 4 Individual service lost with power outage. .c v, 5 Most lift stations eliminated. 5 Somewhat greater operation and cu maintenance costs than conventional -o N gravity systems with numerous units to -o co - handle. 6 Smaller pipe diameters than gravity 6 With older homes, there may be a need to CD 5 systems are utilized. Pressure sewers upgrade electrical service at the 7 (1) can be constructed with minimum cover residence to allow for addition of the '— (30"-36"). pump unit. a7 Roadway restoration costs are 7 Pump station required at each service 3 o significantly reduced when compared connection. a with conventional gravity sewer and vacuum installations. Mathews Consulting 2 - 12 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Table 2-1 Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Collection System Alternatives Wastewater Collection Advantages Disadvantages Method 8 Collector mains usually installed in R/W 8 To reduce costs, multiple connections off road pavement. may be used where one pump unit serves two or more homes: however, one residence would have to pay for the power used and be reimbursed. 9 Grinder pump station can be installed in R/W and further savings could be achieved with single duplex station/ multiple connection. 1 Entire waste stream conveyed from 1 Collector mains must be installed to grade property. in a sawtooth pattern: high installation sensitivity. 2 Wastewater maintained in aerobic state. 2 Standby power required at central vacuum station to prevent service loss during power outages - no system storage. 3 Performance not affected by low flows. 3 Limited number of manufacturers of equipment—proprietary cost premium. 4 Smaller pipe diameters than gravity 4 Pipe Diameters are greater than those for E systems are generally utilized. low pressure systems. 5 Manholes eliminated. 5 O&M costs are higher than other alternative collection systems. co 6 Collector mains and valves installed in 6 Relatively large (25'x30') building required z R/W off road pavement, minimal private for vacuum/pump station. property disruption. > 7 No power required at connection. 7 Potential difficulty and cost associated with the purchase of land for the vacuum station. 8 One vacuum valve can serve two or 8 There is no alarm for loss at vacuum or more lots. high level in pits. The first notification is often due to a back-up in customers home. 9 Performance of vacuum sewer system depends on quality of construction. Pre- qualification of contractors is recommended. FDEP Permitting Requirements Each project area (Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key & Summerland Key) will require an FDEP Wastewater Collection/Transmission System Permit. FDEP requires a separate application and fee for each non-contiguous project (i.e. projects that are not interconnected or are not located on adjacent streets or in the same neighborhood). The required DEP Form 62-604.300 (8)(a) is included in Appendix B of this Letter Report. The DEP Rule Chapter 62-604, F.A.C., for Collection Systems and Transmission Facilities is included in Appendix C. Mathews Consulting 2 - 13 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems It is important to note that FKAA & Monroe County met with FDEP (Fort Myers/Marathon staff) on July 7, 2008 to discuss the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System. The minutes of that meeting are included at Attachment D. Mathews Consulting 2 - 14 MI\Section 3Few Study Area - Upper Sugarloaf Key 3.0 Study Area — Upper Sugarloaf Key Upper Sugarloaf Key is located at Mile Marker 18.6, between Lower Sugarloaf Key and Cudjoe Key. Upper Sugarloaf Key has 12 commercial lots including a public school, church, restaurant, and two campgrounds. Currently 247 residential lots are occupied with very low to medium density. At build-out 365 lots are expected to be occupied. Since Upper Sugarloaf Key has developed only 68% of the build-out lots, opportunities exist to utilize alternative collection systems to defer a significant portion of construction cost. The sewer collection systems evaluated for this area are listed below in the order they appear. • Low Pressure Sewer/Grinder Collection System (LPS) (refer to Figure 3-1) • STEP Effluent Collection System (refer to Figure 3-2) • Vacuum Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 3-3) • Gravity Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 3-4) For each system, a preliminary design was developed on an aerial map. A preliminary construction cost opinion was developed utilizing recent bid information from the Keys and gathering information from system suppliers. A present worth cost analysis was performed for each potential sewer collection system using O&M data from EPA, published technical reports, engineering reports, system operator interviews and manufacturer vendors' data. Table 3-1 provides a summary of present worth cost (including construction, operation, and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer collection system. A twenty year present worth cost analysis (e.g. Lifecycle costs) was calculated based on an interest rate of 6% and an inflation rate of 3%. Mathews Consulting 3 - 1 3.0 Study Area — Upper Sugarloaf Key Table 3-1 Upper Sugarloaf Key Present Worth Summary for Each Type of Sewer Collection System Type of Sewer Collection System LPS STEP Vacuum Gravity Initial Construction Cost S 5,772,081.42 $ 7,412,984.92 $ 8,632,913.90 $ 7.750.489.71 Future Construction Cost S 1,498,600.00 $ 2,098,040.00 $ 974,090.00 0 Present Worth of Future Construction S 1,132,408.12 $ 1,585,371.37 $ 736,065.28 0 Total Present Worth of Construction Cost S 6,904,489.54 $ 8,998,356.29 $ 9,368,979.18 $ 7,750,489.71 Present Worth of O&M Cost S 1,140,390.38 $ 1,926,265.61 $ 2.255.271 13 $ 833,738.18 Total Present Worth $ 8,044,879.92 $10,924,621.90 $ 11,624,250.31 $ 8,584,227.88 PW of Construction Cost/EDU @ Build-Out S 13,808.98 $ 17,996.71 $ 18,737.96 $ 15,500 98 Total Present Worth/EDU @ Build- Out $ 16,089.76 $ 21,849.24 S 23,248.50 $ 17,168.46 EDUs @ Build-Out= 500 Upper Sugarloaf Key $14,000,000.00 - - - ■Present Worth $12,000,000.00 of O&M Cost $10,000,000.00 $6,000,000 00 • ■ ■Total Present $6,000,000.00 Worth of Construction $4,000,000.00 ■ Cost $2,000,000.00 El LPS STEP Vacuum Gravity Type of Sewer Collection System Mathews Consulting 3 - 2 3.0 Study Area — Upper Sugarloaf Key An explanation for each row heading in Table 3-1 is provided below: Initial Construction Cost: The construction cost required to provide the existing developed lots with sewer service. Future Construction Cost: The portion of the construction cost required to serve future residents that can be deferred. Conventional gravity sewer systems cannot be easily expanded to pick up additional users. The infrastructure necessary to serve future residents is included in the Initial Construction Cost for gravity sewer systems. That is why this column for gravity is $0. Present Worth of Future Cost: Future construction was assumed to occur 5, 10, and 15 years after initial construction. The future construction expense was discounted to present worth dollars. Total Present Worth of Construction Cost: The sum of Initial Construction Cost and Present Worth of Future Construction Cost. Present Worth of O&M Cost: The cost of all forecasted operation and maintenance cost over a 20 year period discounted to present worth dollars. Total Present Worth: The sum of Total Present Worth of Construction Cost and Present Worth of O&M Cost. PW of Construction Cost/EDU @ Build-Out: The Total Present Worth of Construction Cost divided by the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at build-out. Total Present Worth/EDU @ Build-Out: The Total Present Worth divided by the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at build-out. As shown on Table 3-1, the lowest initial construction cost and lowest present worth cost to provide sewer service to Upper Sugarloaf Key is the Low Pressure Sewer System. However, high density areas could be served by a conventional gravity sewer system. As the system is further designed, the Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree (see Section 6.0) should be used to determine the most optimum hybrid system for a low pressure system/gravity collection system for this service area. Another important factor that will be considered in selecting a wastewater collection system will be a "Policy Decision" by FKAA regarding the type of system(s) that they plan to operate and maintain in their Service Areas. Mathews Consulting 3 - 3 (114111 Upper Sugarloaf Key Q 1 ,==" LOW PRESSURE/GRINDER PUMP SYSTEM I FIGURE 3-1 Mk *:-)1 t, .," . . , ,0 • , r, -. ,-.. \ f . ¢.. i _.. -3 M Nt. RJ 1+ R D4l. - / 7'' s C 6. • 'ALL r • I - r. . . .� �_' . �.; ' �• � I I � ice/", Ili v't N. w.w.-ca ,, rr. q 1' li .--�-,-, k.iirLEGEND a l 2" LPS SEWER MAIN ! 3" LPS SEWER MAIN ..'?) 4" LPS SEWER MAIN 6" LPS SEWER MAIN on MATH E W S 'll CUDJOE REGIONAL PROJ NO: 1474 CONSULTING I"`"` 1000' 500' 0 1000' . ; Florida Keys WASTEWATER SYSTEM DATE: FEB. 2009 • SCALE. 1"=1000' iniumainalid. V„<:"I Aqueduct Authority UPPER SUGARLOAF KEY PRELIMINARY LPS COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: LPS—1 Table 3-2 LPS#1 Upper Sugarloaf Key Low Pressure Sewer Number of EDUs Current 382 Number of EDUs Build-Out 500 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 21582 LF $ 42.00 $ 906,444.00 3"Force Main(1) 12313 LF $ 48.00 $ 591,024.00 4"Force Main(1) 3274 LF $ 54.00 $ 176,796.00 6"Force Main(1) 3324 LF $ 68.00 $ 226,032.00 2"Valves 18 EA $ 500.00 $ 9,000.00 3"Valves 15 EA $ 750.00 $ 11,250.00 4"Valves 4 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 4,400.00 6"Valves 3 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Simplex Low Pressure Station(2) 247 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 2,470,000.00 Duplex Low Pressure Station(2) 12 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 144,000.00 Subtotal $ 4,544,946.00 Other Project Cost(3)27% $ 1,227,135.42 Current Estimated Total= $ 5,772,081.42 Current Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 15,110.16 BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 21582 LF $ 42.00 $ 906,444.00 3"Force Main(1) 12313 LF $ 48.00 $ 591,024.00 4"Force Main(1) 3274 LF $ 54.00 $ 176,796.00 6"Force Main(1) 3324 LF $ 68.00 $ 226,032.00 2"Valves 18 EA $ 500.00 $ 9,000.00 3"Valves 15 EA $ 750.00 $ 11,250.00 4"Valves 4 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 4,400.00 6"Valves 3 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Simplex Low Pressure Station(2) 365 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 3,650,000.00 Duplex Low Pressure Station(2) 12 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 144,000.00 Subtotal $ 5,724,946.00 Other Project Cost(3)27% $ 1,545,735.42 Build-Out Estimated Total= $ 7,270,681.42 Build-Out Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 14,541.36 Notes: (1)Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration. (2)Cost of LPS Station includes tank,equipment, installation, electrical connection and 1-1/4" lateral with restoration. (3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 3-3 Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Upper Sugarloaf Key Low Pressure Sewer Current EDU= 382 Build Out EDU= 500 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Add 11 pumps in year 5, 12 pumps in year 10,and 12 pumps in year 15 Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead $/KWH= $ 0.10 Electric= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Prevnt.Maint.= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr Emergency call out= $ 390.00 /pump/12yr Pump replacement= $ 2,000.00 /pump/12yr Initial Construction Cost= $ 5,772,081.42 Calculation of present worth of future construction $1,498,600.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows: In year 5, 10,&15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3%inflation,then converted to present worth at I =6% $1,498,600.00/3= $ 499,533.33 (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $499,533.33x1.1593= $ 579,108.99 Construction Cost at year 5 (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $499,533.33x1.3439= $ 671,322.85 Construction Cost at year 10 (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $499,533.33x1.5580= $ 778,272.93 Construction Cost at year 15 Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $579,108.99x0.7473= $ 432,768.15 (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $671,322.85x0.5584= $ 374,866.68 (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $778,272.93x0.4173= $ 324,773.30 Present Worth of future construction= $ 1,132,408.12 Annualize cost of pump replacement and emergency call outs in 12 years and again in 24 years Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3%inflation in 12 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 12 years= 1.4258 ($2,000+$390)x1.4258= $ 3,407.66 per pump Converting the 12 year future pump replacement/emergency call out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 12 years= 0.4970 $3,407.66x0.4970= $ 1,693.61 per pump Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3%inflation in 24 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 24 years= 2.0328 ($2,000+$390)x2.0328= $ 4,858.39 per pump Converting the future pump replacement/emergency call out cost to an annualized cost over 12 years with I=6%gives: (A/F)at 6%for 12 years= 0.0593 $4,858.39x0.0593= $ 288.10 per pump/yr By taking the annualized cost for 8 years,a future cost for year 12 can be calculated with I=6%gives: (P'/A)at 6%for 8 years= 8.3838 $288.10x8.3838= $ 2,415.39 in year 12 Converting the annualized cost of future pump replacement/emergency call out cost from year 13 to year 20 to Present Worth with I= 6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 12 years= 0.4970 $2,415.39x0.4970= $ 1,200.45 PW of future pump replacement and emergency call out per pump= $ 2,894.06 (12yr and 24yr combined) Converting the present worth of two pump replacements to annualized dollars (A/P)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0872 $2,894.06x0.0872= $ 252.36 per pump/yr Table 3-3(Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Upper Sugarloaf Key Low Pressure Sewer Total annualized cost per pump per year: Pump replacement= $ 252.36 /pump/yr Electric= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Prevnt. Maint.= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr Total= $ 314.36 /pump/yr Convert annualized costs to Present Worth Assume pumps will be phased in as follows: Period I:271 pumps through year 5 Period II:311 pumps from year 6 through year 10 Period III:350 pumps from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:389 pumps from year 16 through year 20 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $314.36x271= $ 85,192.09 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $85,192.09x4.2124= $ 358,863.18 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $314.36x311= $ 97,766.57 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $97,766.57x4.2142= $ 411,831.91 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $411,831.91x0.7473= $ 307,761.99 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period Ill: Period III:Annualized cost= $314.36x350= $110,026.69 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $110,026.69x4.2142= $ 463,476.43 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0 5584 $463,476.43x0.5584= $ 258,805.24 Present Worth for Period III Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $314.36x389= $122,286.81 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $122,286.81x4.2142= $ 515,120.95 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $515,120.95x0.4173= $ 214,959.97 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods= $ 1,140,390.38 Total Present Worth = $ 8,044,879.92 Present Worth I Current EDUs= $ 21,059.90 Present Worth/Build-Out EDUs = $ 16,089.76 calUpper Sugarloaf Key —' i• SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP ', (STEP) SYSTEM I FIGURE 3-2 z: o . .4.1i --*Is' 416.:1H:*:1. 190,11::: : 4' ' w NW New, 'i jig , : -� ,p c LJ \ tai�'Eiiilt ? , !` . I , 411!,11 __W"... te r. t v F 1,' 1 I I J :ri** , LEGEND 1 2" STEP SEWER MAIN �� 3" STEP SEWER MAIN �..,�'„a '� • A ja 4" STEP SEWER MAIN 6" STEP SEWER MAIN MATH CUDJOE REGIONAL PROJ NO: 1474 ern EW3 CONSULTING lc: 1000' 500' 0 1000' �• Florida Keys WASTEWATER SYSTEM DATE: FEB. 2009 ` semr: 1'-1000' 09���'� .1 UPPER SUGARLOAF KEY ..— t�� Aqueduct Authority PRELIMINARY STEP COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: STEP-1 Table 3-4 STEP#1 Upper Sugarloaf Key STEP Number of EDUs Current 382 Number of EDUs Build-Out 500 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 39060 LF $ 42.00 $ 1,640,520.00 3"Force Main(1) 4996 LF $ 48.00 $ 239,808.00 4"Force Main(1) 548 LF $ 54.00 $ 29,592.00 6"Force Main(1) 3507 LF $ 68.00 $ 238,476.00 2"Valves 48 EA $ 500.00 $ 24,000.00 3"Valves 10 EA $ 750.00 $ 7,500.00 4"Valves 1 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 1,100.00 6"Valves 6 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 12,000.00 Simplex STEP Station(2) 247 EA $ 14,000.00 $ 3,458,000.00 Duplex STEP Station(2) 12 EA $ 15,500.00 $ 186,000.00 Subtotal $ 5,836,996.00 Other Project Cost (3)27% $ 1,575,988.92 Current Estimated Total= $ 7,412,984.92 Current Estimated COSbEDU= $ 19,405.72 BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 39060 LF $ 42.00 $ 1,640,520.00 3"Force Main(1) 4996 LF $ 48.00 $ 239,808.00 4"Force Main(1) 548 LF $ 54.00 $ 29,592.00 6"Force Main(1) 3507 LF $ 68.00 $ 238,476.00 2"Valves 48 EA $ 500.00 $ 24,000.00 3"Valves 10 EA $ 750.00 $ 7,500.00 4"Valves 1 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 1,100.00 6"Valves 6 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 12,000.00 Simplex STEP Station(2) 365 EA $ 14,000.00 $ 5,110,000.00 Duplex STEP Station(2) 12 EA $ 15,500.00 $ 186,000.00 Subtotal $ 7,488,996.00 Other Project Cost (3)27% $ 2,022,028.92 Build-Out Estimated Total= $ 9,511,024.92 Build-Out Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 19,022.05 Notes: (1)Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration. (2)Cost of STEP Station includes tank,equipment, installation,electrical connection and 1-1/4" lateral with restoration. (3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 3-5 Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Upper Sugarloaf Key STEP Collection System Current EDU= 382 Build Out EDU= 500 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Add 11 pumps in year 5, 12 pumps in year 10,and 12 pumps in year 15 Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead $/KWH= $ 0.10 Electric= $ 20 00 /pump/yr Prevnt.Maint.= $ 271.30 /pump/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is derived from data from Charlotte County. Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr Nine people work full time to maintain 6,900 STEP units. Emergency call out= $ 390.00 /pump/5yr Tank pump out= $ 400.00 /pump/5yr Pump replacement= $ 870.00 /pump/20yr Initial Construction Cost= $ 7,412,984.92 Calculation of present worth of future construction $2,098,040.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows: In year 5, 10,&15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3%inflation,then converted to present worth at I=6% $2,098,040.00/3= $ 699,346.67 (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $699,346.67x1.1593= $ 810,752.59 Construction Cost at year 5 (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1 3439 $699,346.67x1.3439= $ 939,851 99 Construction Cost at year 10 (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $699,346.67x1.5580= $ 1,089,582.11 Construction Cost at year 15 Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $810,752.59x0.7473= $ 605,875.41 (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $939,851 99x0.5584= $ 524,813.35 (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $1,089,582.11x0.4173= $ 454,682.61 Present Worth of future construction= $ 1,585,371.37 Annualize cost of pump replacement Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 20 years= 1.8061 $870.00x1.8061= $ 1,571.31 per pump Converting the pump replacement cost to an annualized cost over 20 years with I=6%gives: (A/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0272 $1,571 31x0.0272= $ 42.74 per pump/yr Annualize cost of emergency call outs and tank pump outs in 5, 10,15,&20 years Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 5 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $790x1.1593= $ 915.85 per pump Converting the 5 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $915.85x0.7473= $ 684.41 per pump Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 10 yrs (F/P)at 3°/0 for 10 years= 1.3439 $790x1.3439= $ 1.061.68 per pump Converting the 10 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $1,061.68x0.5584= $ 592.84 per pump Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 15 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $790x1.5580= $ 1,230.82 per pump Table 3-5(Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Upper Sugarloaf Key STEP Collection System Converting the 15 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $1,230.82x0.4173= $ 513.62 per pump Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 20 years= 1.8061 $790x1.8061= $ 1,426.82 per pump Converting the 20 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.3118 $1,426.82x0.3118= $ 444.88 per pump PW of future emergency call out per pump= $ 2,235.76 (5, 10, 15,&20yr combined) Converting the present worth of emergency call out and tank pump out cost to annualized dollars (A/P)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0872 $2,235.76x0.0872= $ 194.96 per pump/yr Total annualized cost per pump per year: Pump Replacement= $ 42.74 /pump/yr Emerg Call Out&Pump Out= $ 194 96 /pump/yr Electric= $ 20.00 /pump/yr Prevnt.Maint.= $ 271.30 /pump/yr Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr Total= $ 531.00 /pump/yr Convert annualized costs to Present Worth Assume pumps will be phased in as follows: Period I:271 pumps through year 5 Period II:311 pumps from year 6 through year 10 Period III:350 pumps from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:389 pumps from year 16 through year 20 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $531.00x271= $143,900.37 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $143,900.37x4.2124= $ 606,165.94 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II: Period II.Annualized cost= $531.00x311= $165,140.28 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $165,140.28x4.2142= $ 695,636.92 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $695,636.92x0.7473= $ 519,849.47 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III: Period Ill:Annualized cost= $531.00x350= $185,849.19 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $185,849.19x4.2142= $ 782,871.13 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $782,871.13x0.5584= $ 437,155.24 Present Worth for Period Ill Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $531.00x389= $206,558.10 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $206,558.10x4.2142= $ 870,105.35 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $870,105.35x0.4173= $ 363,094.96 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods= $ 1,926,265.61 Total Present Worth= $ 10,924,621.90 Present Worth!Current EDUs= $ 28,598.49 Present Worth I Build-Out EDUs= $ 21,849.24 I( Upper Sugarloaf Key ok VACUUM SEWER SYSTEM ter: FIGURE 3-3 st � : it z �,i o d ^, " 4 mrei t"' JII gat _ r ' ( e MIL 'a. pT. F u t- c ,. .' .. 'a , d 'innaaO.c • 1 ..lnnnh'daw d ,1.. ' 1 zIIItIl M .- 'Sdd II ;° t VI - y' tilnanafi.l S" t 1$---•*. — ...... n AUX.-. ry'y��4-34 (1w ' 1{ sE ;. w , 4.-. ,, , , ` {1 T. t '®r .,a .. ,alai a lI�II y'y�tm�ti?�ty�.tr .}a' ,I t"j' I a] 4 °ii f fr wi��t, osir flat 'i LEGEND 4"VACUUM SEWER MAIN 6'VACUUM SEWER MAIN 8"VACUUM SEWER MAIN DIVISION VALVE H VACUUM STATION A MAT II E W S de114N CUDJOE REGIONAL PROJ NO: 1474 t. CONSULTING'1° loon' soo' o t000' �' ; Floridada Keys WASTEWATER SYSTEM r. DATE: FEB. 2009 "ter. >VIM • i�all� r=_� � Aqueduct Authority UPPER SUGARLOAF KEY "� . i PRELIMINARY VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: VS-1 Table 3-6 VS #1 Upper Sugarloaf Key Vacuum Sewer Number of EDUs Current 382 Number of EDUs Build-Out 500 COLLECTION SYSTEM- INSTALLED COST CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 4"Vacuum Main(1) 36070 LF $ 66.00 $ 2,380,620.00 6"Vacuum Main(1) 8100 LF $ 73.70 $ 596,970.00 4"Division Valves 33 EA $ 1,210.00 $ 39,930.00 6"Division Valves 9 EA $ 1,650.00 $ 14,850.00 6"Force Main (1) 3400 LF $ 68.00 $ 231,200.00 6"Valves 3 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Vacuum Valve Pits (2) 156 EA $ 13,000.00 $ 2,028,000.00 Vacuum Station(3) 1 EA $ 1,500,000.00 $ 1,500,000.00 Subtotal $ 6,797,570.00 Other Project Cost (4)27% $ 1,835,343.90 Current Estimated Total= $ 8,632,913.90 Current Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 22,599.25 BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 4"Vacuum Main(1) 36070 LF $ 66.00 $ 2,380,620.00 6"Vacuum Main(1) 8100 LF $ 73.70 $ 596,970.00 4"Division Valves 33 EA $ 1,210.00 $ 39,930.00 6"Division Valves 9 EA $ 1,650.00 $ 14,850.00 6"Force Main(1) 3400 LF $ 68.00 $ 231,200.00 6"Valves 3 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Vacuum Valve Pits(2) 215 EA $ 13,000.00 $ 2,795,000.00 Vacuum Station(3) 1 EA $ 1,500,000.00 $ 1,500,000.00 Subtotal $ 7,564,570.00 Other Project Cost(4)27% $ 2,042,433.90 Build-Out Estimated Total= $ 9,607,003.90 Build-Out Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 19,214.01 Notes: (1)Cost of force mains and vacuum mains includes trench repair and road restoration. (2) Valve pit cost includes: $ 3,500 for purchase of valve&pits $ 5,000 for installation of valve&pits $ 3,000 for laterals $ 1,500 for cross-overs from pit to vacuum main $ 13,000 Total (3) Vacuum stations include: Vacuum station equipment Odor control Construction of concrete building with underground construction and bathroom Emergency back-up generator Telemetry Cost of Land (Cost of legal/real estate fees,public notice and public hearings have not been included) (4) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 3-7 Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Upper Sugarloaf Key Vacuum Sewer Collection System Current EDU= 382 Build Out EDU= 500 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Add 1 vacuum pit in year 5, 1 vacuum pit in year 10,and 0 vacuum pits in year 15 Add 2 EDUs in year 5,2 EDUs year 10,and 2 EDUs in year 15 Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead $/KWH= $ 0.10 Power $ 2.92 /EDU/month Station Maint.= $ 49,750.00 per year 497.5 hr/yr i $100/hr Prevnt.Maint.= $ 452.00 /valve/yr Public Education= $ 1.50 /EDU/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is based on FKAA's experience at Little Venice. One Vac.Valve Rebuild= $ 35.25 /valve/10yrs full time person is required to maintian a vacuum station with 350 Valve Pits. Initial Construction Cost-I$ 8,632,913.90 NOTE: The cost for land to accommodate the vacuum lift station is not included in this present worth cost analysis. Calculation of present worth of future construction $974,090.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows: In year 5,10,&15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3°%inflation,then converted to present worth at I=6% $974,090.00/3= $ 324,696.67 (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $324,696.67x1.1593= $ 376,420.85 Construction Cost at year 5 (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $324,696.67x1.3439= $ 436,359.85 Construction Cost at year 10 (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $324,696.67x1.5580= $ 505,877.41 Construction Cost at year 15 Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $376.420.85x0.7473= $ 281,299.30 (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $436,359.85x0.5584= $ 243,663.34 (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $505,877 41 x0.4173= $ 211,102.64 Present Worth of future construction=I$ 736,065.28 I Annualize cost of all Vacuum ValvelController Maintenance per Vacuum Valve Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3%inflation in 10 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $35.25x1.3439= $ 47.37 per vacuum valve at year 10 Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3°%for 20 years= 1.8061 $35.25x1.8061= $ 63.67 per vacuum valve at year 20 Converting all the future maintenance cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 60%for 10 years= 0.5584 $47.37x0.5584= $ 26.45 per vacuum valve (P/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.3118 $63.67x0.3118= $ 19.85 per vacuum valve Present Worth of future maintenance cost per vacuum valve= $ 46.30 Calculating the annualized cost per valve over 20 years at I=6%gives: (A/P)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0872 $46.30x0.0872= $ 4.04 per vacuum valve per year Adding the annualize cost of preventive maintenance gives a total annualized cost per valve of: $452.00+$4.04= $ 456.04 per vacuum valve per year Convert annualized Vacuum Valve Maintenance cost to Present Worth Assume vacuum valves will be phased in as follows: Period I:156 vacuum valves through year 5 Period II:176 vacuum valves from year 6 through year 10 Period III:196 vacuum valves from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:215 vacuum valves from year 16 through year 20 Table 3-7(Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Upper Sugarloaf Key Vacuum Sewer Collection System Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $456.04x156= $ 71,141.88 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $71,141.88x4.2124= $ 299,678.04 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period II: Period II'Annualized cost= $456.04x176= $ 80,262.63 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $80,262.63x4.2142= $ 338,098.30 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $338,098.30x0.7473= $ 252,660.86 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period III: Period III:Annualized cost= $456.04x196= $ 89,383.38 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $89,383.38x4.2142= $ 376,518.56 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $376,518.56x0.5584= $ 210,247.97 Present Worth for Period III Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $456.04x215= $ 98,048.10 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $98,048.10x4.2142= $ 413,017 81 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $413,017.81x0.4173= $ 172,352.33 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized valve maintenance cost for all periods=I$ 934,939.20 Convert annualized Power Cost and Public Education cost to Present Worth Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows: Period I:382 EDUs through year 5 Period II:422 EDUs from year 6 through year 10 Period III:461 EDUs from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:500 EDUs from year 16 through year 20 Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.92/EDU/month)x(12 months/year)+$1.50/EDU/yr= $ 36.54 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $36.54x382= $ 13,958.28 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $13,958.28x4.2124= $ 58,797.86 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $36.54x422= $ 15,419.88 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years a 4.2124 $15,419.88x4.2142= $ 64,954.70 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $64,954.70x0.7473= $ 48,540.65 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period III: Period III:Annualized cost= $36.54x461= $ 16,844.94 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $16,844.94x4.2142= $ 70,957.63 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $70,957.63x0.5584= $ 39,622.74 Present Worth for Period III Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $36.54x500= $ 18,270.00 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $18,270.00x4 2142= $ 76,960.55 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $76,960.55x0.4173= $ 32,115.64 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized power&education costs for all periods=I$ 179,076.88 Convert annualized Vacuum Station Maintenance Cost to Present Worth Annualized portion of vacuum station maintenance cost to be charged to service area is: $49,750.00'2= $ 99,500.00 per year (P/A)at 6%for 20 years= 11.4699 $99,500.00*11.4699= $ 1,141,255.05 Present Worth of Vacuum Station Maint. Total Present Worth= $ 11,624,250.31 Present Worth/Current EDUs= $ 30,429.97 Present Worth/Build-Out EDUs= $ 23,248.50 cAlliN Upper Sugarloaf Key rr -- 01 1111 ` GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM FIGURE 3-4 lr. p., ..,.. . A .,,, ,, 4: ( , '� a r,.........____.; _,,_` . . . • , . •"• • _____,. , . , .. _ ______. .., . ...„. : „. .,. , „z . ;-'21---- ..x....‘ '. ^;z. '-. . ..... a 7 A 1 4a'F f^ w � , __ LEGEND .---- LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN MANHOLE AND GRAVITY MAIN A MASTER LIFT STATION Y CUDJOE REGIONAL PROJ NO: 1474 MATHEWS 000' 500' o i000' �41 WASTEWATER SYb1tM NSULTING '' e Florida Keys DATE: FEB. 2009 SCALE: 1'=1000' �.'„� Aqueduct Authority CUDJOE IT S COLLECTION KEY PRELIMINARY GRAVITY COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: GS-1 Table 3-8 Gravity#1 w/Mathews Consulting Updated Costs Upper Sugarloaf Key Gravity Sewer Number of EDUs Current 382 Number of EDUs Build-Out 500 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Manholes 86 LF $ 6,000.00 $ 516,000.00 8"Gravity Sewers 22427 LF $ 118.00 $ 2,646,386.00 6"Service Laterals 5375 LF $ 78.00 $ 419,250.00 Force Mains 13374 LF $ 54.00 $ 722,196.00 Concrete Lift Station 5 EA $ 131,000 00 $ 655,000.00 Primary Lift Station S11 1 EA $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 Subtotal $ 5,308,832.00 Pavement Restoration(30%of Gravity Sewer Cost) $ 793,915.80 Construction Cost $ 6,102,747.80 Other Project Costs(1)27% $ 1,647,741.91 Estimated Total= $ 7,750,489.71 Estimated Cost/EDU Current= $ 20,289.24 Estimated Cost/EDU Build-Out= $ 15,500.98 (1) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 3-9 Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Upper Sugarloaf Key Gravity Sewer System Current EDU= 275 Build Out EDU= 403 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead S/KWH= $ 0.10 Power= $ 2.72 /EDU/month Prevnt. Maint.= $ 7,500.00 /station/yr 75 hr/station @$100/hr Pump replacement= $ 20,000.00 /station/10 yr Initial Construction Cost= $ 7,750,489.71 Present worth of pump replacement in 10 years and again in 20 years Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3%inflation in 10 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $20,000x1.3439= $ 26,878.00 per station Converting the 10 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $26,878.00x0.5584= $ 15,008.68 per station Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 20 years= 1.8061 $20,000x1.8061= $ 36,122.00 per station Converting the 20 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.3118 $36,122.00x0.3118= $ 11,262.84 per station The Study Area will be charged for maintenance at 6 stations Total Present worth of pump replacements ($15,008.68+$11,262.84)'6= $ 157,629.09 Present worth of preventative maintenance for 6 lift stations: Convert the annualized cost per station to present worth gives: (P/A)at 6%for 20 years= 11.4699 $7,500`6.11.4699= $ 516,145.50 Total annualized cost per EDU per year: Power= $ 2.72 /EDU/month Convert annualized costs per EDU to Present Worth Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows: Period I:275 EDUs through year 5 Period II:318 EDUs from year 6 through year 10 Period III:361 EDUs from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:403 EDUs from year 16 through year 20 Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.72/EDU/month)x(12 months/year)= $ 32.64 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $32.64x275= $ 8,976.00 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $8,976.00x4.2124= $ 37,810.50 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $32.64x318= $10,379.52 /yr (PIA)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $10,379.52x4.2142= $ 43,722.69 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $43,722.69x0.7473= $ 32,673.97 Present Worth for Period II Table 3-9(Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Upper Sugarloaf Key Gravity Sewer System Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period Ill: Period III:Annualized cost= $32.64x361= $11,783.04 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $11,783.04x4.2142= $ 49,634.88 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $49,634.88x0.5584= $ 27,716.12 Present Worth for Period III Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV: Period IV Annualized cost= $32.64x403= $13,153.92 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $13,153.92x4.2142= $ 55,409.57 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $55,409.57x0.4173= $ 23,122.41 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized cost per EDU for all periods= $ 121,323.00 Total Present Worth= $ 8,545,587.29 Present Worth/Current EDUs= $ 31,074.86 Present Worth/Build-Out EDUs= $ 21,204.93 • A aofpnj - eaay ApmS t11O113,9S' 4.0 Study Area — Cudjoe Key Cudjoe Key is located between Mile Markers 20 and 23. Cudjoe Key lies between Upper Sugarloaf Key and Summerland Key. Cudjoe Key has 42 developed commercial lots with room for 108 at build-out within the sewer service area. Currently 998 residential lots are occupied with very low to high density. At build-out 1,348 lots are expected to be occupied. Since Cudjoe Key has developed only 73% of the build-out lots, opportunities exist to utilize alternative collections systems to defer a significant portion of construction cost. Most of the high density residential areas of Cudjoe Key are cut with narrow canals. This restricts the size of a conventional gravity sewer collection system, and increases the construction cost due to dewatering challenges. The sewer collection systems evaluated for this area are listed below in the order they appear. • Low Pressure Sewer/Grinder Collection System (LPS) (refer to Figure 4-1) • STEP Effluent Collection System (refer to Figure 4-2) • Vacuum Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 4-3) • Gravity Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 4-4) For each system, a preliminary design was developed on an aerial map. A construction cost opinion was developed utilizing recent bid information from the Keys and gathering information from system suppliers. A present worth cost analysis was performed for each potential sewer collection system using O&M data from EPA, published technical reports, engineering reports, system operator interviews and vendors' data. Table 4-1 provides a summary of present worth cost (including construction, operation, and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer collection system. A twenty year present worth cost analysis (e.g. Lifecycle costs) was calculated based on an interest rate of 6% and an inflation rate of 3%. Mathews Consulting 4 - 1 4.0 Study Area — Cudjoe Key Table 4-1 CUDJOE KEY Present Worth Summary for Each Type of Sewer Collection System Type of Sewer Collection System LPS STEP Vacuum Gravity Initial Construction Cost $ 19,144,853.76 $ 23,339,696.78 $ 22,470,333.52 $ 27,086,007.55 Future Construction Cost $ 5,577,840.00 $ 7,700,010.00 S 2,938,780.00 0 Present Worth of Future Construction $ 4,214,861.42 $ 5,818,466.48 $ 2,220,671.52 0 Total Present Worth of Construction Cost $ 23,359,715.18 $ 29,158,163.26 $ 24,691,005.04 $ 27,086,007.55 Present Worth of O&M Cost $ 4,542,174.95 $ 7,672,316.06 S 5,055,412.09 S 2,961,410.45 Total Present Worth $ 27,901,890.13 $ 36,830,479.33 $ 29,746,417.13 $ 30,047,418.00 PW of Construction Cost/EDU @ Build-Out S 10,642.24 $ 13,283.90 S 11,248.75 S 12,339.87 Total Present Worth/EDU @ Build-Out $ 12,711.57 $ 16,779.26 $ 13,551.90 $ 13,689.03 EDUs @ Build-Out= 2195 Cudjoe Key $40,000,000.00 — — - $35,000,000.00 IN Worth of O&M Cost $30,000,000.00 $25,000.000.00 — - S20,000,000.00 ■Total Present Worth of 315,000,000.00 -- - - Construction S10,000.000.00 -- - Cost $5,000,000.00 - - - S- LPS STEP Vacuum Gravity Type of Sewer Collection System Mathews Consulting 4 - 2 4.0 Study Area — Cudjoe Key An explanation for each row heading in Table 4-1 is provided below: Initial Construction Cost: The construction cost required to provide the existing developed lots with sewer service. Future Construction Cost: The portion of the construction cost required to serve future residents that can be deferred. Conventional gravity sewer systems cannot be easily expanded to pick up additional users. The infrastructure necessary to serve future residents is included in the Initial Construction Cost for gravity sewer systems. That is why this column for gravity is $0. Present Worth of Future Cost: Future construction was assumed to occur 5, 10, and 15 years after initial construction. The future construction expense was discounted to present worth dollars. Total Present Worth of Construction Cost: The sum of Initial Construction Cost and Present Worth of Future Construction Cost. Present Worth of O&M Cost: The cost of all forecasted operation and maintenance cost over a 20 year period discounted to present worth dollars. Total Present Worth: The sum of Total Present Worth of Construction Cost and Present Worth of O&M Cost. PW of Construction Cost/EDU @ Build-Out: The Total Present Worth of Construction Cost divided by the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at build-out. Total Present Worth/EDU @ Build-Out: The Total Present Worth divided by the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at build-out. As shown on Table 4-1, the lowest initial construction cost and lowest present worth cost to provide sewer service to Cudjoe Key is the Low Pressure Sewer System. However, high density areas could be served by a conventional gravity sewer system. As the system is further designed, the Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree (see Section 6.0) should be used to determine the most optimum hybrid system for a low pressure system/gravity collection system for this service area. Another important factor that will be considered in selecting a wastewater collection system will be a "Policy Decision" by FKAA regarding the type of system(s) that they plan to operate and maintain in their Service Areas. Mathews Consulting 4 - 3 AratiN, Cudjoe Key ' zo" Ill ` LOW PRESSURE/GRINDER ' -„ 1 PUMP SYSTEM MATCHLINE 'A' FIGURE 4-1 �, 1 4 - o min % 6 1 m 1, w ar 6 --. A..—1 ili*]i:..�1 isa, i. !_. t' T �w wa E M E, 1*tlr � 4 f . • !RY s_ G _ a ).�w/ ^ w �* a�r ` , .lic ,, .. I .# a ' � , a , , w t d R r 1 • r .7 , r .._ '' ' . i sg s .{, r r _au . a• ° ,1 tat wr �... R.[tatilk* 04E4.4+4 , , a . C_: s i "I ' r's rt " r .G i , -at W 1 t. ry ,. •fly, -}'. 41 LEGEND '",fit'a r� w. 2" LPS SEWER MAIN 1 .. ! "ta`• 3" LPS SEWER MAIN i . " 4" LPS SEWER MAIN ---- 6" LPS SEWER MAIN MATCHLINE 'A' 8" LPS SEWER MAIN qti ,/'• CUDJOE REGIONAL PROJ NO: 1474 m M AT H E W S t 000' soo' o 000' / WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONSULTING "' SCALE "_ 000' r FlOfld2 Keys CUDJOE KEY DATE: FEB. 2009 � Aqueduct Authority PRELIMINARY LPS COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: LPS-2 Table 4-2 LPS#2 Cudjoe Key Low Pressure Sewer Number of EDUs Current 1736 Number of EDUs Build-Out 2195 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 79526 LF $ 42.00 $ 3,340,092.00 3"Force Main(1) 778 LF $ 48.00 $ 37,344.00 4"Force Main(1) 15023 LF $ 54.00 $ 811,242.00 6"Force Main(1) 1510 LF $ 68 00 $ 102,680.00 8"Force Main(1) 3597 LF $ 90.00 $ 323,730.00 2"Valves 87 EA $ 500.00 $ 43,500.00 3"Valves 0 EA $ 750.00 $ - 4"Valves 20 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 22,000.00 6"Valves 1 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 8"Valves 3 EA $ 2,700.00 $ 8,100.00 Simplex Low Pressure Station(2) 988 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 9,880,000.00 Duplex Low Pressure Station(2) 42 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 504,000.00 Subtotal $ 15,074,688.00 Other Project Cost(3)27% $ 4,070,165.76 Current Estimated Total= $ 19,144,853.76 Current Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 11,028.14 BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 79526 LF $ 42.00 $ 3,340,092.00 3"Force Main(1) 778 LF $ 48.00 $ 37,344.00 4"Force Main(1) 15023 LF $ 54.00 $ 811,242.00 6"Force Main(1) 1510 LF $ 68.00 $ 102,680.00 8"Force Main(1) 3597 LF $ 90.00 $ 323,730.00 2"Valves 87 EA $ 500.00 $ 43,500.00 3"Valves 0 EA $ 750.00 $ - 4"Valves 20 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 22,000.00 6"Valves 1 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 8"Valves 3 EA $ 2,700.00 $ 8,100.00 Simplex Low Pressure Station(2) 1348 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 13,480,000.00 Duplex Low Pressure Station(2) 108 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 1,296,000.00 Subtotal $ 19,466,688.00 Other Project Cost(3)27% $ 5,256,005.76 Build-Out Estimated Total= $ 24,722,693.76 Build-Out Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 11,263.19 Notes: (1)Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration. (2)Cost of LPS Station includes tank,equipment, installation,electrical connection and 1-1/4" lateral with restoration. (3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 4-3 Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Cudjoe Key Low Pressure Sewer Current EDU= 1736 Build Out EDU= 2195 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Add 11 pumps in year 5,12 pumps in year 10,and 12 pumps in year 15 Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead $/KWH= $ 0.10 Electric= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Prevnt.Maint._ $ 30.00 /pump/yr Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr Emergency call out= $ 390.00 /pump/12yr Pump replacement= $2,000.00 /pump/12yr Initial Construction Cost= $19,144,853.76 Calculation of present worth of future construction $5,577,840.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows: In year 5,10,&15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3%inflation,then converted to present worth at I=6% $5,577,840.00/3= $ 1,859,280.00 (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $1,859,280.00x1.1593= $ 2,155,463.30 Construction Cost at year 5 (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $1,859,280.00x1.3439= $ 2,498,686.39 Construction Cost at year 10 (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $1,859,280.O0x1.5580= $ 2,896,758.24 Construction Cost at year 15 Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $2,155,463.30x0.7473= $ 1,610,777.73 (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $2,498,686.39x0.5584= $ 1,395,266.48 (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $2,896,758.24x0.4173= $ 1,208,817.21 Present Worth of future construction= $ 4,214,861.42 Annualize cost of pump replacement and emergency call outs in 12 years and again in 24 years Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3%inflation in 12 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 12 years= 1.4258 ($2,000+$390)x1.4258= $ 3,407.66 per pump Converting the 12 year future pump replacement/emergency call out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 12 years= 0.4970 $3,407.66x0.4970= $ 1,693.61 per pump Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3%inflation in 24 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 24 years= 2.0328 ($2,000+$390)x2.0328= $ 4,858.39 per pump Converting the future pump replacement/emergency call out cost to an annualized cost over 12 years with I=6%gives: (NE)at 6%for 12 years= 0.0593 $4,858.39x0.0593= $ 288.10 per pump/yr By taking the annualized cost for 8 years,a future cost for year 12 can be calculated with I=6%gives: (P'/A)at 6%for 8 years= 8.3838 $288.10x8.3838= $ 2,415.39 in year 12 Converting the annualized cost of future pump replacement/emergency call out cost from year 13 to year 20 to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 12 years= 0.4970 $2,415.39x0.4970= $ 1,200.45 PW of future pump replacement and emergency call out per pump= $ 2,894.06 (12yr and 24yr combined) Converting the present worth of two pump replacements to annualized dollars (A/P)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0872 $2,894.06x0.0872= $ 252.36 per pump/yr Table 4-3(Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Cudjoe Key Low Pressure Sewer Total annualized cost per pump per year: Pump replacement= $ 252.36 /pump/yr Electric= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Prevnt. Maint.= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr Total= $ 314.36 /pumplyr Convert annualized costs to Present Worth Assume pumps will be phased in as follows: Period I: 1072 pumps through year 5 Period II: 1236 pumps from year 6 through year 10 Period III: 1400 pumps from year 11 through year 15 Period IV: 1564 pumps from year 16 through year 20 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $314.36x1072= $336,996.03 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $336,996.03x4.2124= $ 1,419,562.09 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $314.36x1236= $388,551.40 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4 2124 $388.551.40x4.2142= $ 1,636,733.91 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $1,636,733.91x0.7473= $ 1,223,131.25 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III: Period III:Annualized cost= $314.36x1400= $440,106.76 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4,2124 $440,106.76x4.2142= $ 1,853,905.72 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0,5584 $1,853,905.72x0.5584= $ 1,035,220.95 Present Worth for Period Ill Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $314.36x1564= $491,662.12 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $491,662.12x4.2142= $ 2,071,077.53 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $2,071,077.53x0.4173= $ 864,260.65 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods= $ 4,542,174.95 Total Present Worth= $ 27,901,890.13 Present Worth/Current EDUs= $ 16,072.52 Present Worth I Build-Out EDUs= $ 12,711.57 I Cudjoe Key `7',. Ok �-.. SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP (STEP) SYSTEM MATCHUNE 'A' FIGURE 4-2 rt ,,, ,.......... , r. 'rl r I i . _. . .1 :, I. se:‘, ..,, ,. , ,, z r I. - '9ia!ficillt sV'#Y M - / 1 i ou r la I,FA i -. .,.4 '' ,,,, .... 11"-� f°'1945 �'""'^-"...��� _ .. 1�Si� l' i 1- e 7i -,�, ra r q." i' { °Y �.' _ '...�..� dr. -I- .� - _ J Rx Sw � tea• r x / a I• lye- I 3 ,,. >r' t ter 4+ :rat t. _ . d p - r -i 14 � a z is> r , k •--, , fillif ii ° EqHigik It,, 4 gpr.,,, ,r ^_ to LEGEND a P°' - - 2" STEP SEWER MAIN .r 3" STEP SEWER MAIN I r r •' 4" STEP SEWER MAIN �`. '� I -r �• 6" STEP SEWER MAIN MATCHLNE 'A' am, �tr� CUDJOE REGIONAL PROJ NO: 1474 rrn M AT H E W S WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONSULTING''' 1000' soo' 0 l000' � � Florida Keys DATE: FEB. 2009 • ', SCALE 1"a 1000' I .1 �/ Aqueduct AuthorityCUDJOE KEY q PRELIMINARY STEP COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: STEP-2+ Table 4-4 STEP#2 Cudjoe Key STEP Number of EDUs Current 1736 Number of EDUs Build-Out 2195 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 66565 LF S 42.00 $ 2,795,730.00 3"Force Main(1) 9928 LF S 48.00 $ 476,544.00 4"Force Main(1) 3410 LF $ 54.00 $ 184,140.00 6"Force Main(1) 3600 LF $ 68.00 $ 244,800.00 2"Valves 140 EA $ 500.00 $ 70,000.00 3"Valves 70 EA $ 750.00 $ 52,500.00 4"Valves 30 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 33,000.00 6"Valves 19 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 38,000.00 Simplex STEP Station(2) 988 EA $ 14,000.00 $13,832,000.00 Duplex STEP Station(2) 42 EA $ 15,500.00 $ 651,000.00 Subtotal $18,377,714.00 Other Project Cost(3)27% $ 4,961,982.78 Current Estimated Total= $23,339,696.78 Current Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 13,444.53 BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 66565 LF $ 42.00 $ 2,795,730.00 3"Force Main(1) 9928 LF $ 48.00 $ 476,544.00 4"Force Main(1) 3410 LF $ 54.00 $ 184,140.00 6"Force Main(1) 3600 LF $ 68.00 $ 244,800.00 2"Valves 140 EA $ 500.00 $ 70,000.00 3"Valves 70 EA $ 750.00 $ 52,500.00 4"Valves 30 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 33,000.00 6"Valves 19 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 38,000.00 Simplex STEP Station(2) 1348 EA $ 14,000.00 $18,872,000.00 Duplex STEP Station(2) 108 EA $ 15,500.00 $ 1,674,000.00 Subtotal $24,440,714.00 Other Project Cost(3)27% $ 6,598,992.78 Build-Out Estimated Total= $31,039,706.78 Build-Out Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 14,141.10 Notes: (1)Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration. (2)Cost of STEP Station includes tank,equipment, installation,electrical connection and 1-1/4" lateral with restoration. (3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 4-5 Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Cudjoe Key STEP Collection System Current EDU= 1736 Build Out EDU= 2195 Assumptions: Inflation= 3°% Interest rate= 6% Add 11 pumps in year 5,12 pumps in year 10,and 12 pumps in year 15 Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead $/KWH= $ 0.10 Electric= $ 20.00 /pump/yr Prevnt.Maint.= $ 271.30 /pump/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is derived from data from Charlotte County. Nine Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr people work full time to maintain 6,900 STEP units. Emergency call out= $ 390.00 /pump/5yr Tank pump out= $ 400,00 /pump/5yr Pump replacement= $ 870.00 /pump/20yr Initial Construction Cost= $ 23,339,696.78 Calculation of present worth of future construction $7,700,010.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows: In year 5,10,&15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3%inflation,then converted to present worth at I=6% $7,700,010.00/3= $ 2,566,670.00 (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $2,566,670.00x1.1593= $ 2,975,540.53 Construction Cost at year 5 (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $2,566,670.00x1.3439= $ 3,449,347.81 Construction Cost at year 10 (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $2,566,670.00x1.5580= $ 3,998,871.86 Construction Cost at year 15 Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $2,975,540.53x0.7473= $ 2,223,621.44 (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $3,449,347.81x0.5584= $ 1,926,115.82 (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $3,998,871.86x0.4173= $ 1,668,729.23 Present Worth of future construction=I$ 5,818,466.48 Annualize cost of pump replacement Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 20 years= 1.8061 $870.00x1.8061= $ 1,571.31 per pump Converting the emergency call out cost to an annualized cost over 20 years with I=6%gives (A/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0 0272 $1,571_31x0.0272= $ 42.74 per pump/yr Annualize cost of emergency call outs and tank pump outs in 5,10,15,&20 years Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 5 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $790x1 1593= $ 915 85 per pump Converting the 5 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $915.85x0.7473= $ 684.41 per pump Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 10 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $790x1.3439= $ 1,061.68 per pump Converting the 10 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives. (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $1,061.68x0.5584= $ 592.84 per pump Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 15 yrs (F/P)at 3510 for 15 years= 1.5580 $790x1.5580= $ 1,230.82 per pump Table 4-5(Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Cudjoe Key STEP Collection System Converting the 15 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $1,230.82x0.4173= $ 513.62 per pump Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 20 years= 1.8061 $790x1.8061= $ 1,426.82 per pump Converting the 20 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.3118 $1,426.82x0.3118= $ 444.88 per pump PW of future emergency call out per pump= $ 2,235.76 (5,10,15,&20yr combined) Converting the present worth of emergency call out and tank pump out cost to annualized dollars (A/P)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0872 $2,235.76x0.0872= $ 194.96 per pump/yr Total annualized cost per pump per year: Pump Replacement= $ 42.74 /pump/yr Emerg.Call Out&Pump Out= $ 194.96 /pump/yr Electric= $ 20.00 /pump/yr Prevnt.Maint._ $ 271.30 /pump/yr Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr Total= $ 531.00 /pump/yr Convert annualized costs to Present Worth Assume pumps will be phased in as follows: Period I:1072 pumps through year 5 Period II:1236 pumps from year 6 through year 10 Period III' 1400 pumps from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:1564 pumps from year 16 through year 20 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $531.00x1072= $569,229.52 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $569,229,52x4,2124= $ 2,397,822.45 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $531.00x1236= $656,313.15 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $656,313.15x4.2142= $ 2,764,653.49 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $2,764,653.49x0.7473= $ 2,066,025.55 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III: Period III:Annualized cost= $531.00x1400= $743,396.77 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $743,396.77x4.2142= $ 3,131,484.54 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $3,131,484.54x0.5584= $ 1,748,620.97 Present Worth for Period III Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $531.00x1564= $830,480.39 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $830,480.39x4.2142= $ 3,498,315.58 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $3,498,315.58x0.4173= $ 1,459,847.09 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods= $ 7,672,316.06 Total Present Worth= $ 36,830,479.33 Present Worth/Current EDUs= $ 21,215.71 Present Worth/Build-Out EDUs= $ 16,779.26 (alCudjoe Key 011 iVACUUM SEWER SYSTEM ,1 MATCHLINE 'A' FIGURE 4-3 F. 1,t;1111 Cr Ate'. .�1, ,t, ,A3"`" { _ . ..... i � 1 • c A! y t �1 a .. •, y yyy,,,������ _ .. .sM 1 is x �J j t1 - SlKkla. r` ist, ., �' . i ir,,C,a t.. r i 9, LEGEND I .;.,.." 1 ,; , ,: 4° k S `I •yA ,i y 4"VACUUM SEWER MAIN ------ - ro ~'4 6"V::::::::: 8"V ,e DIVISION VALVE ►♦ `° � �. }� MATCHLINE 'A' VACUUM STATION Li s w + , CUDJOE REGIONAL PROJ NO: 1474 rrn M AT H E W S `mow '! DATE: FEB. 2009 CONSULTING O1C ,000' soc' o ,000' `w � Florida Keys __ WASTEWATER SYSTEM rd .,,,,r," SCALE. ,'=,00c' r::: \,_ , Aqueduct Authority CUDJOE KEY `- tea. PRELIMINARY VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: VS-2 Table 4-6 VS#2 Cudjoe Key Vacuum Sewer Number of EDUs Current 1736 Number of EDUs Build-Out 2195 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 4"Vacuum Main(1) 85341 LF $ 66.00 $ 5,632,506.00 6"Vacuum Main(1) 17400 LF $ 73.70 $ 1,282,380.00 8"Vacuum Main(1) 9600 LF S 80.00 $ 768,000.00 4"Division Valves 89 EA $ 1,210.00 $ 107,690.00 6"Division Valves 16 EA S 1,650.00 $ 26,400.00 8"Division Valves 6 EA $ 2,200 00 $ 13,200.00 Force Main(1) 100 LF S 68.00 $ 6,800.00 8"Plulg Valves 2 EA S 2,600 00 $ 5,200 00 Vacuum Valve Pits(2) 527 EA $ 13,000.00 $ 6,851,000.00 Vacuum Station(3) 2 EA S 1,500,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Subtotal $17,693,176.00 Other Project Cost(4)27% $ 4,777,157.52 Current Estimated Total= $22,470,333.52 Current Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 12,943.74 BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 4"Vacuum Main (1) 85341 LF $ 66.00 $ 5,632,506.00 6"Vacuum Main(1) 17400 LF $ 73.70 $ 1,282,380.00 8"Vacuum Main(1) 9600 LF $ 80.00 $ 768,000.00 4"Division Valves 89 EA $ 1,210 00 $ 107,690.00 6"Division Valves 16 EA S 1,650.00 $ 26,400 00 8"Division Valves 6 EA S 2,200.00 $ 13,200.00 Force Main(1) 100 LF $ 68.00 $ 6,800.00 8"Plulg Valves 2 EA $ 2,600 00 $ 5,200 00 Vacuum Valve Pits(2) 705 EA $ 13,000.00 $ 9,165,000.00 Vacuum Station(3) 2 EA $1,500,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Subtotal $20,007,176.00 Other Project Cost(4)27% $ 5,401,937.52 Build-Out Estimated Total= $25,409,113.52 Build-Out Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 11,575.91 Notes: (1) Cost of force mains and vacuum mains includes trench repair and road restoration. (2) Valve pit cost includes: $ 3,500 for purchase of valve&pits $ 5,000 for installation of valve&pits $ 3,000 for laterals $ 1,500 for cross-overs from pit to vacuum main $ 13,000 Total (3) Vacuum stations include: Vacuum station equipment Odor control Construction of concrete building with underground construction and bathroom Emergency back-up generator Telemetry Cost of Land (Cost of legal/real estate fees,public notice and public hearings have not been included.) (4) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 4-7 Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Cudjoe Key Vacuum Sewer Collection System Current EDU= 1736 Build Out EDU= 2195 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Add 1 vacuum pit in year 5,1 vacuum pit in year 10,and 0 vacuum pits in year 15 Add 2 EDUs in year 5,2 EDUs year 10,and 2 EDUs in year 15 Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead $/KWH= $ 0.10 Power= $ 2.92 /EDU/month Station Maint.= $ 49,750.00 per year 497.5 hr/yr @$100/hr Prevnt.Maint.= $ 452.00 /valve/yr Public Education= $ 1.50 /EDU/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is based on FKAA's experience at Little Venice. One Vac.Valve Rebuild= $ 35.25 /valve/10yrs full time person is required to maintian a vacuum station with 350 Valve Pits Initial Construction Cost=I$ 22,470,333.52 I NOTE: The cost for land to accommodate the vacuum lift station is not included in this present worth cost analysis. Calculation of present worth of future construction 52,938,780.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows: In year 5,10,&15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3%inflation,then converted to present worth at I=6°/ 52,938,780.00/3= $ 979,593 33 (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $976,593.33x1.1593= $ 1,135,642.55 Construction Cost at year 5 (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1 3439 $976,593.33x1_3439= $ 1,316,475.48 Construction Cost at year 10 (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $976,593.33x1.5580= $ 1,526,206.41 Construction Cost at year 15 Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $1,135,642.55x0.7473= $ 848,665.68 (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $1,316,475.48x0.5584= $ 735,119.91 (PiF)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $1,526,206.41x0.4173= $ 636,885.94 Present Worth of future construction=I$ 2,220,671.52 Annualize cost of all Vacuum Valve/Controller Maintenance per Vacuum Valve Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3%inflation in 10 yrs (F/P)a1 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $35.25x1.3439= $ 47.37 per vacuum valve at year 10 Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 20 years= 1.8061 $35.25x1.8061= $ 63.67 per vacuum valve at year 20 Converting all the future maintenance cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $47.37x0.5584= $ 26.45 per vacuum valve (P/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.3118 $63.67x0.3118= $ 19.85 per vacuum valve Present Worth of future maintenance cost per vacuum valve= $ 46.30 Calculating the annualized cost per valve over 20 years at I=6%gives (A/P)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0872 $46.30x0.0872= $ 4.04 per vacuum valve per year Adding the annualize cost of preventive maintenance gives a total annualized cost per valve of: $452.00+54 04= $ 456.04 per vacuum valve per year Convert annualized Vacuum Valve Maintenance cost to Present Worth Assume vacuum valves will be phased in as follows. Period I,527 vacuum valves through year 5 Period II:587 vacuum valves from year 6 through year 10 Period III:646 vacuum valves from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:705 vacuum valves from year 16 through year 20 Table 4-7(Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Cudjoe Key Vacuum Sewer Collection System Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $456.04x527= $240,331.85 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $240,331.85x4.2124= $ 1,012,373.89 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $456.04x587= $267,694.11 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $267,694.11x4.2142= $ 1,127,634.68 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $1,127,634.68x0.7473= $ 842,681.39 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period III: Period III:Annualized cost= $456.04x646= $294,600.33 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $294,600.33x4.2142= $ 1,240,974.45 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $1,240,974.45x0.5584= $ 692,960.13 Present Worth for Period III Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $456.04x705= $321,506.56 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $321,506.56x4.2142= $ 1,354,314.22 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $1,354,314.22x0.4173= $ 565,155.32 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized valve maintenance cost for all periods=I$ 3,113,170.74 1 Convert annualized Power Cost and Public Education cost to Present Worth Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows: Period I:1736 EDUs through year 5 Period II:1889 EDUs from year 6 through year 10 Period III:2042 EDUs from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:2195 EDUs from year 16 through year 20 Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.921EDU/month)x(12 months/year)+$1.50/EDU/yr= $ 36.54 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $36.54x1736= $ 63,433.44 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $63,433.44x4.2124= $ 267,207.02 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $36,54x1889= $ 69,024.06 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $69,024.06x4.2142= $ 290,756.95 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $290,756.95x0.7473= $ 217,282.67 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period III: Period III:Annualized cost= $36.54x2042= $ 74,614.68 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $74,614.68x4.2142= $ 314.306.88 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0,5584 $314,306.88x0.5584= $ 175,508.96 Present Worth for Period Ill Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $36.54x2195= $ 80,205.30 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $80,205.30x4.2142= $ 337,856.81 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $337,856.81x0.4173= $ 140,987.65 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized power&education costs for all periods=' $ 800,986.30 Convert annualized Vacuum Station Maintenance Cost to Present Worth Annualized portion of vacuum station maintenance cost to be charged to service area is: $49,750.00'2= $ 99,500.00 per year (P/A)at 6%for 20 years= 11.4699 $99,500.00'11.4699='$ 1,141,255.05 'Present Worth of Vacuum Station Maint. Total Present Worth= $ 29,746,417.13 Present Worth/Current EDUs= $ 17,135.03 Present Worth/Build-Out EDUs= $ 13,551.90 raCudjoe Key r• • GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM FIGURE 4-4 MATCHLINE 'A' 1; 1 w mow., .i fir I h.- '. _ g'Eit i.°[Yi '(fi Wiz,. ,+. �_ f 1',.1 1 a, ;:►':r ..Yap' . r : . ='----, iR -4'7 • `"' _ f • r .r•—.——:$•-:S:" ". t s. liJ� r� f � 1 411 i✓ �4 { 3:._fY ,1. r k: 1 . L_.;a k_"i y.._, .,.,. N t 1 jjrt' J y a •_ �Lr., I.i . , _ I .; ,..,.. r ' LEGEND Iii - \ \\,e LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN o 1, 'r-\ 'yip ♦ 1MANHOLE AND GRAVITY MAIN - �o� '. ,J , .. i;.11---fl A MASTER LIFT STATION t i+ MATCHLINE 'A' i;1 ,*/ MATHEWS /P. CUDJOE REGIONAL PROJ NO: 1474 rrn MATHEWS S loop' soo' o 000' Florida KeysWASTEWATER SYSTEM CONSULTING,,ry ,� CUDJOE KEY DATE: FEB. 2009 SCALE: 1a=1000' Aqueduct Authority PRELIMINARY GRAVITY COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: GS-2 Table 4-8 Gravity#2 w/Mathews Consulting Updated Costs Cudjoe Key Gravity Sewer Number of EDUs Current 1736 Number of EDUs Build-Out 2195 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Manholes 293 LF $ 6,000.00 $ 1,758,000.00 8"Gravity Sewers 76605 LF $ 118.00 $ 9,039,390.00 6"Service Laterals 25275 LF $ 78.00 $ 1,971,450.00 Force Mains 55702 LF $ 54.00 $ 3,007,908.00 Concrete Lift Station 19 EA $ 131,000.00 $ 2,489,000.00 Primary Lift Station S11 1 EA $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 Subtotal $18,615,748.00 Pavement Restoration(30%of Gravity Sewer Cost) $ 2,711,817.00 Construction Cost $21,327,565.00 Other Project Costs (1)27% $ 5,758,442.55 Estimated Total= $27,086,007.55 Estimated Cost/EDU Present= $ 15,602.54 Estimated CostJEDU Build-Out= $ 12,339.87 (1) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 4-9 Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Cudjoe Key Gravity Sewer System Current EDU= 1736 Build Out EDU= 2195 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead S/KWH= $ 0.10 Power= $ 2.72 /EDU/month Prevnt.Maint.= $ 7,500.00 /station/yr 75 hr/station @$100/hr Pump replacement= $ 20.000.00 /station/10 yr Initial Construction Cost= $ 27,086,007.55 Present worth of pump replacement in 10 years and again in 20 years Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3%inflation in 10 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $20,000x1.3439= $ 26,878.00 per station Converting the 10 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $26,878.00x0.5584= $ 15,008.68 per station Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 20 years= 1.8061 $20,000x1.8061= $ 36,122.00 per station Converting the 20 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.3118 $36,122.00x0.3118= $ 11,262.84 per station The Study Area will be charged for maintenance at 1.32 stations Total Present worth of pump replacements ($15,008.68+$11,262.84)'20= $ 525,430.30 Present worth of preventative maintenance for 20 lift stations: Convert the annualized cost per station to present worth gives: (P/A)at 6%for 20 years= 11.4699 $15,000'20.11.4699= $ 1,720,485.00 Total annualized cost per EDU per year: Power= $ 2.72 /EDU/month Convert annualized costs per EDU to Present Worth Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows: Period I: 1736 EDUs through year 5 Period II: 1889 EDUs from year 6 through year 10 Period III:2042 EDUs from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:2195 EDUs from year 16 through year 20 Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.72/EDU/month)x(12 months/year)= $ 32.64 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $32.64x1736= $56,663.04 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $56,663.04x4.2124= $ 238,687.39 Present Worth for Period Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $32.64x1889= $61,656.96 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $61,656.96x4.2142= $ 259,723.78 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $259,7236.78x0.7473= $ 194,091.58 Present Worth for Period II Table 4-9 (Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Cudjoe Key Gravity Sewer System Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period III: Period Ill:Annualized cost= $32.64x2042= $66,650.88 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $66,650.88x4.2142= $ 280,760.17 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $280,760.17x0.5584= $ 156,776.48 Present Worth for Period III Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $32.64x2195= $71,644.80 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $71,644.80x4.2142= $ 301,796.56 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $301,796.56x0.4173= $ 125,939.70 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized cost per EDU for all periods= $ 715,495.15 Total Present Worth= $30,047,418.00 Present Worth I Current EDUs= $ 17,308.42 Present Worth/Build-Out EDUs= $ 13,689.03 el\Section 5 Stud Area - Summerland K Y ey 5.0 Study Area — Summerland Key Summerland Key is located between Mile Markers 23 and 25. Summerland Key lies between Cudjoe Key and Ramrod Key. Summerland Key has 56 developed commercial lots with room for 77 at build-out within the sewer service area. Currently 715 residential lots are occupied with low to high density. At build-out 838 lots are expected to be occupied. Since Summerland Key has developed 85% of the build-out lots, opportunities exist to utilize alternative collections systems to defer a portion of construction cost. The sewer collection systems evaluated for this area are listed below in the order they appear. ■ Low Pressure Sewer/Grinder Collection System (LPS) (refer to Figure 5-1) ■ STEP Effluent Collection System (refer to Figure 5-2) ■ Vacuum Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 5-3) ■ Gravity Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 5-4) For each system, a preliminary design was developed on an aerial map. A construction cost opinion was developed utilizing recent bid information from the Keys and gathering information from system suppliers. A present worth cost analysis was performed for each potential sewer collection system using O&M data from EPA, published technical reports, engineering reports, system operator interviews and vendors' data. Table 5-1 provides a summary of present worth cost (including construction, operation, and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer collection system. A twenty year present worth cost analysis (e.g. Lifecycle costs) was calculated based on an interest rate of 6°/0 and an inflation rate of 3%. Mathews Consulting 5 - 1 5.0 Study Area — Summerland Key Table 5-1 Summerland Key Present Worth Summary for Each Type of Sewer Collection System Type of Sewer Collection System LPS STEP Vacuum Gravity Initial Construction Cost $ 13,813,091.50 $ 17,473,919.84 $ 13,055,612.70 $ 17,700,172.37 Future Construction Cost $ 1,882,140.00 $ 2,600,325.00 $ 1,320,800.00 0 Present Worth of Future Construction S 1,422,227.83 $ 1,964,920.03 $ 998,054.62 0 Total Present Worth of Construction Cost S 15,235,319.33 $ 19,438,839.87 $ 14,053,667.32 $ 17,700,172.37 Present Worth of O&M Cost $ 3,208,979.70 $ 5,420,378.29 $ 3,196,563.44 $ 2,129,699.04 Total Present Worth $ 18,444,299.03 $ 24,859,218.16 $ 17,250,230.76 $ 19,829,871.41 PW of Construction Cost/EDU @ Build-Out $ 15,467.33 $ 19,734.86 $ 14,267.68 $ 17,969.72 Total Present Worth/EDU @ Build- Out $ 18,725.18 $ 25,237.78 $ 17,512.92 $ 20,131.85 EDUs @ Build-Out= 985 Summerland Key $30,000,000.00 ■Present Worth $25,000.000.00 of O&M Cost $20,000,000.00 - $15,000,000.00 ■Total Present Worth of $10,000,000.00 Construction Cost $5,000,000.00 $- LP STEP Vacuum Gravity Type of Sewer Collection System Mathews Consulting 5 - 2 5.0 Study Area — Summerland Key An explanation for each row heading in Table 5-1 is provided below: Initial Construction Cost: The construction cost required to provide the existing developed lots with sewer service. Future Construction Cost: The portion of the construction cost required to serve future residents that can be differed. Conventional gravity sewer systems cannot be easily expanded to pick up additional users. The infrastructure necessary to serve future residents is included in the Initial Construction Cost for gravity sewer systems. That is why this column for gravity is $0. Present Worth of Future Cost: Future construction was assumed to occur 5, 10, and 15 years after initial construction. The future construction expense was discounted to present worth dollars. Total Present Worth of Construction Cost: The sum of Initial Construction Cost and Present Worth of Future Construction Cost. Present Worth of O&M Cost: The cost of all forecasted operation and maintenance cost over a 20 year period discounted to present worth dollars. Total Present Worth: The sum of Total Present Worth of Construction Cost and Present Worth of O&M Cost. PW of Construction Cost/EDU @ Build-Out: The Total Present Worth of Construction Cost divided by the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at build-out. Total Present Worth/EDU @ Build-Out: The Total Present Worth divided by the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at build-out. As shown on Table 5-1, the lowest initial construction cost and lowest present worth cost to provide sewer service to Summerland Key is the Vacuum Collection System. However, low density outer areas (with 8 to 10 houses) could be served by a low pressure system. However, to be consistent with other collection systems in this Central Cudjoe Region, a hybrid system utilizing gravity sewer in high density areas and low pressure sewer in low to medium density areas is probably better suited from an operational standpoint. As the system is further designed, the Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree (see Section 6.0) should be used to determine the most optimum hybrid system for either a vacuum collection system/low pressure system or a low pressure system/gravity collection system for this service area. Another important factor that will be considered in selecting a wastewater collection system will be a "Policy Decision" by FKAA regarding the type of system(s) that they plan to operate and maintain in their Service Areas. Mathews Consulting 5 - 3 raill Summerland Key 01 �A LOW PRESSURE/GRINDER ` PUMP SYSTEM 1ii FIGURE 5-1 y ,, p r, n k• .r a" : :: : : -.'" of "}.y, f Yy. LEGEND Yy%,ir 2" LPS SEWER MAIN 3" LPS SEWER MAIN 4" LPS SEWER MAIN 6" LPS SEWER MAIN „` ■` FKM LOWER KEYS PROJ NO: 1474 rrn MATHEWS CONSULTING uvc 1000' 500' 0 1000' '. Florida Ke s WASTEWATER SYSTEM ( SULTING - "� �_� I - y — SUMMERLAND KEY DATE: FEB. 2009 -" SCALE. 1"=1000• \',�" Aqueduct Authority `� PRELIMINARY LPS COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: LPS-3 Table 5-2 LPS#3 Summerland Key Low Pressure Sewer Number of EDUs Current 830 Number of EDUs Build-Out 985 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 29525 LF $ 42.00 $ 1,240,050.00 3"Force Main(1) 1825 LF $ 48.00 $ 87,600.00 4"Force Main(1) 23825 LF $ 54.00 $ 1,286,550.00 6"Force Main(1) 5700 LF $ 68.00 $ 387,600.00 2"Valves 36 EA $ 500.00 $ 18,000.00 3"Valves 3 EA $ 750.00 $ 2,250.00 4"Valves 24 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 26,400.00 6"Valves 3 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Simplex Low Pressure Station(2) 715 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 7,150,000.00 Duplex Low Pressure Station(2) 56 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 672,000.00 Subtotal $10,876,450.00 Other Project Cost(3)27% $ 2,936,641.50 Current Estimated Total= $13,813,091.50 Current Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 16,642.28 BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 29525 LF $ 42.00 $ 1,240,050.00 3"Force Main(1) 1825 LF $ 48.00 $ 87,600.00 4"Force Main(1) 23825 LF $ 54.00 $ 1,286,550,00 6"Force Main(1) 5700 LF $ 68.00 $ 387,600.00 2"Valves 36 EA $ 500.00 $ 18,000.00 3"Valves 3 EA $ 750.00 $ 2,250.00 4"Valves 24 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 26,400.00 6"Valves 3 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Simplex Low Pressure Station(2) 838 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 8,380,000.00 Duplex Low Pressure Station(2) 77 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 924,000.00 Subtotal $12,358,450.00 Other Project Cost(3)27% $ 3,336,781.50 Build-Out Estimated Total= $15,695,231.50 Build-Out Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 15,934.25 Notes: (1)Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration. (2)Cost of LPS Station includes tank,equipment, installation,electrical connection and 1-1/4" lateral with restoration. (3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 5-3 Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Summerland Key Low Pressure/Grinder System Current EDU= 830 Build Out EDU= 985 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Add 11 pumps in year 5, 12 pumps in year 10,and 12 pumps in year 15 Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead $/KWH= $ 0.10 Electric= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Prevnt.Maint.= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr Emergency call out= $ 390.00 /pump/12yr Pump replacement= $ 2,000.00 /pump/12yr Initial Construction Cost= $ 13,813,091.50 Calculation of present worth of future construction $1,882,140.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows: In year 5, 10,&15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3%inflation,then converted to present worth at I =6% $1,882,140.00/3= $ 627,380.00 (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $627,380.00x1.1593= $ 727,321.63 Construction Cost at year 5 (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $627,380.00x1.3439= $ 843,135.98 Construction Cost at year 10 (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $627,380.00x1.5580= $ 977,458.04 Construction Cost at year 15 Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $727,321.63x0.7473= $ 543,527.46 (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $843,135.98x0.5584= $ 470,807.13 (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $977,458.04x0.4173= $ 407,893.24 Present Worth of future construction= $ 1,422,227.83 Annualize cost of pump replacement and emergency call outs in 12 years and again in 24 years Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3%inflation in 12 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 12 years= 1.4258 ($2,000+$390)x1.4258= S 3.407.66 per pump Converting the 12 year future pump replacement/emergency call out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 12 years= 0.4970 $3,407.66x0.4970= $ 1,693.61 per pump Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3%inflation in 24 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 24 years= 2.0328 ($2,000+$390)x2.0328= $ 4,858.39 per pump Converting the future pump replacement/emergency call out cost to an annualized cost over 12 years with I=6%gives: (A/F)at 6%for 12 years= 0.0593 $4,858.39x0.0593= $ 288.10 per pump/yr By taking the annualized cost for 8 years,a future cost for year 12 can be calculated with I=6%gives: (P'/A)at 6%for 8 years= 8.3838 $288.10x8.3838= $ 2,415.39 in year 12 Converting the annualized cost of future pump replacement/emergency call out cost from year 13 to year 20 to Present Worth with I= 6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 12 years= 0.4970 $2,415.39x0.4970= $ 1,200.45 PW of future pump replacement and emergency call out per pump= $ 2,894.06 (12yr and 24yr combined) Converting the present worth of two pump replacements to annualized dollars (A/P)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0872 $2,894.06x0.0872= $ 252.36 per pump/yr Table 5-3(Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Summerland Key Low Pressure/Grinder System Total annualized cost per pump per year: Pump replacement= $ 252.36 /pump/yr Electric= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Prevnt.Maint.= $ 30.00 /pump/yr Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr Total= $ 314.36 /pump/yr Convert annualized costs to Present Worth Assume pumps will be phased in as follows: Period I:827 pumps through year 5 Period II:882 pumps from year 6 through year 10 Period III:937 pumps from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:992 pumps from year 16 through year 20 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $314.36x827= $259,977.35 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $259,977.35x4.2124= $ 1,095,128.59 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $314.36x882= $277,267.26 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4,2124 $277.267.26x4.2142= $ 1,167,960.60 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $1,167,960.60x0.7473= $ 872,816.96 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III: Period Ill:Annualized cost= $314.36x937= $294,557.17 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $294,557.17x4.2142= $ 1,240,792.61 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $1,240,792.61x0.5584= $ 692,858.59 Present Worth for Period Ill Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $314.36x992= $311,847.08 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4 2124 $311,847.08x4.2142= $ 1,313,624.62 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $1,313,624.62x0.4173= $ 548,175.56 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods= $ 3,208,979.70 Total Present Worth= $ 18,444,299.03 Present Worth I Current EDUs= $ 22,222.05 Present Worth I Build-Out EDUs= $ 18,725.18 (AblIN Summerland Key ill lit4 .-•., 0 �-'-, SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP 4Qy i (STEP) SYSTEM FIGURE 5-2 Z�. .-A�Ftr., a r4 0 '. � ;,.,rnp,¢i.� ":a ,t 1 tq��, ,. ' rya xii„ z .:4� ram ,.r.> ''''-'*::: fiwtii} kti ,tilkiimt4 1.,‘ . .S1;''',,---:'5,"‘:- iiii, \i .,.. . _ . .. '.„, , • .-.,4,.. '.; „-,, .._ .,. ., ,,_A 41k .,.... „,,,.., ... i... , , .. , ,, i.or: .,. . ....... , 4‘ ._ 1 . ;41,, . ..,,,,,,. c, ,,..„.....4,...,..i.,.. ,74 ,...,..,..t„.. , ,,, ., ..,*,,„4.:fril....,:.„;:t.,,,,,,.,,.. ,,a ,..,..: . .•:1,, , ,,:t, �• LEGEND I :. 2" STEP SEWER MAIN 3" STEP SEWER MAIN 4" STEP SEWER MAIN 6" STEP SEWER MAIN (Tr) MAT H E W S ft FKM LOWER KEYS PROJ NO: 1474 ONSULTING' .:no' oc' ,oco Florida Keys WASTEWATER SYSTEM y DATE: FEB. 2009 - • • ',CALE. 1"-.1000 m m . . . Aqueduct Authority SUMMERLANDOLE KEY � PRELIMINARY STEP COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: STEP-3 Table 5-4 STEP#3 Summerland Key STEP Number of EDUs Current 830 Number of EDUs Build-Out 985 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 37218 LF $ 42.00 $ 1,563,156.00 3"Force Main(1) 5882 LF $ 48.00 $ 282,336.00 4"Force Main(1) 4840 LF $ 54.00 $ 261,360.00 6"Force Main(1) 10605 LF $ 68.00 $ 721,140.00 2"Valves 46 EA $ 500.00 $ 23,000.00 3"Valves 4 EA $ 750.00 $ 3,000.00 4"Valves 10 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 11,000.00 6"Valves 8 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 16,000.00 Simplex STEP Station(2) 715 EA $ 14,000.00 $10,010,000.00 Duplex STEP Station(2) 56 EA $ 15,500.00 $ 868,000.00 Subtotal $13,758,992.00 Other Project Cost(3)27% $ 3,714,927.84 Present Estimated Total= $17,473,919.84 Present Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 21,052.92 BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2"Force Main(1) 37218 LF $ 42.00 $ 1,563,156.00 3"Force Main(1) 5882 LF $ 48.00 $ 282,336.00 4"Force Main(1) 4840 LF $ 54.00 $ 261,360.00 6"Force Main(1) 10605 LF $ 68.00 $ 721,140.00 2"Valves 46 EA $ 500.00 $ 23,000.00 3"Valves 4 EA $ 750.00 $ 3,000.00 4"Valves 10 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 11,000.00 6"Valves 8 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 16,000.00 Simplex STEP Station(2) 838 EA $ 14,000.00 $11,732,000.00 Duplex STEP Station(2) 77 EA $ 15,500.00 $ 1,193,500.00 Subtotal $15,806,492.00 Other Project Cost(3)27% $ 4,267,752.84 Build-Out Estimated Total= $20,074,244.84 Build-Out Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 20,379.94 Notes: (1)Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration. (2)Cost of STEP Station includes tank,equipment,installation,electrical connection and 1-1/4" lateral with restoration. (3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 5-5 Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Summerland Key STEP Collection System Current EDU= 830 Build Out EDU= 985 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Add 11 pumps in year 5, 12 pumps in year 10,and 12 pumps in year 15 Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead S/KWH= $ 0.10 Electric= $ 20.00 /pump/yr Prevnt.Maint,= $ 271.30 /pump/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is derived from data from Charlotte County. Nine Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr people work full time to maintain 6,900 STEP units. Emergency call out= $ 390.00 /pump/5yr Tank pump out= $ 400.00 /pump/5yr Pump replacement= $ 870.00 (pump/20yr Initial Construction Cost $ 17,473,919.84j Calculation of present worth of future construction $2,600,325.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows: In year 5, 10,&15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3%inflation,then converted to present worth at I=6% 62,600,325.00/3= $ 866,775.00 (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $866,755.00x1.1593= $ 1,004,852.26 Construction Cost at year 5 (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $866,755.00x1.3439= $ 1,164,858.92 Construction Cost at year 10 (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $866,755.00x1.5580= $ 1,350,435.45 Construction Cost at year 15 Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $1,004,852.26x0.7473= $ 750,926.09 (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $1,164,858.92x0.5584= $ 650,457.22 (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $1,350,435.45x0.4173= $ 563,536.71 Present Worth of future construction=I $ 1,964,920.03 Annualize cost of pump replacement Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 20 years= 1.8061 $870.0ox1.8061= $ 1,571.31 per pump Converting the emergency call out cost to an annualized cost over 20 years with I=6%gives: (A/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0272 $1,571.31x0.0272= $ 42.74 per pump/yr Annualize cost of emergency call outs and tank pump outs in 5,10,15,&20 years Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 5 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $790x1.1593= $ 915.85 per pump Converting the 5 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $915.85x0.7473= $ 684.41 per pump Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 10 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $790x1.3439= $ 1,061.68 per pump Converting the 10 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $1,061.68x0.5584= $ 592.84 per pump Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 15 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $790x1.5580= $ 1,230.82 per pump Table 5-5(Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Summerland Key STEP Collection System Converting the 15 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $1,230.82x0.4173= $ 513.62 per pump Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 20 years= 1.8061 $790x1.8061= $ 1,426.82 per pump Converting the 20 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.3118 $1,426.82x0.3118= $ 444.88 per pump PW of future emergency call out per pump= $ 2,235.76 (5, 10, 15,&20yr combined) Converting the present worth of emergency call out and tank pump out cost to annualized dollars (A/P)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0872 $2,235.76x0.0872= $ 194.96 per pump/yr Total annualized cost per pump per year: Pump Replacement= $ 42.74 /pump/yr Emerg.Call Out&Pump Out= $ 194 96 /pump/yr Electric= $ 20.00 /pump/yr Prevnt.Maint.= $ 271.30 /pump/yr Public Education= $ 2.00 /pump/yr Total= $ 531.00 /pump/yr Convert annualized costs to Present Worth Assume pumps will be phased in as follows: Period I:827 pumps through year 5 Period II:882 pumps from year 6 through year 10 Period III:937 pumps from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:992 pumps from year 16 through year 20 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $531.00x827= $439,135.09 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $439,135.09x4.2124= $ 1,849,812.65 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $531.00x882= $468,339.96 /yr (PIA)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $468,339.96x4.2142= $ 1,972,835.26 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $1,972,835.26x0.7473= $ 1,474,299.79 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III: Period III:Annualized cost= $531.00x937= $497,544.84 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $497,544.84x4.2142= $ 2,095,857.87 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $2,095,857.87x0.5584= $ 1,170,327.03 Present Worth for Period III Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $531.00x992= $ 526,749.71 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $526,749.71x4.2142= $ 2,218,880.47 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $2,218,880.47x0.4173= $ 925,938.82 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods= $ 5,420,378.29 Total Present Worth= $ 24,859,218.16 Present Worth I Current EDUs= $ 29,950.87 Present Worth/Build-Out EDUs= $ 25,237.78 drag _ 0 Summerland Key VACUUM SEWER SYSTEM l FIGURE 5-3 )1 ..... : - ' ONO cc ‘..40. • - 111 , j 1 - „:„,,,,„....... ......L.ritioa,.. stiokfligii—;4, , i ,, intifiktro 7— - 1 11 111 ' ----4"...."..""....."--.--7' '" A.1,1W1/11 % • .... ...... k....,,..,..L....,31,1ot 141.,• ,0; ,,,,,igirit v. ._._.- 1.....t......+44c,,, , _ , t..................... .‘ ''''''...„.„.....„,... . ... ...." 4 i .. . . ..- ..... 1 • --. .. 1 1k • . •i,,, , „, - • . -• , - t .., -,. .-... A, LEGEND • 4'VACUUM SEWER MAIN — i •-• . , 6"VACUUM SEWER MAIN 8"VACUUM SEWER MAIN *.'N 10"VACUUM SEWER MAIN (. DIVISION VALVE +4 .I.' . . VACUUM STATION FKM LOWER KEYS PROJ NO: 1474 (rti MATHEWS /F:1 000 0 500 Florid 00' ' Keys WASTEWATER SYSTEM DATE FEB 2009 I 0 ' 1 ' s'-- a.1••-•:" CONSULTING"- • -I: SUMMERLAND KEY SCALE 1.=1000' MONAILI.JEFIANIIIMI=MOM V_73, Aqueduct Authority PRELIMINARY VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG VS-3 'ft• Table 5-6 VS#3 Summerland Key Vacuum Sewer Number of EDUs Current 830 Number of EDUs Build-Out 985 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 4"Vacuum Main(1) 33700 LF $ 66.00 $ 2,224,200.00 6"Vacuum Main(1) 10200 LF $ 73.70 $ 751,740.00 8"Vacuum Main(1) 5230 LF $ 80.00 $ 418,400.00 10"Vacuum Main(1) 1080 LF $ 86.00 $ 92,880.00 4"Division Valves 44 EA $ 1,210.00 $ 53,240.00 6"Division Valves 15 EA $ 1,650.00 $ 24,750.00 8"Division Valves 4 EA $ 2,200.00 $ 8,800.00 Force Main(1) 50 LF $ 68.00 $ 3,400.00 8"Plulg Valves 1 EA $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 Vacuum Valve Pits(2) 400 EA $ 13,000.00 $ 5,200,000.00 Vacuum Station(3) 1 EA $1,500,000.00 $ 1,500,000.00 Subtotal $10,280,010.00 Other Project Cost(4)27% $ 2,775,602.70 Current Estimated Total= $13,055,612.70 Current Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 15,729.65 BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 4"Vacuum Main(1) 33700 LF $ 66.00 $ 2,224,200.00 6"Vacuum Main(1) 10200 LF $ 73.70 $ 751,740.00 8"Vacuum Main(1) 5230 LF $ 80.00 $ 418,400.00 10"Vacuum Main(1) 1080 LF $ 86.00 $ 92,880.00 4"Division Valves 44 EA $ 1,210.00 $ 53,240.00 6"Division Valves 15 EA $ 1,650.00 $ 24,750.00 8"Division Valves 4 EA $ 2,200.00 $ 8,800.00 Force Main(1) 50 LF $ 68.00 $ 3,400.00 8"Plulg Valves 1 EA $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 Vacuum Valve Pits(2) 480 EA $ 13,000.00 $ 6,240,000.00 Vacuum Station(3) 1 EA $ 1,500,000.00 $ 1,500,000.00 Subtotal $11,320,010.00 Other Project Cost(4)27% $ 3,056,402.70 Build-Out Estimated Total= $14,376,412.70 Build-Out Estimated Cost/EDU= $ 14,595.34 (1) Cost of force mains and vacuum mains includes trench repair and road restoration. (2) Valve pit cost includes: $ 3,500 for purchase of valve&pits $ 5,000 for installation of valve&pits $ 3,000 for laterals $ 1,500 for cross-overs from pit to vacuum main $ 13,000 Total (3) Vacuum stations include: Vacuum station equipment Odor control Construction of concrete building with underground construction and bathroom Emergency back-up generator Telemetry Cost of Land (Cost of legal/real estate fees,public notice and public hearings have not been included.) (4) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 5-7 Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Summerland Key Vacuum Sewer Collection System Current EDU= 830 Build Out EDU= 985 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Add 1 vacuum pit in year 5,1 vacuum pit in year 10,and 0 vacuum pits in year 15 Add 2 EDUs in year 5,2 EDUs year 10,and 2 EDUs in year 15 Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead $/KWH= $ 0.10 Power= $ 2.92 /EDU/month Station Maint.= $ 49,750.00 per year 497.5 hr/yr @$100/hr Prevnt.Maint.= $ 452.00 /valve/yr Public Education= $ 1.50 /EDU/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is based on FKAA's experience at Little Venice. One Vac.Valve Rebuild= $ 35.25 /valve/10yrs full time person is required to maintian a vacuum station with 350 Valve Pits. Initial Construction Cost=I$ 13,055,612.70 NOTE: The cost for land to accommodate the vacuum lift station is not included in this present worth cost analysis. Calculation of present worth of future construction $1.320,800 00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows: In year 5,10,&15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3%inflation,then converted to present worth at I=6% $1,320,800.00/3= $ 440,266.67 (F/P)at 3%for 5 years= 1.1593 $440,266.67x1.1593= $ 510,401.15 Construction Cost at year 5 (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $440,266.67x1.3439= $ 591,674 37 Construction Cost at year 10 (F/P)at 3%for 15 years= 1.5580 $440,266.67x1.5580= $ 685,935.47 Construction Cost at year 15 Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0 7473 $510,401.15x0.7473= $ 381,422.78 (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0 5584 $591,674.37x0.5584= $ 330,390.97 (P/F)at 6°%for 15 years= 0.4173 $685,935.47x0.4173= $ 286,240.87 Present Worth of future construction=I $ 698,054,62 Annualize cost of all Vacuum Valve/Controller Maintenance per Vacuum Valve Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3%inflation in 10 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1,3439 $35.25x1 3439= $ 47.37 per vacuum valve at year 10 Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3°%for 20 years= 1 8061 $35.25x1 8061= $ 63.67 per vacuum valve at year 20 Converting all the future maintenance cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives. (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $47.37x0.5584= $ 26.45 per vacuum valve (P/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.3118 $63 67x0.3118= $ 19.85 per vacuum valve Present Worth of future maintenance cost per vacuum valve= $ 46.30 Calculating the annualized cost per valve over 20 years at I=6%gives: (A/P)at 6%for 20 years= 0.0872 $46.30x0.0872= $ 4.04 per vacuum valve per year Adding the annualize cost of preventive maintenance gives a total annualized cost per valve of: $452.00+$4.04= S 456.04 per vacuum valve per year Convert annualized Vacuum Valve Maintenance cost to Present Worth Assume vacuum valves will be phased in as follows: Period I:400 vacuum valves through year 5 Period IC 427 vacuum valves from year 6 through year 10 Period III:454 vacuum valves from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:480 vacuum valves from year 16 through year 20 Table 5-7(Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis(20 year) Summerland Key Vacuum Sewer Collection System Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $456 04x400= $182,415.07 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $182,415.07x4.2124= $ 768,405.23 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $456.04x427= $194,728.08 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $194,728.08x4.2142= $ 820,272.58 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $820,272.58x0.7473= $ 612,989.70 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period III: Period III:Annualized cost= $456.04x454= $207,041.10 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $207,041.10x4.2142= $ 872,139.94 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $872,139.94x0.5584= $ 487,002.94 Present Worth for Period III Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $456.04x480= $218,898.08 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $218,898,08x4.2142= $ 922,086.28 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $922,086.28x0.4173= $ 384,786.60 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized valve maintenance cost for all periods=I $ 2,253,184.48 Convert annualized Power Cost and Public Education cost to Present Worth Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows: Period I:830 EDUs through year 5 Period II:882 EDUs from year 6 through year 10 Period III:934 EDUs from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:985 EDUs from year 16 through year 20 Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.92/EDU/month)x(12 months/year)+$1.50/EDU/yr- $ 36.54 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $36.54x830= $ 30,328.20 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $30,328.20x4.2124= $ 127,754.51 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $36.54x882= $ 32,228.28 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4 2124 $32,228.28x4.2142= $ 135,758,41 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $135,758.41x0.7473= $ 101,452.26 Present Worth for Period II Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period III: Period III:Annualized cost= $36.54x934= $ 34,128.36 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4 2124 $34,128,36x4.2142= $ 143,762.30 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $143,762,30x0.5584= $ 80,276.87 Present Worth for Period III Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $36.54x985= $ 35,991.90 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4 2124 $35,991.90x4,2142= $ 151,612,28 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 04173 $151.612.28x0.4173= $ 63,267.80 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized power 8 education costs for all periods=I$ 372,751.44 Convert annualized Vacuum Station Maintenance Cost to Present Worth Annualized portion of vacuum station maintenance cost to be charged to service area is: $ 49,750.00 per year (P/A)at 6%for 20 years= 11,4699 $49,750.00'11.4699= $ 570,627.53 Present Worth of Vacuum Station Maint Total Present Worth= $ 17,250,230.76 Present Worth/Current EDUs= $ 20,783.41 Present Worth/Build-Out EDUs= $ 17,512.92 /III ill 111611111N" 111 Summerland Key _,o GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM FIGURE 5-4 aW.+rw�sar. NIff rw�**�sat o i y3 __ .. mnu:it-Ti"a El �■� .. id I rt>.• ' Nk+4 r.,, z •v tlAR Q 'rxt jot _ ..9 E M ...... — ,.,...1..,:..-,,,,,•_,..:,...,,,...,1� t _,„R ... +.wcx`' '' - A„� tom. , . -.• 4a IN Y t { , � :c- 44 .. wy \ r ` jT x 1,2. ,i,.--.: ' A r`• • frk r1 4101), . LEGEND • • - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN - MANHOLE AND GRAVITY MAIN ♦ MASTER LIFT STATION 1.11 i'W,ti U FKAA LOWER KEYS PROJ NO: 1474 M WASTEWATER SYSTEM oNS1 LI IN(, 000' „ Florida Ke s Y DATE: FEB. 2009 S.Al f -,OCo' i M%' 11 i1/4.:. Aqueduct Authority SUMMERLAND KEY a PRELIMINARY GRAVITY COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT DWG: GS-3 Table 5-8 Gravity#3 w/Mathews Consulting Updated Costs Summerland Key Gravity Sewer Number of EDUs Current 830 Number of EDUs Build-Out 985 COLLECTION SYSTEM-INSTALLED COST BUILD-OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Manholes 184 LF $ 6,000.00 $ 1,104,000.00 8"Gravity Sewers 51584 LF $ 118.00 $ 6,086,912.00 6"Service Laterals 19275 LF $ 78.00 $ 1,503,450.00 Force Mains 20402 LF $ 54.00 $ 1,101,708.00 Concrete Lift Station 15 EA $ 131,000.00 $ 1,965,000.00 Primary Lift Station S11 1 EA $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 Subtotal $12,111,070.00 Pavement Restoration(30%of Gravity Sewer Cost) $ 1,826,073.60 Construction Cost $13,937,143.60 Other Project Costs(1)27% $ 3,763,028.77 Estimated Total= $17,700,172.37 Estimated Cost/EDU Current= $ 21,325.51 Estimated Cost/EDU Build-Out= $ 17,969.72 (1) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees. Table 5-9 Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Summerland Key Gravity Sewer System Current EDU= 830 Build Out EDU= 985 Assumptions: Inflation= 3% Interest rate= 6% Labor/hr= $ 100.00 Including overhead $/KWH= $ 0.10 Power= $ 2.72 /EDU/month Prevnt. Maint.= $ 7.500.00 /station/yr 75 hr/station @$100/hr Pump replacement= $ 20 000.00 /station/10 yr Initial Construction Cost= $ 17,700,172.37 Present worth of pump replacement In 10 years and again in 20 years Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3%inflation in 10 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 10 years= 1.3439 $20,000x1.3439= $ 26,878.00 per station Converting the 10 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $26,878.00x0.5584= $ 15,008.68 per station Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3%inflation in 20 yrs (F/P)at 3%for 20 years= 1.8061 $20,000x1.8061= $ 36,122.00 per station Converting the 20 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I=6%gives: (P/F)at 6%for 20 years= 0.3118 $36,122.00x0.3118= $ 11,262.84 per station The Study Area will be charged for maintenance at 16 stations Total Present worth of pump replacements ($15,008.68+$11,262.84)`16= $ 420,344.24 Present worth of preventative maintenance for 16 lift stations: Convert the annualized cost per station to present worth gives: (P/A)at 6%for 20 years= 11.4699 $7,500'16'11.4699= $ 1,376,388.00 Total annualized cost per EDU per year: Power= $ 2.72 /EDU/month Convert annualized costs per EDU to Present Worth Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows: Period I:830 EDUs through year 5 Period II:882 EDUs from year 6 through year 10 Period III:934 EDUs from year 11 through year 15 Period IV:985 EDUs from year 16 through year 20 Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.72/EDU/month)x(12 months/year). $ 32.64 Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I: Period I:Annualized cost= $32.64x830= $27,091.20 /yr (P/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $27,091.20x4.2124= $ 114,118.97 Present Worth for Period I Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II: Period II:Annualized cost= $32.64x882= $28,788.48 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $28,788.48x4.2142= $ 121,268.59 in year 5 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 5 years= 0.7473 $121,268.59x0.7473= $ 90,624.02 Present Worth for Period II Table 5-9 (Con't) Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year) Summerland Key Gravity Sewer System Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period III: Period Ill:Annualized cost= $32.64x934= $30,485.76 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $30,485.76x4.2142= $ 128,418.22 in year 10 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 10 years= 0.5584 $128,418.22x0.5584= $ 71,708.73 Present Worth for Period Ill Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV: Period IV:Annualized cost= $32.64x985= $32,150.40 /yr (P'/A)at 6%for 5 years= 4.2124 $32,150.40x4.2142= $ 135,430.34 in year 15 dollars (P/F)at 6%for 15 years= 0.4173 $135,430.34x0.4173= $ 56,515.08 Present Worth for Period IV Present Worth of all annualized cost per EDU for all periods= $ 332,966.80 Total Present Worth= $19,829,871.41 Present Worth!Current EDUs= $ 23,891.41 Present Worth/Build-Out EDUs= $ 20,131.85 /01410: Section. 6 is( \iii -, „ Wastewater Collection System Decision Analysis ,zi...*gr 6.0 Wastewater Collection System Decision Analysis In order to provide an initial recommendation for the type of wastewater collection system that should be considered, a Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree was established (refer to Figure 6-1). Figure 6-1 shows guidelines, not hard and fast rules, therefore good judgment must be exercised in using the decision tree tool. Recommendations are based on both initial construction cost and a present worth cost analysis including construction cost, operation and maintenance costs, and system reliability. In most cases, the initial construction cost accounts for 70% to 90% of the total present worth cost. Conditions that have a significant effect on installed cost are described for each system below: Gravity Sewer: • Total number of connections o More cost effective as the number of connections increases • Number of connections per lift station o The more connections that can be served per lift station, the more cost effective o Obstructions such as canals and large drainage pipes can significantly reduce the number of connections per lift station • Average linear feet of gravity sewer per developed lot o More cost effective when lot lines are short and both side of the street are developed • Reliability o When construction cost are similar to alternative collection systems, gravity sewer systems are preferred Vacuum Sewer: • Total number of connections o More cost effective for large service areas (750+ connections/vacuum station) with medium to high density o Obstructions such as canals and large drainage pipes will have little effect on the number of connections per vacuum station • Average linear feet of vacuum sewer main per developed lot o More cost effective when lot lines are less than 100 feet, or both sides of the street are developed Low Pressure Sewer: • Total number of connections o Low pressure sewer has a significant cost advantage for small collection systems. As the number of connections increases, the cost advantage is reduced. • Average linear feet of force main per developed lot. o Low pressure sewer has a significant cost advantage for lower density residential areas Mathews Consulting 6 - 1 6.0 Wastewater Collection System Decision Analysis o Low pressure sewer can serve outlying areas cost effectively when the average linear feet of force main per developed lot is less than 500 feet Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System: • Not economically viable unless combined with a small neighborhood cluster treatment system o The construction cost for a STEP Collection System pumping to a centralized treatment plant is higher than the construction cost of a Low Pressure Sewer System o Based on actual information from Charlotte County, there is no significant O&M savings when using a STEP Collection System On-Site Wastewater Nutrient Reduction Systems (OWNRS): • More cost effective in sparsely populated areas beyond the reach of a Low Pressure Sewer System based on a life cycle cost of $36,000 per treatment system. Refer to Appendix A for information detailing the Lifecycle Cost Analysis for OWNRS. Mathews Consulting 6 - 2 6.0 Wastewater Collection System Decision Analysis Figure 6-1 Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree No Is the average force No Use on-site treatment or Is the number of yl main LF/developed lot<500 ft.? a small neighborhood connections>80? cluster treatment — system w/STEP No collection system No Yes 1 Yes Y Is the average Is the number of Is the number of number of connections/ connections/ connections/lift > vacuum station vacuum station station>40? >750? >1000? Yes Yes Yes] No Y Y No Is the average No Is the average Is the average gravity sewer main vacuum sewer main vacuum sewer main LF/developed LF/developed LF/developed lot<65 ft.? lot<80 ft.? lot<100 ft.? Yes . Yes Yes Y PROVIDE PROVIDE GRAVITY PROVIDE VACUUM PRESSURE S SEWER SEWER COLLECTION," COLLECTION COLLECTION SYSTE , SYSTEM SYSTEM Note- The maximum average linear feet of force main per developed lot was calculated based on a life cycle cost of$36,000 for an on-site OWNRS treatment system. Mathews Consulting 6 - 3 N\ Section 7 Ilh ‘101,(111111°:q1 ......... Conclusions ...... ___...4:.-,. • 7.0 Conclusions Based upon the information presented in this Letter Report, Mathews Consulting recommends that the FKAA proceed with the final design, permitting and bidding of the Wastewater Collection System project(s) for Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key and Summerland Key. A project schedule to complete the project(s) from final design through the bidding phase is shown in Figure 7-1. The conclusions and recommendations are as follows: ■ A hybrid system should be implemented consisting of a combination of (1) conventional gravity sewer systems to serve the densely populated areas; and (2) low pressure sewers to serve the less dense and outer reach areas. Using the Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree in Section 6 of this Letter Report, any houses not served by this wastewater collection system combination will be provided with an On-Site Wastewater Nutrient Removal System (OWNRS). The extent of each collection system technology utilized will be finalized during the design phase using the Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree in Section 6 of this Letter Report as a guideline. ■ In most cases, the initial construction cost accounts for 70% to 90% of the total present worth cost. Future construction and operation and maintenance costs are not major factors in the decision making process for these areas. ■ Pre-Tac Meeting(s) should be held with FDEP (Monroe County/Ft. Myers Divisions) to update the permit review staff on the Wastewater Collection System technologies that will be implemented in the service areas (i.e. combination of conventional gravity sewer system and low pressure systems). This will ensure "no permitting obstacles" during design of project(s). Mathews Consulting 7 - 1 itaik Central Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System - Project Schedule (Final Design) rr� MATHEWS CONSULTING " ' 2009 2010 Project Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug $ep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun NTP(Mar 1,2009) • - - Pre-Tac Meeting w/FDEP • WW Collection System Model(60 days) Customer Sanitary Lateral Locations(90 days) Prepare Master Tech Specs(60 days) Final Design-Cudjoe Key(East/West)-Bid Package#1 50%(60 days) FKAA Reviews(7 days) ■ 50%Design Review Workshop • Perform Soil Borings(45 days)90%(75 days) FKAA Reviews(7 days) ■ 90%Design Review Workshop 100%(25 days)100%Design Workshop • Bid Documents(10 days) Permitting-Cudjoe(East/West) FDEP Wastewater/FDOT/Other(60 days) Final Design-Upper Sugarloaf Key-Bid Package#2 50%(75 days) FKAA Reviews(14 days) - 50%Design Review Workshop • Perform Soil Borings(45 days) 90%(105 days) FKAA Reviews(14 days) 90%Design Review Workshop 100%(45 days) 100%Design Workshop Bid Documents(15 days) Permitting-Upper Sugarloaf FDEP Wastewater/FOOT/Other(60 days) Final Design-Summerland Key-Bid Package#3 50%(75 days) FKAA Reviews(14 days) - 50%Design Review Workshop Perform Soil Borings(45 days) 90%(105 days) FKAA Reviews(14 days) 90%Design Review Workshop 100%(45 days) 100%Design Workshop Bid Documents(15 days) Permitting-Upper Summerland FDEP Wastewater/FOOT/Other(60 days) ...-- Figure 7-1 N\Section 8 [t ar CO' Works CitedNip •'` -fir - 8.0 Works Cited CH2M HILL . 1998 . Wastewater Facilities Plan with Phased implementation for the Marathon Area of the Florida Keys . Prepared for Monroe County CH2M HILL . 2000 . Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan . Prepared for Monroe County CH2M HILL . 2007 . Draft Preliminary Design Report Cudjoe Wastewater Collection and Transmission System Project . Prepared for Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority CH2M HILL . 2008 . Final Preliminary Design Report Cudjoe Wastewater Collection and Transmission System Project . Prepared for Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority EPA . 2000 . Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet — "Small Diameter Gravity Sewers" EPA . 1998 . Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet — "Low Pressure Pipe Systems" EPA . 2000 . Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet — "Sewers, Force Main" EPA . 2000 . Collection Systems Technology Fact Sheet — "Sewers, Lift Station" EPA . 2000 . Collection Systems Technology Fact Sheet — "Sewers, Conventional Gravity" EPA . 2000 . Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet — "Sewers, Pressure" Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1981 . Wastewater Engineering: Collection and Pumping of Wastewater Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Manufacturer Data 1. Environment One Corporation — Low Pressure Systems 2. Airvac — Vacuum Collection Systems 3. Orenco System, Inc. — Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System Mathews Consulting 8 - 1 Appendix A "Development of On-Site Wastewater Nutrient Removal Systems (OWNRS) Lifecycle Costs Using Best Available • Technology (BAT)," FKAA - January 2009 DEVELOPMENT OF ON-SITE citizens in the Master-Plan WASTEWATER NUTRIENT prescribed service areas. REMOVAL SYSTEMS (OWNRS) The Master Plan identified Cudjoe LIFECYCLE COSTS USING BEST Key/Summerland Key as just such AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BAT) a service area and, with the assistance of one of its January, 2009 wastewater consultants, FKAA completed a Draft Preliminary FKAA Project#4018-08 Design Report (PDR), entitled Deliverable to Task 3 — Analysis of "Cudjoe Wastewater Collection Alternative Conveyance Systems and Transmission System Project" PROJECT HISTORY in December 2007. Recognizing that the economic In early 2008, County staff health of Monroe County and its requested that the FKAA consider municipalities relies largely on the a change in the Master Plan to environmental health of a unique expand the service area to include marine ecosystem, the County's the entire area between Sugarloaf Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Key and Big Pine Key. This mandated that nutrient loading change represented a dramatic levels be reduced in the Florida enlargement of the original Cudjoe Keys. In June of 2000, the Key/Summerland Key service "Sanitary Wastewater Master area. A PDR update, completed Plan" (Master Plan) was finalized on February 28, 2008 indicated a with a firm objective of eliminating potential cost savings should the approximately 23,000 private on- newly expanded area prove site septic systems by July 2010. serviceable, and in May 2008, an Through interlocal agreement, interlocal agreement amendment Monroe County has requested that allowed for the procurement of the Florida Keys Aqueduct professional engineering services Authority (FKAA) design, build, necessary to implement the and operate County-owned revised goals of the Master Plan. infrastructure on behalf of the Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs Page 1 An engineering task order to experience in the utility business. Mathews Consulting, Inc. What follows is an analysis, not (CONSULTANT) for final planning, included in the CONSULTANT design and permitting services to task order, to identify a cover the central service area of representative LCC for conversion the regional system was executed to an On-Site Wastewater Nutrient on June 26, 2008. Task order Removal System ("OWNRS") to initial work efforts include the meet the 2010 BAT standard (10 finalization of mapping services mg/I BOD, 10 mg/I TSS, 10 mg/I and base sheet preparation, total N, and 1 mg/I total P). preconstruction data collection, and the finalization of pre-design r *44 activities. The latter of these work ,. rf(ss`s efforts will research the various p -� collection system technologies and through the use of a "decision s1 tree", select the best value technology tailored to the specific conditions of a particular VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK - ISLAMORADA neighborhood. The final work product will be a permitted *More system installation photographs available in appendix. conveyance system that will INTRODUCTION combine various wastewater collection system technologies in FKAA staff familiar with domestic order to connect as many on-site wastewater treatment methods septic systems to the regional and technologies recognized system as possible for the lowest some time ago that an in-house overall lifecycle cost (LCC). The "knowledge gap" existed regarding combined strategic utilization of OWNRS systems. To close that proper planning and technology, gap, staff members met with the extending to the greatest number Monroe County Health of connections for the best value, Department to become more is an approach developed by the knowledgeable of what it means to be "OWNRS 2010 compliant". FKAA through its years of Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs Page 2 i � Appendix #1 contains a synopsis DATA SOURCES of this initial research. More can be seen at the State Department Source #1 was the "Monroe of Health website at County Sanitary Waste Water www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/ostds Master Plan, March 2000, Vol #4- FKAA has monthly coordination Supporting Documents, meetings with Monroe County "Technology Assessment of On- officials regarding the progress Site Wastewater Treatment being made in meeting the 2010 Systems", by AYRES Associates, connection deadline. One such Tampa, Florida, June 1998. meeting was held in July 2008.* Source #2 was obtained from County officials requested that Third-Generation Plumbing (TGP), FKAA, in addition to applying best Pinewood Plumbing, and George's value design methods to collection Plumbing each of whom provided system design, also research and data regarding Capital and O&M establish capital and lifecycle p Y costs that, in their experience, costs expected for the average typified present day domestic single-family household to convert conversion installations. The data to BAT using OWNRS technology memo is summarized as Appendix that is most likelyto achieve the #2, and it's attachment. 10-10-10-1 standard. Because of lack of funding and the short Source #3 was the previously timeframe involved, this in-house mentioned PDR which had a project drew upon existing studies section devoted to present worth and the expertise of local vendors analysis of on-site systems, (see with many years of experience in Appendix #3). OWNRS technology. Four readily Source #4 is a recently published available, diverse sources were study entitled "Florida Passive utilized and checked against each Nitrogen Removal Study" other for acceptable consistency. (FPNRS), published June 2008, 'It has been suggested that a"pollution factor'be applied to was consulted and is referenced OWNRS to normalize with advanced treatment technologies. FDEP is currently developing a value for noncompliant herein for LCC comparison package systems that could be applied to OWNRS. purposes only, since the study did Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs Page 3 not include phosphorous removal Source #2 Plumbing Data- local technologies. vendors supplied estimated METHODOLOGY installation costs which averaged $18,600 to install a FAST BAT unit I Source #1 - Master Plan Data- A as illustrated in Appendix 2*. number of systems were analyzed Another $500 dollars was added in the above referenced for electrical installation bringing technology assessment dated the total estimated installation cost 1998. The anticipated capital to $19,100 in 2008 dollars. installed cost data for all systems *FAST was the sole OWNRS that came close to consistently analyzed, ranged from $11 ,412 to achieving BAT in the"Big Pine Key OWNRS demonstration project" of 1998 (Andersen et al.) Others have achieved $17,414 depending on the DOH approval using different methods. technology choice. LCC Two of three suppliers also assumptions are contained within supplied annual operating costs as the Master Plan document, and follows:* include a 20% contingency for restoration, permitting, etc. •• Operating contract renewed every two years at an Taking the average of all systems* average cost of $387.50 in • referenced in the Master Plan, an 2008 dollars. anticipated capital installed cost average of $13,474 in 1998 dollars •• LECA 2 m3 phosphorous was used. removal media replaced every four years at $2000 Annual operating costs ranged each replacement cycle in from $1172-$1631 for all systems 2008 dollars. analyzed and an average annual . Electrical and periodic sludge removal costs are operating cost of $1360.45 in 1998 omitted from this analysis for convenience but should be included in any in-depth analysis. All dollars was used. renewal and replacement costs are assumed to be included in the operating contract price. The *8 OWNRS systems were evaluated in the Master Plan, but existing drain field was assumed to be in good only three are currently approved by DOH. Of those, only usable condition. one achieved consistent nutrient removal. Source #3 - Draft Preliminary Design Report (PDR), December 2007 Section 4.3.1 of the I Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs Page 4 aformentioned PDR indicated that indicated above with the following installation costs are expected to results: be on the order of $20-$25,000, CAPITAL- $24,129.88 with operating costs expected to be on the order of $3,500-$4,000. ANNUAL OPERATING-$1828.33 Very little source information was provided in the PDR but upon For Source #2, Capital data was further inquiry, Appendix #4 represented in present-day costs elaborates on the source(s) of the as: $19,100. data. Annual operating costs included For this analysis, averages were contractual and phosphorus media taken with a capital cost of renewal obligations only, with five $22,500 and an annual operating media replacements and ten cost of $3750. contract renewals during the 20 year term. This translated into an Source #4 — FPNRS annual operating cost of $1492. Appendix #5 indicates the LCC analysis details. Remember that For Source #3, Averages were this study considered nitrogen taken with a capital cost of removal only and did not include $22,500 and an annual operating facilities for phosphorous removal. cost of $3,750. PRESENT WORTH For Source #4, Table 30 from the COMPARISON report depicts LLC of 12 systems with a PW30 of approximately All costs were adjusted to present $43,000. Phosphorus removal was dayusingan average interest rate g not included in the FPNRS and the of 6.0% simple interest P LCC values are for comparison compounded over the adjustment only. period. Inflation was assumed to be 3%. For Source #1 , Master Plan data was brought forward 10 years using the average numbers as Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs Page 5 RESULTS—PRESENT WORTH CONCLUSIONS VALUES The 20-year LCCA of an OWNRS • Source #1 : conversion given the above set of Capital $24,129 assumptions is somewhere in the neighborhood of a PW20 cost of Operating (20-yr) $20,566 approximately $35,000 to $65,000. Total PW $44,695 Annual operating costs averaged $2392 or about $200 a month, • Source #2: remaining unrealistically high for Capital $19,100 most households. Operating (20-yr) $16,859 It remains important to remember Total PW $35,959 that BAT and AWT are not environmental equivalents. In fact • Source #3: the average household meeting Capital $22,500 minimum BAT, will discharge over the course of a year, 4.6 pounds Operating (20-yr) $42,375 of excess BOD and TSS and 6.4 Total PW $64,875 pounds of nitrogen into the environment, than the same LIFECYCLE COSTS connection tied to a regional Source #1 $44,695 system meeting AWT standards. Should the regional facility recycle Source #2 $35,959 reclaimed water, then the pollution differential is even greater. Source #3 $64,875 Note that a number of variables Source #4 $43,000* exist that will significantly skew 'PW33and no P removal LCC in either direction, particularly (See Appendix #5 for a summary of all data those that apply to site variability sources). and operating costs. More in- depth study would better reveal variable cost-sensitivity and narrow the expected total. Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs Page 6 APPENDIX #1 Meeting with Monroe County Health Department April 23,2008 Re:Interim Onsite Treatment and Disposal Systems and Performance-Based On-Site Treatment and Disposal Systems(OSTDS) Julie Cheon,Jolynn Reynolds and Don Hubbs met with Mr.Bill Brookman,Environmental Supervisor with the Monroe County Health Department.The purpose of the meeting was twofold;to better prepare the FKAA to accurately respond to questions posed by the Public about the decisions they must make regarding their interim OSTDS if they are in an area that will be centrally sewered or Performance-Based OSTDS to meet the 2010 standard if they should be in a designated"cold spot"that will not be centrally sewered,to educate ourselves regarding on-site system conversions in preparation for potentially assuming a significantly greater role in this area. In addition,we are performing a number of conversions at FKAA-owned sites and may wish to standardize/economize this effort,and perhaps use one or more sites as demonstration projects. The Department of Health(DOH)conducted an evaluation of various systems known as the Big Pine Key Study.This evaluation revealed only 3 systems that could reasonably meet on average the performance- Comment[wB*]:Actually only the FAST system based standards of 10 mgper liter BOD,10 mper liter TSS,10 mper liter total nitrogen and 1 mgcame out of this study.The others received approval g g g per from different methods.The LECA and Brick Chips as liter total phosphorus,the so-called 10-10-10-1 standard.The three approved systems were as follows: phosphorus reducing media came out of this study. Comment[WB2]:As of April 29,2006 lit is a • FAST System and its derivatives by Bio-Microbics dynamic process with several other manufacturers • HOOT System by Hoot Aerobic Systems (Intensely pursuing FDOH approval) • SINGULAIR system by Norweco Inc. Any of these systems can be preceded by a septic tank or other pretreatment process and followed by a disposal method which may include subsurface on-site irrigation,a drain field meeting current standards,or a shallow injection well. INNOVATION There is a process by which new technology may apply for use in the Florida Keys.An"Application for Innovative Permit Status"may be sent to the Bureau of On-Site Sewage in Tallahassee for special permitting dispensation,but for purposes of this paper,only the above systems are currently being considered.Chapter 64E—6 of the Florida Administrative Code governs on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems and contains additional provisions that must be adhered to. Regardless of whether a system is approved or"innovative",each system must be individually engineered based on individual site conditions and loadings.The underground tanks are all preapproved and form the component parts of the system. These component parts must be State Health Office approved and are listed on the DOH web.All systems are aerobic requiring continuous airflow/mixing, preceded by a pretreatment chamber and followed by a solids chamber.Recirculation significantly enhances nitrogen removal.Phosphorus is generally removed by filter media,either brick chips or Light Expanded Clay Aggregate or"LECA".The media has a limited life which is governed by loading rate and must be periodically replaced.Also,depending on the type of media used,the hydraulics differ-a downflow over the media with brickchips and an upflow through the media with LECA. PERMITTING(Interim OSTDS-until central sewer is available and Performance-based OSTDS less than 10,000 gallons per day) The process(simplified)is basically as follows: 1. A"Request for Approval of On-Site Treatment System"form must be filled out. It has a number of attachments including survey,site plan,floor plans,and percolation test. 2. A statement from the engineer of record must be attached. 3. An"Application of Construction for On-Site Systems"must be attached. 4. A"Site Evaluation of System Specifications"must be attached. 5. A schematic of the chosen treatment process along with loading calculations,maintenance manual,O&M manuals,sampling protocol and continuing services agreement must be attached. 6. A Department of Health certificate is issued at the end of the process for a set period of time and constitutes the operations permit. DESIGN(Rules of Thumb) Many rules of thumb are used in evaluation of these applications;among them the following: Single-family dwellings are sized based on the number of bedrooms the residence has(typical residential -3 bedroom/2 bath). Comment[WB3]:Flows are cakulated from tables in the Florida Administrative Code 64E-6. Tanks must be on the State Health Office-approved list. (www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/OSTDS/index.html) A maximum of 2500 gallons of wastewater per acre can be disposed of,in an interim OSTDS,otherwise, the OSTDS must meet Performance-Based criteria;DOH permits no more than 2000 gallons per day using an on-site injection well;over 2,000 gallons per day will need to be permitted by FDEP. An injection well inlet must be 18 inches above the seasonal high water table. If a drain field is used,its base must be 3 feet above mean sea level,24 inches above seasonal high water level,and have a soil cap of 6 inches thick. For phosphorous removal,it is recommended that loading rates of no greater than 5.5 gallons per I Comment[WB43:required square foot per day be used with brick filter media 24 inches thick. For LECA,loading rates of 3 to 6 mg phosphorus per kilogram LECA is used;more information on LECA can be found at www.filtralite.com/26264. If LECA is used in a performance-based drainfield,then the loading rate should not exceed 1.1 to 2 {Comment[WB5]:We see more Brick chip gallons per square foot per day. drainfields.I have not personally seen a LECA drainfield,although 1 suppose its possible. MISCELLANEOUS Carmody Data Systems maintains the Department of Health database.A"septic search"accessible to everyone tells you which site currently has a permitted septic system and which does not. If a resident has installed an approved system then they are considered 2010 compliant. {Comment[WB6]:10-10.10-1 Performance- based treatment system A DEP website,"LABINS"can be useful regarding mean sea level data for design of OSTDS. The local utility(FKAA)may perform the steps of system abandonment without a permit. For a typical residential home,the average cost of the Performance-Based OSTDS is$25,000. There are approximately 958 residential homes that are located in"cold spots"that will require a Performance-Based OSTDS by 2010(lower keys—806;middle keys—2;upper keys-150). APPENDIX #2 FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY Engineering Department 1100 Kennedy Drive, Key West, Florida 33040 Telephone: 305-296-2454 FAX: 305-293-1425 MEMORANDUM FROM: Julie Cheon, Environmental Specialist, in collaboration with Don Hubbs, Assistant Director of Engineering DATE: July 22, 2008 SUBJECT: Single Family Residence BAT OSTDS Typical Conversion Cost Background The July 2010 deadline for conversion of on-site systems to central sewer or Best Available Technology (BAT) is just around the corner. Questions have been raised regarding the affordability of centralized sewer as compared to alternatives such as BAT. In addition, FKAA may play a larger role in the future regarding private property BAT conversions in low-density areas. In order to be better informed, FKAA has collected some basic information which may play a role in future decision-making. Data Basis Third Generation Plumbing (TGP) was contacted and asked to provide cost information for the conversion of an existing typical single family residence onsite system to a BAT 2010 system based on their local field experience. Although a request was made for written documentation showing alternative systems for a representative cross-section of single-family residences, TGP responded verbally. Below is a summary of the information they provided to me. TGP considers a typical single family residence to be three bedrooms or less, producing 300gpd of wastewater flow, which would require a 500 gallon tank. This is consistent with information provided by the Department of Health and the Florida Administrative Code 64E-6.008, Table 1, "Estimated Sewage Flows". TGP explained that there are three approved systems, FAST, Norweco, and HOOT, and a fourth system, Delta, which is in the process of being reinstated to the DOH approved list. The HOOT system is the most expensive and works best in a drip irrigation application; the process in which it was certified. The FAST system requires that the unit be placed in a tank. Although the FAST system is less expensive than the HOOT the requirement of the extra tank makes the FAST system more expensive than the aforementioned Norweco. Components and Costs A test of several BAT systems was conducted on Big Pine Key by the DOH. The FAST system was determined to meet BAT standards with the most consistency. As such, the FAST unit was used in determining the cost basis. TGP provided a price of $18,500 for the conversion of a single family residence to a BAT 2010 system. The price includes a FAST unit in a tank, a 500 gpd filter media tank with 2 cubic meters of LECA filter media and a 2 year maintenance agreement. Also included are the system engineering & permitting, basic septic abandonment and final plumbing including connection to the house. Final electric is not included but is expected to include installation of an electric receptacle and wiring of the blower and control panel. This was estimated by Third Generation to cost $500. Additional information was provided by Bone Key Electric (BKE). BKE indicated they would charge a flat rate of $325 for all of the connections. When pressed for a worst case scenario BKE stated that $500 would be the worst case for an extremely difficult connection, an older concrete home for example. Also included in the price is the removal of any fill, if necessary and planting of the required groundcover over the drainfield per DOH specifications. Installation of a borehole in lieu of a drainfield would require an additional $1,000 in upfront costs and an additional $100 charge per maintenance contract (see below). The contractor will rake and remove softball size or larger rocks and hand grade. Also included is simple replanting of any shrubs or small vegetation that had to be removed during the course of construction. Survivability of the transplanted material is not guaranteed. Small sheds and obstructions that can be readily moved will be moved, however the contractor is not responsible for damage to the property. A contingency will probably need to be included for these items. Although, when compared to brick chips, the LECA media itself was more expensive it was chosen because it reduces both upfront and long term costs. LECA media reduces upfront costs by allowing gravity flow negating the need for installation of a pump. In addition, LECA can be removed via a pump truck while brick chip removal requires a backhoe. This pump truck removal method is much less labor intensive and more cost effective. LECA replacement is driven by the media's ability to remove phosphorous. Two cubic meters will last 4 years based on wastewater flow of 300gpd, the amount of flow estimated to be produced by a 3 bedroom house per DOH regulations. Costs provided are in 2008 dollars unless otherwise stated. Cost Summary Table 1 Capital Costs System Components Included Costs Permitting& Engineering Septic Abandonment (basic)* FAST unit with Tank 500 gallon filter media tank 2 cubic meters LECA Filter Media Final plumbing $18,500 FAST 2 year maintenance agreement Drainfield vegetation & planting Hand grading Simple transplantation (not guaranteed) Removal of fill Components Not Included Final Electric $500** Totals $18,500*** *Basic abandonment is considered abandonment of tank in open area. Tanks under homes or in areas not accessible by heavy equipment incur extra costs,typically not more than$600 "Final Electric Price was estimated by BKE. ***Add$1,000 if borehole is used in place of drain field: Subtract$2,000 if a Norweco system is used in lieu of a FAST system Table 2 Operating Costs Frequency/yrs 20 Year Component Cost Cost** Filter Media Replacement $2,000 4 $10,000 Operating Agreement $425 2 $4,250 Totals $14,250* *Add$100 if borehole. Maintenance contract for borehole included is $525/2yrs **Not adjusted for PW Donald Hubbs From: Julie Cheon Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:22 PM To: Donald Hubbs Subject: FW: FAST Price Not quite apples to apples, but I think it is the best we are going to get at this time. Julie From: Diann Merriman [mailto:diann@pinewoodservices.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:09 PM To: Julie Cheon Subject: RE: FAST Price Julie, Sorry for thiielay in getting this information to you. What I have found from looking at our pricing; we would charge between$18,000 and $25,000 for a performance based treatment system. The lesser price would be for systems that only require—a-drainfield, the higher price for systems that require and injection well. Also, these are just"ballpark figures" they could be less or more depending on the individual job site, and the engineered requirements. We include permitting, engineering, excavation and fill removal, the labor and materials for installing the system (either Cherokee red brick chips or LECA filter media; whichever the engineer designs for), backfill with approved material, a 2 year maintenance contract, and clean up of the job site. If we abandon the existing system at the same time we are installing the new, a discounted price of$1000 would be charged. We do not handle the connection of the plumbing to the system, you would probably want to contact a plumber for those prices. I'm not sure what to tell you, as far as transplantation. I do not have any pricing to go from on this. I imagine the price would not be outrageous, but I don't know where to begin with pricing. O Any other questions? I hope this helped answer your questions. Thank you, Diann Diann Merriman Office Administrator Pinewood Wastewater Services, Inc. P.O.Box 432010 Big Pine Key,FL 33043 (305)872-2033 (305)872-2977 fax From: Julie Cheon [mailto:jcheon@fkaa.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 11:07 AM To: diann@pinewoodservices.com Subject: FAST Price 1 Hi Dianne, I appreciate your assistance on this. We are looking to for a price on a typical installation of a FAST unit at an existing residence and abandonment or removal of any parts of the existing system that is not likely to be utilized when upgrading to a FAST unit. I understand that prices vary with the anomalies of each installation. We are just looking for a ball park price that we can use in our onsite feasibility study. Please include in price: (or if not included in price, please note as such) Permitting and Engineering Septic Abandonment (basic-tank in open area) FAST unit with Tank 2 cubic meters LECA filter media Final Plumbing 2 Year maintenance agreement Drainfield and Vegetation planting Hand grading Simple transplantation, if necessary(not guaranteed) Removal of fill. Thanks Again, Your help is greatly appreciated. Julie Cheon Environmental Specialist Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (305) 295-2178 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.526/Virus Database: 270.7.5/1708-Release Date: 10/4/2008 11:35 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.526/Virus Database: 270.7.6/1715 - Release Date: 10/8/2008 7:19 PM 2 Donald Hubbs From: Julie Cheon Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:04 AM To: Donald Hubbs Subject: OSTDS Price Update Don, So far I have extracted a verbal price from George's Plumbing of$15,000 and about$350. Based on my discussion and having only verbal communication I believe the margin of error may be more than we would like. I have followed up with Pinewood 3x both verbally and in writing, so if they do respond I expect to obtain a number with a better level of accuracy, but I am still waiting. I also have a call into another plumber as well. It seems that the plumbers are not real interested in giving quotes. I am not sure if it is because they do not want to take the time, or if they do not want their numbers out there. I'm still working on it. Julie APPENDIX #3 4.2.2 Potential to Combine some Pump Station Service Areas The gravity sewer system layouts shown in Appendix F were developed to minimize the number of lift stations and to provide the most cost-effective gravity sewer systems by extending sewers the full 1,700 feet from lift stations, wherever possible. The biggest constraint to maximizing lift station service area size is the multiple interior canals within the project area. As a result,only one location (LS-SG7 on Upper Sugarloaf) was identified where two lift station service areas can be combined into one lift station service area,provided FKAA can obtain sewer line easements along property lines to connect the sewers in two adjacent parallel streets.The gravity sewer system layout in Appendix G already shows these two lift station service areas as combined into one at LS-SG7. If FKAA cannot obtain easements,the area can revert to two lift station service areas. Two lift station service areas are still cost- effective for this overall area. The longest sewer length for the combined lift station scenario from last lot to be served to lift station is approximately 1,750 feet.The longest sewer length for the two individual lift station scenarios from last lot to be served to lift station was approximately 1,500 feet. 4.3 Sewer System Alternatives where Gravity Sewers are not Economical 4.3.1 Sparsely Developed Areas In the very sparsely developed areas where there are developed lots only infrequently,such as the area along North Niles Road on Summerland Key,Onsite Wastewater Nutrient Reduction Systems (OWNRSs) will have to be installed and maintained by the property owner. Individual OWNRSs are expensive to install and to operate and maintain. Installation costs are expected to be on the order of$20,000 to$25,000,and annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are expected to be on the order of$3,500 to$4,000 (CH2M HILL, 2003).1 The present worth of an individual OWNRS is expected to be approximately$66,000. 4 ' Marginally Developed Areas Marginally developed service areas,where development is more developed than in the sparsely developed areas but not dense enough to where gravity sewers are economical, present the greatest challenge of providing the most cost-effective wastewater collection and treatment service that will comply with the FDEP Regulations for Monroe County that become effective in July 2010. An example of marginally developed areas is some of thr areas in the western part of Upper Sugarloaf Key. These marginally developed areas are not dense enough to justify gravity sewers but are developed enough that a less expensive alternative to the expensive OWNRS for each of the developed lots should be investigated. The Low Pressure Sewer System is an alternative that 1Capital and O&M costs in this reference have been adjusted to September 2007 costs (Estimated ENR at 7.900) GNV310133531452 DOC.073470013 4.4 N81120070030FB COPYRIGHT 2007 BY CH2M HILL.INC •COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX #4 Donald Hubbs From: Ken.Williams@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 2:19 PM To: Donald Hubbs Cc: Tom Walker; Andrew.Smyth@ch2m.com Subject: RE: on-site BAT conversion Don, I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I just got back from vacation mid last week when when we got a direct hit from lightening. Not only did it blow two power company transformers but we lost our high speed internet connection and a solar heater panel control board. Comcast was out on Saturday(yes, they work on Saturdays up here) and replaced our router and got us back in business with high speed internet. In Section 4.3.1 of the draft Cudjoe report, footnote 1 indicates that capital and O&M costs were from the CH2M HILL 2003 reference and were adjusted to September 2007 costs (Estimated ENR at 7900). The CH2M HILL 2003 reference is entitled "Monroe County Onsite Decentralized Wastewater System Demonstration Project Feasibility Study", and is noted in Section 6, Works Cited. There should be a copy of this cited report in our Key West office and Monroe County should have a copy of this report. When we did our work for the 2003 report, we obtained from DOH recently permitted and installed OWNRS facilities and then obtained the costs from contractors installing these systems. Our analysis showed that the costs of the recently installed systems (September 2002 costs)were consistent with those costs estimated in the master plan ( September 1998 costs), adjusted for cost escalation (10.5% in the 4 years). This is described in Section 3 of the 2003 report. The point that was intended to be made in Section 4.3.1 of our draft Cudjoe report is that OWNRS systems are very expensive to install and to operate and maintain. Hence,just escalating costs from 2003, where we had verified actual costs, to 2007 (20% increase) and giving a range of costs we felt was adequate to make our point. Even if the costs for OWNRS had not increased at all from 2003, the present worth of an OWNRS would be approximately$55,000, equivalent to a monthly cost of approximately$400 - still very expensive. It is good to see that someone is investigating the current costs to install (and also operate and maintain) a private residential OWNRS, or BAT system. I concur that it is needed. The last verification that I am aware of is what we did in 2003, but I'm sure the cost on onsite systems have increased. You note that you have contacted a supplier of such systems and they have given you "verbal unqualified opinions regarding their field experience ; however a better source of information is needed". I don't know what information they gave you, but it sounds like you have reason to doubt the information you were given. My only suggestion is to do what we did in 2003. Get from DOH facilities that were recently permitted and installed and then obtain the installed costs and the costs to operate and maintain the systems from the respective contractors and property owners. There certainly are at least several systems that are approved by DOH. I know from experience that this is a lengthy and time consuming task, but I know of no other way. Feel free to call me (904-491-3171) to discuss this further if you wish. Ken From: Donald Hubbs [mailto:dhubbs@fkaa.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:08 AM To: Williams, Ken/KWF Cc: Tom Walker; Smyth, Andrew/KWF Subject: on-site BAT conversion Importance: High APPENDIX #5 Florida Amstre \llnweil R ,;;mtI/.11/lt/l I-iih/I Reim/ It 26 tm.1 table 30 I. nifltrnt :annual ('ust and Present Worth of.\Iternatk eS PASSIVE NITROGEN TOTAL SYSTEM REMOVAL COMPONENT STAGE 1 STAGE 2 LIFE CYCLE COST LIFE CYCLE COST 30 year,i=4%,ENR=3.7% 30 year,i=4%,ENR=3.7% E w I— (i) N MediaP a- Media Replace Uniform Present Uniform Present Al ea Volume Annual Cost Worth Annual Cost Worth Type ft- ft Fears 2008(5) 20081,S) 2008(S1 2008 IS) 1 Clino 100 100 15 1 015 17 556 2.463 42.614 2 Clino 100 50 5 1 217 21 061 2 666 46,119 3 Clino 100 11 1 1 279 22,131 2.728 47.189 4 Clay 100 100 15 840 14.526 2.288 39.584 5 Clay 100 50 5 1 042 18,031 2.491 43.089 6 Clay 100 11 1 1 104 19,101 2.552 44,159 7 Clino 75 100 15 945 16.343 2 393 41 401 8 Clino 75 50 5 1 147 19 849 2 596 44,907 9 Dino 75 11 1 t 209 20.919 2 657 45.977 10 Clay 75 100 15 813 14,071 2262 39,129 11 Clay 75 50 5 1.016 17.576 2 464 42.634 12 Clay 75 11 1 1 078 18 646 2.526 43 704 Notes: Stage 1 Media Clino.Clinoptilolite AMZ Clay Livlde Expanded Clay Stage 2 Media 3 1 Elemental Sulfur&Oyster Shell Total System Costs includes base septic tank and drainfield installation 01i . *—,z11111V""**-- . • ._ ---''' : -.11! •- --. -, z-10,,fee.-,. -.-.,, v. ..,:, ,i,,„ .,,,,, ,.A Arlap, . .,. ..,,,,,,......,.,,p. v....*:„......."?.":..--...,.95r-.0- ••••• ,.. ' !,:" . . ' . .. . A. ...,-• , s .. .. , V.- • ''.4.; .i.17) 41T . , - "40. :,,,•....1t5,......-.4.-: : ...„, v... • .. ,.4tr ,- . , ,..•.7)00*• .... - - - ... . . I. . . , .... . .6,....,,... .:,. .- ....... ., . '..,- , - • - NEW AEROBK-.11\itt . . .,.. N. ,,,, 1 • - 'a- ' A Ill --' - - - -......e. - Y V ,.... . • ' • . • . , , • ,' - , .'..- . ' -- - ,,,_40..,;,,.' -',...,-.. "...V.4,1 , , • . .- . ^ .,.- -- -,4 . ...., .,,, - .' ",.. jt.,.. , ,., • . :...r.k.,:- .:.::-„,--' ',--i."-- ,.‘ , i , .,0. ...-; ' ,'*. . , •,40-... -•.-.,;" ' . ,..:. t. , ,. , ...L', 4,,4' 'A" '• . ' - — ...4.-,.._„ ' -,.. ---,„ „ige1106'.•P$' -- .,.,-z.,.„,,,,,..„. .f'''', '. ---1;,.,...--,:- ,..- , .. _...... . — ------.:. _........ , . .......,..... „ . ....... . .. - . ...or4" ., .0„,„_'^•' , . *AI* l'er4'-' • .. •""*I''1-1.4noalsetbsyob,,,,,,,,..... 411,1,71, . . ... , .. ..,,,::•", I. 'i'''k•''''', * - ' 114.. •••' . .•• "`-f•-", . A .•*'' " , 7...:' • 1 : , '4.1 i •.t ..„.. ..-. ...... ,. . -,.k. -.4r.e 16-• '". ' " • Al. . '--..•1 . ,• _ . . .., :, 01. ..- . ' 1 , . -.... . 4'7 ...,..iir' • .,f..,.:3......7,7'..-.'' ' . , .,, , ...}..r•- . ,.•- ' --'' ,,poi..0, -Y..:- ,... • , • • . •• ,. . • -.-r7;44-5,- ,-„, 4,- -. /„--- . • " ,,,* ,„5. f . .. . ,.,•.ag.,,.. al,. PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL PROCESS TANK INSTALLATION , c..-si ‘ -,------- ..,, , , ,(---- :..-_. , -• ;, _ `' AEROBIC AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL TANKAGE Note extensive footprint, not including drain field ;,,..•/, .._. ..,,,. _ . .. ..--.•• 1 , ..• 5 . " ... ..., • •tYa:11 1 V . - -.;";",, .,;'.:" T "..4.;" i-4"•111411°.**, .s-*** If' ''ji S1110 ... " •'':•.50!)1101r,•,:474.:-1 5.. , •54 -.A -e' 4 - . .4-• . - 4, '•:'''.` . - -:: -.‘ • •,..‘ ....- • ; , , _ -• ' *-- ' ,:, • it,.....,, . . ..imp : ' , • • '- ::: ' *. . ''::...;'•°:"-.;-- ...4,- li*NI :`-,..."'". ' --- ' : 114111111111111a- - - 4., ••• , ' . ' , e- .74••• sl • 0 _... - • 'VIM . egt*4.• 4 1.. . .....,1 ! - _.. ' -•!••'! ' $cl V.-,•-• , -'-2:-• -•,,,,,,--4014 ' ..- " -"' .1..‘ z.vir-i.l. .. „, ,.• ee xx ' . ,. ..:. IttP"-- , • - ; ,.:,- . ...., _ . . . • , , ..:1.:•.-_'' '''''4.' ; . . , lt ..... . . • - , • • ..1 •''' ''' ' ' .- •. • . ..4$414 • .. •.- ..- -.... .'":' ' -1. . ,jj 4 '- ) '''' ' ' .' - ' - - ' - '' •-•*:,IL ... , •.11 • ....... . . • ,, . • _ ... . ' • xyi V. .� ... k .r--• ' '` Ready for phosphorus treatment • tiV �� ate' f r Being filled with LECA (light � r expanded clay aggregate) • "�f -fir^ media -- It, ....'' , his.. • ' '' i Watertight cover being installed. Effluent will be disposed of by drainfield or borehole (borehole in this particular case) -A-- -- a _ .. '. I: • ... k •, -- • :.a_ '., .4 , G tp, • .-.1•¢-- + -y `rof, ' `"fir. SL F �. .4, .. ", �.r„ awe DATA SOURCE SUMMARY FOR ON-SITE WASTEWATER NUTRIENT REMOVAL SYSTEMS DATA SOURCE INSTALLATION ANNUAL OPERATING PRESENT WORTH @ 6% MASTER PLAN $24,130 $1,828 $44,786 CUDIOE DESIGN REPORT $22,500 $3,750 $64,875 FPNRS $18,101 $2,508 $46,441 LOCAL VENDOR $19,100 $1,492 $35,956 AVERAGES $20,958 $2,394 $48,015 Appendix B a FDEP Form 62-604.300(8)(aj "Wastewater Collection/ tieTransmission 1 System Permit" Florida Department of Environmental Protection oRIb j Twin Towers Office Bldg.,2600 Blair Stone Road,Tallahassee,Florida 32399-2400 wseiffassamsgsgs NOTIFICATION/APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTING A DOMESTIC WASTEWATER COLLECTION/TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PART I - GENERAL Subpart A:Permit Application Type Permit Application Type(mark one only) LDUs Application Fcc* "X" Served Are you applying for an individual permit for a domestic wastewater collection/transmission > 10 $500 system? Note:an EDU is equal to 3.5 persons. Criteria for an individual permit arc contained in Rule 62-604.600(7),F.A.C. < 10 $300 ❑ Is this a Nutice of Intent to use the general permit for wastewater collection/transmission N/A $250 systems? Criteria for qualifying for a general permit are contained in Rule 62-604.600(6),F.A.C. Projects not meeting the criteria in Rule 62-604.600(6), F.A.C., must apply for an individual permit. *Note: Each non-contiguous project (i.e., projects that are not interconnected or are not located on adjacent streets or in the same neighborhood) requires a separate application and fee. Subpart B: Instructions (I) This form shall be completed for all domestic wastewater collection/transmission system construction projects as follows: • If this is a Notice of Intent to use the general permit,this notification shall be submitted to the Department at least 30 days prior to initiating construction. • If this is an application for an individual permit,the permit must be obtained prior to initiating construction. (2) One copy of the completed form shall be submitted to the appropriate DEP district office or delegated local program along with the appropriate fee, and one copy of the following supporting documents. Checks should be made payable to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,or the name of the appropriate delegated local program. • If this is a Notice of Intent to use the general permit,attach a site plan or sketch showing the size and approximate location of new or altered gravity sewers,pump stations and force mains;showing the approximate location of manholes and isolation valves;and showing how the proposed project ties into the existing or proposed wastewater facilities. The site plan or sketch shall be signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in Florida. • If this is an application for an individual permit, one set of plans and specifications shall be submitted with this application, or alternatively,an engineering report shall be submitted. Plans and specifications and engineering reports shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapters 10 and 20 of Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities. The plans and specifications or engineering report shall be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in Florida. • (3) All information shall be typed or printed in ink. Where attached sheets(or other technical documentation)are utilized in lieu of the blank spaces provided, indicate appropriate cross-references on the form. For Items(I)through(4)of Part II of this application form,if an item is not applicable to your project,indicate"NA"in the appropriate space provided. CEP Form 62.604.300(8)(a) Page 1 of 1 Effective November 6.2003 Nonhoest District Nonhcasl District Central Dmlria Soullmest District South District Southeast District 1611 Governmental Center 7825 Bay moadons Way 3319 Maguire 81%d 3811.1 Coconut Palm Drib 2295 Victoria Ace J00 North Congress Are Salle NOB Suite 212 Suite 3(4 Suite 200 Pensacola.Florida 32302.5791 Jacksomdle.Florida 3 2 2 56-75 90 Orlando.Florida 32803.3767 Tampa.Florida 33619-8118 Fon Myers.Florida 33902-2549 West Paln Beach.Florida 11Jnl 350.30945d0 904-807.3300 407-891-7553 813.744-6N10 239-132-6975 561-881.6600 PART II -PROJECT DOCUMENTATION (I) Collection/Transmission System Pennittee Name Title Company Name Address City State Zip Telephone Fax Email (2) General Project Information Project Name Location: County City Section Township Range Project Description and Purpose(including pipe length,range of pipe diameter,total number of manholes,and total number of pump stations) Estimated date for: Start of construction Completion of construction Connections to existing system or treatment plant (3) Project Capacity A=Type of Unit B=Number of C= D=Total E=Per F=Total Average G=Peak Units Population Per Population Capita Flow Daily Flow hour flow Unit (Columns B x C) (Columns D x E) Single-Family Home Mobile Home Apartment Commercial,Institutional, or Industrial Facility* _ Total f ; J • l * Description of commercial, institutional, and industrial facilities and explanation of method used to estimate per capita flow for these facilities: (4) Pump Station Data(attached additional sheets as necessary) Estimated Flow to the Station(GPD) Location Type Maximum Average Minimum Operating Conditions [GPM n FT(TDH)] (5) Collection/Transmission System Design Information A. This information must be completed for all projects by the applicant's professional engineer, and if applicable, those professional engineers in other disciplines who assisted with the design of the project. If this project has been designed to comply with the standards and criteria listed below, the engineer shall initial in ink before the standards or criteria. If any of the standards or criteria do not apply to this project or if this project has not been designed to comply with the standards or criteria, mark "X" before the appropriate standard or criteria and provide an explanation, including any applicable rule references,in(5)B.below. DEP Form 62-604.300(sxa) Page 2 of I I E?ective November 6,2003 Note, if the project has not been designed in accordance with the standards and criteria set forth in Rules 62-604.400(I) and (2), F.A.C.,an application for an individual permit shall be submitted. 1lowever,if Rules 62-604.400(1)and(2),F.A.C.,specifically allow for another alternative that will result in an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection,the project can be constructed using the general permit. General Requirements 1. The project is designed based on an average daily flow of 100 gallons per capita plus wastewater flow from industrial plants and major institutional and commercial facilities unless water use data or other justification is used to better estimate the flow. The design includes an appropriate peaking factor,which covers I/I contributions and non-wastewater connections to those service lines. [RSWF 11.243] 2. Procedures are specified for operation of the collection/transmission system during construction. [RSWF 20.15] 3. The project is designed to be located on public right-of-ways,land owned by the permittee,or easements and to be located no closer than 100 feet from a public drinking water supply well and no closer than 75 feet from a private drinking water supply well;or documentation is provided in Part II.(5)B.,showing that another alternative will result in an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection. [62-604.400(I)(b)and(c),F.A.C.] 4. The project is designed with no physical connections between a public or private potable water supply system and a sewer or force main and with no water pipes passing through or coining into contact with any part of a sewer manhole. [RSFW 38.1 and 48.5] 5. The project is designed to preclude the deliberate introduction of storm water,surface water,groundwater,roof runoff, subsurface drainage,swimming pool drainage,air conditioning system condensate water,non-contact cooling water except as provided by Rule 62-610.668(I),F.A.C.,and sources of uncontaminated wastewater,except to augment the supply of reclaimed water in accordance with Rule 62-610.472(3)(c),F.A.C.[62-604.400(I)(d),F.A.C.] 6. The project is designed so that all new or relocated,buried sewers and force mains,are located in accordance with the separation requirements from water mains and reclaimed water lines of Rules 62-604.400(2)(g)(h)and(i)and(3),F.A.C. Note,if the criteria of Rules 62-604.400(2)(g)4.or(2Xi)3.,F.A.C.,are used,describe in Part I I.C.alternative construction features that will be provided to afford a similar level of reliability and public health protection. [62-604.400(2)(g),(h),and (i)and(3),F.A.C.] Gravity Sewers 7. The project is designed with no public gravity sewer conveying raw wastewater less than 8 inches in diameter. [RSWF 33.1] 8. The design considers buoyancy of sewers,and appropriate construction techniques are specified to prevent flotation of the pipe where high groundwater conditions are anticipated. [RSWF 33.3} 9. All sewers are designed with slopes to give mean velocities,when flowing full,of not less than 2.0 feet per second, based on Manning's formula using an"n"value of0.013;or if it is not practicable to maintain these minimum slopes and the depth of flow will be 0.3 of the diameter or greater for design average flow,the owner of the system has been notified that additional sewer maintenance will be required. The pipe diameter and slope are selected to obtain the greatest practical velocities to minimize solids deposition problems. Oversized sewers are not specified to justify flatter slopes.[RSWF 33.41,33.42,and 33.43] 10. Sewers are designed with uniform slope between manholes. [RWSF 33.44] 11. Where velocities greater than 15 fps are designed,provisions to protect against displacement by erosion and impact are specified. [RSWF 33.45] 12. Sewers on 20%slopes or greater are designed to be anchored securely with concrete,or equal,anchors spaced as follows:not over 36 feet center to center on grades 20%and up to 35%;not over 24 feet center to center on grades 35% and up to 50%;and not over 16 feet center to center on grades 50%and over.[RSWF 33.46] DEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a) Page 3 of 1 Effective November 6,2003 13. Sewers 24 inches or less are designed with straight alignment between manholes. Where curvilinear sewers are proposed for sewers greater than 24 inches,the design specifies compression joints;ASTM or specific pipe manufacturer's maximum allowable pipe joint deflection limits are not exceeded;and curvilinear sewers are limited to simple curves which start and end at manholes. [RSWF 33.5] 14. Suitable couplings complying with ASTM specifications are required for joining dissimilar materials. [RSWF 33.7] 15. Sewers are designed to prevent damage from superimposed loads. [RSWF 33.7] 16. Appropriate specifications for the pipe and methods of bedding and backfilling are provided so as not to damage the pipe or its joints,impede cleaning operations and future tapping,nor create excessive side fill pressures and ovulation of the pipe,nor seriously impair flow capacity. [RSWF 33.81] 17. Appropriate deflection tests are specified for all flexible pipe. Testing is required after the final backlill has been in place at least 30 days to permit stabilization of the soil-pipe system. Testing requirements specify: I)no pipe shall exceed a deflection of 5%;2)using a rigid ball or mandrel for the deflection test with a diameter not less than 95%of the base inside diameter or average inside diameter of the pipe,depending on which is specified in the ASTNI specification, including the appendix,to which the pipe is manufactured;and 3)performing the test without mechanical pulling devices. [RSWF 33.85] 18. Leakage tests are specified requiring that: I)the leakage exfiltration or infiltration does not exceed 200 gallons per inch of pipe diameter per mile per day for any section of the system;2)exfiltration or infiltration tests be performed with a minimum positive head of 2 feet;and 3)air tests,as a minimum,conform to the test procedure described in ASTM C-828 for clay pipe,ASTM C 924 for concrete pipe,ASTM F-1417 for plastic pipe,and for other materials appropriate test procedures. [RSWF 33.93,33.94,and 33.95] 19. If an inverted siphon is proposed,documentation of its need is provided in Part II.C. Inverted siphons are designed with: I)at least two barrels;2)a minimum pipe size of 6 inches;3)necessary appurtenances for maintenance,convenient flushing,and cleaning equipment;and 4)inlet and discharge structures having adequate clearances for cleaning equipment,inspection,and flushing. Design provides sufficient head and appropriate pipe sizes to secure velocities of at least 3.0 fps for design average flows. The inlet and outlet are designed so that the design average flow may be diverted to one barrel,and that either barrel may be cut out of service for cleaning. [RSWF 35] Manholes 20. The project is designed with manholes at the end of each line;at all changes in grade,size,or alignment;at all intersections;and at distances not greater than 400 feet for sewers 15 inches or less and 500 feet for sewers 18 inches to 30 inches,except in the case where adequate modern cleaning equipment is available at distances not greater than 600 feet. [RSWF 34.1] 21. Design requires drop pipes to be provided for sewers entering manholes at elevations of 24 inches or more above the manhole invert. Where the difference in elevation between the incoming sewer and the manhole invert is less than 24 inches,the invert is designed with a fillet to prevent solids deposition. Inside drop connections(when necessary)are designed to be secured to the interior wall of the manhole and provide access for cleaning. Design requires the entire outside drop connection be encased in concrete. [RSWF 34.2] - 22. Manholes are designed with a minimum diameter of 48 inches and a minimum access diameter of 22 inches. [RSWF 34.3] 23. Design requires that a bench be provided on each side of any manhole channel when the pipe diameter(s)are less than the manhole diameter and that no lateral sewer,service connection,or drop manhole pipe discharges onto the surface of the bench. [RSWF 34.5] 24. Design requires: I)manhole lift holes and grade adjustment rings be sealed with non-shrinking mortar or other appropriate material;2)inlet and outlet pipes be joined to the manhole with a gasketed flexible watertight connection or another watertight connection arrangement that allows differential settlement of the pipe and manhole wall;and 3) watertight manhole covers be used wherever the manhole tops may be flooded by street runoff or high water. [RSWF 34.6] 25. Manhole inspection and testing for watertightness or damage prior to placing into service are specified. Air testing,if specified for concrete sewer manholes,conforms to the test procedures described in ASTM C-I244. [RSWF 34.7] 26. Electrical equipment specified for use in manholes is consistent with Item 46 of this checklist.[RSWF 34.9] DEP Form 62-604.300(8)(e) Page 4 of 1 Effective November 6.2003 Stream Crossings 27. Sewers and force mains entering or crossing streams are designed to be constructed of ductile iron pipe with mechanical joints or so they will remain watertight and free from changes in alignment or grade. Appropriate materials which will not readily erode,cause siltation,damage pipe during placement,or corrode the pipe are specified to backfill the trench. [RSWF 36.21 and 48.5] 28. Stream crossings are designed to incorporate valves or other flow regulating devices(which may include pump stations) on the shoreline or at such distances form the shoreline to prevent discharge in the event the line is damaged.[62- 604.400(2Xk)5.,F.A.C.] 29. Sewers and force mains entering or crossing streams are designed at a sufficient depth below the natural bottom of the stream bed to protect the line. At a minimum,the project is designed with subaqueous lines to be buried at least three feet below the design or actual bottom,whichever is deeper,of a canal and other dredged waterway or the natural bottom of streams,rivers,estuaries,bays,and other natural water bodies;or if it is not practicable to design the project with less than three-foot minimum cover,alternative construction features(e.g.a concrete cap,sleeve,or some other properly engineered device to insure adequate protection of the line)are described in Part II.C. [62-604.400(2)(k)1.,F.A.C.,and RSWF 36.11] 30. Specifications require permanent warning signs be placed on the banks of canals,streams,and rivers clearly identifying the nature and location(including depths below design or natural bottom)of subaqueous crossings and suitably fixed signs be placed at the shore,for subaqueous crossings of lakes,bays,and other large bodies of water,and in any area where anchoring is normally expected. [62-604.400(2)(k)2.,F.A.C.] 31. Provisions for testing the integrity of subaqueous lines are specified. [62-604.400(2)(k)4.,F.A.C.] 32. Supports are designed for all joints in pipes utilized for aerial crossings and to prevent overturning and settlement. Expansion jointing is specified between above ground and below ground sewers and force mains. The design considers the impact of floodwaters and debris. [RSWF 37 and 48.5] • 33. Aerial crossings are designed to maintain existing or required navigational capabilities within the waterway and to reserve riparian rights of adjacent property owners.[62-604.400(2)(k)3.,F.A.C.] • Pump Stations 34. In areas with high water tables,pump stations are designed to withstand flotation forces when empty. When siting the pump station,the design considers the potential for damage or interruption of operation because of flooding. Pump station structures and electrical and mechanical equipment are designed to be protected from physical damage by the 100-year flood. Pump stations are designed to remain fully operational and accessible during the 25-year flood unless lesser flood levels are appropriate based on local considerations,but not less than the 10-year flood.[62-604.400(2)(e), F.A.C.] 35. Pump stations are designed to be readily accessible by maintenance vehicles during all weather conditions.[RSWF 41.2] 36. Wet well and pump station piping is designed to avoid operational problems from the accumulation of grit.[RSWF 41.3] 37. Dry wells,including their superstructure,are designed to be completely separated from the wet well. Common walls are designed to be gas tight. [RSWF 42.21] 38. The design includes-provisions to facilitate removing pumps,motors,and other mechanical and electrical equipment. [RSWF 42.22] • • DEP Form 62-604.J00(8)(a) Page 5 of I I Effective November 6,2003 39. The design includes provisions for: I)suitable and safe means of access for persons wearing self-contained breathing apparatus are provided to dry wells,and to wet wells;2)stairway access to wet wells more than 4 feet deep containing either bar screens or mechanical equipment requiring inspection or maintenance;3)for built-in-place pump stations,a stairway to the dry well with rest landings at vertical intervals not to exceed 12 feet;4)for factory-built pump stations over 15 feet deep,a rigidly fixed landing at vertical intervals not to exceed 10 feet unless a manlift or elevator is provided; and 5)where a landing is used,a suitable and rigidly fixed barrier to prevent an individual from falling past the intermediate landing to a lower level. If a manlift or elevator is provided,emergency access is included in the design. [RSWF 42.23] - 40. Specified construction materials are appropriate under conditions of exposure to hydrogen sulfide and other corrosive gases,greases,oils,and other constituents frequently present in wastewater.[RSWF 42.25] 41. Except for low-pressure grinder or STEP systems,multiple pumps are specified,and each pump has an individual intake. Where only two units are specified,they are of the same size. Specified units have capacity such that,with any unit out of service,the remaining units will have capacity to handle the design peak hourly flow. [RSWF 42.31 and 42.36] 42. Bar racks are specified for pumps handling wastewater from 30 inch or larger diameter sewers. Where a bar rack is specified,a mechanical hoist is also provided. The design includes provisions for appropriate protection from clogging for small pump stations.[RSWF 42.322] 43. Pumps handling raw wastewater are designed to pass spheres of at least 3 inches in diameter. Pump suction and discharge openings are designed to be at least 4 inches in diameter.[RSWF 42.33](Note,this provision is not applicable to grinder pumps.) 44. The design requires pumps be placed such that under normal operating conditions they will operate under a positive suction head,unless pumps are suction-lift pumps. [RSWF 42.34] 45. The design requires: I)pump stations be protected from lightning and transient voltage surges;and 2)pump stations be equipped with lighting arrestors,surge capacitors,or other similar protection devices and phase protection. Note,pump stations serving a single building are not required to provide surge protection devices if not necessary to protect the pump station.[62-604.400(2)(b),F.A.C.] 46. The design requires I)electrical systems and components(e.g.,motors,lights,cables,conduits,switch boxes,control circuits,etc.)in raw wastewater wet wells,or in enclosed or partially enclosed spaces where hazardous concentrations of flammable gases or vapors may be present,comply with the National Electrical Code requirements for Class I Group D, Division I locations;2)electrical equipment located in wet wells be suitable for use under corrosive conditions;3)each flexible cable be provided with a watertight seal and separate strain relief;4)a fused disconnect switch located above ground be provided for the main power feed for all pump stations;5)electrical equipment exposed to weather to meet the requirements of weatherproof equipment NEMA 3R or 4;6)a 110 volt power receptacle to facilitate maintenance be provided inside the control panel for pump stations that have control panels outdoors;and 7)ground fault interruption protection be provided for all outdoor outlets. [RSWF 42.35] 47. The design requires a sump pump equipped with dual check valves be provided in dry wells to remove leakage or drainage with discharge above the maximum high water level of the wet well.[RSWF 42.37] 48. Pump station design capacities are based on the peak hourly flow and are adequate to maintain a minimum velocity of 2 feet per second in the force main.[RSWF 42.38] 49. The design includes provisions to automatically alternate the pumps in use.[RSWF 42.4] 50. The design requires: I)suitable shutoff valves be placed on the suction line of dry pit pumps;2)suitable shutoff and check valves be placed on the discharge line of each pump(except on screw pumps);3)a check valve be located between the shutoff valve and the pump;4)check valves be suitable for the material being handled;5)check valves be placed on the horizontal portion of discharge piping(except for ball checks,which may be placed in the vertical run);6)all valves be capable of withstanding normal pressure and water hammer;and 7)all shutoff and check valves be operable from the floor level and accessible for maintenance.[RSWF 42.5] 51. The effective volume of wet wells is based on design average flows and a filling time not to exceed 30 minutes unless the facility is designed to provide flow equalization. The pump manufacturer's duty cycle recommendations were utilized in selecting the minimum cycle time.[RSWF 42.62] 52. The design requires wet well floors have a minimum slope of I to 1 to the hopper bottom and the horizontal area of hopper bottoms be no greater than necessary for proper installation and function of the inlet.[RSWF 42.63] DEP Form 62.604.300(8)(a) Page 6 of 11 Effective November 6,2003 53. For covered wet wells,the design provides for air displacement to the atmosphere,such as an inverted"j"tube or other means.[RSWF 42.64] 54. The design provides for adequate ventilation all pump stations;mechanical ventilation where the dry well is below the ground surface;permanently installed ventilation if screens or mechanical equipment requiring maintenance or inspection are located in the wet well. Pump stations are designed with no interconnection between the wet well and dry well ventilation systems.[RSWF 42.71] 55. The design requires all intermittently operated ventilation equipment to be interconnected with the respective pit lighting system and the manual lighting/ventilation switch to override the automatic controls.[RSWF 42.73] 56. The design requires the fan wheels of ventilation systems be fabricated from non-sparking material and automatic heating and dehumidification equipment be provided in all dry wells.[RSWF 42.74] 57. If wet well ventilation is continuous,design provides for at least 12 complete 100%fresh air changes per hour;if wet well ventilation is intermittent,design provides for at least 30 complete 100%fresh air changes per hour;and design requires air to be forced into wet wells by mechanical means rather than solely exhausted from the wet well.[RSWF 42.75] 58. If dry well ventilation is continuous,design provides at least 6 complete 100%fresh air changes per hour;and dry well ventilation is intermittent,design provides for at least 30 complete 100%fresh air changes per hour,unless a system of two speed ventilation with an initial ventilation rate of 30 changes per hour for 10 minutes and automatic switch over to 6 changes per hour is used to conserve heat.[RSWF 42.76] 59. Pump stations are designed and located on the site to minimize adverse effects from odors,noise,and lighting.[62- 604.400(2)(c),F.A.C.] 60. The design requires pump stations be enclosed with a fence or otherwise designed with appropriate features to discourage the entry of animals and unauthorized persons.Posting of an unobstructed sign made of durable weather resistant material at a location visible to the public with a telephone number for a point of contact in case of emergency is specified.[62-604.400(2)(d),F.A.C.] _ 61. The design requires suitable devices for measuring wastewater flow at all pump stations. Indicating,totalizing,and recording flow measurement are specified for pump stations with a 1200 gpm or greater design peak flow.[RSWF 42.8] 62. The project is designed with no physical connections between any potable water supplies and pump stations. If a potable water supply is brought to a station,reduced-pressure principle backflow-prevention assemblies are specified.[RSWF 42.9 and 62-555.30(4),F.A.C.] Additional Items to be Completed for Suction-Lift Pump Stations 63. The design requires all suction-lift pumps to be either self-priming or vacuum-priming and the combined total of dynamic suction-lift at the"pump off'elevation and required net positive suction head at design operating conditions not to exceed 22 feet. For self-priming pumps,the design requires: I)pumps be capable of rapid priming and repriming at the "lead pump on"elevation with self-priming and repriming accomplished automatically under design operating conditions; 2)suction piping not to exceed the size of the pump suction or 25 feet in total length;and 3)priming lift at the"lead pump on"elevation to include a safety factor of at least 4 feet from the maximum allowable priming lift for the specific equipment at design operating conditions. For vacuum-priming pump stations,the design requires dual vacuum pumps capable of automatically and completely removing air from the suction-lift pumps and the vacuum pumps be adequately protected from damage due to wastewater.[RSWF 43.1] 64. The design requires: I)suction-lift pump equipment compartments to be above grade or offset and to be effectively isolated from the wet well to prevent a hazardous and corrosive sewer atmosphere from entering the equipment compartment;2)wet well access not to be through the equipment compartment and to be at least 24 inches in diameter;3) gasketed replacement plates be provided to cover the opening to the wet well for pump units to be remove for service; and 4)no valving be located in the wet well.[RSWF 43.2] DEP Form 62.604.300(8)(a) Page 7 of 11 Effective November 6.2003 Additional Items to be Completed for Submersible Pump Stations 65. Submersible pumps and motors are designed specifically for raw wastewater use,including totally submerged operation during a portion of each pump cycle and to meet the requirements of the National Electrical Code for such units. Provisions for detecting shaft seal failure or potential seal failure are included in the design.[RSWF 44.1] 66. The design requires submersible pumps be readily removable and replaceable without dewatering the wet well or disconnecting any piping in the wet well.[RSWF 44.2] 67. In submersible pump stations,electrical supply,control,and alarm circuits are designed to provide strain relief;to allow disconnection from outside the wet well;and to protect terminals and connectors from corrosion by location outside the wet well or through use of watertight seals.[RSWF 44.31] 68. In submersible pump stations,the design requires the motor control center to be located outside the wet well,readily accessible,and protected by a conduit seal or other appropriate measures meeting the requirements of the National Electrical Code,to prevent the atmosphere of the wet well from gaining access to the control center. If a seal is specified, the motor can be removed and electrically disconnected without disturbing the seal. The design requires control equipment exposed to weather to meet the requirements of weatherproof equipment NEMA 3R or 4.[RSWF 44.32] 69. In submersible pump stations,the design requires: I)pump motor power cords be flexible and serviceable under conditions of extra hard usage and to meet the requirements of the National Electrical Code standards for flexible cords in wastewater pump stations;2)ground fault interruption protection be used to de-energize the circuit in the event of any failure in the electrical integrity of the cable;and 3)power cord terminal fittings be corrosion-resistant and constructed in a manner to prevent the entry of moisture into the cable,provided with strain relief appurtenances,and designed to facilitate field connecting.[RSWF 44.33] 70. In submersible pump stations,the design requires all shut-off and check valves be located in a separate valve pit. Provisions to remove or drain accumulated water from the valve pit are included in the design.[RSWF 44.4] Emergency Operations for Pump Stations 71. Pump stations are designed with an alarm system which activates in cases of power failure,sump pump failure,pump failure,unauthorized entry,or any cause of pump station malfunction. Pump station alarms are designed to be telemetered to a facility that is manned 24 hours a day. If such a facility is not available and a 24-hour holding capacity is not provided,the alarm is designed to be telemetered to utility offices during normal working hours and to the home of the responsible person(s)in charge of the lift station during off-duty hours. Note,if an audio-visual alarm system with a self-contained power supply is provided in lieu of a telemetered system,documentation is provided in Part 11.C.showing an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection.[RSWF 45] 72. The design requires emergency pumping capability be provided for all pump stations. For pump stations that receive flow from one or more pump stations through a force main or pump stations discharging through pipes 12 inches or larger,the design requires uninterrupted pumping capability be provided,including an in-place emergency generator. Where portable pumping and/or generating equipment or manual transfer is used,the design includes sufficient storage capacity with-an alarm system to allow time for detection of pump station failure and transportation and connection of emergency equipment.[62-604.400(2)(a)I.and 2.,F.A.C.,and RSWF 46.423 and 46.433] 73. The design requires: 1)emergency standby systems to have sufficient capacity to start up and maintain the total rated running capacity of the station,including lighting,ventilation,and other auxiliary equipment necessary for safety and proper operation;2)special sequencing controls be provided to start pump motors unless the generating equipment has capacity to start all pumps simultaneously with auxiliary equipment operating;3)a riser from the force main with rapid connection capabilities and appropriate valving be provided for all pump stations to hook up portable pumps;and 4)all pump station reliability design features be compatible with the available temporary service power generating and pumping equipment of the authority responsible for operation and maintenance of the collection/transmission system. [62-604.400(2)(a)3.,F.A.C.,and RSWF 46.431] 74. The design-provides for emergency equipment to be protected from operation conditions that would result in damage to the equipment and from damage at the restoration of regular electrical power.[RSWF 46.411,46.417,and 46.432] DEP Form 62-604.300( Xa) Page 8 of 11 Effective November 6,2003 75. For permanently-installed internal combustion engines,underground fuel storage and piping facilities are designed in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations;and the design requires engines to be located above grade with adequate ventilation of fuel vapors and exhaust gases. [RSWF 46.414 and 46.415] 76. For permanently-installed or portable engine-driven pumps are used,the design includes provisions for manual start-up. [RSWF 46.422] 77. Where independent substations are used for emergency power,each separate substation and its associated transmission lines is designed to be capable of starting and operating the pump station at its rated capacity.[RSWF 46.44] Force Mains 78. Force mains are designed to maintain,at design pumping rates,a cleansing velocity of at least 2 feet per second. The minimum force main diameter specified for raw wastewater is not less than 4 inches.[RSWF 48.1] 79. The design requires: I)branches of intersecting force mains be provided with appropriate valves such that one branch may be shut down for maintenance and repair without interrupting the flow of other branches;and 2)stubouts on force mains,placed in anticipation of future connections,be equipped with a valve to allow such connection without interruption of service.[62-604.400(2)(0,F.A.C.] 80. The design requires air relief valves be placed at high points in the force main to prevent air locking.[RSWF 48.2] 81. Specified force main pipe and joints are equal to water main strength materials suitable for design conditions. The force main,reaction blocking,and station piping are designed to withstand water hammer pressures and stresses associated with the cycling of wastewater pump stations.[RSWF 48.4] 82. When the Hazen and Williams formula is used to calculate friction losses through force mains,the value for"C"is 100 for unlined iron or steel pipe for design. For other smooth pipe materials,such as PVC,polyethylene,lined ductile iron,the value for C does not exceed 120 for design.[RSWF 48.61] 83. Where force mains are constructed of material,which might cause the force main to be confused with potable water mains,specifications require the force main to be clearly identified.[RSWF 48.7] 84. Leakage tests for force mains are specified including testing methods and leakage limits.[RSWF 48.8] •RSWF=Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities(1997)as adopted by rule 62-604.300(5)(c),F.A.C. B. Explanation for Requirements or Standards Marked"X"in Il(5)A.Above(Attach additional sheets if necessary): PART Ill - CERTIFICATIONS (I) Collection/Transmission System Permittee I,the undersigned owner or authorized representative*of am fully aware that the statements made in this application for a construction permit are true,correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I agree to retain the design engineer or another professional engineer registered in Florida, to conduct on-site observation of construction,to prepare a certification of completion of construction,and to review record drawings for adequacy. Further,I agree to provide an appropriate operation and maintenance manual for the facilities pursuant to Rule 62-604.500(4), F.A.C.,and to retain a professional engineer registered in Florida to examine(or to prepare if desired)the manual. I am fully aware that Department approval must be obtained before this project is placed into service for any purpose other than testing for leaks and testing equipment operation. Signed Date Name Title *Attach a letter of authorization. DEP Form 62-604 300(8)(a) Page 9 of I I Effective November 6,2003 (2) Owner of Collection/Transmission System I,the undersigned owner or authorized representative*of certify that we will he the Owner of this project aller it is placed into service. I agree that we will operate and maintain this project in a manner that will comply w ith applicable Department rules. Also I agree that we will promptly notify the Department if we sell or legally transfer ownership of this project. • Signed Date Name Title Company Name Address City State Zip Telephone Fax Entail *Attach a letter of authorization. (3) Wastewater Facility Serving Collection/Transmission System** If this is a Notice of Intent to use a general permit,check here: ❑ The undersigned owner or authorized representative*of the wastewater facility hereby certifies that the above referenced facility has the capacity to receive the wastewater generated by the proposed collection system;is in compliance with the capacity analysis report requirements of Rule 62-600.405,F.A.C.;is not under a Department order associated with effluent violations or the ability to treat wastewater adequately;and will provide the necessary treatment and disposal as required by Chapter 403,F.S.,and applicable Department rules. If this is an application for an individual permit,check one: ❑ The undersigned owner or authorized representative*of the wastewater facility hereby certifies that the above referenced facility has and will have adequate reserve capacity to accept the flow from this project and will provide the necessary treatment and disposal as required by Chapter 403,F.S.,and applicable Department rules. ❑The undersigned owner or authorized representative*of the wastewater facility hereby certifies that the above referenced facility currently does not have, but will have prior to placing the proposed project into operation, adequate reserve capacity to accept the flow from this project and will provide the necessary treatment and disposal as required by Chapter 403,F.S.,and applicable Department rules. Name of Treatment Plant Serving Project County City DEP permit number FL Expiration Date Maximum monthly average daily flow over the last 12 month period MG D Month(s)used Maximum three-month average daily flow over the last 12 month period MG D Month(s)used Current permitted capacity MGD DAADF ❑MADFQTMADF Current outstanding flow commitments(including this project)against treatment plant capacity: Signed Date Name Title Address City State Zip Telephone Fax Email *Attach a letter of authorization. ** if there is an intermediate collection system, a letter shall be attached certifying that the intermediate downstream collection system has adequate reserve capacity to accept the flow from this project. DEP Form 62-604.300($)(a) Page 10 of 11 Effective November 6,2003 (4) Professional Engineer Registered in Florida I, the undersigned professional engineer registered in Florida, certify that I ant in responsible charge of the preparation and production of engineering documents for this project;that plans and specifications fitr this project have been completed;that I have expertise in the design of wastewater collection/transmission systems;and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief. the engineering design for this project complies with the requirements of Chapter 62-604,F.A.C. r r� rt Signed Date Name Florida Registration No. Company Name Address City State Zip Telephone Fax Email Portion of Project for Which Responsible (r\ifi _i Signed Date Name Florida Registration No. Company Name Address City State Zip Telephone Fax Email Portion of Project for Which Responsible (A1117.. r�' ♦l Signed Date Name Florida Registration No. Company Name Address • City State Zip Telephone Fax Email Portion of Project for Which Responsible DEP Form 62.604.300(8t(a) Page 11 of I I Effective November 6.2003 Appendix C DEP Rule Chapter 62-604, F.A.C. �. "Collection Systems and 401 Transmission Facilities" i�. CHAPTER 62-604 COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES 62-604.100 Scope, Intent,Purpose,and Applicability. 62-604.110 Applicability.(Repealed) 62-604.I20 Variations from Requirements. 62-604.130 Prohibitions. 62-604.200 Definitions. 62-604.300 General Technical Guidance, Related Rules,and Forms. 62-604.400 Design/Perfonnance Considerations. 62-604.410 Low Pressure Sewer Systems.(Repealed) 62-604.420 Reuse Distribution Systems.(Repealed) 62-604.500 Operation and Maintenance. 62-604.550 Abnormal Events. 62-604.600 Procedure to Obtain Construction Permits. 62-604.700 Placing Collection/Transmission Systems into Operation. 62-604.900 Forms and Instructions.(Repealed) 62-604.100 Scope,Intent,Purpose,and Applicability. (I) Section 403.021(2), Florida Statutes, as amended, the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act, established that no wastes are to be discharged to any waters of the state without first being given the degree of the treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of such water. Section 403.05I(2)(a), Florida Statutes, mandates that any Department planning, design, construction, modification or operating standards,criteria, and requirements for wastewater collection/transmission be developed as a rule or regulation. This rule is promulgated to implement the provisions and requirements of Sections 403.051, 403.085, 403.086,403.087,403.088,Florida Statutes,concerning wastewater collection/transmission systems. (2)It is the policy of the Department to encourage an applicant,prior to submittal of a permit application,to study and evaluate alternative techniques and to discuss alternatives with the Department. (a) The Department encourages inclusion of relevant public health, economic, scientific, energy, engineering and environmental considerations in such evaluations. (b)The Department encourages environmentally acceptable alternatives which provide the most economic and energy efficient methods of complying with the requirements of this rule. (3)The Commission,recognizing the complexity of water quality management and the necessity to temper regulatory actions with the realities of technological progress and social and economic well-being,nevertheless, intends to prohibit any discharge of pollution that constitutes a hazard to human health. (4)These rules shall be liberally construed to assure that all waters of the state shall be free from components of wastewater discharges which, alone or in combination with other substances, are acutely toxic; are present in concentrations which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to humans, animals, or aquatic species; or otherwise pose a serious threat to the public health,safety,and welfare. (5)The requirements of this rule represent the specific requirements of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and of Local Pollution Control Programs approved and established pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes, where such authority has been delegated to those programs.It may be necessary for wastewater facilities to conform with requirements of other agencies,established via interagency agreements(e.g.,for mosquito control);the absence of reference to such arrangements in this chapter does not negate the need for compliance with those requirements. (6) Pursuant to Section 403.1815, Florida Statutes, the Department may authorize a county or municipality to independently regulate the construction of gravity sewage collection systems of 12 inches or less in diameter,sewage force mains of 12 inches or less in diameter, and pump stations appurtenant to such force mains, provided the treatment plant is owned by the county or municipality making the request for approval or, pursuant to local agreement, plant capacity is provided from a plant owned by another county or municipality. Such authorization does not negate the necessity for complying with the applicable design standards contained in this rule. (7) The purpose of Chapter 62-604, F.A.C., is to provide minimum design and operation and maintenance standards for domestic wastewater collection/transmission systems. Systems shall be designed in accordance with sound engineering practice. Supported by moderating provisions, it is intended that Chapter 62-604, F.A.C.,establish a framework whereby design flexibility and sound engineering practice can be used in developing systems with which to collect and transport domestic wastewater in an environmentally sound manner. (8)As appropriate,Chapter 62-604,F.A.C.,shall be used in conjunction with other Department rules relating to the design and operation and maintenance of domestic wastewater collection/transmission systems. (9)Requirements in this rule shall apply to both public and private domestic wastewater collection/transmission systems. (10)Requirements for design and construction of reclaimed water distribution systems are included in Chapter 62-610,F.A.C. - 441 (II)This rule provides for exemptions,allowances and variations from requirements. Unless specifically provided otherwise, requirements in this rule shall be applicable only to new domestic wastewater collection/transmission facilities for which construction permit applications are approved by the Department after November 6,2003.This rule also shall apply to all facilities existing prior to November 6, 2003, when such facilities are to be modified, but such applicability shall apply only to the modification thereof. (12)Specific activities required to obtain a permit are outlined in Rule 62-604.600,F.A.C. (13)Individual service connections from single family residences are not required to be permitted by the Department. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.061, 403.085, 403.086, 403.087, 403.088 FS. Ilistwy-New 11-27-89,Amended 6-4-92,Formerly 17-604.100,Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03. 62-604.120 Variations from Requirements. Additional relief from the criteria established by this rule may be provided through an exemption, pursuant to Rule 62-4.243, F.A.C.,or a variance,pursuant to Rule 62-110.104,F.A.C. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.062. 403.085, 403.086, 403.087. 403.088 FS. history-New 11-27-89.Formerly 17-604.120,Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03. 62-604.130 Prohibitions. The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited. (I)The release or disposal of excreta,sewage,or other wastewaters or residuals without providing proper treatment approved by the Department; construction or operation of a wastewater collection system not in compliance with this rule; or any act otherwise violating provisions of this rule or of any other rules of the Department. (2)Violations of the odor prohibition in subsection 62-296.320(2),F.A.C. (3)Cross-connection,as defined in Rule 62-550.200,F.A.C. (4) Except to augment the supply of reclaimed water when all conditions of paragraph 62-610.472(3)(c),F.A.C.,are met,the deliberate introduction of stormwater in any amount into collection/transmission systems designed solely for the introduction(and conveyance) of domestic/industrial wastewater and/or the deliberate introduction of stormwater into collection/transmission systems designed for the introduction or conveyance of combinations of storm and domestic/industrial wastewater in amounts which may reduce the efficiency of pollutant removal by the treatment plant. (5)The acceptance,by the operating authority of a collection/transmission system or by the permittee of a treatment plant,of connections of wastewater discharges which have not received necessary pretreatment or which contain materials or pollutants (other than domestic wastewater constituents): (a)Which may cause fire or explosion hazards;or (b)Which may cause excessive corrosion or other deterioration of wastewater facilities due to chemical action or pH levels;or (c)Which are solid or viscous and obstruct flow or otherwise interfere with wastewater facility operations or treatment;or (d) Which result in the wastewater temperature at the introduction of the treatment plant exceeding 40°C or otherwise inhibiting treatment;or (e)Which result in the presence of toxic gases,vapors,or fumes that may cause worker health and safety problems. (6)The failure to maintain equipment in a condition which will enable the intended function. (7)The submission,by the owner,manager, or operator of a collection/transmission system,or agent or employee thereof,of misleading,false,or inaccurate information to the Department,either knowingly or through neglect. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.061. 403.062, 403.085. 403.086, 403.087, 403.088, 403.121, 403.131, 403.161 FS.History—New 11-27-89,Formerly 17-604.130,Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03. • 62-604.200 Definitions. Terms used in this rule shall have the meaning specified below. The meaning of any term not defined below may be taken from definitions in other rules of the Department,unless such meaning would defeat the purposes or intent of Chapter 62-604,F.A.C. (I)"Alternative collection/transmission systems"means those systems referenced in paragraphs 62-604.300(5)(6),(c),and(j), F.A.C., or other collection/transmission systems not comprised of strictly conventional gravity sewers, pump stations, and force mains. (2)"Collection/transmission systems"means sewers,pipelines,conduits,pumping stations,force mains,and all other facilities used for collection and transmission of wastewater from individual service connections to facilities intended for the purpose of providing treatment prior to release to the environment. (3)"Commission"means the Environmental Regulation Commission. (4)"Delegated local program"means any county,municipality,or combination thereof that has established and administers a pollution control program approved by the Department in compliance with Section 403.182,F.S.,as amended. (5) "Department" means the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or delegated local program, where applicable. (6)"District office"means the regional district offices of the Department. - 442 (7)"Domestic wastewater"means wastewater derived principally from dwellings,business buildings,institutions,and the like, commonly referred to as sanitary wastewater or sewage. When industrial wastewater is combined with domestic wastewater for treatment, determination of whether the treatment plant is designated as domestic shall be in accordance with the definition of domestic wastewater provided in Rule 62-600.200,F.A.C. (8)"Individual service connection"means the sewer which connects the point(s)at which wastewater leaves a building which is its source and the point at which it enters a collection system. (9)"Modification" means any alteration,expansion,upgrade,extension,replacement of,or addition to an existing wastewater facility or activity. (10)"Permittee"means the owner,operator or other entity to which a pennit for a wastewater facility or activity is issued by the Department. The term "permittee"shall be functionally synonymous with the terms `owner","contractor", or"licensee",but shall not include licensed individuals, such as State certified operators, unless they are the persons to whom a facility permit is issued by the Department.The term shall extend to a permit"applicant"for purposes of this chapter. (II)"Pollution"is as defined in Section 403.031,F.S. (12) "Pretreatment" means the reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to, or in lieu of, introducing such pollutants into the treatment facility. This reduction or alteration can be obtained by physical, chemical, or biological processes; by process changes; or by other means, except by diluting the concentration of the pollutants unless allowed by an applicable pretreatment standard. (13) "Private drinking water supply well" means a well serving a private or multifamily water system as defined in Rule 62-532.200,F.A.C. (14)"Public drinking water supply well"means a well serving a public water system as defined in Rule 62-550.200,F.A.C. (15)"Secretary"means the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection. (I 6) "Treatment" means any method,technique, or process which changes the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of wastewater and thereby reduces its potential for polluting waters of the state. (17)"Treatment plant"means any plant or other works used for the purpose of treating,stabilizing,or holding wastes. (I 8)"Wastes"means sewage,industrial wastes,and all other liquid,gaseous,solid,radioactive,or other substances which may pollute or tend to pollute any waters of the State. (19) "Wastewater" means the combination of liquid and water-carried pollutants from residences, commercial buildings, industrial plants,and institutions together with any groundwater,surface runoff or leachate that may be present. (20) "Wastewater facility" or "facility" means any facility which discharges wastes into waters of the State or which can reasonably be expected to be a source of water pollution and includes any or all of the following: the collection and transmission system,the wastewater treatment works,the reuse or disposal system,and the residuals management facility. (21)"Waters"shall be as defined in Section 403.031,Florida Statutes. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.062, 403.085, 403.086, 403.087, 403.088 FS. History-New 11-27-89,Amended 6-4-92,Formerly 17-604.200,Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03. 62-604.300 General Technical Guidance,Related Rules,and Forms. (1) The technical standards and criteria contained in the following standard manuals and technical publications listed in subsection (5) below and those referenced throughout this rule are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be applied, if applicable,in determining whether permits allowing construction or modification of collection/transmission systems shall be issued or denied. (2)Deviations from the standards and criteria contained in the publications listed in subsection(5)below shall be approved by the Department provided that: (a)The engineer's report provides reasonable assurance that the proposed design will provide collection/transmission meeting the requirements of this rule;and either (b)Conforming with these standards cannot be done except at unreasonably higher costs;or (c) It is not technically feasible to conform to these standards because of site conditions or incompatibility with a proposed facility design employing new and innovative techniques which assure compliance with the remainder of this rule. (3) In cases where the standards and criteria contained in the publications listed in subsection(5)below conflict with this rule or other rules of the Department,Department standards and rules shall control. (4)In cases where the standards and criteria contained in the publications listed in subsection(5)below conflict,the standards and criteria contained in the publication listed in paragraph(5)(g)shall be used. (5)Standard Manuals and Publications. (a) Odor and Corrosion Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems and Treatment Plants (1985). EPA/625/1-85/018. NTIS# PB88184031.National Technical Information Service,5285 Port Royal Road,Springfield,VA 22161.www.ntis.gov. (b) Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems (1991). EPA/625/1-91/024. NTIS# PB93-1162591N2. National Technical Information Service,5285 Port Royal Road,Springfield,VA 22161.www.ntis.gov. (c) Manual of Practice No. FD-12. Alternative Sewer Systems (1986). Water Environment Federation, 601 Wythe Street, Alexandria,VA 22314. www.wef.org. - 443 (d)Manual of Practice No. FD-4. Design of Wastewater and Stormwater Pumping Stations (1993). Water Environment .:edcration,601 Wythe Street,Alexandria,VA 22314. www.wef.org. (e) Manual of Practice No. FD-5. Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction (1982). Water Environment Federation, 601 Wythe Street,Alexandria,VA 22314.www.wef.org. (f)Manual of Practice No.7.Wastewater Collection Systems Management(1999).Water Environment Federation,601 Wythe Street,Alexandria,VA 22314.www.weforg. (g) Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities(1997). health Education Service, Inc., P. O. Box 7126,Albany,New York 12224.www.hes.org. (h) Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability — MCD-05 (1974). EPA-430-99-74-001, Department of Environmental Protection, 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3540, Tallahassee, FL 32399. www.dep.state.fl.us/water. (i) Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Collection Systems Volume I (1999) and Volume II (1998). California State University,Department of Civil Engineering,6000 J Street,Sacramento,California 95819.www.owp.xux.edu. (j)Design and Specification Guidelines for Low Pressure Sewer Systems (1981). Department of Environmental Protection, 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3540,Tallahassee,FL 32399. www.dep.state.fl.us/water. (6) Members of the public may request and obtain copies of the publications listed in subsection(5) above by contacting the appropriate publisher at the address indicated. Copies of the above publications are on file with the Florida Secretary of State. Copies are also on file and available for review in the Department's Tallahassee offices(including the information Center)and in the Department's district offices where they may be reviewed during normal business hours. (7)Related rules.Permitting requirements and fees related to permitting are listed in Chapter 62-4, F.A.C. (8)Forms.The forms and instructions used by the Department are listed in this rule.The rule numbers are the form numbers. The forms are hereby incorporated by reference in this rule.Copies of these forms and instructions may be obtained by writing to the Bureau of Water Facilities Regulation, Mail Station 3535, Department of Environmental Protection, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400. In addition, these forms are available at the Department's district offices and on the Department's website. (a)Notification/Application for Constructing a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System,effective November 6, 2003. (b)Request for Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System into Operation effective November 6,2003. 'pecific Authority 403.061(7)FS.Law Implemented 403.061, 403.085,403.086, 403.087, 403.088 FS.Ilisto y—New 11-27-89,Amended 6-4-92, 5-31-93,Formerly/7-604.300,Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03. 62-604.400 Design/Performance Considerations. (1)All new collection/transmission systems and modifications of existing systems for which construction permits are required by the Department shall be designed: (a)In accordance with the provisions of Rule 62-604.300,F.A.C.; (b)To be located on public right-of-ways,land owned by the permittee,or easements; (c)Except as provided in subsection 62-604.400(3),F.A.C.,to be located no closer than 100 feet from a public drinking water supply well and no closer than 75 feet from a private drinking water supply well unless the applicant provides documentation accompanying the permit application showing that another alternative will result in an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection;and (d) To preclude the deliberate introduction of storm water, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, swimming pool drainage, air conditioning system condensate water, non-contact cooling water except as provided by subsection 62-610.668(1), F.A.C.,and sources of uncontaminated wastewater. However,collection/transmission systems may be designed to augment the supply of reclaimed water when all conditions of paragraph 62-610.472(3)(c), F.A.C.,are met. (2)In addition to subsection(I),above,the following requirements shall be met where applicable: (a)Emergency pumping capability shall be provided for all pump stations.Pumping capability shall be provided as follows: 1. Pump stations that receive flow from one or more pump stations through a force main or pump stations discharging through pipes 12 inches or larger shall provide for uninterrupted pumping capabilities,including an in-place emergency generator. 2. For pump stations not addressed in subparagraph (2)(a)l. above, emergency pumping capability may be accomplished by connection of the station to at least two independent utility substations, by providing a connection for portable or in-place engine-driven generating equipment,or by providing portable pumping equipment. 3. Such emergency standby systems shall have sufficient capacity to start up and maintain the total rated running capacity of the station. Regardless of the type of emergency standby system provided, a riser from the force main with rapid connection capabilities and appropriate valving shall be provided for all pump stations to hook up portable pumps.All pump station reliability design features shall be compatible with the available temporary service power generating and pumping equipment of the authority responsible for operation and maintenance of the collection/transmission system. - - 444 (b) Pumping stations shall be protected from lightning and transient voltage surges.As a minimum,stations shall be equipped vith lightning arrestors,surge capacitors or other similar protection devices,and phase protection.Small pumping stations serving a single building will not be required to provide surge protection devices when they are not necessary to protect the pump station. Complex or critical pumping stations shall be designed to incorporate standby pumping capability, power generation, and other appropriate features pursuant to paragraph 62-604.300(5)(h),F.A.C. (c) New pumping stations shall be designed and located on the site so as to minimize adverse effects resulting from odors, noise, and lighting. The permittee shall give reasonable assurance that the facility shall not cause odor, noise or lighting in such amounts or at such levels that they adversely affect neighboring residents,in commercial or residential areas,so as to be potentially harmful or injurious to human health or welfare or unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property, including outdoor recreation. Reasonable assurance may be based on such means as aeration, landscaping, treatment of vented gases,buffer zones owned or under the control of the permittee,chemical additions, prechlorination,ozonation, innovative structural design or other similar techniques and methods,as may be required. (d)New pumping stations shall be enclosed with a fence or otherwise designed with appropriate features that discourage the entry of animals and unauthorized persons. An unobstructed sign made of durable weather resistant material shall be posted at a location visible to the public with a telephone number for a point of contact in case of emergency. (e)In areas with high water tables,the pump station shall be designed to include measures to withstand flotation forces when empty.The potential for damage or interruption of operation because of flooding shall be considered by the permittee when siting new pumping stations. The electrical and mechanical equipment shall be protected from physical damage by the 100-year flood. The pumping station shall be designed to remain fully operational and accessible during the 25-year flood;lesser flood levels may be designed for,dependent on local conditions,but in no case shall less than a 10-year flood be used. Design considerations(water surface elevation, forces arising from water movement, etc.) shall be based upon available information; where site-specific information is unavailable,sound engineering practices shall be used in siting and design of pump station facilities. (f) Branches of intersecting force mains shall be provided with appropriate valves such that one branch may be shut down for maintenance and repair without interrupting the flow of other branches. Stubouts on a force main,placed in anticipation of future connections,shall be equipped with a valve to allow such connections without interruption of service. (g) Except as provided in subsection 62-604.400(3), F.A.C., sewers and force mains shall be laid at least ten feet(outside to outside) horizontally from water mains. Provided the applicant demonstrates there is no reasonable alternative, the Department shall approve smaller horizontal separation distances for sewers if one of the following conditions is met: I.The top of the sewer is installed at least 18 inches below the bottom of the potable water line. 2.The sewer is encased in watertight carrier pipe or concrete. 3. Both the sewer and the water main are constructed of slip-on or mechanical joint pipe complying with public water supply design standards and pressure tested to ISO psi to assure watertightness. 4. The applicant provides documentation accompanying the permit application showing that another alternative will result in an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection. (h)Except as provided in subsection 62-604.400(3), F.A.C.,sewers and force mains shall be laid at least three feet(outside to outside) horizontally from any existing or proposed reclaimed water line permitted under Part III of Chapter 62-610, F.A.C. Smaller horizontal distances shall be approved in accordance with subsection 62-610.469(7),F.A.C. (i)Except as provided in subsection 62-604.400(3),F.A.C.,sewer pipes and force mains shall cross under water mains,unless there is no alternative. Sewers and force mains crossing water mains or reclaimed water lines permitted under Part III of Chapter 62-610, F.A.C., shall be laid to provide a minimum vertical distance of 18 inches between the invert of the upper pipe and the crown of the lower pipe.The minimum vertical separation shall be maintained whether the water main is above or below the sewer. For sewer crossings,the crossing shall be arranged so that the sewer pipe joints are equidistant and as far as possible from the water main joints. Adequate structural support shall be provided for the sewer or force main to maintain line and grade. For sewers, provided the applicant demonstrates there is no reasonable alternative, the Department shall approve smaller vertical separation distances if one of the following conditions is met: I.The sewer is encased in a watertight carrier pipe or concrete. _ 2.The sewer is designed and constructed equal to water pipe and pressure tested to 150 psi to assure watertightness. 3. The applicant provides documentation accompanying the permit application showing that another alternative will result in an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection. (j) The provisions of paragraphs 62-604.400(2)(g)-(i), F.A.C.,.above are applicable to in-ground crossings. No vertical or horizontal separation distances are required for above-ground crossings. (k)Special protection shall be furnished for sewer lines crossing canals or other waterways subject to maintenance dredging or where damage may occur from water craft anchorage so as to minimize the potential for unintentional discharge of wastewater into surface waters. 1. Subaqueous lines shall be buried at least three feet below the design or actual bottom,whichever is deeper,of a canal and other dredged waterway or the natural bottom of streams,rivers,estuaries,bays,and other natural water bodies. Designs with less than the three-foot minimum cover shall be protected by a concrete cap,sleeve,or some other properly engineered device to insure - 445 adequate protection of the line; subaqueous crossings shall be designed to lie on the bottom of waterways only when the :ngineering report provides reasonable assurance that,because of the depth of the water or other circumstances,the pipeline shall be adequately protected from damage from natural occurrences or mankind's activities. 2.Subaqueous crossings shall be clearly marked by permanent warning signs placed on the banks of canals,streams,and rivers clearly identifying the nature and location(including depths below design or natural bottom)of the crossings.Crossings of lakes, bays and other large bodies of water shall be similarly identified at the shore and, with suitably fixed signs, in any area where anchoring may normally be expected. Signs shall have characteristics compatible with surrounding land use, while serving the intended purpose. 3. Aerial crossings, whether hung from existing structures,self-supporting,or supported by utility bridges or structures,shall be designed to maintain existing or required navigational capabilities within the waterway and to reserve the riparian rights of adjacent property owners. 4. Provisions for testing the integrity of underwater lines shall be made, and special pipe material suitable for underwater construction shall be used. 5. Lines shall be designed to incorporate valves or other flow regulating devices(which may include pump stations) on the shoreline or at such distances from the shoreline as may be approved by the Department to prevent discharge in the event the line is damaged. (3)If there are conflicts in the separation requirements between collection systems and drinking water facilities established in (I) and (2)above and those established in Chapter 62-532 or 62-555, F.A.C.,then the requirements in Chapter 62-532 or 62-555, F.A.C.,shall apply. (4)The manuals referenced in paragraphs 62-604.300(5)(b),(c),and(j), F.A.C.,shall be used in evaluation of the design and construction of alternative collection/transmission systems in Florida.A central management entity,be it public or private,shall be responsible for operation and maintenance of the on-lot facilities associated with alternative collection/transmission systems. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.062, 403.085. 403.086, 403.087, 403.088 FS. llistoiy-New 11-27-89,Amended 6-4-92,Formerly 17-604,400,Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03. 62-604.500 Operation and Maintenance. (I) Even though operation permits are not issued for collection systems, the operation and maintenance provisions of Rule 62-604.500, F.A.C.,are applicable to both new and existing domestic wastewater collection/transmission facilities. (2)All collection/transmission systems shall be operated and maintained so as to provide uninterrupted service as required by his rule. (3)All equipment necessary for the collection/transmission of domestic wastewater,including equipment provided pursuant to subsection 62-604.400(2),F.A.C., shall be maintained so as to function as intended. In the event odor,noise or lighting adversely affect neighboring developed areas at levels prohibited by paragraph 62-604.400(2)(c), F.A.C., corrective action (which may include modifications of the collection/transmission system) shall be taken by the permittee. Other corrective action may be required to ensure compliance with rules of the Department. (4)Copies of record drawings and the operation and maintenance manual shall be available at a site within the boundaries of the district office or delegated local program permitting the collection/transmission system, for use by operation and maintenance personnel and for inspection by Department personnel. (a)The operation and maintenance manual shall provide for reliable and efficient operation and maintenance of the collection/ transmission system. (b)The detail of the operation and maintenance manual shall be consistent with the complexity of the system.The manual shall be developed in accordance with the technical guidance document contained in paragraph 62-604.300(4Xi),F.A.C.,and the unique requirements of the individual wastewater facility and shall provide the operator with adequate information and description regarding the design,operation,and maintenance features of the facility involved,including an emergency response plan. (c) The operation and maintenance manual shall be revised periodically to reflect any alterations performed or to reflect experience resulting from operation. (d) A new operation and maintenance manual is not required to be developed for each project if there is already an existing manual that is applicable to the facilities being constructed. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.087, 403.088 FS. History-New 11-27-89, Amended 6-4-92, Formerly 17-604.500,Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03. 62-604.550 Abnormal Events. (1) The provisions of Rule 62-604.550, F.A.C., are applicable to both new and existing domestic wastewater collection/ transmission systems. (2)The owner/operator of the collection/transmission system shall report to the Department all unauthorized releases or spills of wastewater to surface or ground waters from its collection/transmission system or any other abnormal events as described below: - 446 (a) Unauthorized releases or spills in excess of 1,000 gallons per incident, or other abnormal events where information ndicates that public health or the environment will be endangered, shall be reported orally to the STATE WARNING POINT TOLL FREE NUMBER(800) 320-0519 as soon as practical, but no later than 24 hours from the time that the owner/operator becomes aware of the circumstances.The owner/operator,to the extent known,shall provide the following information to the State Warning Point: I.Name,address,and telephone number of person reporting; 2.Name,address,and telephone number of owner/operator of the collection/transmission system or responsible person for the discharge; 3. Date and time of the discharge and status of discharge(ongoing or ceased); 4.Characteristics of the wastewater spilled or released(untreated or treated,industrial or domestic wastewater); 5. Estimated amount of the discharge; 6. Location or address of the discharge; 7.Source and cause of the discharge; 8.Whether the discharge was contained on-site,and cleanup actions taken to date; 9. Description of area affected by the discharge,including name of water body affected,if any;and I0.Other persons or agencies contacted. (b) Unauthorized releases or spills of 1000 gallons per incident or less shall be reported orally to the Department within 24 hours from the time that the owner/operator of the collection/transmission system becomes aware of the circumstances. (c)The oral notification shall be followed by a written submission,which shall be provided within five days of the time that the owner/operator becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain: a description of the spill, release or abnormal event and its cause;the duration including exact dates and time,and if it has not been corrected,the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence. The Department shall waive the written report if the oral report has been received within 24 hours from the time that the owner/operator of the collection/ transmission system becomes aware of the circumstances,and the release,spill or abnormal event has been corrected and did not endanger health or the environment. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law implemented 403.021. 403.061, 403.062. 403.087, 403.088, 403.182 FS. llisios—New 11-27-89, Amended 6-4-92,5-31-93, Formerly 17-604.550,Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03. 62-604.600 Procedure to Obtain Construction Permits. (I)Except as noted in subsection(2)below,either a general or individual construction permit is required for the construction or modification of any collection/transmission system in accordance with subsections(6)and(7)below. (2)The following activities do not require a collection system permit. (a)Replacement of any facilities with new facilities of the same capacity at the same location as the facilities being replaced; (b) Construction of any single gravity or non-gravity individual service connection from a single building to a gravity collection system;however,construction of a non-gravity connection from other than a single family residence to an existing force main system requires a permit; (c)Construction of a low pressure(grinder pump or STEP)or vacuum sewer individual service connection where the system serving the area has been previously permitted by the Department; (d)Installation of odor control facilities; (e)Modifications associated with routine maintenance;or (f)Modifications associated with ancillary and electrical equipment and structures. (3)Each non-contiguous project shall require a separate application and fee pursuant to paragraph 62-4.050(4)(t),F.A.C. (4)Collection/transmission systems can either be constructed under the general permit procedures and criteria specified in Part III, Chapter 62-4, F.A.C., and subsection 62-604.600(6), F.A.C., or by individual permit specified in subsection 62-604.600(7), F.A.C. Permittees shall comply with applicable design/performance criteria contained in this chapter as part of the permitting standards under Chapter 62-4,F.A.C. (5)Collection/transmission system permits shall be issued for a period no longer than five years,unless specifically authorized by the Florida Statutes. (6)General Permits. (a)Except for alternative collection/transmission systems,a general permit is hereby granted to any person for the construction of a wastewater collection/transmission system that has been designed in accordance with the standards and criteria set forth in subsections 62-604.400(1)and(2),F.A.C.,provided that: 1. Notice to the Department under subsection 62-4.530(1), F.A.C., is submitted on Form 62-604.300(8)(a) at least 30 days prior to initiating construction;and 2.The wastewater facility to which the system will be connected: a.Has the capacity to receive the wastewater generated by the proposed collection system; b. Is in compliance with the capacity analysis requirements of Rule 62-600.405, F.A.C.; c. Is not under a Department Order associated with effluent violations or the ability to treat wastewater adequately;and - 447 d.Will provide the necessary treatment and disposal as required by Chapter 403,F.S.,and applicable Department rules. (b)This general permit is subject to the general conditions of Rule 62-4.540, F.A.C.,and the following specific conditions: I. This general permit does not relieve the pennittee of the responsibility for obtaining a dredge and fill permit where it is required. 2.This general permit can not be revised,except to transfer the permit. (7)Individual Permits. (a)Collection/transmission systems not meeting the general permit criteria in subsection(6)above shall submit an application for an individual permit on Form 62-604.300(8)(a),Notification/Application for Constructing a Domestic Wastewater Collection/ Transmission System,effective November 6,2003. Copies of this form and instructions may be obtained by writing to the Bureau of Water Facilities Regulation, Mail Station 3535, Department of Environmental Protection, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road,Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400. In addition, these forms are available at the Department's district offices and on the Department's website. (b)A Department permit shall be obtained prior to construction. (8) Permit revisions for collection/transmission systems permitted under this rule shall only be made in accordance with paragraph 62-4.050(4)(s),F.A.C.Request for revisions shall be made to the Department in writing and shall include the appropriate fee.Revisions not covered under paragraph 62-4.050(4)(s),F.A.C.,shall require a new permit. (9)If,after review of Form 62-604.300(8)(a)and any supporting documentation,the Department determines that the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the construction, modification, expansion, or operation of the installation will be in accordance with applicable laws or rules, including rules of delegated local programs, the Department shall deny the permit or notify the applicant that the general permit cannot be used,as appropriate. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.062, 403.085, 403.086, 403.087. 403.088 FS. History-New 11-27-89,Amended 6-4-92,Formerly 17-604.600,Amended 11-6-03. 62-604.700 Placing Collection/Transmission Systems into Operation. (I)The following requirements apply to collection/transmission systems permitted under the general permit and to collection/ transmission systems permitted under the individual permit. (2) Upon completion of construction of the collection/transmission system,and before placing the facilities into operation for any purpose other than testing for leaks or testing equipment operation,the permittee shall submit to the appropriate district office, Form 62-604.300(8)(b), Request for Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System into Operation, °ffective November 6, 2003. Copies of this form and instructions may be obtained by writing to the Bureau of Water Facilities Regulation, Mail Station 3535, Department of Environmental Protection,Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400.In addition,these forms are available at the Department's district offices and on the Department's website. (3)New or modified collection/transmission facilities shall not be placed into service until the Department clears the project for use. The Department shall approve or deny the clearance within 10 business days after Department receipt of Form 62-604.300(8)(b)for a general permit,or within 30 business days for an individual permit. Specific Authority 403.814(1)FS. Law Implemented 403.061,403.087,403.088,403.814 FS. History-New 11-27-89,Amended 6-4-92,Formerly 17-604.700,Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03. - 448 Appendix D rimMonroe County/FDEP/FKAA :_ - Meeting Minutes for II 'i,,. i** ,•--Til Sugar Pine Wastewater Project (July 7, 2008) AC) Ce MINUTES OF MEETING FOR SUGAR PINE WASTEWATER PROJECT MONROE COUNTY/ DEP /FKAA July 7 , 2008 Fort Myers/Marathon Introductions made. See attached attendance list. Attendees from FDEP- South District, Monroe County and FKAA were present. Service Area of project presented by FKAA and discussion of the change from initial Master Plan (three treatment plants) to revised plan with one treatment plant on Cudjoe Key to handle the entire service area. Project Schedule discussed. Design is underway and to be completed within about 1 year. Permitting is to be completed within similar timeframe, so construction can begin on critical project elements by middle of 2009. Construction will be phased for workload and financing this large project. Collection Systems • System permit application can be submitted as dry line request, as no plant is currently available. Can be 1 or more applications, depending upon phasing, contiguous areas or engineering break-out. • FDEP input on system types o Gravity preferred wherever possible for reliability o El low pressure grinder pumping system/force mains okay where gravity not available • Need agreement with users for operations, easement, and electrical supply o Vacuum systems show failure, not preferred o STEP not preferred. Problems with tanks and maintenance o STEG - none in District; question system capabilities Page 1 • • ERP permitting needs to cover any and all wetland areas being crossed by the pipeline systems. Channel Crossings • Numerous waterway crossings are required for collecting and transmitted the wastewater from the islands in the service area to the new WRF on Cudjoe Key. Pipes will be attached to County and FDOT bridges to the maximum extent possible and feasible. The pipe alignment and details for these bridge crossings will be presented in the collection system permit application documents. • The Niles Channel crossing may be most feasible by attaching the pipeline to the older bridge, currently under FDEP Heritage Park jurisdiction. If this alignment proves the most feasible and beneficial, a few hundred feet of open channel along this route would require a submerged pipeline (since a portion of the old bridge has been removed for navigation at the center of the channel) . Discussion over the different techniques: o Open cut would be first choice. Construction means and methods and pipe details would need to show minimization of environmental impacts during and after construction. o Easement and submerged land approval would be required. o Directional drilling would be challenging in the fragmented rock, per FDEP, as drilling mud could escape and could cause both construction problems and environmental impacts. • ERP permitting will need to cover the submerged pipeline crossing, if selected as most feasible. Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) • Project site located on unused cells of Cudjoe landfill o County needs to apply for land use change as owner o Agreement with FKAA for land use or ownership o Current stormwater permit to under SFWMD jurisdiction; but new WRF will be FDEP jurisdiction • Project phasing o May apply for 2 phase permit. Phase 1 for under 1 MGD, and Phase 2 to about 1. 5 MGD o Will allow sequencing to match collection system tie-in and flow increase, and will allow disposal options to be better pursued and financed • Deep well requirements o One or two wells required when plant flow approaches 1 MGD Page 2 • Will look at overall disposal options during WRF preliminary design. A combination of reuse, shallow wells, and single deep well may provide best long-term operation. • Reuse Feasibility Study is required per FDEP rule. FKAA and Monroe County interested in reuse option for portion of service area which looks cost competitive. • Existing site will need evaluation for: o Potential migration of landfill leachate resulting from construction and/or operation of new WRF o Potential location for deep well (s) , as the preliminary layout for WRF will be tight for 1. 5 MGD AWT system Summary of Activity Anticipated 1. Permitting a. Dry-line Collection Systems - 2 applications:. i. Central Islands (Mathews) ii. Outer Islands (Chen) b. Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) - 3 applications: i. Pipeline routes and pump station locations, if needed ii. WRF Site iii. Niles Channel crossing c. WRF Permit Application for 2 phased flow approach d. Injection well (s) - 2 phased approach i. Shallow wells for initial plant flow ii. Deep well (s) for second phase e. Permittee i. FDEP recommended joint application as permittee - Monroe County/FKAA. Need further discussion and clarification for various permits and areas of responsibilities. Yet, FDEP would like similarity of all applications of project. Page 3 --' - ---'---- ----- ------- b - A 1»z^4 ----------- ----�-����^---'--�-- - ------�r-----'-^�------� ---- � = ------' --------�--'---- r--'-'----' -----'-------'__' -___� ____________ � APPENDIX E November 2010 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys WaterQuality Improvements Program (FKWQIP) Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Monroe County, Florida I I 1 ' . ' 1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District Executive Summary The United States (U.S.) Congress has directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to assist local municipalities and public utility companies in Monroe County, Florida, in the planning and construction of wastewater and stormwater improvements designed to accomplish the following goals listed below: • Reduce nutrient loading to the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary(Sanctuary); • Improve water quality throughout the waters of the Sanctuary; and • Comply with relevant federal and state regulatory standards. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was previously prepared by the Corps for the proposed Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program (FKWQIP) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 1500-1508). These laws and regulations require the Corps to consider and address environmental issues when funding a major federal action. This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) tiers from the PEIS for the FKWQIP and hereby incorporates the PEIS by reference, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority's (FKAA) proposed Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System will address 12 of the 45 water quality hot spots in the Florida Keys identified in the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (MCSWMP, Monroe County 2000) as requiring water quality improvements. The overall Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area (Service Area) is located in the Lower Florida Keys, and extends from Mile Marker (MM) 17 to MM 33, and includes ten islands (Figure ES-1): • No Name • Big Pine Key • Little Torch Key • Middle Torch Key • Big Torch Key • Ramrod Key • Summerland Key • Cudjoe Key • Upper Sugarloaf Key • Lower Sugarloaf Key The FKAA and Monroe County have partnered through interlocal agreements to provide wastewater conveyance and treatment strategies that will comply with the Monroe County Master Plan and the standards mandated by the Florida Legislature. The cost-effectiveness of various strategies has been evaluated and centralized sewer will be provided to a majority of the residences and commercial businesses within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. These centralized areas are referred to as "Hot Spot" areas and those decentralized areas where centralized sewer is not deemed cost-effective are termed"Cold Spot"areas (Figure ES-2). Draft Environmental Assessment i November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Executive Summary Figure ES-1 Cudjoe Regional Service Area o°., - -"""+.Surui r` N J,,;;l^,, Hollywood \\ i F - .. Hialeah • `' ai Miami Kendall Gulf cl a t Homestead E'.v ,q; :__. Mew rco Keyla•yi NI o T9 veM P. �,y'.. laiamnrda r Marath c Bi^ o I'urclt A t t a,.. lie} oe No Name F L 0 R D • Key sr ^a R E r \fiddle Cluljoe Regional a x To rch . ,- „ • V. lI Site , , � , , eltt�rink kc-., 40, ,, 't. .' , e�: � ,� , ne its � A Lip poi St4, 4111111 4 a e.t ' z, "• a- Bing Pine 5 sugar leaf Fi ^ Little t Cudjoe'Key Ramrod Torch #k O` Suumrerland Key `on Key 4 Say Pont Upper L 0e.., ib';. Sugarloaf ¢� r 9398 Sv��p�=y�dit,fa Sound 5 `" Key Lower 100011104 Sugarloaf Key Atlantic Ocean Legend Cudjoe Regional Service Area Draft Environmental Assessment ii November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Executive Summary Figure ES-2 Hot S of and Cold Spot Areas within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area f}} „.5,4 „..\., \\ 4...E .i q u o ,t, Big fib , A, f% 4'11V\ L• c, O '1'urch �l � • 7) .D lie) C:2i Middle2• Cudjoe Region No Name WWTF Site L. Torch ►• o, 0V: - Ise} * 4A1t.1J1m1 4 . - , wBif ::n:Ltie 1e• Th 4. o • Cudjoe Key Sunmrrrland Ramrod Key `�' t�- Upper I�r� hcc r • +2Sugarloaf "rC .•' �� , , ,41 Key a I Lower Sugarloaf Key Legend Atlantic Ocean Cold Spots(Decentralized Wastewater) - Hot Spots(Centralized Wastewater) nCudjoe Regional Service Area Draft Environmental Assessment iii November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Executive Summary The proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) will use a five-stage Bardenpho system capable of meeting Monroe County effluent standards. The proposed design capacity of the WWTF is one MGD and the maximum anticipated flows will be 0.94 MGD, with a three-month average daily flow of 0.84 MGD. The WWTF will use shallow well injection for effluent disposal. The proposed decentralized wastewater system will be centrally managed by the FKAA, as an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Model 5 management entity. The proposal, as described by USEPA Grant ID 83310702-0, is for the FKAA to replace onsite systems in areas not scheduled to be provided with central sewer, with new Florida Department of Health (FDOH) approved Best Available Technology (BAT) systems and provide complete management of those systems. Cold Spot areas outside of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area may undergo additional review not included in this Draft EA. Purpose and Need In recognition of the importance of improving water quality in the Sanctuary, the purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide financial assistance to the FKAA for the planning and implementation of a central wastewater system that will support the goals and objectives of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act (FKWQIA) and the FKWQIP. The Proposed Action is needed to reduce nutrient and bacteria loading to the Sanctuary, improve water quality in the Sanctuary, and comply with relevant federal and state regulatory standards. The Sanctuary includes unique and nationally significant marine environments such as seagrass meadows, mangrove islands, and the only living coral barrier reef in North America. Similar to other Florida ecosystems, human activities during the past 100 years have affected water quality in the Sanctuary. Bacteria and nutrients from human wastes, and chemicals such as pesticides and mercury, that may reach this delicate ecosystem as a result of little or no treatment can adversely impact water quality and pose a public health risk. Water quality is critical to maintaining the marine ecosystem of the Sanctuary and influences the coral reef and the organisms dependent on the reef. Numerous scientific studies have documented the contribution of failing septic tanks and cesspools to the deterioration of canal and nearshore water quality in the Florida Keys. In addition, research has suggested that increased nutrient loadings from wastewater into canals and nearshore waters are one of the major contributors to the decline of water quality within the Sanctuary. Decision to be Made Due to the capital costs of implementing the proposed water quality improvement projects, municipal governments and public utility companies in the Florida Keys have requested assistance from the Federal government to develop and implement wastewater treatment and stormwater management actions that will reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Based on the potential benefits of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System and the adverse affects on the natural and manmade environment if water quality improvements are not made, the Corps must decide whether to provide financial assistance to the FKAA in Draft Environmental Assessment iv November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Executive Summary developing and implementing wastewater improvements for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. Once the proposed system is completed Lower Keys residents and visitors can expect improved water quality in the surrounding Sanctuary and nearshore waters. Description of Alternatives Wastewater project alternatives for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area provide the basis for decision-making, thereby making up the core of this Draft EA. The three alternatives evaluated as part of this Draft EA are described briefly below. • Alternative 1: No Action. No federal agency would provide funding to the FKAA for implementation of wastewater treatment improvement projects that would address state mandates to meet wastewater treatment standards. Public entities would not construct or operate WWTFs. Lower Florida Keys residents, communities, and businesses would be responsible for addressing state mandates aimed at improving water quality in the Sanctuary. • Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Provide federal financial assistance from the Corps, as part of the FKWQIP, to develop and implement a centralized regional wastewater collection and treatment system for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area that would address mandatory state wastewater treatment standards. • Alternative 3: Pursue Other Sources of Funding for Project Implementation. In the absence of federal funding, provided by the Corps, alternative funding sources would be pursued to implement projects for the FKAA that would address state mandates and improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Sources of monies may include other state and federal funding mechanisms (other than Corps) and/or additional costs levied against Florida Keys residents. While other funding sources are currently being evaluated to assist in implementing wastewater improvement projects in the Lower Florida Keys, the proposed federal funding would expedite construction of the regional WWTF and associated infrastructure. Scoping Issues Public meetings for various stakeholders, interested parties, and Lower Keys residents were held on December 8, 2008 and December 11, 2008. The scoping issues identified, which have guided the preparation of this document, are listed below. • Issue 1: Water Quality. A number of recent scientific studies have documented the contribution of failing septic tanks and cesspools to the deterioration of the canal and nearshore marine water quality in the Florida Keys. The studies attribute increased algal blooms, seagrass die-off, and the decline in coral reef ecosystems health to inadequate wastewater treatment. Scientists concur that one of the principal sources of water quality degradation in the Sanctuary is the elevated level of nutrients in surrounding canals and nearshore waters. The USEPA has concluded that the magnitude and extent of estimated nutrient loadings from wastewater sources are regionally substantial (USEPA 1993). Based on calculations prepared for similar central wastewater districts within the Florida Draft Environmental Assessment v November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Executive Summary Keys (Marathon, Islamorada and Key Largo), reductions in TN, TP and TSS loadings of 85-88, 79-81, and 77-91 percent, respectively, are anticipated for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area as a result of implementing the proposed wastewater improvements. • Issue 2: Facility Location. Vacant lands suitable for placement of a WWTF are scarce in the Florida Keys. As a result, potential sites for a WWTF may include sensitive or critical habitat for protected species (see issue 3, below). The proposed WWTF will be constructed on approximately 3 acres of a larger 10.2 acre parcel that is located on Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe County. Construction of sewer collection systems may cross naturally or culturally sensitive lands. • Issue 3: Protected Species. The Florida Keys are a relatively small landmass in a subtropical to tropical island setting and provide habitat for many rare and protected plants and animals. Because remaining natural areas are scarce, any action by the FKAA that results in the loss of natural areas has the potential to impact protected species. Protected species that occur or may occur in the Service Area, associated habitats and regulatory framework affecting these species, are addressed in this Draft EA. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)will be continual. • Issue 4: Effluent Disposal. Residents within the Service Area currently rely on septic tanks, cesspools, and package treatment facilities. Shallow injection wells may be used for WWTFs with capacities less than one MGD. The Cudjoe Regional WWTF treated effluent would be disposed of through 4 shallow injection wells once the centralized WWTF is constructed. Shallow injection wells are governed by Chapter 62-528 Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Shallow injection wells would be designed and constructed to meet both Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Class V reliability standards and FDEP Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V well construction and monitoring requirements. • Issue 5: Tourism. The quality of life for tourists in the Florida Keys relies on a healthy marine ecosystem and can be negatively impacted by water quality degradation. Over two million individuals per year visit the Florida Keys to enjoy its unique natural features. Water related activities, including snorkeling, diving, fishing, and other activities support 70 percent of tourism in the Florida Keys, which generates over $1.3 billion per year and supports over 21,000 jobs. Poorly treated wastewater presents a public health risk to nearshore water of the Florida Keys, which in turn can result in beach advisories, decreases in tourism, and fewer individuals participating in recreational activities in the Sanctuary. • Issue 6: Environmental Justice. Nearly 25 percent of population within the Service Area is made up of individuals regarded as either low income or over 65 years of age. Approximately 7.7 percent of the population was living below the poverty level in 2008, and the portion of residents over the age of 65 is estimated to be approximately the same as that of the county and state (14.7 percent and 17.6 percent, respectively). This segment of the population often lives on fixed incomes and, while their income may not be below the poverty level, they are affected by cost of living changes. These factors suggest that while the majority of the residents within the Service Area are above poverty levels, there are considerable impacts to residents associated with the costs of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System, raising potential environmental justice concerns. Draft Environmental Assessment vi November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Executive Summary Comparison of Alternatives The alternatives examined as part of this Draft EA were premised on the need to implement water quality improvement projects that will reduce nutrient loading and result in commensurate water quality improvements in the Sanctuary. The environmental consequences are summarized in Table ES-1. Table ES-1 Comparison of Environmental Consequences Resulting from the Alternative Actions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Scoping Issue No Action Proposed Action Alternative Funding Sources Adverse impacts due to Benefits of centralized Continued degradation continued untreated wastewater treatment of water quality is wastewater runoff and include water quality anticipated until associated nutrients,toxins, improvements due to funding is obtained to bacteria,and viruses to canals decreased nutrient and other construct all the and nearshore waters in the contaminants into canals regional WWTF. 1. Water Sanctuary. State and federal and nearshore waters of the Piece-meal construction Quality mandates to improve water Sanctuary. Reductions in may delay full quality in the Sanctuary may TN,TP and TSS loadings achievement of project not be addressed. between 85-88,79-81 and and program objectives. 77-91 percent,respectively, are anticipated. These improvements will address state and federal legislation. No impacts are anticipated. Net environmental benefits Impacts similar to those No lands will be required for due to improved water described under the the location and construction quality. The facility is Proposed Action area 2. Facility of wastewater facilities. located at a expected. Location Therefore,with the exception decommissioned landfill, of the other scoping issues, contain little to no existing residences,fish and ecological value. wildlife habitats,and land Therefore,no adverse uses will not be disrupted. impacts are anticipated. Adverse impacts to protected Section 7 USFWS/National Impacts similar to those species anticipated as a result Marine Fisheries Service described under the of continued runoff of (NMFS)consultation and Proposed Action are untreated wastewater into Florida Fish and Wildlife expected,with delays in 3. Protected canals and nearshore waters Conservation Commission benefits,in addition to Species and subsequent water quality (FFWCC)for protected potentially greater degradation. Because no new species will occur as impacts due to larger facilities would be required, needed. No critical habitat number of smaller no impacts to habitat for will be impacted. facilities being protected species are constructed. anticipated. Adverse impacts anticipated Construction of centralized Construction of sewers 4. Effluent as a result of unchanged sewers will expedite the will be less effective Disposal effluent disposal practices. removal of cesspools,septic due to fragmented Runoff from cesspools and tanks and associated approach. Delays in Draft Environmental Assessment vii November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Executive Summary septic tanks will continue to pollutants in the Cudjoe construction are also enter canals and nearshore Regional hot spots. anticipated. waters in the Sanctuary. Increasing impacts anticipated Improved water quality Improved water quality related to water quality would decrease the would decrease the degradation. Continued beach incidence of beach incidence of beach health advisories would advisories and closings, advisories and closings, adversely affect immediate thereby increasing the thereby increasing the 5. Tourism recreational and tourist opportunity for saltwater- opportunity for opportunities,and long-term based recreation. saltwater-based impacts could be detrimental Temporary adverse impacts recreation albeit at a to tourism and the local would include slower pace than the economy. transportation delays due to Proposed Action. construction activities. Adverse impacts to low- Without special Without special income households who will consideration and financial consideration and have difficulties affording the assistance,low-income and financial assistance, 6. Environmental cost of meeting 2015 fixed-income households low-income and fixed- Justice mandates for wastewater may have difficulty paying income households may treatment are expected. for wastewater hook-up and have difficulty paying service fees. for wastewater hook-up and service fees. Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative is Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, the Corps would provide financial assistance to the FKAA for planning and implementation of a wastewater improvement project that would reduce nutrient loads and pollutants to nearshore waters in the Sanctuary. Areas of Controversy Controversial issues associated with FKWQIP include the cost of program implementation, the means of recovering initial capital investment, and the means of generating revenues to support maintenance and operational activities. The disposal of wastewater effluent into the groundwater through injection wells and the potential for groundwater contamination is of concern to the public. Most wastewater in the Service Area remains untreated or inadequately treated. Disinfecting and treating the effluent to AWT standards and disposing of it via injection wells is an acceptable alternative. The proposed wastewater improvements for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System would use shallow well injection. Draft Environmental Assessment viii November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary Table of Contents ix List of Tables xiii List of Figures xiv List of Acronyms xv 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action 1 1.1 Authorization 2 1.2 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area 2 1.3 Purpose and Need 5 1.4 Decision to be Made 8 1.5 Scoping Issues 8 1.6 Related Environmental Documents 9 1.7 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements 10 1.8 Summary of Prior Regulatory Action 10 1.9 Document Organization 10 2.0 Description of Alternatives 12 2.1 Delineation of Alternatives 12 2.2 Description of Alternatives 13 2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action): No Implementation of Wastewater Treatment Improvement Projects for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 13 2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Provide Federal Financial Assistance to Develop and Implement Wastewater Improvement Projects for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 13 2.2.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources): Pursue Other Sources of Funding for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 19 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives 19 2.4 Preferred Alternative 21 2.5 Summary of Mitigation Requirements for Florida City RO Plant 21 3.0 Affected Environment 23 3.1 Climate 24 Draft Environmental Assessment ix November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Table of Contents 3.2 Geology, Topography and Soils 24 3.3 Water Resources 26 3.3.1 Ground Water 26 3.3.2 Surface Waters and Stormwater Runoff 26 3.3.3 Nearshore and Offshore Waters 27 3.4 Water Quality 28 3.4.1 Ground Water Quality 28 3.4.2 Surface Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff 29 3.4.3 Nearshore and Offshore Water Quality 29 3.5 Ecological Habitats 30 3.5.1 Upland Habitats 32 3.5.2 Non-Native and Invasive Species 32 3.5.3 Estuarine and Freshwater Wetland Habitats 33 3.5.4 Marine and Benthic Habitats 34 3.6 Protected Species 34 3.6.1 Regulatory Framework 36 3.6.2 Federally and State Protected Species in the Service Area 36 3.6.3 Protected Species Occurrences 37 3.6.4 Existing and Potential Habitat Areas for Protected Species 41 3.7 Essential Fish Habitat 42 3.8 Air Quality and Noise 42 3.9 Cultural Resources 44 3.10 Demographics and Socioeconomics 47 3.10.1 Demographics 48 3.10.2 Socioeconomics 50 3.11 Recreation 51 3.12 Environmental Justice 52 3.13 Land Use and Planning 53 3.13.1 Land Use 53 3.13.2 Conservation Areas 55 3.13.3 Future Land Use 55 3.13.4 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 58 Draft Environmental Assessment x November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Table of Contents 3.13.5 Floodplain Management 58 3.14 Infrastructure 60 3.14.1 Transportation 60 3.14.2 Utilities and Services 61 3.15 Hazardous Materials and Domestic Waste 62 4.0 Environmental Consequences 63 4.1 Climate 67 4.2 Geology, Topography and Soils 67 4.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 67 4.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 68 4.2.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 68 4.3 Water Resources 68 4.4 Water Quality 69 4.4.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 69 4.4.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 69 4.4.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 71 4.5 Ecological Habitats 71 4.5.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 71 4.5.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 73 4.5.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 75 4.6 Protected Species 76 4.6.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 76 4.6.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 76 4.6.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 77 4.7 Essential Fish Habitat 77 4.7.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 78 4.7.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 78 4.7.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 78 4.8 Air Quality and Noise 78 4.8.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 78 4.8.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 78 4.8.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 79 Draft Environmental Assessment xi November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Table of Contents 4.9 Cultural Resources 79 4.9.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 79 4.9.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 79 4.9.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 80 4.10 Demographics and Socioeconomics 80 4.11 Recreation 80 4.11.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 80 4.11.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 80 4.11.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 81 4.12 Open Space and Aesthetic Resources 81 4.12.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 81 4.12.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 81 4.12.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 81 4.13 Environmental Justice 82 4.13.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 82 4.13.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 82 4.13.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 84 4.14 Land Use and Planning 84 4.14.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 84 4.14.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 85 4.14.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 85 4.15 Infrastructure 85 4.15.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 85 4.15.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 86 4.15.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 86 4.16 Hazardous and Toxic Materials 86 4.16.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 86 4.16.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 87 4.16.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) 87 4.17 Predicted Attainment of the Program Objectives 87 4.18 Predicted Cumulative Impacts 87 4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 92 Draft Environmental Assessment xii November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Table of Contents 4.20 Indirect Affects 92 4.21 Compatibility with Federal, State and Local Objectives 93 4.22 Conflicts and Controversy 93 4.23 Uncertain, Unique or Unknown Risks 94 4.24 Energy Commitments and Conservation Potential 94 4.25 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 94 4.26 Environmental Commitments 94 4.27 Compliance with Environmental Requirements 95 5.0 Public Involvement 98 5.1 Public Involvement for Master Plans 98 5.2 Public Involvement for PEIS 99 5.3 Scoping and Public Involvement for Cudjoe Regional EA 99 6.0 Conclusion 100 7.0 Bibliography 102 8.0 Glossary 127 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE Table ES-1 Comparison of Environmental Consequences Resulting from the Alternative Actions vii Table 2-1 Design Wastewater Influent and Effluent Characteristics 17 Table 2-2 Comparison of Environmental Consequences Resulting from the Alternative Actions 19 Table 3-1 Relationship between Scoping Issues and Environmental Resources 24 Table 3-2 USDA Soil Map Units in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 25 Table 3-3 Area and Percent Cover of Water and Wetlands in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 27 Table 3-4 Habitat Types in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 32 Table 3-5 Benthic Habitat Types within 500-Meter Buffer of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 34 Draft Environmental Assessment xiii November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Table of Contents Table 3-6 Summary of Protected Species Occurrences in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 36 Table 3-7 Protected Species Occurrences Records 37 Table 3-8 Documented Archaeological and Historic Sites in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 45 Table 3-9 Demographic Characteristics for Year 2000, Cudjoe Regional Service Area 48 Table 3-10 Recreation Days in Monroe County: 12-Month Period 1995 - 1996 52 Table 4-1 Comparison of Environmental Consequences Resulting from the Alternative Actions 65 Table 4-2 Potential Cumulative Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Wastewater Improvement Project 89 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE Figure ES-1 Cudjoe Regional Service Area ii Figure ES-2 Hot Spot and Cold Spot Areas within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area iii Figure 1-1 Cudjoe Regional Service Area 3 Figure 1-2 Hot Spot and Cold Spot Areas within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 6 Figure 2-1 Conceptual Site Plan for the Proposed Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility 16 Figure 3-1 Habitat Types within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 31 Figure 3-2 Marine and Benthic Habitats within a 500-Meter Buffer Zone around the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 35 Figure 3-3 Biodiversity Hot Spots within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 43 Figure 3-4 Existing Land Use Classes within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 54 Figure 3-5 Conservation Lands within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 56 Figure 3-6 Future Land Use Classes within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 57 Figure 3-7 Coastal Barrier Resource System within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 59 Draft Environmental Assessment xiv November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System List of Acronyms AFVP Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials ATU Aerobic Treatment Units AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment BAT Best Available Technology BFE Base Flood Elevation BLS Below Land Surface BMPs Best management practices BNR Biological Nutrient Removal BOCC Board of County Commissioners BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CBIA Coastal Barrier Improvement Act CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act CBRS Coastal Barrier Resource System CDBGs Community Development Block Grants CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan CFR Code of Federal Regulations Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dBA Decibel DIN Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen DOI Department of Interior EA Environmental Assessment EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit EFH Essential Fish Habitat EO Executive Order ERP Environmental Resource Permit ESA Endangered Species Act FAC Florida Administrative Code FCMP Florida Coastal Management Program FDCA Florida Department of Community Affairs FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDER Florida Department of Environmental Regulation FDOH Florida Department of Health FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Draft Environmental Assessment xv November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System List of Acronyms FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIU Florida Atlantic University FKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority FKCCS Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study FKEC Florida Keys Electric Cooperative FKWQIA Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act FKWQIP Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program FLUM Future Land Use Maps FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory FPL Florida Power and Light GIS Geographical Information System GPD Gallons per day HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development KEYS Keys Energy Services LOS Level of Service MCSWMP Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan MGD Million gallons per day mg/L Milligrams per Liter MHI Median Household Income MM Mile Marker MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NHPA National Historical Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System O&M Operations and Maintenance OFW Outstanding Florida Waters OSTDS On-site sewage treatment and disposal system OWNRS On-site wastewater nutrient reduction systems OWTS On-site wastewater treatment systems PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ppm Parts per million RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Draft Environmental Assessment xvi November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System List of Acronyms ROGO Rate of Growth Ordinance ROWs Rights of Way Sanctuary Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary SCUBA Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus SERC Southeast Environmental Research Center Service Area Cudjoe Regional Service Area SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SHCA Strategic Habitat Conservation Area SHPO State Bureau of Historic Preservation Office TN Total nitrogen TOC Total organic carbon TP Total phosphorus TSS Total Suspended Solids UIC Underground Injection Control USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WQPP Water Quality Protection Program WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility ZCTA Zip Code Tabulation Area Draft Environmental Assessment xvii November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action The United States (U.S.) Congress has directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to assist local municipalities and public utility companies in Monroe County, Florida, in the planning and construction of wastewater and stormwater improvements designed to accomplish the following goals listed below: • Reduce nutrient loading to the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary(Sanctuary); • Improve water quality throughout the waters of the Sanctuary; and • Comply with relevant federal and state regulatory standards. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was previously prepared by the Corps for the proposed Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program (FKWQIP) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 1500-1508). These laws and regulations require the Corps to consider and address environmental issues when funding a major federal action. The PEIS prepared by the Corps provides a framework to address potential environmental impacts associated with design and implementation of eligible wastewater treatment projects for the FKWQIP. This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) tiers from the PEIS for the FKWQIP and hereby incorporates the PEIS by reference, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority's (FKAA) Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System will address 12 of the 45 water quality hot spots in the Florida Keys identified in the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (MCSWMP, Monroe County 2000) as requiring water quality improvements. The overall Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area (Service Area) is located in the Lower Florida Keys, and extends from Mile Marker (MM) 17 to MM 33, and includes ten islands (from north to south): • No Name Key • Big Pine Key • Little Torch Key • Middle Torch Key • Big Torch Key • Ramrod Key • Summerland Key • Cudjoe Key • Upper Sugarloaf Key • Lower Sugarloaf Key The scope of the project is the construction of a centralized wastewater treatment system to service residents and commercial businesses located in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. The proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) would use a five-stage Bardenpho system capable of meeting Monroe County effluent standards. This technology is considered appropriate for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area because it is a very stable and consistent Draft Environmental Assessment 1 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action method of meeting the stringent nutrient removal standards. The anticipated plant flows are less than one Million Gallons per Day (MGD), so the WWTF will use shallow well injection for effluent disposal. The proposed design capacity of the WWTF is one MGD. This section of the Draft EA explains the purpose and need for the federal action and the decision to be made by the Federal government. Authorizing legislation for the FKWQIP is described and the Cudjoe Regional Service Area delineated. Relevant issues and related environmental documentation addressed during the scoping process are discussed. Finally, the organization of the Draft EA is outlined. 1.1 Authorization Under authority of Section 109 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act (Public Law106-554 (114 Stat. 2763A-222)dated December 21, 2000 (Appendix A of the PEIS), the Corps is authorized to provide technical and financial assistance to carry out projects for the planning, design, and construction of treatment works to improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Typically, large programs of this nature are not in accordance with Administration Program priorities of the Corps (i.e. navigation, flood control, or environmental restoration). However, non-traditional projects are routinely undertaken by the Corps as "work for others." The Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act (FKWQIA) authorizes Congress to appropriate up to $100 million for FKWQIP projects for the planning and construction of wastewater and stormwater improvements in the Florida Keys. The total cost of the proposed project is an estimated $174 million. 1.2 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area The overall Cudjoe Regional Service Area is located in the Lower Florida Keys, and extends from MM 17 to MM 33 (see Figure 1-1). The Service Area is bordered on the north by Florida Bay and on the south by the Atlantic Ocean. Additionally, most of the Service Area lies with the fragmented boundaries of the Florida Keys Wildlife Refuges Complex, which includes the National Key Deer Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge. The following islands are located within the Service Area. No Name Key No Name Key is located east of Big Pine Key, and is approximately 3 miles north of U.S. Highway 1. The island covers approximately 998 acres, and is sparsely settled. No Name Key lies within the heart of the National Key Deer Refuge, and is positions just south of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. Big Pine Key Big Pine Key is located between MM 29.5 and MM 33. The island covers approximately 6330 acres, making it the largest island within the Service Area. With the exception of several moderately-populated subdivisions the island is sparsely settled. In general, businesses are located along the U.S. Highway 1 corridor. Additionally, a shopping center is located just north of the highway, between Wilder Road and Key Deer Boulevard. Big Pine Key lies within the Draft Environmental Assessment 2 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action Figure 1-1 Cudjoe Regional Service Area °` ni-j. Hollywood Sunnsar P, - N Naples t ( yprv •- a • A'er:a Natioiedi R )"'F Pfese<vk-Hialeah • ` to Miami Kendall Gulf CO p t Homestead Evanytat+es Mexico N� KrrytarrY, 0 • ta:amoradn n avem� 0 Marathon Big o Torch Atlantic Key Ocean cj. No Name F L O R I A Key Cudjoe Regional nlddlc ��'�i'TF Site Torch .„Big Pier tics Key l' qti 14A;- a. I Upper S4 J. It A S Aaftwina, ' ' It'ir';lt',i{(ey - /ylp Y LOa1 SOUO ,..." 1 'WEI Cove Big Pine j S Key --ra 1u V ar loa t h.% 942 Little t Cudjoe Key Ramrod Torch ech Sunwn rland Key Lone' F�e�' lied' ,Bay Point ° Upper t`'ter 9396 Sugarloaf Suyarnkrl Key Sound Loner Sugarloaf Key- Atlantic Ocean Legend ., .5 5 Mdos `-1 Cudjoe Regional Service Area Draft Environmental Assessment 3 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action heart of the National Key Deer Refuge and is bordered on the north by the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge. Little Torch Key Little Torch Key is located between MM 28 and MM 29, and is immediately preceded to the northeast by Big Pine Key. The island covers approximately 790 acres, and has a population mostly confined to several moderately-populated subdivisions. Business activities are limited to a few resort-style marinas and one restaurant. Little Torch Key is positioned just south of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. Portions of Little Torch Key lie within the fragmented boundaries of the National Key Deer Refuge. Middle Torch Key Middle Torch Key is located west of Little Torch Key. The island covers approximately 833 acres, and is sparsely settled. Middle Torch Key lies within the heart of the National Key Deer Refuge and is positions just south of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. Big Torch Key Big Torch Key is located northwest of Big Torch Key. The island covers approximately 1562 acres, and is sparsely settled. Big Torch Key is accessed from Middle Torch Key and does not have direct access to U.S. Highway 1. Big Torch Key lies within the heart of the National Key Deer Refuge and is bordered on the north by the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge. Ramrod Key Ramrod Key is located between MM 26 and MM 27.5,just to the southwest of Little Torch Key. The island covers approximately 1030 acres, and has a similar population density to most of the islands in the Lower Keys. Ramrod Key is positioned just south of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. Portions of Ramrod Key lie within the fragmented boundaries of the National Key Deer Refuge. Summerland Key Summerland Key is located between MM 24 and MM 25.5, directly west of Ramrod Key. The portion of island lying south of U.S. Highway 1 is moderately populated and includes a private residential airstrip, while the portion north of the highway is sparsely settled. Similar to other islands in the Lower Keys, •businesses are located along the U.S. Highway 1 corridor. Summerland Key is positioned just south of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. Portions of Summerland Key lie within the fragmented boundaries of the National Key Deer Refuge. Cudjoe Key Cudjoe Key is located between MM 20.5 and MM 23, directly west of Summerland Key, and covers approximately 3580 acres. Similar to Summerland Key the majority of development is located on the south side of U. S. Highway 1. A solid waste transfer station is located Draft Environmental Assessment 4 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action approximately one mile north of the highway and a half mile west of Blimp Road. The proposed wastewater facility, which will serve the Cudjoe Regional Service Area, will be located adjacent to the west side of a county transfer station. Cudjoe Key is bordered on the northwest side by the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge. Portions of Cudjoe Key lie within the fragmented boundaries of the National Key Deer Refuge. Upper Sugarloaf Key Upper Sugarloaf Key is located between MM 19 and MM 20.5, directly southwest of Cudjoe Key. The island covers approximately 2300 acres, and is sparsely settled. Business activities are limited and there is a school on the corner of U.S. Highway 1 and Crane Boulevard,which serves pre-K thru Grade 8. Upper Sugarloaf Key is bordered on the north side by the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge. Portions of Upper Sugarloaf Key lie just within the fragmented boundaries of the National Key Deer Refuge Lower Sugarloaf Key Lower Sugarloaf Key is located between MM 16.5 and MM 17.5, directly southwest of Upper Sugarloaf Key. The island covers approximately 710 acres. The portion of island lying to the south of U.S. Highway 1 is moderately populated. North of the highway is a resort-style lodge, which includes a private airstrip, restaurant, marina, several small businesses and volunteer fire station. Lower Sugarloaf Key lies just south of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. The FKAA and Monroe County have partnered through Interlocal Agreements to provide wastewater conveyance and treatment strategies that will comply with the Monroe County Master Plan and the standards mandated by the Florida Legislature. The cost-effectiveness of various strategies has been evaluated and centralized sewer will be provided to a majority of the population within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area where cost-effective. These centralized areas are referred to as "Hot Spot"areas and those decentralized areas where centralized sewer is not deemed cost-effective are termed"Cold Spot"areas (Figure 1-2). The proposed decentralized wastewater system will be centrally managed by the FKAA, as an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Model 5 management entity. The proposal, as described by USEPA Grant ID 83310702-0, is for the FKAA to replace onsite systems in areas not scheduled to be provided with central sewer, with new Florida Department of Health (FDOH) approved Best Available Technology (BAT) systems and provide complete management of those systems. Cold Spot areas outside of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area may undergo additional review not included in this Draft EA. 1.3 Purpose and Need In recognition of the importance of improving water quality in the Sanctuary, the purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide financial assist to the FKAA for the planning and implementation of a central wastewater system that will support the goals and objectives of the FKWQIA and FKWQIP. The Proposed Action is needed to reduce nutrient and bacteria loading to the Sanctuary, improve water quality in the Sanctuary, and comply with relevant federal and state regulatory standards. Draft Environmental Assessment 5 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action Figure 1-2 Hot Spot and Cold Spot Areas within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area W ii,1— E ellr--"\---KNi . - s • _�`i 9 <1 lM Big %. Z Torch .. s' U `� .r Middle Cudjoe Regional 1t1 ,,,�y f No NameL.WWTF Site d''' ‘• Torch hey A. -�e� v� ire}' P j, o ,,,A, e (ram, - / a l % 0• * df - f +C" " R OP d .._. • _ �, , ,... - 04 - Jr . v Big Pine t `:f` Little r) Key - ¢{. . •�_; ' Torch ` '+( j. o t j Cudjoe hey' Sununerland Ramrod Key 1 Upper Key Key ,. © 1J •ikhome rSugarloaf ii.r.:& s Key\tk 0. 0 i ::z I, ' Lower Sugarloaf Key Legend Atlantic Ocean Cold Spots(Decentralized Wastewater) - Hot Spots(Centralized Wastewater) _ Cudjoe Regional Service Area Draft Environmental Assessment 6 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action The Sanctuary includes unique and nationally significant marine environments such as seagrass meadows, mangrove islands, and the only living coral barrier reef in North America. Similar to other Florida ecosystems, human activities during the past 100 years have affected water quality in the Sanctuary. Bacteria and nutrients from human wastes, and chemicals such as pesticides and mercury, that may reach this delicate ecosystem as a result of little or no treatment, can adversely impact water quality and pose a public health risk. Water quality is critical to maintaining the marine ecosystem of the Sanctuary and influences the coral reef and the organisms dependent on the reef. Numerous scientific studies have documented the contribution of failing septic tanks and cesspools to the deterioration of canal and nearshore water quality in the Florida Keys. In addition, research has suggested that increased nutrient loadings from wastewater into canals and nearshore waters are one of the major contributors to the decline of water quality within the Sanctuary. Most communities in the Florida Keys, with the exception of those within newly constructed central wastewater districts, rely on septic tanks, cesspools, and package treatment facilities and shallow injection wells for sewage disposal. These systems, if not properly operated, allow bacteria and nutrients to leach into nearshore waters. In some nearshore areas where water quality is monitored, beaches have been posted for health advisories due to fecal coliform bacteria contamination of surface waters after moderate rainfall events. Within the Service Area there are approximately 7000 potable water customers. In the absence of a centralized wastewater system it is estimated that there are a similar number of onsite systems presently being used in the Service Area. Average estimated reductions in wastewater loading to nearshore waters in the Florida Keys due to implementation of the FKWQIP are on the order of 69 and 73 percent in Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) loadings, respectively, using Advance Water Treatment (AWT) standards. Based on calculations prepared for similar central wastewater districts (Marathon, Islamorada and Key Largo) within the Florida Keys, reductions in TN, TP, and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loadings between 85-88, 79-81, and 77-91 percent, respectively, are anticipated for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area as a result of implementing the proposed wastewater improvements. The FKWQIP was created in response to regulatory requirements and in the interest of protecting public health and water quality. At the federal level, the Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990 directed the USEPA and the State of Florida to develop a water quality protection plan for the Sanctuary. Locally, the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandates nutrient loading reductions in the marine ecosystem by the year 2010 and that wastewater systems meet more stringent Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. It is important to note that the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated to reflect the state's newly-extended 2015 deadline for advanced wastewater treatment. Draft Environmental Assessment 7 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action 1.4 Decision to be Made Due to the high capital costs of implementing the proposed water quality improvement projects, municipal governments and public utility companies in the Florida Keys have requested assistance from the Federal government to develop and implement wastewater treatment and stormwater management actions that will reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Based on the potential benefits of the Cudjoe Central Wastewater System and the adverse affects on the natural and manmade environment if water quality improvements are not made, the Corps must decide whether to provide financial assistance to the FKAA in developing and implementing wastewater improvements for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. Once the proposed system is completed, Lower Keys residents and visitors can expect improved water quality in the surrounding Sanctuary and nearshore waters. 1.5 Scoping Issues Under the NEPA, federal agencies are required to determine the scope of issues to be addressed for a project and identify the significant issues related to the Proposed Action. This process is called"scoping". Public meetings for various stakeholders, interested parties, and Lower Keys residents were held on December 8, 2008 and December 11, 2008. The scoping issues identified, which have guided the preparation of this document, are listed below. • Issue 1: Water Quality. A number of recent scientific studies have documented the contribution of failing septic tanks and cesspools to the deterioration of the canal and nearshore marine water quality in the Florida Keys. The studies attribute increased algal blooms, seagrass die-off, and the decline in coral reef ecosystems health to inadequate wastewater treatment. Scientists concur that one of the principal sources of water quality degradation in the Sanctuary is the elevated level of nutrients in surrounding canals and nearshore waters. The USEPA has concluded that the magnitude and extent of estimated nutrient loadings from wastewater sources are regionally substantial (USEPA 1993). Based on calculations prepared for similar central wastewater districts within the Florida Keys (Marathon, Islamorada and Key Largo), reductions in TN, TP and TSS loadings of 85-88, 79-81, and 77-91 percent, respectively, are anticipated for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area as a result of implementing the proposed wastewater improvements. • Issue 2: Facility Location. Vacant lands suitable for placement of a WWTF are scarce in the Florida Keys. As a result, potential sites for a WWTF may include sensitive or critical habitat for protected species (see issue 3, below). The proposed WWTF will be constructed on approximately 3 acres of a larger 10.2 acre parcel that is located on Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe County. Construction of sewer collection systems may cross naturally or culturally sensitive lands. • Issue 3: Protected Species. The Florida Keys are a relatively small landmass in a subtropical to tropical island setting and provide habitat for many rare and protected plants and animals. Because remaining natural areas are scarce, any action by the FKAA Draft Environmental Assessment 8 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action that results in the loss of natural areas has the potential to impact protected species. Protected species that occur or may occur in the Service Area, associated habitats, and regulatory framework affecting these species, are addressed in this Draft EA. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)will be continual. • Issue 4: Effluent Disposal. Residents within the Service Area currently rely on septic tanks, cesspools, and package treatment facilities. Shallow injection wells may be used for WWTFs with capacities less than two MGD. The Cudjoe Regional WWTF treated effluent would be disposed of through 4 shallow injection wells once a centralized WWTF is constructed. Shallow injection wells are governed by Chapter 62-528 Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Shallow injection wells would be designed and constructed to meet both Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Class V reliability standards and FDEP Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V well construction and monitoring requirements. • Issue 5: Tourism. The quality of life for tourists in the Florida Keys relies on a healthy marine ecosystem and can be negatively impacted by water quality degradation. Over two million individuals per year visit the Florida Keys to enjoy its unique natural features. Water related activities, including snorkeling, diving, fishing, and other activities support 70 percent of tourism in the Florida Keys, which generates over $1.3 billion per year and supports over 21,000 jobs. Poorly treated wastewater presents a public health risk to nearshore water of the Florida Keys, which in turn can result in beach advisories, decreases in tourism, and fewer individuals participating in recreational activities in the Sanctuary. • Issue 6: Environmental Justice. Nearly 25 percent of population within the Service Area is made up of individuals regarded as either low income or over 65 years of age. Approximately 7.7 percent of the population was living below the poverty level in 2008, and the portion of residents over the age of 65 is estimated to be approximately the same as that of the county and state (14.7 percent and 17.6 percent, respectively). This segment of the population often lives on fixed incomes and, while their income may not be below the poverty level, they are affected by cost of living changes. These factors suggest that while the majority of the residents within the Service Area are above poverty levels, there are considerable impacts to residents associated with the costs of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System,raising potential environmental justice concerns. 1.6 Related Environmental Documents Documents related to the Cudjoe Regional WWTF and water quality improvements in the Service Area that may influence the scope of this Draft EA include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Wastewater Improvements in the Florida Keys (2002) and the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS) (Corps 2002). These and other relevant documents are discussed in the PEIS. Draft Environmental Assessment 9 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action 1.7 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements Under the NEPA of 1969 and the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508), the Corps must consider the environmental consequences of proposed federal actions (Proposed Action). Accordingly, the Corps has prepared this document to evaluate the environmental consequences of constructing the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System. These project-specific improvements include wastewater collection, treatment and disposal options. This Draft EA tiers from the PEIS for the FKWQIP as described previously. 1.8 Summary of Prior Regulatory Action A historical chronology of regulations applicable to the construction of wastewater treatment improvements and stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Florida Keys was provided in the previously prepared PEIS to inform the reader of the more stringent Florida statutory treatment standards that will confront residents and commercial entities of Monroe County in the coming years. The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (1997) mandated reductions in nutrient loadings to the marine ecosystem by the year 2010. Currently, the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is being updated to reflect the state's newly- extended 2015 deadline for advanced wastewater treatment. In 1998, the Florida Governor issued Executive Order (EO) 98-309, directing local and state agencies to coordinate with Monroe County in the implementation of their Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to eliminate cesspools, failing septic systems, and other substandard On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS). 1.9 Document Organization The basic elements of a Draft EA, as well as all applicable sub-elements, are presented in this document. Subsequent individual sections of the Draft EA are listed and briefly described below. • Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives. Presents a description of alternatives, including the Proposed Action, considered in the planning of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System,thereby providing the basis for decision-making. • Chapter 3. Affected Environment. A description of existing conditions within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. Provides a context in which to evaluate the alternatives. • Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences. This chapter provides an analysis of the potential environmental consequences anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action considered as part of this Draft EA. • Chapter 5. Public Involvement. Water quality and the need to reduce nutrient loading in the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys, including the Cudjoe Regional Service Area, are of interest to regulatory agencies and citizens alike. Consequently, public participation has been an important component throughout the preparation of this Draft EA to ensure compliance with the intent of NEPA and other applicable statutes. Draft Environmental Assessment 10 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action • Chapter 6. Conclusion. In this chapter, conclusions regarding potential environmental impacts of the three alternative actions proposed for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System to the physical, biological and human environment within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are presented. • Chapter 7. Bibliography. The bibliography documents the literature cited throughout the Draft EA as well as documents used during the preparation of the Draft EA that were not specifically cited. • Chapter 8. Glossary of Terms. SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Draft Environmental Assessment 11 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives Wastewater project alternatives for the FKAA's Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area are described and evaluated in this section, providing the basis for decision making and thereby making up the core of this Draft EA. While this chapter relies on supporting information presented in Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment and Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences, it is in this chapter that the environmental consequences are clearly and concisely differentiated for each of the alternatives. The three alternatives evaluated as part of this Draft EA are listed below and discussed in the sections that follow. • Alternative 1: No Action. No federal agency would provide funding to the FKAA for implementation of wastewater treatment improvement projects that would address state mandates to meet wastewater treatment standards. Public entities would not construct or operate WWTFs. Lower Florida Keys residents, communities, and businesses would be responsible for addressing state mandates aimed at improving water quality in the Sanctuary. • Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Provide federal financial assistance from the Corps, as part of the FKWQIP, to develop and implement a regional wastewater collection and treatment system for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area that would address mandatory state wastewater treatment standards. • Alternative 3: Pursue Other Sources of Funding for Project Implementation. In the absence of federal funding, provided by the Corps, alternative funding sources would be pursued to implement projects for the FKAA that would address state mandates and improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Sources of monies may include other state and federal funding mechanisms (other than Corps) and/or additional costs levied against Florida Keys residents. While other funding sources are currently being evaluated to assist in implementing wastewater improvement projects in the Lower Florida Keys, the proposed federal funding would expedite construction of the regional WWTF and associated infrastructure. 2.1 Delineation of Alternatives The enabling legislation for the Act directs the Corps to coordinate with local and state agencies as part of the planning process identifying the developing water quality improvement projects designed to decrease nutrient loading and improve the water quality of the Sanctuary. At the programmatic level, the alternatives analysis examined the potential environmental effects of alternative proposed water quality improvement projects to identify those with the greatest potential for improving water quality throughout the Sanctuary. Planning at the county level has also addressed water quality improvements in the Florida Keys, primarily in response to the mandated Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. In addition, local municipalities in Monroe County have prepared sanitary wastewater treatment master plans during the past eight years. Consequently, the water quality improvements projects proposed for the FKAA have undergone a rigorous analysis of alternatives, including facility siting and treatment technology applications. Therefore, additional plan formulation was not undertaken for this project-specific activity. It should be noted that MCSWMP recommendations included Draft Environmental Assessment 12 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives the construction of wastewater treatment systems to serve the highest ranked"hot spot areas" for the Lower Florida Keys. 2.2 Description of Alternatives Three alternatives have been proposed for improved wastewater treatment for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area, and are described in the following sections. 2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action): No Implementation of Wastewater Treatment Improvement Projects for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area Under the No Action alternative, no federal funding would be provided to the FKAA, as part of the FKWQIP, for needed improvements or upgrades to wastewater collection and treatment systems that would address state mandates to improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Residents and commercial businesses in the Service Area would continue using on-site systems, such as cesspools and septic tanks, to treat wastewater. Reliance on individual and privately owned cluster or package treatment facilities would continue under the No Action alternative. Individual property owners and commercial businesses would be responsible for meeting the defined Level of Service (LOS) standards prescribed by county ordinance or state regulation. Public entities would not own or operate any of the proposed WWTF. Under the No Action alternative, the residents within the Service Area would not benefit from financial assistance, which would otherwise be provided by the Federal government. 2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Provide Federal Financial and Technical Assistance to Develop and Implement Wastewater Improvement Projects for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. The Proposed Action includes financial assistance for the FKAA to construct a WWTF and associated infrastructure to serve the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. The Proposed Action would accomplish the goals listed below: • Meet objectives of the Act; • Address local and regional water quality issues; • Achieve nutrient loading reductions and commensurate improvements in water quality in nearshore waters of the Service Area and subsequently, the Sanctuary; and • Comply with federal and state mandated regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely manner. The Proposed Action would include new service to residents with OWTSs in the Service Area. All single-family residences and almost all small commercial entities currently use some type of OWTS, either permitted/unpermitted septic tank systems, or illegal cesspools. Once the proposed facility is completed, residents would be connected to the new collection system over an anticipated two to three year period of time. Draft Environmental Assessment 13 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives The concept of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)has been employed in the planning process to compare the costs of various wastewater alternatives. EDUs are also utilized in the apportionment of the costs of wastewater management implementation. As defined by the FKAA, a single dwelling unit is considered one EDU and non-residential EDUs are based on a minimum of one EDU per parcel, equivalent to an average day water use of 167 Gallons Per Day (GPD). Non-residential EDUs are calculated by dividing the average day water used of the three highest consecutive months during a consecutive 24-month period by 167 gallons. Water use records are used to estimate wastewater discharge. Growth projections for projected wastewater flows were completed for 2008 and 2018. The estimated increase in total wastewater flow in all of the Florida Keys for the entire 20-year planning period(1998 to 2018) is 1.0 MGD, or about 14 percent(MCSWMP). At the owner's expense, existing residential septic systems and cesspools would be removed from residences and businesses in the Service Area. Similarly, service recipients would be responsible for the installation of conveyance pipes from their residence or business to the wastewater collection system service lateral to the street. Removal of existing systems would be phased in accordance with construction of the collection system, and pursuant to FDOH requirements. 2.2.2.1 Alternative Site Selection The decommissioned-landfill site located on Cudjoe Key is one of 13 sites originally evaluated for the proposed WWTF as part of the Wastewater Facilities Plan (Monroe County 1998) that was developed as part of the Comprehensive Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan for Monroe County. Potential sites throughout the Cudjoe Regional Service Area were evaluated with respect to location, existing and future land use, adjacent land uses, general environmental and habitat considerations, present ownership, development constraints, and cost. The decommissioned-landfill site is preferred primarily because of its centralize location within the Service Area and existing land use. Additionally, the site has already been improved and cleared of vegetation. 2.2.2.2 Wastewater Collection and Transmission System Several wastewater collection options are available throughout the Florida Keys, as described in the PEIS (Section 2.2.2.1). Conventional gravity and low pressure sewer systems are the preferred wastewater collection technology for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. An analysis of alternative wastewater collection systems concluded a hybrid system should be implemented consisting of a combination of (1) conventional gravity sewer systems to serve the densely populated areas; and(2) low pressure sewers to serve the less dense and outer reaching areas. Collection System. Wastewater would be conveyed from houses and businesses via transmission lines to lift stations located in or near the Rights of Way (ROWs) in the Service Area. Service laterals necessary for residential connections to the collection system would be provided up to the ROW. Connection to the collection system would be the responsibility of the property owner. Soil would be excavated for the installation of gravity sewer mains, lift stations, and gravity service laterals. Draft Environmental Assessment 14 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives Conventional Gravity. Conventional gravity flow sewer systems are the most widely used method of wastewater collection in residential and other developed areas. In a conventional gravity sewer system wastewater is transported by gravity from each service connection to a main gravity sewer. The main gravity sewer is sloped to provide a flow velocity adequate to convey solids and minimize settling. Manholes area placed on the sewer lines at intervals of 300 to 400 feet and at all intersections and changes of slopes. Manholes allow access for inspection, cleaning and repair. Because of the continuous slope, the depth of gravity sewers increases with distance downstream until the depth becomes too great for economical construction. Typically, for the Florida Keys this depth is 8 feet due to the subsurface conditions. Once the maximum depth is reached, a lift station is required to pump the wastewater to a shallower gravity-sewer system manhole, through a force main to another lift station, which will ultimately pump through a force main system to the regional WWTF. The Cudjoe Regional Service Area will rely on numerous lift stations, of which five will be master pump stations that pump directly to the WWTF. Low Pressure. Low pressure systems utilize a small grinder pump station at each wastewater source and small-diameter, low pressure force mains for transmission either to lift stations or directly to a WWTF. The grinder pump station accepts the entire wastewater stream from the residence or business and is not used in conjunction with a septic tank. Stations serving single residential units typically utilize fiberglass or HDPE wet-wells 24 to 30 inches in diameter. The grinder pumps typically range from 1 to 3 horsepower, depending on the type of pump selected and the number of units served by the pump station. All solids in the waste stream are ground to a slurry and pumped through small diameter pressure sewers. Since these systems do not rely on gravity, the sewers can be constructed with minimum cover. Since there are no septic tanks utilized in low pressure pump systems, installation costs and seepage handling costs associated with the septic tanks are avoided. Transmission System Components. Wastewater would be conveyed from the lift stations to the wastewater collection tank at the WWTF through 6- to 14-inch force mains. There will be one transmission main constructed in the ROW of U.S. Highway 1, before it diverts toward the WWTF along Blimp Road. 2.2.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Facility Site Description. The proposed WWTF will be constructed on approximately 3 acres of a larger 10.2 acre parcel and is located on Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe County(Figure 2-1). The site is cleared and contains existing stormwater retention swales. The WWTF site is in close proximity to a tropical hardwood hammock. However, the limits of the construction footprint are located solely within previously developed land associated with the former Monroe County landfill. No native upland or wetland habitats are located on the proposed WWTF site. Draft Environmental Assessment 15 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives Figure 2-1 Conceptual Site Pllan�for the Proposed Cudjoe Regional Wastewater)TreatmentFacili v, \I b —* ---, ‘ \ Ji;E t` a �, . i ,�+� 0 Big a .:: �? oS �l i Torch . .. J� Key .L(j \1Aliddle No Name y • )1 d..A Torch tied •�v hey + 4,' i` i 'a'esa+ IL ,..._, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,...„., .,.,.... . . , 14PIPPIRtlit I frowrtatit: 4 c., ,,, ,., . 1 h •1, t an -SW 1 ili "tits \ All.',. is Big Pine Little Key n - Torch ` c M o ('udjce Key tiunwrerlxud I�ev YIA • a . • ' -�� 01161, upper W. ,, M1 Sugarloaf t-' O - , .0, _ , 4L-s"': r: 'tilW:;-:-:- Loner r — \ — Sugarloaf I — _—' Key t .� r 7 nooem.•tore ' ' I. MICE NUN ' Fl,ONOBED,G ars \\ /�� t PONCE W Nitrirr ,..._ate= Atlantic Ocean ifi _ _ ----, l' H- ( IA,CRE3 2330 LF b IOPE4.01111 (W N C17MClIIP A7 FANFOsm Ur,O,! i -- ,.-HOPE Legend nwaem a ANNgrO,.•,OF M!7 MIN WPC NIP-II 0 loco MEN ..--10•NW WCf MEN nCudjoe Regional Service Area + w F 1 -Parcels - MT ura - `;:�- = :_.:,.� ..�...�3 d/YMY LNE Draft Environmental Assessment 16 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives 2.2.2.4 Construction Activities Proposed construction includes building the WWTFs and associated infrastructure, installing treatment tanks, underground and aboveground transmission lines, pumping stations, and sand or fabric filtration facilities. Removal of septic systems and pipeline trenching activities would occur throughout the Service Area at the residents' expense. Excavation activities for the collection system and WWTF site development, transmission lines, and septic tank and cesspool removals would require heavy construction equipment, such as trenching equipment, excavators, bulldozers, front-end loaders, and dump trucks to transport material, equipment, and construction debris. Existing utilities within the ROWs on either side of U.S. Highway 1 may require the construction of portions of the wastewater collection mains, force mains, and transmission mains under one or more paved lanes of U.S. Highway 1,resulting in temporary traffic delays in proximity to the construction. All construction will meet Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requirements to minimize traffic impacts, and conform to FDOT standards for restoration of roadways. Depending on the time required for construction on U.S. Highway 1, construction may take place during evening hours. All construction activities would be conducted pursuant to applicable facility planning regulation at the state level. 2.2.2.5 Operation and Maintenance The new WWTF would be operated and maintained by the FKAA. Wastewater Treatment Components. Design of the new WWTF include the facility, storage for maintenance, treatment, effluent disposal and operations materials, parking, paved access roads, and emergency power. The WWTF design includes influent flow measurement and pretreatment screening, Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) reactors, chlorine contact basins, sludge holding facilities, odor control equipment as required, four shallow injection wells, and ancillary equipment such as pumps and blowers to support each unit process. Wastewater Treatment System Operation. The WWTF will generally include a field-erected treatment facility, an emergency power generator, four shallow inject wells, headworks, odor treatment, an operations building, facility pump station, and a blower/electrical building. Roads and stormwater retention will also be included. Influent and effluent concentrations for which the facilities will be designed are as noted in Table 2-1 below. Table 2-1 Design Wastewater Influent and Effluent Characteristics Parameter Influent Concentration Effluent Concentration BOD 5 172 .arts .er million . .m TSS 216 . .m TN 54 . .m . . TP 8 ..m .. Draft Environmental Assessment 17 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives WWTF would provide biological treatment, solids removal, nitrogen and phosphorus removal, filtration, effluent disinfection and disposal to injection wells. A flow meter would measure and record the wastewater flow into the WWTF. Bardenpho-Process technology is proposed for the WWTF. The overall Bardenpho Process is similar to a conventional activated sludge flowsheet. Raw or settled sewage enters the biological reactor and is mixed with return settled sludge. Mixed liquor from the reactor flows to a clarifier where biological solids are removed from the treated wastewater and are recycled to a reactor basin. A portion of the sludge is wasted, removing excess cell material generated during processing. Sludge wasting also removes phosphorus from the system. The Bardenpho system is an advance modification of the activated sludge process consisting of a multi-stage biological reactor. High levels of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus removal are consistently achieved without the use of chemicals. Influent is mixed with activated sludge, returned from the final clarifier, in the fermentation stage. After contact, liquid is transported to an anoxic zone where it is mixed with nitrates from the nitrification zone. Oxygen, which is added in the nitrification zone, converts BOD to carbon dioxide, and ammonia to nitrate. In the second anoxic zone, nitrate is reduced to nitrogen gas. The final stage of the Bardenpho Process is a reaeration zone where the dissolved oxygen concentration is the mixed liquor is increased to prevent phosphorus from being released in the final clarifier. The Cudjoe Regional WWTF design is a five-stage Bardenpho-Process domestic wastewater treatment plant. The permitted (FLA671932-001) capacity for the facility's three-month average daily flow is 0.84 MGD. The major unit operation units of the headworks are two fine screens, two bar racks and two 140,000-gallon equalization tanks. The WWTF will have two clarifiers with 60-foot diameters. There are two filter units, which each having four disk filters. The surface area of each disk is 53.8 square feet. The disinfection system consists of two 7,600- gallon chlorine contact chambers and a gaseous chlorine feed system. The solids processing facilities consist of two rotary drum thickeners, a thickening polymer feed system, two 50,000- gallon aerated sludge holding tanks, a dewatering polymer feed system and one centrifuge. Effluent and Sludge Disposal. By-products of the wastewater treatment process include liquid effluent and a solids residual or sludge. Effluent Disposal. Effluent disposal for the proposed WWTF would be through shallow well injection. Shallow injection wells are considered Class V wells by the EPA, and the required effluent quality is dependent in the capacity of the WWTF. The effluent quality for the proposed WWTF is as stated in Table 2-1. These wells will extend 110 feet below ground with an 80-foot casing in the upper portion of the well. The effluent gravity flows through the upper cased portion of the well and out through the lower 30-foot portion of the well into a porous limestone formation. Chlorine would be added to effluent to reduce risk form bacterial and viral organisms. Draft Environmental Assessment 18 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives Sludge Disposal. Current plans for managing sludge at the proposed site include temporary storage followed by off-site processing and disposal. 2.2.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources): Pursue Other Sources of Funding for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Improvement Projects Under Alternative 3, Alternative Funding Sources, including state and federal funding alternatives (other than Corps funds), would be pursued to implement the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Improvement Project. This alternative is not within the jurisdiction of the Corps and no monies would be obtained from the Corps. Consequently, the project would be implemented as funding became available, potentially delaying full implementation. The overall potential impacts of implementing Alternative Funding Sources are briefly summarized below: • Fail to meet objectives of the Act until alternate funding is identified and obtained; • Delay addressing local and regional water quality issues; • Delay nutrient loading reductions and commensurate improvements in water quality in nearshore waters of the Service Area and subsequently,the Sanctuary; and • Delay compliance with federal and state regulatory water quality standards until all funding is made available. 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives The alternatives examined as part of this Draft EA were premised on the need to implement water quality improvement projects that will reduce nutrient loading and result in commensurate water quality improvements in the Sanctuary. The environmental consequences are summarized in Table 2-2 and a more detailed analysis is presented in Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences. Table 2-2 Comparison of Environmental Consequences Resulting from the Alternative Actions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Scoping Issue No Action Proposed Action Alternative Funding Sources Adverse impacts due to Benefits of centralized Continued degradation continued untreated wastewater treatment of water quality is wastewater runoff and include water quality anticipated until associated nutrients,toxins, improvements due to funding is obtained to bacteria,and viruses to canals decreased nutrient and other construct all the and nearshore waters in the contaminants into canals regional WWTF. 3. Water Sanctuary. State and federal and nearshore waters of the Piece-meal construction Quality mandates to improve water Sanctuary. Reductions in may delay full quality in the Sanctuary may TN,TP and TSS loadings achievement of project not be addressed. between 85-88,79-81 and and program objectives. 77-91 percent,respectively, are anticipated. These improvements will address state and federal le.islation. Draft Environmental Assessment 19 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives No impacts are anticipated. Net environmental benefits Impacts similar to those No lands will be required for due to improved water described under the the location and construction quality. The facility is Proposed Action area 4. Facility of wastewater facilities. located at a expected. Location Therefore,with the exception decommissioned landfill, of the other scoping issues, contain little to no existing residences,fish and ecological value. wildlife habitats,and land Therefore,no adverse uses will not be disrupted. impacts are anticipated. Adverse impacts to protected Section 7 USFWS/National Impacts similar to those species anticipated as a result Marine Fisheries Service described under the of continued runoff of (NMFS)consultation and Proposed Action are untreated wastewater into Florida Fish and Wildlife expected,with delays in 3. Protected canals and nearshore waters Conservation Commission benefits,in addition to Species and subsequent water quality (FFWCC)for protected potentially greater degradation. Because no new species will occur as impacts due to larger facilities would be required, needed. No critical habitat number of smaller no impacts to habitat for will be impacted. facilities being protected species are constructed. anticipated. Adverse impacts anticipated Construction of centralized Construction of sewers as a result of unchanged sewers will expedite the will be less effective 4. Effluent effluent disposal practices. removal of cesspools,septic due to fragmented Disposal Runoff from cesspools and tanks and associated approach. Delays in septic tanks will continue to pollutants in the Cudjoe construction are also enter canals and nearshore Regional hot spots. anticipated. waters in the Sanctuary. Increasing impacts anticipated Improved water quality Improved water quality related to water quality would decrease the would decrease the degradation. Continued beach incidence of beach incidence of beach health advisories would advisories and closings, advisories and closings, adversely affect immediate thereby increasing the thereby increasing the 5. Tourism recreational and tourist opportunity for saltwater- opportunity for opportunities,and long-term based recreation. saltwater-based impacts could be detrimental Temporary adverse impacts recreation albeit at a to tourism and the local would include slower pace than the economy. transportation delays due to Proposed Action. construction activities. Adverse impacts to low- Without special Without special income households who will consideration and financial consideration and have difficulties affording the assistance, low-income and financial assistance, 6. Environmental cost of meeting 2015 fixed-income households low-income and fixed- Justice mandates for wastewater may have difficulty paying income households may treatment are expected. for wastewater hook-up and have difficulty paying service fees. for wastewater hook-up and service fees. Draft Environmental Assessment 20 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives 2.4 Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative is Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, the Corps would provide financial assistance to the FKAA for implementation of a wastewater improvement project that would reduce nutrient loads and pollutants to nearshore waters in the Sanctuary. 2.5 Summary of Mitigation Requirements Some unavoidable impacts may occur as a result of the Proposed Action and would require mitigation. Proposed mitigation measures are described below. Biological Resources. Minimal to no adverse impacts to biological resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The collection system will be constructed in previously disturbed ROW. However, minimal avoidable impacts to mangrove habitat may occur as a result of installing portions of the transmission main along U.S. Highway 1. The WWTF will be constructed on a former solid waste site, containing no vegetation. Additionally, no wetlands occur within the proposed WWTF construction foot print. If unanticipated adverse impacts to biological resources occur during construction, appropriate mitigation will be required. Cultural Resources. The results of a Florida Master Site files review indicated a total of 39 archaeological sites and 49 historic structures throughout the Service Area. However, no known archaeological or historic sites are located on, or in direct proximity to, the proposed WWTF site. Additionally, the proposed wastewater infrastructure will be constructed within previously distributed ROW. Consequently, no affect on historic, archaeological, or cultural resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Should any historic or archeological item be discovered during project work, all activities would be terminated and the FKAA would consult with the Corps, State Bureau of Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other appropriate agencies for further guidance. Environmental Justice. EO 12898 directs federal agencies to provide for participation by minorities and low income populations in the federal decision-making process and further directs agencies to fully disclose any adverse effects of plans and proposals on minority and low-income populations. As described in the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program(FKWQIP) PEIS, over 25 percent of the Florida Keys population is made up of individuals regarded as either low income or over 65 years of age. The segment of population over the age of 65 often lives on fixed incomes and while their income may not be below the poverty level, they are affected by cost of living changes. These factors suggest that while the majority of the residents within the Service Area are above poverty levels, there are considerable impacts to residents associated with the costs of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System, raising potential environmental justice concerns. Four potential approaches that the FKAA may elect to address for this issue are presented below, as previously outlined in the PEIS. Draft Environmental Assessment 21 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 2.0 Description of Alternatives • Subsidize Connection Fees. Subsidize the cost of connection for residents. The principal issue associated with providing subsidies for this group of residents is the source of funding, which could be provided by the water treatment utility or local government property tax revenues. In each case, the potential for funding would have to be evaluated. • Subsidize the Recurring Cost of Sewer Service. Again, the principle issue would be the source of funding. A major difference between funding requirements for subsidizing connection charges and recurring charges is the continuing nature of the recurring charges. • Implement a Modified Rate Structure Based on Water Volume Use. Apply different service fees based on the volume of water actually used. Such a rate structure would include a very low base charge for the first 3,000 gallons of water use per month, with a sharply increasing charge for greater volumes of water use. • Subsidize Abandonment of Existing Onsite Treatment Facilities. Subsidize the cost of abandoning onsite treatment (i.e., septic tank and drainage field) for low income of fixed income residents. As stated above, the principle issue would be the source of funding. SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Draft Environmental Assessment 22 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System • 3.0 Affected Environment A PEIS was previously prepared by the Corps for the proposed FKWQIP. The PEIS was . prepared in accordance with the NEPA, the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and FEMA regulations (44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations). These laws and regulations require the Corps to consider and address issues when funding any federal action. The PEIS was published in the Federal Register in September 2004 and provides a framework to address potential environmental impacts associated with design and implementation of the FKWQIP. This Draft EA tiers off from the PEIS for the FKWQIP and thereby incorporates the PEIS by reference, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. The Proposed Action is the construction of a centralized wastewater treatment system to service residents and commercial businesses located in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. The proposed design capacity of the WWTF is one MGD. The affected environment addressed by this Draft EA lies within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area,which extends from MM 17 to MM 33, and includes ten islands (from north to south): • No Name Key • Big Pine Key • Little Torch Key • Middle Torch Key • Big Torch Key • Ramrod Key • Summerland Key • Cudjoe Key • Upper Sugarloaf • Lower Sugarloaf The environmental components addressed in the Draft EA are summarized in Table 3-1. While global or regional conditions such as climate will not be affected by the alternatives under consideration, habitat, protected species, environmental justice, and water quality are issues of concern and are therefore evaluated in appropriate detail. This chapter provides a current baseline against which comparisons of alternatives discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, can be made. SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Draft Environmental Assessment 23 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Table 3-1 Relationship Between Scoping Issues and Environmental Resources Scoping Issues . s oa�i 4' Affected Environment d r, u : 7©4 . 8 ,4 a, cA W A [-+ et w 3.1 Climate & Rainfall 3.2 Geology, Topography& Soils V V V V 3.3 Water Resources V V V V ✓ 3.4 Water Quality V V V V V 3.5 Ecological Habitats V V V ✓ 3.6 Protected Species V V V V 3.7 Essential Fish Habitat V V V V 3.8 Air Quality&Noise V 3.9 Cultural Resources V 3.10 Demographics & Socioeconomics ✓ V V V 3.11 Recreation ✓ V V V 3.12 Open Space & Aesthetic Resources V V V V 3.13 Environmental Justice V V V 3.14 Land Use & Planning V V V V V V 3.15 Infrastructure V 3.16 Hazardous Materials &Domestic Waste V 3.1 Climate Climate The climate in the Lower Keys is the same as that described for the Florida Keys in the PEIS (Section 3.1). The Florida Keys are marked by a wet summer season (June to October) characterized by numerous thunderstorms, while winters (November to May) are dry with infrequent, fast-moving cold fronts (30-40 each year). Precipitation in the Florida Keys is low compared with other portions of Florida. Rainfall averages 40 inches per year and peaks in June and late September and accounts for most of the precipitation in the Florida Keys. 3.2 Geology, Topography& Soils The geology, topography and soils in the Florida Keys are described in the PEIS (Section 3.2). The Florida Keys make up a low-lying archipelago extending from Key Largo to Key West for approximately 110 miles and covering 66,000 acres. The islands are located at the southernmost Draft Environmental Assessment 24 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment tip of the Florida Platform. Coral reefs roughly define the southern boundary of the Florida Platform. Just east of the Platform, the depth increases to 2,640 feet or more into the Straits of Florida and to nearly 10,000 feet deep farther west in the Gulf(Randazzo and Halley 1997). The Lower Keys geologic portion, extending from Lower Matecumbe Key to Key West, is comprised of rock of oolitic (limestone made up of small spherical grains) origin, referred to as the Miami Limestone Oolite (Randazzo and Halley 1997). These oolitic islands are thought to have formed as a sub-tidal marine ooid-shoal,during a sea level high during the Pleistocene Epoch. The oolitic rock of the Lower Keys contains an abundance of marine fossils while quartz makes up a relatively small portion of the rock. The Miami Oolite in the Lower Keys is oriented perpendicular to the continental shelf and has the configuration of a tidal bar with low flooded areas between the bars (Evans 1987). Service Area. Soil maps of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 1990) indicate nine soil map units in the Service Area. Cudjoe tidal complex is the dominate soil type, covering approximately 33.7 percent of the Service Area. Key Vaca gravelly loam is the second most dominant cover type, comprising approximately 12.3 percent of the Service Area. Udorthents (11.5%) and Matecumbe muck (9.3%) comprise the third and fourth dominant soil types within the Service ' Area. The remaining six soil types make up approximately 25.6 percent of the Service Area, and are Saddlebunch marl, Matecumbe muck, Lignumvitae marl, Key Largo muck and Islamorada muck(Table 3-2). Table 3-2 USDA Soil Map Units in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area Soil Map Unit Area (acres) of Interest Percent Cudjoe tidal complex 6791.2 33.7 % Key Vaca gravelly loam 2479.6 12.3 % Udorthents 2320.3 11.5 % Matecumbe muck 1870.2 9.3 % Cudjoe marl 1859.0 7.3 % Saddlebunch marl 1416.7 7.0 % Lignumvitae marl 892.0 4.4 % Islamorada muck 526.0 2.6 % Key Largo muck 484.9 2.4% The Cudjoe tidal complex consists of shallow, poorly drained, moderately to moderately rapid permeable soils in tidal and other flooded areas of the Florida Keys. They formed in calcareous marl over rippable coral or oolitic limestone. Depth to bedrock ranges from 3 to 20 inches. Reaction ranges from neutral to moderate alkaline throughout. Most areas of Cudjoe soils are used as wildlife habitat. The dominant native vegetation is black mangrove, red mangrove and white mangrove, along with saltwort, glasswort and poisonwood(USDA-NRCS 2003). Draft Environmental Assessment 25 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment The Udorthents soils complex is composed of crushed oolitic limestone or coral bedrock spread over original soil material and consequently does not support vegetation growth. These soils are moderately well drained and have a water table at two to four feet Below Land Surface (BLS) during the wet season. Houses and other urban structures occur on approximately 40 percent of the Udorthents in the Florida Keys (USDA 1990). Nearly 77 percent of the soils in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are poorly drained soils with high runoff potential, while the remaining soils have more moderate infiltration and runoff characters (USDA 1990). There are no prime farmlands in Monroe County that fall under the Farmland Protection Policy Act. WWTF Location. The Cudjoe Regional WWTF location was once made up entirely of Key Vaca gravelly loam (USDA 1990). However, in conjunction with the original landfill, a primary liner was installed covered by a total of two feet of sand. 3.3 Water Resources Ground water, surface waters, nearshore and marine waters in the Florida Keys are the environmental resources targeted by the FKWQIP and the project for the Lower Keys, as described in the PEIS (Section 3.3). The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System will address 12 of the 45 water quality hot spots in the Florida Keys (Monroe County 2000). 3.3.1 Ground Water Service Area. Water in the Biscayne Aquifer provides a potable water source only on the mainland of Florida, although the geologic structure extends as far as the Florida Keys. The aquifer ranges from brackish to saline throughout the Florida Keys and is not used as a potable water source (that is, it is not a designated underground source of drinking water, or USDW) except as input for desalination systems. The FKAA is the sole provider of potable water for all residents of the Florida Keys and no new domestic water supply wells have been permitted in the Florida Keys since 1986 (FEMA 2002). However, a freshwater lens on Big Pine Key has been the subject of published water-resources studies by the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS). WWTF Location. Geotechnical borings revealed ground water at depths of about 3 feet below the existing ground surface. Those depths are at elevations just above mean sea level which is typical for a coastal site. The water table at the site should be expected to fluctuate several feet in response to the bay tides(Jammal &Associates, Inc. 1987). 3.3.2 Surface Waters and Stormwater Runoff Service Area. Surface waters make up approximately 59.4 percent of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area and include artificial ponds, canals and boat basins, in addition to mangroves, Draft Environmental Assessment 26 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment estuaries and freshwater marshes (Table 3-3). Inland canals and access channels in the Florida Keys are often 10 to 20 feet in depth and discharge directly to the ocean, as described in the PEIS (Section 3.3). In a 1985 study, the FDEP (formerly Florida Department of Environmental Regulation [FDER]) concluded that the majority of the Florida Keys met the criteria for designation as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs), except canals and other specific areas. Many of the canal systems tested exhibited low values of dissolved oxygen, high nutrient values, and violations of the fecal coliform standard(Kruczynski, W. 1999). Table 3-3 Area and Percent Cover of Water and Wetlands in the Cudjoe Re ional Service Area Wetland Habitat Type Area(acres) of Interest Percent Freshwater Marsh 967.43 4.8 % Salt Marsh 1302.21 6.5 % Mangrove Swamp 2582.13 12.8 % Scrub Mangrove 4237.59 21.0% Buttonwood 1669.41 8.3 % Open Water 1217.92 6.0 % Total 20176.64 59.4 % Subsequent recommendations made by EPA and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) through an interagency workshop for the Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) (1996) for the poorly designed canal systems included installation of BAT wastewater treatment of stormwater runoff, and improvements to canal circulation. WWTF Location. There are no surface waters in the proposed WWTF location. Stormwater runoff is contained onsite by existing berms and stormwater retention areas. 3.3.3 Nearshore and Offshore Waters Service Area. The Cudjoe Regional Service Area includes nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, which are home to the largest living coral reef system in the U.S. The reef system provides habitat for 80 percent of fish species in the U.S., and most commercially valuable fish species depend on nearshore waters at some point during their development, as described in the PEIS (Section 3.3.3). In addition to valuable fish and wildlife habitat, nearshore and marine waters provide numerous recreational opportunities, such as boating, diving, swimming, snorkeling and fishing. In general, nutrient pollutants from the Florida Keys have greater nearshore affects than offshore affects due to dilution by tides and currents (Kruczynski 1999, Szmant and Forrester 1996). WWTF Location. The propose WWTF does not occur on or directly adjacent to nearshore or offshore waters. Draft Environmental Assessment 27 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment 3.4 Water Quality The purpose of the proposed WWTF for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area is to decrease the discharge of nutrients and other pollutants and consequently improve water quality in the Sanctuary, consistent with the mission of state and federal entities. The proposed project is designed to protect the biodiversity, natural beauty and recreational opportunities of the Florida Keys that are important to Florida's tourism industry which make up a significant part of the nation's collective natural resources. The water quality of the nearshore environment of the Florida Keys is affected by nutrient loading from approximately 23,000 private onsite systems and 246 small wastewater treatment plants. Onsite systems are comprised of approximately 15,200 permitted septic systems, 640 Aerobic Treatment Units (ATUs) and 7,200 unknown systems. About 2,800 of the 7,200 unknown systems are suspected to be illegal cesspools (MCSWMP, 2000). Average estimated reductions in wastewater loading to nearshore waters in the Florida Keys due to implementation of FKWQIP are approximately 69 and 73 percent in TN and TP loadings,.respectively, using AWT standards. Based on calculations prepared for similar central wastewater districts (Marathon, Islamorada and Key Largo) within the Florida Keys, reductions in TN, TP, and TSS loadings between 85-88, 79-81, and 77-91 percent, respectively, are anticipated for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area as a result of implementing the proposed wastewater improvements. The proposed WWTF would meet AWT standards and includes disinfection. 3.4.1 Ground Water Quality The Cudjoe Regional Service Area is considered a pollutant source to nearshore coastal waters. Numerous cesspools and septic systems, which provide little to no treatment due to high groundwater levels, release effluent into canals and the nearshore environment. As of 2000, there were 20 FDEP permitted package plants in the Service Area, with a total permitted capacity of 0.29 MGD and an average daily flow of 0.15 MGD (MCSWMP). WWTFs are required to treat effluent to AWT or BAT standards. For facilities that treat over 100,000 GPD, the AWT standards are five milligrams per liter (mg/L) BOD, five mg/L TSS, three mg/L TN, one mg/L (5:5:3:1); and for facilities treating less than 100,000 GPD the BAT standards are ten mg/L, ten mg/L, ten mg/L and one mg/L (10:10:10:1) respectively. Generally, WWTFs in the Florida Keys dispose of their treated effluent into shallow injection wells (cased zero to 60 feet with open hoes from 60-90 feet) and into the highly permeable Upper Water- Bearing Zone limestone of the Biscayne Aquifer. This disposal system is categorized as a Class V well by the State of Florida and is designated for treatment facilities with capacities greater than 100,000 GPD. Chlorine would be added to effluent to reduce risk of potential harmful bacteria and viral organisms. Draft Environmental Assessment 28 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment 3.4.2 Surface Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff The pollutant loads in stormwater runoff, and subsequently surface and nearshore waters, are largely a function of rainfall quantity, pervious nature of soils and land use. As described previously in this Draft EA (Section 3.2), the amount of soil in the Florida Keys and the Cudjoe Regional Service Area is minimal, moderately impervious and has a high runoff potential. Swales along U.S. Highway 1 are the primary drainage system in the Florida Keys and convey stormwater along the highway into the ocean, although much of U.S. Highway 1 has no drainage system (Monroe County 1997b). Stormwater discharge is regulated at the federal level through the Clean Water Act(CWA) and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit programs. 3.4.3 Nearshore and Offshore Water Quality The relationship between fecal contamination and nutrient enrichment of nearshore waters and septic tanks has been reviewed in many studies, including Lapointe and Clark (1992) and Paul et al. (1995 and 1997). These studies generally concluded that septic tank use increases the nutrient contamination of ground water and consequently, shallow nearshore waters, and that transport of contaminant from septic tanks can occur in hours or days (ten hours for Key Largo and 53 hours for the middle Keys). Several authors (Lapointe and Clark 1992, Lapointe and Matzie 1996 and Lapointe and Matzie 1997) have concluded that nutrient enrichment at offshore reefs is possible following heavy rains and/or high wind events, but have also noted that nutrient concentrations in sediments decreased rapidly from the shore. The Southeast Environmental Research Center(SERC) at Florida International University (FIU) has collected water quality data from the National Marine Sanctuary WQPP since 1995. Nearshore water quality stations revealed elevated levels of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), which was not found in the nearshore environment of Dry Tortugas, pointing to a land use source of elevated DIN. Data from 154 monitoring stations in the Florida Keys were used to characterize the status and trends in water quality. Thirteen monitoring stations along the Lower Keys off the ocean side of U.S. Highway 1 (SERC 2007) characterize the status and trends in water quality. Inshore water quality stations along Key Largo showed similar water quality conditions, including a gradient of elevated DIN, TP, total organic carbon (TOC) and turbidity from inshore to offshore (Boyer and Jones 2003). Fecal contamination of nearshore waters due to untreated or poorly treated wastewater has also been examined in the Service Area. Six canal sites between Lower Sugarloaf Key and Big Pine Key were sampled for viral pathogens and microbial indicators. Six indictors of fecal pollution were assessed in canals at the sites (Griffin et al. 1999). Contamination results varied greatly within the Service Area. The sample sites located in the Port Pine Heights and Eden Pine subdivisions on Big Pine Key had high levels of contamination and ranked 16th and 13`'' (19 Draft Environmental Assessment 29 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment being the most contaminated) respectively, overall of 19 sites for presence of these indicators. Two additional sites on Big Pine Key ranked 9th and 10th, while the sample sites on Lower Sugarloaf Key and Cudjoe Key ranked 2nd and 3`d, respectively. This study did not address seasonal variability. Water Quality Hot Spots. The Cudjoe Regional WWTF will address 12 of the 45 water quality hot spots in the Florida Keys (MCSWMP 2000). Hot spot locations correspond with higher- density urban areas and higher ranks represent neighborhoods and subdivisions with the poorest sewage treatment and strongest need for central sewage facilities. Health Advisories. Clean public beaches and nearshore water quality are leading health concerns in Monroe County. Of the 17 Monroe County beaches monitored in 2010, only one was found to have elevated bacterial levels that resulted in a water quality advisory. This beach advisory was not located within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area(FDOH 2010). 3.5 Ecological Habitats Unique and nationally significant resources, most notably the only living barrier coral reef in North America, emphasize the importance of the Florida Keys and Sanctuary as part of a complex ecosystem that includes numerous public conservation areas and habitat for protected species. The Cudjoe Regional Service Area and associated nearshore waters are a component of this complex ecosystem, which supports over 6,000 species of plants, fishes and invertebrates and is dominated by the third largest coral reef system in the world. These habitats can be altered by anthropogenic influences, including increased urban development, water quality degradation, altered groundwater flows, and expansion of non-native and invasive species. Wetlands comprise approximately 59.4 percent of the habitat within the 20,177-acre Service Area. Wetlands include mangroves, buttonwood, salt marsh, tidal flats and freshwater marsh. Uplands make up approximately 40.6 percent of the Service Area and include pinelands, tropical hardwood hammocks and developed lands (Figure 3-1 and Table 3-4). An additional 21,509 acres of benthic habitat comprised of hardbottom, seagrass and barren substrate are discussed in this section. Since developed land does not provide significant or essential ecological habitat for wildlife or native plants, it is not discussed in this section. The ten habitat types identified in the Service Area, listed according to frequency of occurrence, are: scrub mangrove (21%), tropical hardwood hammock (14.7%), developed land (13.5%), mangrove swamp (12.8 %), buttonwood (8.3%), pineland (8.2%), salt marsh (6.5%), open water (6.0%), freshwater marsh (4.8%), undeveloped land (2.2%), impervious surface (1.5%) and exotic vegetation(0.5%) (Table 3-4). Draft Environmental Assessment 30 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Figure 3-1 Habitat Types within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area 4,4\ 1 L W+E \.,,, I-7) % aq p o:: Big 9 :LT\:.\\,''''—' o Torch ,) • Q 9) Ise}' . Cudjoe Regional „::.),\I, fiAtiddie No Name `WWTF Site Torch Key - :� '� q hey ' . a ., .. • %zy ' ;I Ai . '1 • i G-'"r ,-c l►t. Big Yin: ,p t * ' Little key . • 4.; `• , Torch .Afir.;^�;i i (tidjoe Key tiummerland Ramrod Key a 1 C" i • Upper Key Keyz • �•�'1 - / Sugarloaf � y q. Legend Lower Sugarloaf __i Pineland - Freshwater Wetland Key - Hammock Beach Berm _ Buttonwood - Developed Land Atlantic Ocean - Exotic Water - Mangrove - Undeveloped Land °„ „ Scrub Mangrove Impervious Surface 125 2.5 5MIes _ Salt Marsh _ Cudjoe Regional Service Area Draft Environmental Assessment 31 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Table 3-4 Habitat Types in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area Class Area (acres) of Interest Percent Scrub Mangrove 4237.59 21.0% Hammock 2957.56 14.7 % Developed Land 2722.60 13.5 % _ Mangrove Swamp 2582.13 12.8 % Buttonwood 1669.41 8.3 % Pineland 1660.17 8.2 % Salt Marsh 1302.21 6.5 % Open Water 1217.92 6.0 % Freshwater Marsh 967.43 4.8 % Undeveloped Land 448.55 2.2 % Impervious Surface 294.31 1.5 % Exotic Vegetation 91.76 0.5 % 3.5.1 Upland Habitats Service Area. Of the thirteen land cover classes identified within the Service area, two (tropical hardwood hammocks and pineland) are classified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) as upland habitats. The PEIS (Section 3.5.1) describes the general characteristics of the tropical hardwood hammocks, pinelands and beach berms of the Florida Keys. Tropical Hardwood Hammocks. Tropical hardwood hammocks account for 14.7 percent of habitat cover within the Service Area (Table 3-4). These hammocks are mostly distributed evenly throughout the Service Area. However, Lower Sugarloaf Key contains only small patches, while No Name Key is dominated by tropical hardwood hammocks. Pinelands. Pinelands (pine rocklands) account for 8.2 percent of the habitat cover within the Service Area (Table 3-4), with a majority located on Big Pine Key. Pine rocklands can also be found in moderately sized stands on Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key and No Name Key. WWTF Site. The proposed WWTF located on Cudjoe Key is in close proximity to a tropical hardwood hammock. However, the limits of the construction footprint are located solely within previously developed land associated with the former Monroe County landfill. No upland habitats are located on the proposed WWTF site. 3.5.2 Non-Native and Invasive Species Service Area. Data obtained from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) (2010) indicates invasive vegetation is concentrated mostly in developed areas throughout the Service Area. Draft Environmental Assessment 32 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC) Class I invasive species located in the Service Area include Brazilian pepper(Schinus terevinthifolus), Australian pine (Casuarina Equisetifolia) and seaside mahoe (Thespesia populnea). WWTF Site. The proposed WWTF located on Cudjoe Key is bordered by a fringe of invasive plant species, mostly identified as Brazilian pepper. However, vegetation within the proposed WWTF construction footprint is limited to lawn grass associated with the former Monroe County landfill. 3.5.3 Estuarine and Freshwater Wetland Habitats Service Area. Wetlands include areas where water is present either at or near the surface of the soil for all or part of the year, resulting in characteristic soils, water regimes and plant species. FFWCC Habitat and Land Cover data (FFWCC 2004) indicates the presence of estuarine and freshwater wetlands in the Service Area. Freshwater wetlands make up less than one percent of the Service Area. Mangrove and Scrub Mangrove. Mangrove and scrub mangrove habitat types comprise approximately 12.8 percent and 21.0 percent of the Service Area, respectively (Table 3-4). The three species of mangrove found in the Florida Keys are the red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) (Tomlinson 1986). Based on FFWCC data, mangrove habitats are distributed throughout the Service Area. Although, concentrations of mangroves are typically uniform throughout the Service Area, Cudjoe Key and Upper Sugarloaf exhibit larger quantities. Buttonwood. Button habitat comprises approximately 8.3 percent of the Service Area (Table 3- 4). Buttonwood is distributed evenly throughout the Service Area and it typically adjacent to Scrub Mangrove Habitat. Salt Marsh. Based on FFWCC data, salt marsh comprises approximately 6.5 percent of the Service Area (Table 3-4), and are distributed throughout. Additionally, a large area of salt marsh is located on the northern end of Upper Sugarloaf. Freshwater Marsh. Small isolated freshwater wetlands makeup 4.8 percent of habitat types found in the Service Area and are limited to Upper Sugarloaf Key, Ramrod Key and Big Pine Key. WWTF Site. The proposed WWTF located on Cudjoe Key is in close proximity to estuarine wetlands. However, the limits of the construction footprint are located solely within previously developed land associated with the former Monroe County landfill. No estuarine or freshwater wetland habitats occur on the proposed WWTF site. Draft Environmental Assessment 33 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment 3.5.4 Marine and Benthic Habitats Marine habitats are characterized by high productivity and biodiversity and are essential to many commercially and recreationally important fisheries (Livingston 1990), as well as recreational activities such as Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) diving, snorkeling, and boating, all of which are in turn important to the local and regional economy. Marine habitats,particularly seagrasses and coral reefs, are susceptible to water quality degradation. The affects of water quality degradation in these habitats are described in the PEIS (Section 3.4). Service Area. Acreages and percentages of each marine habitat type were calculated based on the FFWCC South Florida Benthic Habitats data (FWRI 2001). A 500-meter buffer zone was used to calculate the nearshore benthic habitats surrounding the Service Area (Figure 3-2 and Table 3-5). The buffer zone includes approximately 21,509 acres of benthic habitat. Florida Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) data indicate the presence of benthic habitats such as seagrass beds; hard-bottom communities with seagrass; continuous and patchy seagrass; and bare substrate in the buffer zone. The general ecology and characteristics of these communities in the Florida Keys, such as typical vegetation and wildlife occurring within the communities, were described in greater detail in the PEIS (Section 3.5.4). Table 3-5 Benthic Habitat Types within 500-Meter Buffer of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area Benthic Habitat Type Area (acres) of Interest Percent Hardbottom with Seagrass 10869 50.5 % Continuous Seagrass 8300 38.6% Patchy(Discontinuous) Seagrass 2079 9.7 % Bare Substrate 252 1.2 % Hardbottom 9 <1 % Total 21509 100 % Patchy and continuous seagrasses together comprise approximately 48.3 percent of the benthic habitat in the Service Area (Table 3-5) and occur within tidally-influenced areas. Hardbottom habitat with seagrass and bare substrate comprise approximately 50.5 percent and 1.2 percent of the Service Area's benthic habitats, respectively. These habitat types are mapped in Figure 3-2. WWTF Site. None of these benthic habitat types occur on the proposed WWTF site. 3.6 Protected Species The Florida Keys provide habitat for many rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals. In addition, the limited remaining undeveloped natural habitat in the Florida Keys makes these areas and associated species vulnerable to development. Any project that results in the loss of Draft Environmental Assessment 34 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Figure 3-2 Marine and Benthic Habitats within a 500-Meter Buffer Zone around the Cudjoe Regional Service Area + ,e,i }, c l Big c ♦ ! ` n \) � Torch r � ,,,,4 16 `2 tM { 't*4... ' %I .v7V.' a U �' % If r k • Middl �, c; ° �,' il:\ Torch `cj, No Name \\ , • o, b CI) 8 Cudjoe Regional „r Vie` Key ' WWTF Site r {�.•' • s; - A 4 )1__T ti el <` ,fps tom_- . .., 1J �� 2s Q' x ' �,' j b Little . No . v / t Cudjoe Key Sum�erland Ramrod o Torch ' / Key Ivey Big Pine Upper ` -( Key f, illAiii. %tit Sugarloaf Key �� (' 'N '' Lower Legend Sugarloaf _ CONTINUOUS SEAGRASS - HARDBOTTOM WITH SEAGRASS Atlantic Ocean IIIPATCHY(DISCONTINUOUS)SEAGRASS - HARDBOTTOM - BARE SUBSTRATE o 1.25 2.5 5 Wes _ Cudjoe Regional Service Area Draft Environmental Assessment 35 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment natural areas has the potential to impact protected species. Protected species refers to both federally and state listed species considered endangered, candidate, proposed, threatened and species of special concern. 3.6.1 Regulatory Framework The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 was created to protect those species at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range and to conserve the ecosystems on which those species depend. Section 7 of the ESA prohibits activities that would jeopardize a protected species or destroy or modify its critical habitat. The USFWS is responsible for listing and conserving federally protected terrestrial and freshwater animals and plants, while the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for most marine and anadromous species. If the proposed wastewater project has the potential to adversely affect or lead to incidental taking of a federally protected species, a formal Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS, and/or NMFS would be required. Similarly, state lists of animals are maintained by the FFWCC and designated as endangered, threatened, and of special concern, per Rules 39-27.003, 39-27.004 and 39-27.005, respectively, FAC. Any actions that may adversely impact a state-listed animal require individual consultations with the FFWCC. Plants also may be designated endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited, and are listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services(FDAC) (Chapter 5B-40, FAC). 3.6.2 Federally and State Protected Species in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area Protected species data for Monroe County were obtained from the FNAI database, FDAC, and Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants (AFVP). Protected species potentially occurring in Monroe County include 82 animal and 91 plant species, although fewer have a documented presence (FFWCC and FNAI). Several state protected species, such as the white-crowned pigeon and the red rat snake, are not federally protected and consultation is limited to the state level if adverse impacts to these species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Documented occurrences of protected species in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are summarized in Table 3-6. Fable 3-6 Summar of Protected Species Occurrences in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area Federally and State Taxonomic Group State Protected Only I Protected _ Birds 1 10 11 Fish 0 2 2 Invertebrates 1* 1 2 Draft Environmental Assessment 36 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Mammals 4 0 4 Plants 8 28 36 Reptiles 3 6 9 Amphibians 0 0 0 Total 17 47 64 *Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak is federally listed only. 3.6.3 Protected Species Occurrences The FNAI database was reviewed to identify species occurrences in the Service Area recorded since 1985. This database provides listings within FNAI Biodiversity Matrix Units: 46444, 48916,4817,49248,49250, 49580,49581, 49908 and 49909. Service Area. The FNAI database records for the Service Area include 64 rare and protected species. Of the 64 species, 16 are protected by the State and Federal government (Table 3-7). The Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak is federally listed only. Table 3-7 Protected Species Occurrence Records Common Name/Scientific Name Status State Status Observed Habitat Birds Estuarine and Terrestrial:bare Roseate Tern N LT No limestone,sand-shell mixes. Sterna dougallii rock-marl fill,broken coral, dredge-material islands White Ibis Estuarine and Terrestrial: Eudocimus albus N LS Yes various freshwater,brackish and saline environments Brown Pelican N LS Yes Estuarine: islands for nesting, Pelecanus occidentalis open water. Marine:open water Estuarine:marsh edges,tidal swamp,open water. Lacustrine: Bald Eagle swamp lakes,edges. Palustrine: alianeetus leucocephalus LT ST No swamp,floodplain. Riverine: shoreline,open water. Terrestrial:pine and hardwood forests,clearings Estuarine:marshes,shorelines, Great Egret tidal swamp. Lacustrine:lake Ardea alba N N Yes edges. Palustrine:swamp, floodplain,ruderal. Riverine: shoreline Estuarine:marshes,shorelines, Snowy Egret tidal swamp. Lacustrine: lake N Egretta thula LS Yes edges.Palustrine:swamp, floodplain,ruderal. Riverine: shoreline Draft Environmental Assessment 37 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Estuarine:marshes,tidal Tricolored Heron swamps,shoreline. Lacustrine: Egretta tricolor N LS Yes lake edges. Palustrine:swamps, floodplain,ruderal. Riverine: shoreline Least Tern Estuarine:various. Lacustrine: Sterna antillarum N LT No various.Riverine:various. Terrestrial:beach dune,ruderal Osprey Riverine and Palustrine: swamp Pandion haliaetus N LS Yes forest,riparian woodlands,belts of cypress trees Reddish Egret Terrestrial:coastal islands Egretta rufescens N LS Yes (nesting),sand and mud flats (feeding) White-crowned Pigeon Terrestrial: mangrove covered Patagioenas leucocephala N LT Yes islands(nesting),tropical hardwood forest(feeding) Florida Burrowning Owl LS No Terrestrial:uplands Athene cunicularia floridana Mangrove Cuckoo Coccyzus minor N N Yes Mangrove swamps Fish Key Silverside Marine: salt to brackish water, Menidia conchorum C LT No coarline pools surrounded by mangroves and organic debris Mangrove Rivulus Marine: salt to brackish water, Rivulus marmoratus C LS Yes coarline pools surrounded by mangroves and organic debris Invertebrates Florida Tree Snail LS No Terrestrial:rockland hammock Ligguus fasciatus Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Terrestrial:pine rockland and Strymon ads bartrami C N Yes rockland hammocks Big Pine Key Ataenius Dung Beetle N N Yes Terrestrial:rockland hammocks Ataenius superficialis Howden's Copris Beetle Copris howdeni N N Yes Terrestrial:rockland hammocks Antillean Spreadwing N N Yes Terrestrial:pine rockland and Lestes spumarius rockland hammocks Mammals Estuarine and Marine:open Manatee water,submerged vegetation. Trichechus manatus LE LE No Riverine:alluvial stream, blackwater stream,spring-run stream Terrestrial:salt marsh or Lower Keys Rabbit LE LE Yes freshwater marsh,mangrove Sylvilagus palustris hefneri communities,shrubby edges to wetlands Draft Environmental Assessment 38 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Terrestrial: salt marsh or Key Deer freshwater marsh,mangrove Odocoileus virginianus clavium LE LE Yes communities,shrubby edges to wetlands Terrestrial: salt marsh or Key West Raccoon freshwater marsh,mangrove Procyon lotor incautus N N Yes communities,shrubby edges to wetlands Terrestrial: salt marsh or Lower Keys Cotton Rat freshwater marsh,mangrove Sigmodon hispidus exsputus N N Yes communities,shrubby edges to wetlands Terrestrial: salt marsh or Key Rice Rat LE LE Yes freshwater marsh,mangrove Oryzomysys palustris pop. 3 communities,shrubby edges to wetlands Plants Sandy soils over limestone in Garber's Spurge pine rockland,hammock edges, Chamaesyce garberi LT LE Yes coastal rock barrens,grass prairies,salt flats,beach ridges and swales Brittle Thatch Palm N LE Yes Terrestrial:rockland hammock, Thrinax morrisii pine rockland Florida Thatch Palm N LE Yes Terrestrial maritime hammock, Thrinax radiata upland hammock,coastal scrub Sea Lavender N LE Yes Terrestrial:beach dune,coastal Argusia gnaphalodes strand Joewood Terrestrial:coastal salt flat, Jacquinia keyensis N LT Yes coastal scrub,maritime hammock,pine rockland Terrestrial:coastal strand,upper Pride-of-big-pine N LE Yes dunes,pine rockland,coastal Strumpfia maritima rock barren Big Pine Partridge Pea Terrestrial:edges of pine Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis C LE Yes rockland,rockland hammock and coastal berm Golden Leather Fern Terrestrial:mangrove swamp, Acrostichum aureum N LT Yes saltmarsh hydric hammock Sand Flax C LE Yes Terrestrial:pine rockland and Linum arenicola marl prairie Silver Palm Terrestrial:pine rockland Coccothrinax argentata N LT Yes hammock,pine rockland,coastal scrub Devil's Smooth-claw Terrestrial:pine rockland and Pisonia rotundata N LE Yes rockland hammocks Porter's Broad-leaved Spurge Terrestrial:pine rockland, Chamaesyce porteriana N LE Yes rockland hammock,coastal rock barrens and marl prairie Christmas Berry N LT Yes Terrestrial: rockland hammock, Crossopetalum ilicifolium pine rockland,coastal scrub Draft Environmental Assessment 39 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Rhamcoma N LT Yes Terrestrial: rockland hammock, Crossopetalum rhacoma pine rockland,coastal scrub West Indies Mahogany Terrestrial: rockland hammock, Swietenia mahagoni N ST Yes maritime hammock Milkbark N LE Yes Terrestrial:tropical hammock Drypetes diversifolia Tree Cactus Terrestrial:tropical hardwood Pilosocereus robinii LE LE Yes hammock,cactus hammock, thorn scrub Wild Dilly N LT Yes Terrestrial:upland hammock Manikara jaimiqui Sandy soils over limestone in Wedge Spurge pine rockland,hammock edges, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp.Serpyllum C LE Yes coastal rock barrens,grass prairies,salt flats,beach ridges and swales Bahama Sachsia C LE Yes Terrestrial:tropical hammock Sachsia Polycephala Locustberry Terrestrial:pine rockland and Byrsonima lucida N LT Yes coastal hammocks Terrestrial: coastal rock barren, Blodgett's Wild-mercury C LE Yes uplands,pine rockland and Argythamnia blodgettii rockland hammock Florida Five-petaled Leaf-flower Terrestrial:uplands,marl Phyllanthus pentaphyllus var. N N Yes prairies and pine rockland floridanus Small-flowered Lily Thorn N LE Yes Terrestrial:coastal berm,coastal Catesbaea parviflora strand and pine rockland Rockland Painted-leaf N LE Yes Terrestrial:pine rockland Euphorbia pinetorum Terrestrial:coastal berm,coastal Florida Pinewood Privet strand,maritime hammock, Forestiera segregata var.pinetorum N N Yes mesic hammock,pine rockland and shell mounds Skyblue Clustervine Terrestrial:bayhead,coastal Jacquemontia pentanthos N LE Yes rock barren,marl prairie,pine rockland and rockland hammock Bahama Brake Terrestrial: marl prairie,pine Pteris bahamensis N LT Yes rockland,rockland hammock sinkholes Pineland Noseburn N LT Yes Terrestrial:uplands and pine Tragic saxicola rockland Worm-vine Orchid Epiphytic:coastal berm,marl Vanilla barbellata N LE Yes prairie,rockland hammock,tidal marsh and tidal swamp Bahama Maidenbush N LE Yes Terrestrial: rockland hammocks Savia bahamensis Few-flower Caesalpinia N LE Yes Caeealpinia pauciflora Manchineel N LE Yes Terrestrial:coastal berm and Hippomane mancinella rockland hammocks Draft Environmental Assessment 40 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Small-fruited Vamishedleaf Terrestrial:pine rockland and Dodonaea elaeagnoides N LE Yes rockland hammocks Pineland Pencil Flower Terrestrial: Uplands,marl Stylosanthes calcicola N LE Yes prairie and pine rockland Cupania SAT LS Yes Terrestrial:rockland hammocks Cupania glabra Terrestrial: upland,marl prairie, Mangrove Berry N LT Yes pine rockland and rockland Psidium longipes hammocks. Banded Wild-pine Tillandsia flexuosa N LT Yes Epiphytic:numerous Reptiles Palustrine:freshwater to American Alligator brackish wetlands and ponds. Alligator mississippiensis SAT LS Yes Estuarine and Marine:Open water,canals,bays(seasonal) Key Mud Turtle Palustrine:freshwater to slightly Kinosternon baurii pop. 1 N LE Yes brackish ponds. Terrestrial: elevated hardwood hammocks Key Ringneck Snake Terrestrial:pine rockland, Diadophis punctatus acricus N LT Yes tropical hardwood hammocks, near sources of fresh water Terrestrial:pine woods, Red Rat Snake,FL Lower Keys Pop N LS Yes mangrove forest,edificarian Elaphe guttata pop. 1 situations Loggerhead LT LT No Terrestrial:sandy beaches, Caretta caretta nesting Florida Keys Mole Skink Eumeces egregius egregius N LS Yes Terrestrial:sandy shorelines Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon couperi LT LT Yes Upland and wetland habitats Lower Keys Brown Snake N LT Yes Upland and wetland habitats Storeria dekayi pop. 1 Lower Keys Ribbon Snake N LT Yes Upland and wetland habitats Thamnophis sauritus pop. 1 C:Candidate N:Not Currently Listed SAT:Treated As Threatened LE:Listed Endangered LT:Listed Threatened LS:Species of Special Concern 3.6.4 Existing and Potential Habitat Areas for Protected Species Identification of habitats of particular interest or importance allows these habitats to be avoided during implementation of this and other FKWQIP projects. Existing and potential wildlife habitats in the Florida Keys have been identified by the FMRI, based on habitat and numbers of key species, many of which are protected. Importantly, biodiversity hot spots and Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCAs) have been developed by Cox et al. (1994) to identify conservation targets considered necessary to meet conservation goals in Florida. Draft Environmental Assessment 41 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment The FFWCC biodiversity hot spots data (FFWCC 2002b), reviewed for the Service Area, represent areas of overlap among potential habitats of 64 rare or focal species of wildlife and several important natural communities, including pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammocks and mangrove swamps. Overlap among greater numbers of species indicates higher biodiversity. Numerous biodiversity hot spots, consisting of seven or more focal species, have been identified throughout the entire Service Area(Figure 3-3). Biodiversity hot spots were analyzed in relation to the proposed WWTF (Figure 3-3). The proposed WWTF is in close proximity to hot spots, however, the proposed site is located on previously developed land. No adverse impacts to SHCA are anticipated. Individual species data are not available for this data set. 3.7 Essential Fish Habitat Coral reefs and other benthic habitats identified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) must be considered as part of any federal action. Federal agencies must also comply with the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) that requires implementation of measures to conserve and enhance this habitat per the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) Public Law 104-297. EFH in the Service Area and the Florida Keys is described in the PEIS (Section 3.7). The MSA requires federal agency consultation on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The NMFS, a service of the U.S. Department of Commerce-National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is responsible for implementing this mandate. Informal consultation with NMFS was initiated as part of the preparation for the PEIS. Species and associated habitats identified as relevant to the proposed project include panaeid shrimp (e.g. pink and brown shrimp) and rock shrimp, red drum, snapper, the grouper unit, golden crab and spiny lobster. 3.8 Air Quality & Noise The Cudjoe Regional Service Area currently meets or exceeds all federal air quality standards. Noise levels are typical of urban areas dominated by commercial and recreational activities. Air Quality. The affected environmental for air quality is similar to that described in the PEIS (Section 3.8.1). Air pollution within the Service Area has not been extensively documented, however the FDEP has designated Monroe County as an air quality attainment area, which means that air quality standards set by both FDEP and the USEPA are maintained countywide (Monroe County 1995). FAC 62-604.400 and 62-296.320 require reasonable assurance from the applicant that the facility will not cause objectionable odors, such as those resulting from WWTF hydrogen sulfide discharges, at levels that would adversely affect neighboring residents or commercial uses. Draft Environmental Assessment 42 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Figure 3-3 Biodiversity Hot Spots within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area IA 1..4i\:. \.N • Big !" 11\ ry,-t o<. �' e' Torch r'` ry ` 'we tiev NI a. C djoe Regional `\1 �`' . Middle No Name s Torch ,.R N TF Site .1) d • -: 4� lie} •.0:14.1. It..\\ , •,,k Key . ,,..,fifif, 14*• ,�, ,t E t 1 s 11, '1,A`Q ,J,J( '�7jy v^py . 1 1ri - _- �r — MI'i rr \� • Bl�Pine -ri so Little hey' Torch 9. N r ('ud joe Key Sununerland Ramrod r Key 1`',,4 ,o�. u 4' Key Key ^ 'A '__ Sugarloaf49 r ' ,)y;i.' Key Legend r• • A) - Cudjoe Regional Service Area Lcm er Sugarloaf Number of Focal Species r hey _ 7 - 8 Atlantic Ocean - 9 - 10 - 11 0 1.26 26 5 Mies - 12 Draft Environmental Assessment 43 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Air quality in the Florida Keys is generally excellent, and data from two FDEP ambient air monitoring stations in Key West and Marathon indicated that particulate matter concentration remain well below Florida standards. Motor vehicles are generally the main source of emissions. Noise. Noise in the Florida Keys is typical of areas with urban activities such as traffic, construction, aircraft (near airports), and boats, as described in the PEIS (Section 3.8.2). Since 1982, responsibility for noise abatement and control has been delegated to State and local governments, but noise levels and exposure recommendations developed by the USEPA under the Noise Control Act (NCA) are still relevant. The State of Florida addresses noise control in Title XXIX, Chapter 403 (Public Health, Environmental Control) of Florida Statues (FS). Chapter 62-600 of the FAC addresses rules for siting and operation of WWTFs and requires that new facilities are located to minimize noise from the facility that may impact sensitive noise receptors such as residence, schools,hospitals, churches and parks. Noise levels over a 24-hour period should be less than 70 decibel (dBA) to prevent any measurable hearing loss over a lifetime. Likewise, maximum levels of 55 dBA outdoors and 45 dBA indoors are identified as preventing activity interference and annoyance. Monroe County has adopted an ordinance that prohibits noise equal to or exceeding 60 dBA (typical of a residential area) beyond the property line of the sound source and may collect fines up to $500 per day from violators. 3.9 Cultural Resources The protection of cultural, archaeological and historical resources in the Florida Keys is described in the PEIS (Section 3.9). Major federal laws protecting cultural resources include the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the affects of the Proposed Action on identified and potentially present cultural resources. In addition, the SHPO, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation(ACHP), could review and comment on a Proposed Action. The results of a Florida Master Site files review indicated a total of 39 archaeological sites and 49 historic structures throughout the Service Area (Table 3-8). However, no known archaeological or historic sites are located on, or in direct proximity to, the proposed WWTF site. Additionally, the proposed wastewater infrastructure will be constructed within previously distributed ROW. Consequently, no affect on historic, archaeological, or cultural resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Should any historic or archeological item be discovered during project work, all activities would be terminated and the FKAA would consult with the Corps, SHPO and other appropriate agencies for further guidance. Draft Environmental Assessment 44 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Table 3-8 Documented Archaeological and Historic Sites in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area Site Name Site ID Cultural Resource Type Archaeological Sugarloaf Key 1 MO00004 Unknown Cudjoe Key 1 MO00005 Prehistoric midden(s) Ramrod Key 6 MO00006 Prehistoric Watson's Hammock MO00007 Glades IIa No Name Key 1 MO01278 Prehistoric shell scatter No Name Key 2 MOO1279 Artifact scatter-low density(<2 per sq meter) No Name Key 3 MO01280 Twentieth century American, 1900-present Big Pine Key 2 MO00008 Prehistoric Niles Channel MO00129 American, 1821-present Bow MO01253 Unknown Railroad Section Camp 1 MO01254 Historic refuse/Dump Railroad Section Camp 2 MO01255 Historic refuse/Dump Big Pine Key 9 MO01262 Twentieth century American, 1900-present Big Pine Key 10 MO01263 Unknown Big Pine Key 11 MO01264 Twentieth century American, 1900-present Big Pine 13 MO01266 Variable density scatter of artifacts Cudjoe Key 4 MO01269 Historic well No Name Key 4 MO01281 Artifact scatter-low density(<2 per sq meter) No Name Key 5 MO01282 Twentieth century American, 1900-present No Name 7 MO01284 Twentieth century American, 1900-present No Name Key 8 MO01285 Historic well Ramrod Key 4 MO01286 Historic well Ramrod Key 5 MOO1287 Artifact scatter-low density(<2 per sq meter) Sugarloaf Key 3 MO01291 Twentieth century American, 1900-present Sugarloaf Key 4 MO01292 Historic town Cudjoe Key 3 MO01296 Twentieth century American, 1900-present Crane Road Cisterns MO01480 Historic well Singleton Homestead MO02100 Historic well Big Pine Key 3 MO02101 Twentieth century American, 1900-present Big Pine Key 6 MO02104 Nineteenth century American, 1821-1899 Big Pine 7 MO02105 Historic well Big Pine Key 8 MO02106 Historic refuse/Dump Little Torch Key 1 MO02109 Unknown Little Torch Key 2 MO02110 Homestead Draft Environmental Assessment 45 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Ramrod Key 1 MO02111 Nineteenth century American, 1821-1899 Ramrod Key 2 MO02112 Historic refuse/Dump Ramrod Key 3 MO02113 Homestead Cudjoe Key 2 MO02114 Twentieth century American, 1900-present Sugarloaf Key 2 MO02115 Homestead Historic Sites Bat Tower MO00228 Frame Vernacular Big Pine Key#12 MO01265 Unspecified by Surveyor Water Metering Station MO01485 Moderne ca. 1920-1940 Squires Homstead MO01947 Arenson MO03622 Masonry vernacular No Name Pub MO03623 Frame Vernacular 31131 Avenue D Big Pine Key MO03733 Frame Vernacular 31336 Avenue E, Big Pine Key MO03734 Frame Vernacular Tackle and Bait Shop MO03735 Frame Vernacular 30371 Poinciana Road, Big Pine MO03736 Frame Vernacular Key 30457 Palm Drive, Big Pine Key MO03737 Frame Vernacular 30423 Oleander Boulevard, Big MO03738 Masonry vernacular Pine Key 30434 Oleander Boulevard, Big MO03739 Frame Vernacular Pine Key 30458 Oleander Boulevard, Big MO03740 Frame Vernacular Pine Key 423 Barry Avenue, Little Torch MO03741 Frame Vernacular Key 433 Barry Avenue, Little Torch MO03742 Frame Vernacular Key 580 Barry Avenue,Little Torch MO03743 Other Key 1257 Warner Road, Little Torch MO03744 Frame Vernacular Key 1269 Mills Road, Little Torch Key MO03745 Frame Vernacular 1263 Mills Road, Little Torch Key MO03746 Frame Vernacular 26936 Shanahan Road, Ramrod MO03747 Frame Vernacular Key 24915 Horace Street, Summerland MO03748 International ca. 1925-present Key 24945 Center Street, Summerland MO03749 Masonry vernacular Key 25063 Center Street, Summerland MO03750 Masonry vernacular Key 13 Center Street, Summerland Key MO03751 Frame Vernacular Draft Environmental Assessment 46 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Horace and Center Streets, MO03752 Frame Vernacular Summerland Restaurant and Fish Market MO03753 Masonry vernacular 637 2"d Street, Summerland Key MO03754 Masonry vernacular 25044 45th Street, Summerland Key MO03755 Frame Vernacular Galley Grill Restaurant MO03756 Masonry vernacular 60 Dobie Street, Summerland Key MO03757 Frame Vernacular 21074 Overseas Highway, Cudjoe MO03758 Frame Vernacular Key Mangrove Mamas MO03759 Frame Vernacular 81 Johnson Road, Sugarloaf Key MO03760 Frame Vernacular 71 Johnson Road, Sugarloaf Key MO03761 Frame Vernacular 19556 Navajo Street, Sugarloaf Key MO03762 Frame Vernacular 19580 Mayan Street, Sugarloaf Key MO03763 Frame Vernacular 19674 Indian Mound drive, MO03764 Frame Vernacular Sugarloaf Key 19591 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key MO03765 Frame Vernacular 19616 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key MO03766 Frame Vernacular 19582 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key MO03767 Frame Vernacular 19572 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key MO03768 Frame Vernacular 19583 Seminole Street, Sugarloaf MO03769 Frame Vernacular Key 19658 Seminole Street, Sugarloaf MO03770 Frame Vernacular Key 19520 Tequesta Street, Sugarloaf MO03771 Frame Vernacular Key 19525 Date Palm Drive, Sugarloaf MO03772 Frame Vernacular Key 19545 Date Palm Drive, Sugarloaf MO03773 Frame Vernacular Key Chasehouse MO03774 Frame Vernacular Sugarloaf Lodge MO03775 Masonry vernacular 3.10 Demographics & Socioeconomics Like most of the Florida Keys, the economy of the Lower Keys is largely dependent on the continued health of the coral reefs in the Sanctuary. The coral reefs support a major recreational industry that attracted more than three million tourists to the Keys and South Florida by the early 1990s who then spent an estimated $1.3 billion (Crosby 1997), figures that are no doubt substantially greater today. SCUBA and free diving are the principal recreational activities revolving around the coral reef, attracting over 1.2 million divers annually to the Florida Keys and generating more than $220 million in economic benefit. Commercial fishing contributes about one-half the economic benefit as diving, and constitutes the second largest of the water- Draft Environmental Assessment 47 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment based economic contributors. While these figures are for the entire Florida Keys, they indicate the importance of the health of the coral reef to the Florida Keys, including the residents and businesses of the Lower Keys. 3.10.1 Demographics The Cudjoe Regional Service Area lies within an unincorporated area in Monroe County and is designated by the U.S. Census Bureau as Zip Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) 33042 and 33043. The demographic data presented here is specific to the above ZCTAs. The permanent population of the Service Area in 2000 was 11,256 (14.1 percent of Monroe County) (Table 3-9) and has not substantially changed. Other characteristics of the Service Area are summarized below. • Number of permanent residents over 65 is 15 percent, compared to 14.7 percent for Monroe County and 17.6 percent for the State of Florida. The median age of the Service Area's population is between 44.5 and 47 years, compared to 42 years in the county, and 38 in the state. • The population is 95.3 percent white, compared to 90 percent in the county and 78 percent in the state. Hispanics make up 6.4 percent and African Americans make up 1.1 percent of the remaining population. • Women make up 47.5 percent of the population in the Service Area, compared to 46.8 percent in the county and 51.2 percent in the state. • Temporary residents make up a large portion of the population: 33.8 percent of the housing is used seasonally, for recreational or occasional use, compared to 24 percent for the county and 6 percent for the state. Table 3-9 Demo ra.hie Characteristics for Year 2000,Cudjoe Regional Service Area Service Area Monroe County State of Florida General Characteristics Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total population 11,256 (X) 79,589 (X) 15,982,378 (X) Male 5,906 52.5 42,379 53.2 7,797,715 49 Female 5,350 47.5 37,210 46.8 8,184,663 51 Median age(years) 46 (X) 42.6 (X) 39 (X) Under 5 years 388 3.4 3,462 4.3 (>45,823 6 18 years and over 9,480 84.2 65,984 82.9 12,336,038 77 65 years and over 1,688 15 11,648 14.6 2,807,597 18 One race 11,088 98.5 78,171 98.2 15,606,063 98 White 10,732 95.3 72,151 90.7 12,465,029 78 Black or African American 123 1.1 3,795 4.8 2,335,505 15 American Indian and Alaska Native 54 0.5 301 0.4 53,541 0 Asian 70 0.6 657 0.8 266,256 2 Draft Environmental Assessment 48 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 5 0 35 () 8,625 0 Some other race 104 0.9 1,232 I 5 477,107 3 Two of more races 168 1.5 I,-118 1.8 376,315 2 Hispanic or Latino 722 6.4 - - - - Household population 11,195 99.5 - - - Group quarters population 61 0.5 - - - - Average household size 2.2 I (X) 2.23 (X) 2.46 (X) Average family size 2.59 (X) 2.73 (X) 2.98 (X) Total housing units 7,644 (X) 51,617 (X) 7,302,947 (X) Occupied housing units 5,062 66.2 35,086 (X) 6,337,929 (X) Owner-occupied housing units 3,986 78.7 21,893 62.4 4,441,799 70 Renter-occupied housing units 1,076 21.3 13,193 37.6 1,896,130 30 Vacant housing units 2,582 33.8 16,531 32 965,018 13 Social Characteristics Population 25 years and over 9,007 61,16 I (X) 11,024,645 (X) High school graduate or higher 7,972 88.5 - 84.9 - 79.9 Bachelor's degree or higher 2,342 26 10,256 16.8 1,573,121 14.3 Civilian veterans(civilian population 18 years and over) 2,345 26 64,846 (X) 12,283,486 (X) Disability status(population 5 years and over) 2,598 28.8 13,700 (X) 2,199,021 (X) Foreign born 911 10.1 - - - - Male,Now married,except separated (population 15 years and over) 3,200 35.5 - - - Female,Now married,except separated (population 15 years and over) 3,015 33.5 - - - - Speak a language other than English at home(population 5 years and over) 1.622 18 - - - - Economic Characteristics In labor force(population 16 years and over) 6,118 63.3 43,838 64.9 7,471.977 58.6 Mean travel time to work in minutes (workers 16 years and older) 27 (X) 18.4 (X) 26.2 (X) Median household income in 1999 (dollars) 47,896 (X) 42,283 (X) 38,819 (X) Median family income in 1999(dollars) 53,696 (X) 50,734 (X) 45,625 (X) Per capita income in 1999(dollars) 25,738 (X) 26,102 (X) 21,557 (X) Families below poverty level 188 5.6 1,403 (X) 383,131 (X) Individuals below poverty level 869 7.7 7,977 _ 10.2 1,952,629 12.5 Draft Environmental Assessment 49 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Housing Characteristics Single-family owner-occupied homes 3,135 - - - - Median value(dollars) 226,750 (X) 241,200 (X) 105,500 (X) With a mortgage 2,761 (X) 8,480 60.1 2,323,452 71.7 Not mortgaged 903 (X) 5,624 39.9 918,750 28.3 (X)Not applicable Source:U.S.Census Bureau Tourism. Tourism is the largest export of Monroe County. An export is goods and services which, through their sales, introduce new money into an economy. In this case, the goods and services sold are tourism products, i.e. lodging, recreation, food, beverage, etc. Tourism directly employs more workers than any other industry in Monroe County (Monroe County 2006). Through a series of visitor surveys, NOAA calculated the amount of new money introduced into the Florida Keys economy via tourism, or direct visitor spending. NOAA's conclusion was tourism introduced into the economy $833.57 million new dollars in sales, $316.26 in income and 13,655 jobs in direct employment over the time period of their study (1995-1996). Monroe County's Tourism Development Council (TDC) estimates the direct and indirect effect of tourism in Monroe County in 2005 was $2.2 billion in gross sales. These numbers demonstrate the significance of the tourism industry in Monroe County's economy. 3.10.2 Socioeconomics Cost of Living. One of the principal factors affecting the cost of living in the Florida Keys and a factor that would be impacted by the proposed project is the cost of utility services. Utility service and sewer rates for residents in the Keys are higher due to the long distances of utility lines required to provide service and the infrastructure costs for wastewater, treatment, collection, and disposal. The principal factors that contribute to the high cost of living in Monroe County, including the Service Area, are elevated costs of real estate, insurance, transporting goods and services, sales tax, and utilities. With no rail transportation or commercial seaport, virtually all goods are shipped by truck from the mainland and are more expensive than elsewhere in Florida. The 2009 Florida Price Level Index identified Monroe County as having the highest cost of living in Florida, with an index value of 112.3 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2010), more than ten percent higher than the national average. Home Ownership. Within the Service Area, about 78.7 percent of the residents own their homes, compared to 62 percent for Monroe County and 70 percent for the State of Florida (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). The lower home ownership rate is attributable to the much higher cost of housing units in Monroe County and the transient nature of the population. Draft Environmental Assessment 50 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Poverty Level. Approximately 7.7 percent of the residents within the Service Area were living below the U.S. Census Bureau designated poverty level in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2002), compared to approximately ten percent in the county and 12 percent in the state. However, because the cost of living in Monroe County is more than ten percent higher than the national average, the actual proportion of residents living below the poverty level is probably also higher. Based on the U.S. housing and Urban Development (HUD) income level system (FEMA 2000) for identifying residents eligible for financial assistance, low-income residents have 80 percent of the median family income, and very low-income residents have a household income of 50 percent of the median. Using these definitions, very low-income residents have no discretionary income and low-income households have discretionary income levels of about$750 per month. Utility Costs. The residents of the Lower Keys rely primarily on low cost septic systems for wastewater treatment. Owners of cesspools incur virtually no cost for operation and maintenance, and almost all systems have been in place for many years. Septic tank systems cost very little to maintain and operate and generally require only pumping every few years. Current developments must use advanced treatment units, On-Site Wastewater Nutrient Reduction Systems (OWNRS), or central WWTFs. For comparison purposes, customers of Key Haven Utilities, Ocean Reef Club and KW Resort Utilities pay a total of$1,215 to $2,700 toward the cost of wastewater treatment and transmission and from $55 to $64 per month for sewer service. Costs for connecting residences and businesses and maintaining WWTFs and associated infrastructure is often very high. 3.11 Recreation While local geology limits the formation of sandy beaches in the Florida Keys, the primary natural attraction is the coral reef, as described in the PEIS (Section 3.11). The approximate 2.29 million visitors to the Florida Keys rely on clean water and beaches as well as the abundant fish and wildlife that characterize this popular vacation spot. These visitors provide the basis of the tourism industry on which the economy of the Florida Keys relies. Consequently, potential impacts to recreational amenities and tourism that may result from the implementation of FKWQIP must be examined. Ninety percent of visitors to the Florida Keys visit for recreation or vacation. In addition to water sports, historical and cultural resources associated with the Florida Keys support tourism. Historical attractions include the remnants of the Overseas Railroad constructed in the early 1900s, Fort Zachary Taylor in Key West, and Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas. Recreation days in Monroe County(Table 3-10) indicate that most activities are related to saltwater. Draft Environmental Assessment 51 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Table 3-10 Recreation Days in Monroe County: 12-Month Period 1995-1996 Activities Recreation Days Reported Percent of Total Day Reported Boating Activities Snorkeling 1,010.8 7.9 SCUBA diving 190.0 1.5 Offshore fishing 859.2 6.7 Personal watercraft 239.8 1.9 Viewing nature & wildlife 796.0 6.2 Non-Boating Activities Snorkeling from shore 548.1 4.3 Fishing from shore 359.9 2.8 All beach activities 2,867.6 22.4 Swimming in outdoor pools 2,489.2 19.4 Wildlife &nature studies 1,789.8 14.0 Museums&historic sites 1,665.9 13.0 Leeworthy and Wiley 1996. 3.12 Environmental Justice Federal EO 12898 (1994), requires a federal agency to make environmental justice a part of the planning process, ensuring greater public participation, and identifying differences in resource consumption patterns of minority and low-income portions of the population. The USEPA Office of Environmental Justice has defined environmental justices as: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations,policies. While the Mean Household Income (MHO is the Service Area is above that of the county and state, 7.7 percent of residents in the Service Area live below the poverty level. This percentage may actually be larger given that the cost of living in Monroe County is more than ten percent higher than that of the nation. In addition, the proportion of residents over the age of 65 in the Service Area is greater when compared with the county and the state, and 15 percent of the portion of the population lives below the poverty level, compared with 9.8 percent in the county and 8.1 percent across the state. This segment of the population often lives on fixed income and, while their income may not be below the poverty level, they are affected by cost of living changes. Draft Environmental Assessment 52 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment These factors suggest that while the majority of the residents within the Service Area are above poverty levels, there are considerable impacts to residents associated with the costs of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System, raising potential environmental justice concerns. 3.13 Land Use and Planning This section addresses the land use patterns and regulations in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. Many of the water quality issues in the Florida Keys are closely associated with land uses implemented prior to existing environmental regulations. Consequently, untreated stormwater runoff and improper wastewater disposal practices continue to adversely affect wetlands and nearshore waters. Greater detail regarding land use regulations and controls in the State of Florida and Monroe County is provided in the PEIS (Section 3.14). To ensure the sustainability of resources unique to the Florida Keys, Monroe County comprehensive land use planning provisions have been developed and include a Permit Allocation System and the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) to control future growth (explained in further detail in Section 3.14.3). In addition, the FKCCS, sponsored jointly by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) and the Corps, developed a planning tool to assist in determining the level of development activities that will provide a means to avoid further irreversible and/or adverse impacts to the Keys (Florida Administrative Weekly 1996). 3.13.1 Land Use Land use classes in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are illustrated in Figure 3-4 (Monroe County 2010). Residential land uses account for 8.7 percent of the land area in the Service Area and accommodate permanent residents as well as seasonal and recreational residents. Residential land uses along the shoreline of Florida Bay or the Florida Straits make the most of the scenic resources and recreational access afforded by these waterfront locations. The Service Area is comprised primarily of mangrove habitat (33.8 percent). Commercial land uses include general commercial, commercial and recreational boating and fishing, as well as tourist-based land uses. The proposed WWTF will be constructed on approximately 3 acres of a larger 10.2 acre parcel and is located on Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe County. Monroe County has authorized the land-use change of decommissioning cells A & B of the landfill and utilizing the area for the proposed WWTF (Permit Minor Modification, No. 0067347-005-SO/MM). Draft Environmental Assessment 53 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Figure 3-4 Existing Land Use Classes within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area N \\\ ?� II 1r \'' �a �" d• Bid �� ° Torch ) G• Q c Ke} Q 0� `'Cudjoe Regional .)• 0 Middle No Name WWTF Site L.. Torch a' , Key J '. i i•' ...i., , , ‘ (,, AiKe, ow 41 dye IP -� iL ----- ir.'t:)-"1\ r' \ ► Big Pine Little ✓ i' • �, '`• ,- III Torch :.r . — /' ('ud jot Key JSununerland Ramrod - Keyc. .�— -Key Key ,,' • —11,f - •142.\\— i upper -�` � ``f r f Key t t , Lower a Sugarloaf Key Legend Cudjoe Regional Service Area I Multi Use -Suburban Residential-Limited -Aquired Conservation -Native Area -Sparsely Settled A t l a n t i c O c e a n _Industrial mmi Parks _ Urban Commercial -Industrial Suburban -Recreational Vehicle -Urban Residential - Industrial Suburban-Medium - Suburban Commercial ,.G.„^=A" Urban Residential Mobile 0 125 :s e Wes -Military -Suburban Residential 11111 Urban Residential Mobile-Limited Draft Environmental Assessment 54 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment 3.13.2 Conservation Areas The Sanctuary surrounds the Florida Keys and the Service Area and includes the most extensive coral reef in North America and the third largest reef system in the world. Under Public Law 101-605, 2,600 square nautical miles of coastal waters are designated under the Sanctuary. The USFWS is the largest land owner in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area, controlling nearly 39 percent of the total land area. Additionally, most of the Service Area lies within the fragmented boundaries of the Florida Keys Wildlife Refuges Complex, which includes the National Key Deer Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge. The State of Florida and Monroe County also own conservation lands within the Service Area, controlling approximately 16 percent and six percent of the total land area, respectively(Figure 3-5). 3.13.3 Future Land Use The comprehensive plans of Monroe County and the incorporated cities of Islamorada, Marathon, Layton, Key Colony Beach, and Key West are specifically structured to control and direct future land use development to areas with sufficient services to accommodate the growth (Chapter 163 F.S. Public facilities must serve the development at the adopted LOS standards concurrent with the impacts of the development). LOS standards are established for traffic and circulation, potable water, solid waste, sanitary sewer, drainage, and recreation and open space (Monroe County 2000). Under the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the total number of building permits issued per year is limited by Monroe County's ROGO permit allocation system, not the presence of specific infrastructure. Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan established an interim permit allocation system to control growth based on hurricane evacuation, public safety and environmental needs including water quality and habitat protection. To implement this policy, Monroe County has adopted a ROGO that specifically allocates credits towards obtaining building permits. Nutrient reduction credits are necessary to qualify for a building permit. Each year this interim permit allocation system limits the number of building permits issued for new residential development to the number of nutrient reduction credits earned within the same ROGO area. Future land uses in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are primarily conservation (40.1 percent) and residential conservation (29.9 percent), which together make up 70.1 percent of the future land use mapped for the Service Area (Figure 3-6). Additional future land uses within the Service Area include: agriculture, airport district, education, industrial, institutional, military, mixed use/commercial, public facilities and recreation (Monroe County, 2010). The proposed WWTF would be located on a parcel identified as public facilities on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Draft Environmental Assessment 55 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Figure 3-5 Conservation Lands within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area N i e-\ j r 9, W f ', Z\ , v,-+E 1114. o '-., .s`.4 .� lg�5r0,; o 4.•. '• j �f ",r-.- ' '_ Torch •Key ,'.Yy•.°:1 L s r f c� 1 Cudjoe Regional,,^ x,i Middle 4S No Name WWTF TF Site �ti '`��t'+� Torch , Key Q .P9. - I Key ill tl.is e). t 140 ilL 'al% ..ir . .. %A'';j%1A%.;•A 2 -•t•-a-c,'. ill"" tiii ..3, , --- 4.-'-• ,,. ' • .-`ii .`,..lifttd. . lemnininip , iv's:, le-r—A .:;., -__ , ,_ II._ V " } = Big Pine \. ,.r Little - hey — ' c> Torch �� ) Cud joe Key Summerland Ramrod Key .- -> .r J `x� S • Kep Key -4 Sugarloaf c y``,' Key `* •" Q l Lower \ Legend ,/ Sugarloaf Key - Federally-Owned Parcels - State-Owned Parcels Locally-Owned Parcels Atlantic Ocean Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge National Key Deer Refuge 0 5 i 1 25 2.5 i Mks IIII Cudjoe Regional Service Area Draft Environmental Assessment 56 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Figure 3-6 Future Land Use Classes within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area \ T �' ' rrlo(7s , .\V �r \ �. a t., Big ° _. ..,„." O Torch J �, 9 Key Q D( o udjce Regional Middle No Name ,,.WWTF Site b t 'torch Key 42,, j .A.:., .. .sQ. Key ,`. i j j •t L C-1 . ,,.lt 1 i lit I .,..,_-- t, ,a t 1 ,,G'�'d Big Pine r 0 Little '' Key . �•_ � Torch Cudjoe Key � � "-` 'rw. a j Sunumerland Ramrod Key -;*-/ Key Key 4 c..1-11..,)," - lie , l UpperQ _ � Sugarloaf a I 4P. Key ( Lower 1* 6 Sugarloaf Legend Key O Cudjoe Regional Service Area Military NO Public Facilities -Agriculture -Mixed Commercdial _ Recreation _Airport District ` Mixed Use Commercial _ Residenial High Atlantic Ocean -Conservation Mixed Use Commercial/Fishing - Residential Conservation _Education -Mixed Use/Commercial _ Residential High _ Industrial -Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing - Residential Low a ue 2.5 5 rows - Institutional Public Buildings - Residential Medium Draft Environmental Assessment 57 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment 3.13.4 Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA) The Cudjoe Regional Service Area is located in the State of Florida's designated coastal zone. The Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), the State of Florida's federally approved management program, was approved by the NOAA in 1981. The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (CBIA) reauthorizes and amends the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 3501-3510) and is described in the PEIS (Chapter 3.0). Although the CBIA restricts federal expenditures for coastal barrier development, Section 6(a)(6)(A) contains a broad exemption for projects relating to the study, management, protection, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and habitats, including recreational projects. Under the 1990 amendments, the Secretary of the Interior has consultation responsibilities for additional exemptions from funding prohibitions under CBRA, including water resource development projects. A review of the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) maps shows that three designated CBRS units lie within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area (FL-50, FL-52 and FL-54, see Figure 3-7). The Federal CBRS designation has been incorporated into the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Monroe County discourages the extension of facilities and services, such as telephone or electricity, to designated coastal barrier areas. Construction of the proposed WWTF and all of the infrastructure and transmission lines needed to convey centralized wastewater to the facility will occur outside the boundaries of these CBRS units. However, several decentralized cold spots, located on Summerland Key, Big Torch Key and No Name Key, are within the CBRS units. 3.13.5 Floodplain Management EO 11988: Floodplain Management mandates that federal agencies evaluate the potential effects of any actions it may take in a floodplain. If an agency proposes to allow an action to be located in a floodplain, the agency must consider alternatives to avoid adverse affects or must design or modify its action to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain. Service Area. The overall Cudjoe Regional Service Area occurs within the AE Zone, within the 100-year floodplain (areas inundated by 100-year flooding for which Base Flood Elevations [BFE] have been determined)(FEMA 1996). WWTF Site. The proposed WWTF site is located within the 100-year floodplain (Zones AE). Consequently, provisions of the Monroe County Floodplain Ordinance would apply. In addition, federal funding, per EO 11988 requires that WWTFs, because they are designated critical facilities, are subject to more stringent construction requirements. Specifically, FKAA would flood-proof the WWTF and when practical construct critical operating components to the 500- year floodplain standards per CFR Part 9.11. Draft Environmental Assessment 58 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment Figure 3-7 Coastal Barrier Resource System within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area c_..:i2. (-.\ 1 '\ EL',. f ` , a,J\ a �� v tl o Big f irk iiii, 0 L'� e 411 Torch ':} °rjf Iie�' ' o �- Middle R 2 No Name Cudjoe Regionals l �.WWTF Site ts. ' Torch ►. - icy, n! key ;` 7: - ,�U e% Ivey P y•% % . . •ss., , fl ..i. I ' ' .) - . •:.., ,11 0 t y /� _ 0 _ 04C ...Ca/41 , , a. ii, ~ ' ile A .. ' . Big Pine s ip Little / Key Y Torch t (''Idiot he' Summeriand Ramrod KeN ' 'fr YY � Ivey %'. Kt.. 4( .•4c-3 -.. .' • 0cY- C' Lower 4 Sugarloaf Key Legend nCudjoe Regional Service Area Atlantic Ocean Coastal Barrier Resource System(CBRS)Units - Hot Spots(Centralized Wastewater) o ,25 =.5 smW.s Cold Spots(Decentralized Wastewater) Draft Environmental Assessment 59 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment 3.14 Infrastructure Transportation service and corridor access for conveyance of potable water and electrical service from the mainland are provided to the Florida Keys via U.S. Highway 1. The lack of centralized WWTFs in the Keys is one of the contributing factors to degradation of nearshore waters due to the discharge of nutrients and other pollutants. 3.14.1 Transportation Transportation infrastructure in the Service Area includes roadways that link the mainland with the Lower Keys via the Overseas Highway/U.S. Highway 1. This route allows vehicle traffic, as well as boat transportation through the numerous waterways. However, the primary transportation objective of Monroe County is to reduce the time required for hurricane evacuation to 24 hours by the year 2010(Monroe County 1997b). Roadways. U.S. Highway 1 is the primary roadway in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. Within Monroe County, the highway stretches 112 miles from Key West to the Miami-Dade County line and provides a means of transporting food, supplies, and tourists between the mainland and the Florida Keys. Approximately 80 percent of U.S. Highway 1 is a two-lane roadway, including much of the roadway located within the Service Area. Portions of U.S. Highway 1 located on Big Pine Key are four-lane. Public Transportation. With the exception of the Lower Keys Shuttle, which connects Key West to Florida City, there is no public transportation within the Service Area. Air Transportation. The two municipal airports in Monroe County are the Florida Keys Marathon Airport and the Key West International Airport. Both airports have regularly scheduled commercial passenger service and provide services for private aircraft at general aviation fixed-base operations. While major carriers often route passengers through Miami International Airport, some smaller carriers offer direct flights to Key West and Marathon from major Florida cities and the Bahamas. The Cudjoe Regional Service Area includes two private airstrips, located on Lower Sugarloaf Key and Summerland Key. Waterways. There are no deep-water ports in the Service Area. The Coast Guard station at Key West maintains navigational aids, provides emergency search and rescue services, and patrols coastal waters to promote boating safety. The network of waterways, proximity to deep waters, and the numerous marinas and boating facilities makes water transportation an important function in the Florida Keys. There are several marinas located within the Service Area. Draft Environmental Assessment 60 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment 3.14.2 Utilities and Services Electrical Power. Two electrical service providers serve the Florida Keys. To the south and east of the Seven Mile Bridge service is provided by Keys Energy Services (KEYS). KEYS is a municipal utility operated by a state authorized utility board and imports most of its power from the mainland, but has an on-island emergency generator that can provide 60 percent of its power in case of power interruption (KEYS 2003). KEYS power is distributed along a transmission line paralleling U.S. Highway 1,jointly owned with Florida Keys Electric Cooperative (FKEC) to the north of the Seven Mile Bridge. The second electrical service provider is the FKEC, which provides electrical power to the northern portion of the Keys. In 2001, FKEC had over 30,000 customers in Monroe County and supplied 639,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity to those customers (FKEC 2002). FKEC purchased power generated on the mainland by Florida Power and Light (FPL). This power is distributed to the Keys by two 138,000-volt transmission lines. . Potable Water. The FKAA is the sole provider of potable water for the Florida Keys. The potable water supply system extends 130 miles from Florida City to Key West and is approximately 3 miles wide at its widest point. This system includes 187 miles of transmission mains and 690 miles of distribution mains. The current transmission system in the Middle and Upper Keys consist of 36-inch- and 30-inch-diameter transmission mains along U.S. Highway 1 and a 12-inch-diameter transmission main along Route 905 to Ocean Reef, which were constructed in the early 1980s. The transmission system continues into the Lower Keys with a 24-inch-diameter transmission main, which was constructed in the late 1980s and mid-1990s. The water supply for FKAA is the Biscayne aquifer from a well field west of Florida City in Miami-Dade County. The well field contains some of the highest quality ground water in the State of Florida. The water is pumped to the Florida Keys, with diesel pumps as backup. Water storage facilities are located at various locations throughout the Keys in case of a pipeline rupture. Desalination facilities have been constructed in Marathon, Stock Island and Florida City. Wastewater Treatment. No centralized wastewater treatment system or facilities currently provide uniform service to the Service Area. Systems currently operating in the Keys are administered by municipal governments or private developments. The four basic methods for wastewater management and treatment presently used in the Keys include cesspools, septic tanks, ATUs and OWNRS. These methods were described in detail in the PEIS (Section 3.15). At the time a development permit is issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, including WWTFs and on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), must Draft Environmental Assessment 61 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 3.0 Affected Environment be available to support the development at the adopted LOS, concurrent with the impacts of the development (Monroe County 1997b). The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan includes provisions for eliminating cesspools and improving failing septic systems and package treatment facilities (Monroe County 1997b). 3.15 Hazardous Materials and Domestic Waste The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) of 1974, Subtitle C, established a federal program for the handling of hazardous wastes in a manner that would prevent impacts to human health and the environment. The FDEP Division of Waste Management Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Wastes oversees RCRA for the state. Florida Statues, Chapter 403, Florida Public Health Section, Resource Recovery and Management, and FAC, Rule 62-730 provide the regulations for the handling of hazardous materials and waste. , Monroe County collects solid wastes at three locations: Key Largo, Cudjoe Key and Long Key. Waste material is collected at these locations by four private contractors and then separated and either shipped to a landfill in Southeast Florida, or recycled. Household hazardous wastes are collected at these three locations and handled separately. Hazardous wastes from commercial, institutional, and industrial facilities in the Keys are collected at the generation site and disposed of according to stringent regulations regarding the specific material. Treated wastewater sludge materials are not considered hazardous wastes. Adequate collection, disposal, and resource recovery for solid waste are essential for future developments. No building permits would be issued unless adequate solid waste collection and disposal facilities needed to support the development are available concurrent with the impacts of the development. The proposed WWTF is located on Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe County, which is a known source of contamination. Monroe County has authorized the land-use change of decommissioning cells A & B of the landfill and utilize the area for the proposed WWTF (Permit Minor Modification,No. 0067347-005-SO/MM). Prior to construction of the WWTF, the FKAA will remove the existing liner. SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Draft Environmental Assessment 62 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences This portion of the Draft EA presents an analysis of the environmental consequences anticipated as a result of implementing the alternatives described in Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives. The comparative analysis focuses on issues identified as concerns during initial scoping meetings and communications with regulatory agencies and stakeholders. The environmental consequences are summarized in Table 4-1. The three project alternatives under consideration are briefly outlined below. • Alternative 1: No Action. No federal agency would provide funding to the FKAA for implementation of wastewater treatment improvement projects that would address state mandates to meet wastewater treatment standards. Public entities would not construct or operate WWTFs. Lower Keys residents, communities, and businesses would be responsible for addressing state mandates aimed at improving water quality in the Sanctuary. • Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Provide federal financial assistance from the Corps, as part of the FKWQIP, to develop and implement a regional wastewater collection and treatment system for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area that would address mandatory state wastewater treatment standards. • Alternative 3: Pursue Other Sources of Funding for Project Implementation. In the absence of federal funding, provided by the Corps, alternative funding sources would be pursued to implement projects for the FKAA that would address state mandates and improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Sources of monies may include other state and federal funding mechanisms (other than Corps) and/or additional costs levied against Florida Keys residents. Like most of the Florida Keys, residents in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area rely primarily on septic tanks and cesspools, resulting in little or no treatment of wastewater that ultimately flows to adjacent nearshore waters. Continuing research has identified these discharges as major contributors to declining water quality in the canals and nearshore waters in the Florida Keys and Sanctuary. Application of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (Corps 2002). Importantly, the Corps' model provided a means of quantifying the affects of wastewater improvement projects, specifically the reductions in nutrient loads, within the Sanctuary. An independent contractor from the team who originally developed the FKCCS model coordinated with and assisted the South Florida Regional Planning Council in running the mode for FKWQIP projects, specifically for Key Largo, Islamorada and Marathon. These similar wastewater districts provided the basis for calculating the anticipated range of nutrient reductions associated with construction of the Cudjoe Regional WWTF. The goal of the FKCCS is to "determine the ability of the Keys ecosystem, and the various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land development activities." The study focused on establishing relationships between land development activities and carrying capacity indicators and used these relationships to model impacts to terrestrial and marine ecosystems and species, human infrastructure, socioeconomics, fiscal conditions, and water resources. Results were integrated into a spatially explicit automated computer model that then characterized Draft Environmental Assessment 63 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences current conditions as a baseline scenario as well as six additional scenarios with varying levels of development and a scenario with the MCSWMP implemented. The Alternatives. Implementation of the No Action alternative is expected to result in continued adverse impacts to, and the persistence of, existing conditions described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment due to discharges for septic systems (including substandard systems) and cesspools in the Service Area. The Proposed Action and Alternative Funding Sources alternatives, call for a new WWTF and associated infrastructure for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area, but vary due to availability of funding and entities that would implement projects. The vast majority of benefits under both alternatives are positive, consistent with the intent of the FKWQIP and other federal, state, and local initiatives to improve water quality in the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys and the Sanctuary. Under the Proposed Action, federal financial assistance would be provided to construct a WWTF that would improve wastewater treatment in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area and address state mandates to improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Under the Proposed Action, discharges to soils and nearshore waters from septic systems (including substandard septic systems), and cesspools in the Service Area would be eliminated and TN, TP and TSS loads would be subsequently reduced. In contrast, under Alternative Funding Sources, Lower Keys residents and businesses would pursue alternate funding options for wastewater treatment improvements and implement projects as funding becomes available. Although long-term benefits under Alternative Funding Sources are the same as those described for the Proposed Action,the absence of Corps funding may delay the implementation of projects, impede the integration of individual wastewater components, and decrease cost effectiveness. Potential adverse impacts due to implementation of the Proposed Action are relatively minor and are related to environmental justice and protected species and associated habitat. Potential Issues of Concern. Potential issues addressed in this Draft EA include environmental justice and protected species and associated habitat. Approximately eight percent of the population in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area was living below the poverty level in 2000, and the proportion of residents over the age of 65 is approximately the same as that of the county and state (14.7 percent and 17.6 percent, respectively). Consequently, the capital costs and monthly service fees for wastewater treatment improvements may be disproportionately large for this group and may require mitigation. Although impacts to wetlands from the proposed wastewater infrastructure will be avoided and/or minimized as the improvements will generally occur within existing ROW corridors, some avoidable impacts to mangrove habitat along U.S. Highway 1 may occur as a result of installing the transmission main. Coordination with FDEP is on-going and an ERP will be obtained should avoidable impacts occur. Draft Environmental Assessment 64 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Table 4-1 Comparison of Environmental Consequences Resulting from the Alternative Actions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Issue No Action Proposed Action Alternative Funding Sources N w Elimination of cesspools, Expedited removal of cesspools, Treatment will be less w septic tanks and associated septic tanks and associated affective due to fragmented VI v) nutrient and contaminants. pollutants in pollutant hot spots and delayed construction. U ez Cesspool elimination will throughout the Florida Keys. progress slowly. Effluent disposal practices WWTF would have shallow well Fewer and smaller WWTFs will essentially remain the injection of treated water, without central management, 6 a same. reducing untreated effluent potentially greater reliance on E . .N discharge to the Sanctuary. injection wells. W A Disinfection would reduce bacteria concerns. Continued odors associated Temporary,minor adverse Reduced impacts due to fewer t with existing or new impacts due to construction. WWTFs. Remaining treatment facilities, cesspools,septic tanks,and 0' cesspools and septic tanks. odors would be less when Qcompared with the Proposed Action. Biological Environment Continued pollutant inputs Potential minor adverse impacts Conditions for Alternative 1 -d 6 may alter soils and habitat to mangroves. Avoidance, would continue until projects c and adversely impact minimization and mitigation will are implemented. Delays and 0 vegetation and wildlife, result in no significant adverse smaller scale projects V-+ a41) through toxins and impacts to protected species' anticipated under this bioaccumulation and food habitat. Net environmental alternative may result in .+5 b chain transfer. Phosphorus benefits to seagrasses and corals similar,but less expansive xadditions may benefit due to fewer algal blooms, benefits,when compared with mangroves. improved water clarity and light those for the Proposed Action. penetration. Potential adverse impacts Minimal,to no,adverse impacts Potential adverse affects as b due to continued habitat due to infrastructure described under No Action • .a degradation related to construction. Section 7 USFWS would continue until water c.o Q. cesspools and septic tanks, consultation and review by quality improvement projects A: and subsequent nutrient and FFWCC for state protected are implemented. other pollutant inputs into species is ongoing. nearshore coastal waters. _ Adverse impacts due to Anticipated reductions in nutrient Potential adverse impacts as _, continued pollutant loadings and discharge volumes described under No Action, PI w 0 discharges into canals and and improved nearshore habitats, until projects are W x nearshore waters. directly benefiting EFH. NMFS implemented. supports development of AWT. Draft Environmental Assessment 65 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Continued pollutant inputs No adverse impacts anticipated. Continued nearshore water w 0 and water quality Benefits include improved water quality degradation as i •pu g degradation would adversely quality and improved water described under No Action �o a 0impact benthic corals and quality and improvements in until project implementation. c4 seagrasses. associated benthic,coral and seagrass habitats. Human Environment No impacts to unidentified No documented occurrences of Similar to Proposed Action if -g8 cultural resources are archaeological or historic sites on alternative funding becomes anticipated. the proposed WWTF site. available. U i ce Constrained growth in land Moderate growth expected for Constrained growth in land tb cn development and population. wastewater improvements for development and population. E .a current residents. 0., a A Residents may be Federal funding would alleviate Similar to the No Action p responsible for WWTF some costs for implementing alternative if alternative 1 8 project costs. Potential WWTF projects,although funding sources not obtained. .,-5, impacts to the number of additional costs of infrastructure Once alternative funding residents>65 on a fixed would still potential impact sources are available,impacts o income. residents>65 on a fixed income. would be similar to those W under the Proposed Action. Beach health advisories due Improved water quality,fewer Some growth in tourism due E to poor water quality would beach advisories and closings, to improved nearshore water •- continue,adversely affecting and increased opportunities for quality could be expected, O• immediate recreational and saltwater-based recreation. however,at a slower rate as H tourist opportunities. Temporary transportation delays compared with the Proposed due to construction activities. Action. Existing wastewater Increased utility service costs Cost of wastewater 0) 4) management costs will due to connection charges and management would increase E• En remain the same. monthly fees,particularly for at a slower pace as compared o low-income households. with the Proposed Action. izt g U Potential mitigation would include low-cost fmancing and subsidies. Potential decrease in public Reduced incidences of water Similar to the Proposed 2 .S health due to higher levels of borne disease,health advisories, Action,except beach health 5 a`ti bacteria. and beach closings related to advisories and closings would a0.i x wastewater discharge. continue until project implementation. a) No impacts to transportation Minor,temporary impacts to Impacts would be similar to or utilities and services traffic,utilities and services those under the Proposed g would occur. could occur during construction Action,but impacts would be of WWTF and associated staggered(construction infrastructure. activities would occur at a slower pace.) Draft Environmental Assessment 66 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences No impacts anticipated. No adverse impacts due to Impacts of Alternative t Future land use would be compatibility with land use Funding Sources on land use delayed or limited to designations. Future would be similar to those of go developments with approved development would proceed per the Proposed Action, a on-site wastewater facilities. ROGO and Monroe County occurring more slowly and Comp Plan. possibly at a lower level. Florida Statutory Treatment Florida Statutory Treatment Difficult for county to meet oStandards of 2015 would not Standards mandated for 2015 the treatment standards be met. compliance would likely be met. mandated by Florida Statute. 6�n c4 4.1 Climate Climate is a regional environmental characteristic and will not be affected by any of the project alternatives under consideration. Climate was discussed in Chapter 3, Affected Environment to describe the environmental setting for the project site, including seasonal rainfall patterns. 4.2 Topography, Geology and Soils Topography and geology would not be affected by the project alternatives. Potential impacts to soils are important in the Florida Keys due to the relative absence of topsoil and seepage of untreated wastewater into the limited amount of topsoil in the Florida Keys and the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would be minor. 4.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Impacts to geology and soils under the No Action alternative would continue as described under Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Existing wastewater and associated seepage from cesspools and septic tanks in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would continue to elevate soil nutrient levels. Under the No Action alternative, the transport of accumulated soil contaminants such as heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides and herbicides in surface water runoff to marine, estuarine and freshwater environments would continue and may be long-term. Sinkhole formation is infrequent in South Florida as a result of the relative absence of soil and overlying sediments, compared with mainland areas with 50 to 100 feet of overlying soils, in addition to declining water tables. Sinkholes occur when underlying limestone is dissolved by acidic rainfall moving through soil, especially along the fractures and weak layers. A cavity forms and subsequently collapses under the weight of the overlying soils. Water also exerts hydrostatic pressure on the clay layers that separate the shallow surficial aquifer from the deeper Floridan aquifer and supports the limestone matrix. The direct connection of the aquifer to, and interaction with, the marine environment via the porous limestone in the Florida Keys makes the water source non-potable and maintains the hydrostatic pressure. Draft Environmental Assessment 67 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences 4.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action, the proposed WWTF and associated collection, treatment and disposal facility would be constructed and discharges from cesspools and septic systems into soils, and subsequently into wetlands and nearshore waters, would decrease or be eliminated. Consequently, water quality in the Service Area and in the Sanctuary would be improved. Effects on soils and geology in the Service Area would be minor. Disturbances to soils would occur as a result of excavation and fill required to install the collection and transmission lines along Service Area roads as well as the removal of cesspools and septic tanks. The Cudjoe Regional WWTF currently includes four shallow injection wells. Shallow injection wells are governed by Chapter 62-528 FAC. Shallow injection wells would be constructed to meet both FDEP Class V reliability standards and FDEP UIC Class V well construction and monitoring requirements, as authorized by FDEP Permit No. FLA671932-001. Under the Proposed Action, soils would be disturbed during construction and other activities associated with the proposed WWTF. When appropriate, clean suitable fill would be applied to the WWTF site and excavated ROWs. Excavated material would be used for backfill and remaining material would be transported to an appropriate offsite disposal facility. Under the Proposed Action, appropriate BMPs, an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and conventional site preparation techniques will be implemented to ensure protection of surface waters. As a result, no long-term adverse affects on soils are anticipated. Sediment controls to eliminate discharge to nearshore surface waters may include silt dams, barriers, and straw bales placed at the foot of sloped surfaces. Soil erosion controls may include, but are not limited to, grassing, mulching, watering, and seeding. Site preparation may include vegetation and topsoil removal, followed by surface compaction and fill placement to attain the required construction elevation. 4.2.3 Alternative 3 Effects on the soil under this alternative would be similar to those described under the No Action alternative until the FKAA acquires sufficient alternative funding to implement the regional WWTF system. The delay would result in continued soils impacts, as described under the No Action alternative. Once the proposed wastewater project is implemented, the effects would be similar to those described under Alternative 2. 4.3 Water Resources Potential impacts to water resources as a result of implementing the Proposed Action are limited to beneficial water quality effects. The proposed WWTF project is expected to improve water quality in wetlands and nearshore waters of the Service Area and the Sanctuary by reducing or eliminating nutrient inputs from inadequately and untreated wastewater. No adverse impacts to potable water supplies are anticipated with respect to the proposed project. Potential impacts to water resources under the No Action alternative are the same as those described in detail in Chapter 3,Affect Environment and the PEIS (Section 4.3). Draft Environmental Assessment 68 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences 4.4 Water Quality Water quality improvements in the Sanctuary are the primary objective of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater improvement project specifically and the FKWQIP in general. This section makes a clear distinction between the environmental consequences of the No Action alternative (continued reliance on septic tanks and cesspools and inadequate wastewater treatment) and the benefits of implementing the proposed regional WWTF system in the Service Area. The Proposed Action would eliminate the most significant sources of nearshore contamination. 4.4.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, residents within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would continue to rely on individual treatment systems (septic tanks and cesspools) and privately owned cluster or package treatment facilities, as described under Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Individual property owners and businesses would be responsible for meeting the defined LOS standards prescribed by county ordinance or state regulation. Ground Water Quality. Under the No Action alternative, continued adverse impacts to the shallow waters of the Biscayne Aquifer due to existing wastewater practices are anticipated. • Seepage from cesspools and septic tanks would continue to elevate nutrient levels and negatively impact the water quality of the canals and nearshore waters of the Service Area and surrounding • Sanctuary. Effluent disposal through shallow well injection into the underlying aquifers would continue and would not meet 2015 water quality mandates would not be met. Inland Waters, Nearshore and Offshore Water Quality. Under the No Action alternative, continued adverse impacts to nearshore water quality are anticipated as a result of existing inadequate wastewater practices. The effect of continued nutrient inputs to the nearshore system may extend to offshore areas (Kruczynski and McManus 2002) and can only exacerbate historic problems related to coral reef health in the Sanctuary. 4.4.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action, the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure would be constructed and discharges from cesspools and septic systems would be reduced or eliminated, resulting in improvements in water quality in the Sanctuary. Ground Water Quality. Replacing existing cesspools and septic systems with a centralized WWTF in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would meet Florida statutory treatment standards and reduce the nutrient and contaminant loads seeping or discharged into the aquifer. Subsequent benefits would include improved water quality in canals and nearshore waters and a reduced potential for human health concerns. Improvements in water quality are anticipated to be between 85-88, 79-81 and 77-91 percent reductions in TN, TP and TSS loadings, respectively (FKCCS 2004, Table 4-3), following implementation of the proposed WWTF. Construction of the transmission system for the WWTF would minimally and temporarily impact groundwater resources due to construction disturbances. Draft Environmental Assessment 69 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences The maximum flow to the proposed WWTF is anticipated to be 0.94 MGD and effluent disposal through shallow injection wells is proposed. The shallow well injection system will include pumps and a pumping surge control system, four shallow injection wells and several existing monitoring wells. Potential impacts of highly treated effluent on groundwater resources are of concern to federal, state, and local agencies and shallow injection wells constructed as part of the proposed project would comply with all applicable and relevant standards for disposal. Public comments regarding injection wells of AWT facility effluent were addressed in the PEIS. Permitting and construction of shallow injection wells are governed by Chapter 62-528 FAC. Shallow injection wells would be constructed to meet both FDEP Class V reliability standards and FDEP UIC Class V well construction and monitoring requirements, as authorized by FDEP Permit No. FLA671932-001. Monroe County falls within the jurisdiction of the FDEP Fort Myers office UIC program. Inland, Nearshore and Offshore Water Quality. Improved water quality in the Service Area, particularly canals, would be expected under the Proposed Action. The environmental consequent to inland, nearshore and offshore waters are closely related to those described above for groundwater because of the direct link between groundwater, canal and nearshore waters. As described for groundwater, 85-88, 79-81 and 77-91 percent reductions in loadings of TN, TP and TSS, respectively, are anticipated. Affects of the WWTF also include 100 percent reductions in TN, TP and TSS to canals. Parameters including length of flush time, localized hydrogeological characteristics, and affectiveness of limestone in removing phosphorus from injected effluent would affect the exact extent of anticipated improvements. The proposed WWTF would reduce nutrient loading, improve human health and welfare concerns in canals, meet federal and state regulatory water quality standards, and ultimately assist in protecting water quality in the Sanctuary. Nutrient and TSS reductions would reduce the potential fot algal blooms, and water clarity and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations would improve, possibly improving the overall health of seagrass habitats of nearshore and offshore communities. Although implementation of the Proposed Action would not provide quantifiable improvements to the quality of offshore waters, the benefits would contribute to a healthier coral reef system due to improved water clarity and increased oligotrophic (nutrient poor)conditions necessary for a healthy coral reef system. No wetlands would be disturbed for the construction of the proposed WWTF. Undisturbed salt marsh and mangroves would remain intact and undisturbed. Erosion control BMPs would be employed during construction to reduce soil erosion and prevent discharge of sediments to nearshore waters. NPDES permits would be required from the FDEP to control treated effluent during operations. Potential impacts to offshore water quality as a result of shallow well injection and the subsequent potential discharge of nutrients via SGD are possible. Patterns of potential groundwater input into Florida Bay from shallow wells have been established using natural tracers of SGD (Burnett and Chanton 2000). A groundwater velocity estimate of approximately Draft Environmental Assessment 70 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences 1.9 cm day-1 was estimated for three sites and results suggest that the interactions between groundwater and surface water are greatest nearshore along the Florida Bay side of the Florida Keys. Other studies of discharges from shallow injection wells indicate that the nutrients are taken up by seagrasses and phytoplankton before reaching the coral reefs. 4.4.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Benefits under Alternative Funding Sources would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action, albeit with possible delays while the FKAA secures other funding sources. This time delay would affectively allow further water quality degradation, particularly of nearshore waters, increasing the cost and time to implement recovery. The delay in implementing water quality improvements may also reduce the likelihood of meeting 2015 treatment standards. 4.5 Ecological Habitats Implementation of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and subsequent water quality improvements will reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality in terrestrial and nearshore environments in the Florida Keys. Minimal avoidable impacts to mangrove habitat may occur as a result of installing portions of the transmission main along U.S. Highway 1. The long-term benefits of this program would substantially offset any unavoidable impacts to habitat. Importantly, the No Action alternative will continue to adversely impact ecological habitats. Under Alternative Funding Sources (Alternative 3), water quality degradation will continue until alternate funding is available to implement the proposed wastewater treatment improvements. The habitat categories addressed here include,upland, freshwater and estuarine wetlands, marine and benthic habitats, coral reefs and floodplains. The importance of each of these habitats was discussed in detail in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Potential environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives presented in this document are described in detail in this chapter. There are no wetlands on the proposed WWTF site, and no Corps 404 Permits or state Environmental Resource Permits(ERP)would be required. 4.5.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Upland Habitats. Under the No Action alternative, adverse impacts to upland habitats described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment would continue. Adverse impacts to the upland habitats within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area (pine rocklands and hardwood hammocks) would be limited to locations with direct upland discharges and seepage and increased nutrient levels would stimulate plant growth and lead to changes in plant species composition over time. Estuarine and Freshwater Wetlands. Untreated wastewater from adjacent uplands would continue to flow or seep into mangroves, buttonwoods, salt marsh, freshwater hardwoods, and canals in the Service Area under this alternative. Elevated nutrient inputs from terrestrial runoff would initially enhance the growth (height and biomass) of mangroves (Lugo and Snedaker 1974), as discussed in Section 3.5.3 of the PEIS. However, nutrient rich conditions can also Draft Environmental Assessment 71 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences inhibit growth and resistance to infection in plants. Sediment from terrestrial runoff could lead to changes in estuarine wetlands elevations and subsequent shifts in species composition, including replacement of salt marsh by upland invasive native and non-native plants. Changes in vegetation composition would directly affect wildlife habitat and use. For example, increased nutrient loading from groundwater and commensurate increases in macroalgal growth have been shown to decrease eelgrass cover and impact benthic fauna composition in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts (Valiela et al. 1992). Freshwater hardwoods would continue to experience indirect impacts such as altered hydrology, increased pollutant loading, and/or altered natural vegetation, resulting from continued wastewater discharges in the Service Area. As described in Section 3.5.3 of the PEIS, increased nutrients and toxins would likely adversely affect freshwater wetland vegetation and could lead to bioaccumulation and biomagnification of toxins in aquatic and marine organisms. Elevated nutrient levels could be exploited by opportunistic species and species composition may shift. Sedimentation from terrestrial runoff could potentially change the elevation of freshwater wetlands and possibly displace or shift the species composition. Marine and Benthic Habitats. Marine and benthic habitats in the Service Area include seagrass beds, hardbottom communities, and bare substrate. These communities are sensitive, complex ecosystems influenced by many different sources. Under the No Action alternative, continued adverse impacts to marine habitats, including seagrasses, are anticipated as a result of continued wastewater practices in the Service Area. Nutrients that are transported from cesspools and septic tanks to nearshore waters in the Service Area would increase existing nutrient levels and subsequently adversely affect water quality in the nearshore waters of the Sanctuary. Changes in water temperature, pH, and clarity affect the health and survival of marine and benthic communities. With respect to the proposed wastewater improvements, adverse impacts to benthic and marine habitats would occur as a result of land-based activities and changes in water quality through discharges to inland and nearshore waters. While direct impacts of diver contact, overfishing, or boating contribute to the decline of seagrasses, indirect impacts, such as nutrification of local waters, result in the increased growth of algae and subsequent shading and gradual decline of seagrass beds. As described in Section 4.5.1 of the PEIS, elevated nutrient levels can lead to algal blooms which in turn reduce water clarity, decrease light penetration, and potentially result in hypoxic (low oxygen) or anoxic (oxygen depleted) conditions in shallow,poorly flushed locations. These conditions would adversely affect light-dependent organisms such as seagrasses, and can result in adverse impacts such as fish kills and species shifts. In addition, the release of contaminants and pathogens from wastewater can result in pollutant bioaccumulation and biomagnification in the food chain, affecting human health and safety concerns. The impact to marine habitats as a result of the lack of adequate wastewater treatment in the Florida Keys has not been and may never be quantified. However, water quality degradation in the nearshore waters and the substantial decline of these habitats are well documented. For the Draft Environmental Assessment 72 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences most part, impacts to the marine habitats as a result of the implementation of the proposed project would be highly beneficial, indirect, and long-term. Coral Reefs. As discussed in Section 3.5.4, no coral reefs were identified within the 500-meter buffer zone surrounding the Service Area. However, coral reefs are located within the Sanctuary and will be affected by this FKWQIP project. Under the No Action alternative, continued adverse impacts to nearshore waters in which coral reefs occur are anticipated as a result of nearshore water quality degradation associated with nutrients from untreated wastewater. Corals typically thrive in marine environments where oligotrophic (nutrient poor) conditions include clear waters and low turbidity. Excess nutrients, whether from natural or anthropogenic sources, may negatively impact marine and coral reef ecosystems in several ways. Consequently, coral reefs would be adversely affected by continued nutrient loading to nearshore waters of the Sanctuary caused by continued use of septic tanks and cesspools for wastewater treatment in the Service Area. Excess nutrients in the water column can increase the growth of phytoplankton and result in algal blooms that reduce water clarity, decrease light penetration, and decrease seagrass and coral growth. Additionally, high nutrient concentrations tend to favor the growth of non-symbiotic mat-forming macroalgae that are not symbionts with the coral and will shade the coral, eliminating the ability of the zooanthellae to photosynthesize, causing bleaching and eventual death of corals. Floodplains. Continued adverse impacts to habitats in floodplains (as described above) as a result of inadequately treated wastewater are anticipated under the No Action alternative. Without the implementation of the Cudjoe Regional WWTF and associated infrastructure, water quality degradation in the habitats described above would continue. In addition, EO 11988 and 11990 would not apply under this alternative and compliance with wastewater system designs with Monroe County Floodplain Ordinance would be required to protect the 100-year flood plain. 4.5.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Upland Habitat. Implementation of the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure would decrease or eliminate the seepage of nutrients and contaminants from cesspools and septic systems. In addition, a reduction in the seepage of nutrients and contaminants to the Sanctuary would improve water quality. Under this alternative, no adverse impacts to upland communities are anticipated due to construction activities associated with the new WWTF and associated infrastructure. The proposed WWTF will impact approximately 3 acres of developed lands. This project abides by the USFWS recommendation, as described in the PEIS (Section 4.2.1.2), for wastewater improvement sitings. Estuarine and Freshwater Wetland Habitats. Implementation of the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure would decrease or eliminate nutrient and contaminant seepage from cesspools and septic systems into wetlands in the Service Area and consequently decrease Draft Environmental Assessment 73 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences pollutant loadings into adjacent nearshore waters. Commensurate decreases in pollutant loadings into the aquifer, both directly and indirectly, would also improve water quality and habitat in general in the Service Area, as discussed in the PEIS (Section 3.5.3). No wetlands occur on the WWTF site. Therefore, no adverse impacts to wetlands are anticipated as a result of the construction and implementation of the proposed WWTF. Impacts to wetlands from the proposed wastewater infrastructure will be avoided and/or minimized as the improvements will generally occur within existing ROW corridors. Some avoidable impacts to mangrove habitat along U.S. Highway 1 may occur as a result of installing the transmission main. Coordination with FDEP is on-going and an ERP will be obtained should avoidable impacts occur. This project abides by the USFWS recommendation, as described in the PEIS (Section 4.2.1.2), for wastewater improvement sitings. Marine and Benthic Habitats. No adverse impacts to marine and benthic habitats are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, construction of the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure to service the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would decrease or eliminate existing inputs of contaminants, nutrients, and other pollutant inputs from cesspools and septic systems into nearshore waters surrounding the Service Area. Consequently,water quality in nearshore waters of the Sanctuary would be improved. Substantial benefits to the marine habitats in the Service Area would be anticipated under this alternative. Reductions in nutrients would improve, and commensurate improvements in the overall health of benthic marine communities would be expected. No mitigation would be required due to the positive affects of this program. Coral Reefs. As discussed in Section 3.5.5, no coral reefs were identified within the 500-meter buffer zone surrounding the Service Area. However, coral reefs are located within the Sanctuary and will be affected by this FKWQIP project. No adverse impacts to coral reefs in the Sanctuary are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Benefits of the Proposed Action include improved water quality of nearshore waters in the Service Area and commensurate improvements in ecosystem health in the Sanctuary. As described in Section 4.5.2 of the PEIS, marine flora and water quality dependent marine organisms, including corals, in nearshore waters of the Sanctuary will benefit from reduced nutrient levels. Implementation of the proposed project would potentially contribute to the recovery of the only living coral barrier reef system in North America. Consequently, implementation of this alternative would benefit the coral reef tract of the Florida Keys and contribute to recovery of this important national treasure. Floodplain. Under the Proposed Action, potential temporary adverse impacts to floodplains in the Service Area may occur as a result of temporary construction activities. Construction and implementation of the proposed WWTF and associated water treatment improvements are anticipated to benefit the habitats associated with these floodplains (as described above). However, there is public concern that the proposed WWTF and associated improvements under the Proposed Action would lead to further floodplain development. The Draft Environmental Assessment 74 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Monroe County ROGOs are based on hurricane evacuation times, public safety, and environmental needs (including water quality and habitat protection) (Section 4.14). Since the primary limiting factor in these ordinances is hurricane evacuation time, the permit allocation should not change as a direct result of construction of a new WWTF. The proposed WWTF will proved a means to affectively treat existing wastewater flows, not a means to introduce or support floodplain development. Therefore, if growth and development in the floodplain occur after implementation of either alternative, they are the result of established municipal planning and are not directly related to this proposed wastewater project. Because much of the Florida Keys is in the 100-year floodplain, there are no other practical alternatives for these facilities. 4.5.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Upland Habitats. Affects on upland habitats under this alternative would be similar to those described under the No Action alternative until alternative funding is acquired for the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure. Once alternative funding sources are available and the proposed wastewater improvement project is implemented, the benefits would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. Estuarine and Freshwater Wetland Habitats. Adverse impacts to wetlands under this alternative would be the same as those described under the No Action alternative until alternative funding is acquired and the wastewater improvement project is implemented. The delay in implementation would allow continued wetland habitat degradation with potential adverse affects as described under the No Action alternative. Once the proposed wastewater improvement project is implemented, the benefits would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. Marine and Benthic Habitats. Adverse impacts to marine habitats under this alternative would be the same as those described under the No Action alternative until the proposed wastewater improvement project is implemented with alternative funding sources. The time delay would allow continued marine habitat degradation with potential adverse affects as described under the No Action alternative. Once alternative funding sources are available and the proposed wastewater improvement project is implemented, the benefits would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. Coral Reefs. Delayed implementation of the FKWQIP under this alternative would result in continued adverse impacts to water quality in nearshore environments and associated coral reefs. Once alternative funding sources are available and the proposed wastewater improvement project is implemented, the benefits would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. Floodplains. Under Alternative Funding Sources, implementation of the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure would not occur until alternative funding is acquired. Consequently, water quality degradation in the habitats described above would continue until the proposed wastewater treatment improvements are made and floodplains would be protected under the Monroe County Floodplain Ordinance. Draft Environmental Assessment 75 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences 4.6 Protected Species Existing adverse impacts to protected species and their habitat that have occurred due to nutrient and other pollutant inputs into nearshore waters in the Sanctuary are anticipated to continue under the No Action alternative. Minimal adverse impacts to protected species or their habitat may occur under the Proposed Action as a result of proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure that would serve the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. However, the long-term benefits of this program would substantially offset the unavoidable impacts to habitat. Consultation with federal, state, and local agencies is an integral part of the planning process for this project. A majority of the Service Area lies within the fragmented boundaries of the Florida Keys Wildlife Refuges Complex, with the USFWS controlling nearly 38 percent of the total land area. Additionally, the State of Florida and Monroe County control approximately 13 percent and five percent of the total land area with the Service Area, respectively. Consequently, any construction on natural lands could potentially impact a protected species or associated habitat. Protected species in the Service Area include a minimum of 64 federally or state protected plants and animals, as described in section 3.6.2 and 3.6.3. Protected species can be impacted directly through a "take" (actual loss of an organism) or loss of federally designated critical habitat. Indirect impacts would include the loss or degradation of the habitat that the organism requires to sustain its population. 4.6.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Adverse impacts to protected species are not expected to occur within the Service Area under the No Action alternative. However, protected species that rely on or live in nearshore waters of the Sanctuary adjacent to the Service Area may be adversely affected as a result of continued discharges of untreated wastewater into nearshore habitats. As described previously, continued nutrient and other pollutant discharges into local canals and nearshore waters would likely increase the potential for algal blooms, impair water clarity and light penetration, decrease dissolved oxygen, increase the likelihood of fish kills, and encourage macroalgal growth. This would in turn decrease light penetration and adversely affect benthic habitats and those protected species using them. 4.6.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action, beneficial and minimal adverse impacts (if any) to protected species are anticipated due to the construction and implementation of the proposed wastewater improvement project. The WWTF within the Service Area is proposed to be built on developed land. Reductions in nutrients, contaminants, and other pollutants would improve water quality and result in commensurate improvements in habitat in the nearshore waters surrounding the Service Area. These improvements would directly benefit the health and status of protected species in these nearshore habitats. Draft Environmental Assessment 76 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Among the species of wildlife that would benefit under the Proposed Action are numerous state listed piscivorous birds and the manatee. The long-term benefits of the proposed water quality improvements would substantially offset the unavoidable impacts to habitat. There is the potential for adverse impacts to occur, but are not anticipated as a result of construction of the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure. Based on FNAI database records, 64 protected species may occur within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. Adverse impacts to these species could potentially occur as a result of the Proposed Action. However, construction for the WWTF and associated infrastructure will be aligned within existing ROW corridors and, consequently, impacts to protected species from the proposed wastewater infrastructure will be avoided and/or minimized. Coordination with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies will occur for this project. Compliance with USFWS recommendations for avoiding areas of tropical hardwood hammock, pine rocklands, buttonwood grasslands, mangrove habitats, or freshwater marshes would also occur. Any action by the FKAA that results in the loss of natural areas has the potential to impact protected species due to the few remaining natural areas in the Florida Keys. Biological surveys for the proposed WWTF will be conducted prior to project initiation to provide observational field data. Construction activities are limited to terrestrial areas resulting in no adverse impacts to marine resources. Consequently, it has been determined there would be no affect to federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS. 4.6.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Under Alternative Funding Sources, nutrient and other pollutant discharges into local canals and nearshore waters, as described under the No Action alternative, would continue until alternative funding sources are available and water quality improvements are implemented. With the delay in implementation, the discharge of untreated wastewater and associated water quality degradation in nearshore waters of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area and the Sanctuary would continue. The affects on protected species would be similar to those described in the No Action alternative. However, once the proposed wastewater project is implemented with funds from alternative sources, the benefits to protected species would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. 4.7 Essential Fish Habitat The MSA requires federal agency consultation with the NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH. Informal consultation was initiated as part of the preparation effort of the PEIS (Section 3.7) and several relevant species and associated habitats were identified. Draft Environmental Assessment 77 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences 4.7.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Until the wastewater improvement projects are implemented, adverse impacts to nearshore waters and dependant fisheries would continue as described under the No Action alternative. 4.7.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action, beneficial and minimal adverse impacts (if any) to EFH are anticipated due to the construction and implementation of the proposed wastewater improvement project. The WWTF is proposed to be built on developed land. Reductions in nutrients, contaminants, and other pollutants would improve water quality and result in commensurate improvements in habitat in the nearshore waters surrounding the Service Area. These improvements would directly benefit the health and status of EFH in these nearshore waters. 4.7.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Under Alternative Funding Sources,nutrients and other pollutant discharges into local canals and nearshore waters, as described under the No Action alternative, would continue until alternative funding sources are available and water quality improvements are implemented. With the delay in implementation, the discharge of untreated wastewater and associated water quality degradation in nearshore waters of the Service Area and the Sanctuary would continue. However, once the proposed wastewater project is implemented with funds from alternative sources, the benefits to EFH would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. 4.8 Air Quality and Noise Air quality and noise impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the facilities proposed for the FKWQIP would not differ from any other typical WWTF and associated infrastructure. The operation and maintenance of these facilities would have less impact than the construction. 4.8.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) No additional impacts to air quality or noise levels would occur as a result of implementing the No Action alternative. Under this alternative, conditions would continue as described for the affected environment. 4.8.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Air Quality. The construction of the new WWTF would result in minor, temporary impacts to the air quality in the vicinity of construction sites. The operation of heavy equipment during construction may result in minor, temporary adverse impacts to local air quality from heavy equipment engine exhaust. In addition, heavy equipment operation during construction can also result in windblown dust and particles. Dust can be minimized by adding moisture to the soil, mulching, and landscaping soon after construction completion. The Proposed Action consists of the construction of the WWTF and collection system. The schedule for construction would be Draft Environmental Assessment 78 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences dependent upon available funding. Operation of the facilities would also produce minor, long- term impacts and mitigation would consist of odor abatement measures integrated into the design of the facility. Monroe County is an air quality attainment area. Consequently, anticipated air emissions from construction activities are minimal. Noise. The construction of the new WWTF would result in temporary noise impacts to land uses in the vicinity of the construction sites. Heavy equipment operation and heavy trucks accessing construction sites would add additional noise to the ambient noise levels described in Section 3.8 of this Draft EA. Operation of the facilities would also produce minor, long-term impacts and mitigation would consist of the noise abatement measures appropriated for the WWTF or each specific pump station. 4.8.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Air Quality. Under the Alternative Funding Sources, impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action. However, impacts would be staggered (construction activities would occur at a slower pace, and may be drawn out for an extended period of time). Noise. Under Alternative Funding Sources, impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action. However, potential impacts would be staggered (construction activities would occur at a slower pace, and may be drawn out for an extended period of time). 4.9 Cultural Resources The protection of cultural, archaeological, and historical resources in the Florida Keys is described in the PEIS (Section 3.9). Major federal laws protecting cultural resources include the NHPA, ARPA, NAGPRA, and the AIRFA of 1978. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the affects of the Proposed Action on identified and potentially present cultural resources. In addition, the SHPO, Tribal Historic Preservation Office, and the ACHP would review and comment on a Proposed Action. 4.9.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, impacts to historic, archaeological, and cultural resources would only occur as described for the existing environment in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Implementation of projects by individual residents or businesses may disturb buried and undocumented historical resources. Those individuals or business owners would be responsible for compliance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations. 4.9.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) To ensure the protection of archaeological or historical resources, construction activities in close proximity of documented occurrences of cultural and historical resources would be supervised by a qualified archeologist who meets criteria set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and 36 CFR. Appropriate steps would Draft Environmental Assessment 79 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences be taken in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and the procedures recommended by the SHPO during construction in potentially sensitive area. No significant archaeological or historic resources or known archaeological or historic sites occur on or adjacent to the proposed WWTF location. The wastewater collection would be constructed within developed, public ROWs which are not anticipated to contain any significant archaeological sites. If historic or archaeological items are found during project work, all activities on the site would be terminated and consultation with the Corps, SHPO, and other appropriate agencies would occur to identify actions necessary to comply with NHPA Section 106 and other applicable requirements. If human remains are discovered, the Florida unmarked human burial law(F.S. Title XLVI 872.05 Unmarked Human Burials)would be implemented. 4.9.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Under this alternative, the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure would not be constructed and implemented until alternative funding is acquired. If funding is obtained through non-federal entities to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards, compliance with Section 106 of the NNHPA would not be required. Once FKAA secures funding and the project proceeds, affects on cultural resources would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. 4.10 Demographics and Socioeconomics 4.11 Recreation The 2.2 million annual visitors to the Florida Keys provide the basis of the tourism industry on which the economy relies. Tourism is based on clean water and beaches as well as the abundant fish and wildlife that characterize this popular vacation destination. Consequently, potential impacts of the proposed project on recreation amenities are examined below. 4.11.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, a decline in recreation opportunities would be expected as inadequately treated wastewater discharges to nearshore waters of the Sanctuary and subsequent water quality impacts continue, as described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Anticipated adverse impacts include additional beach advisories and closings and, potentially, further damage to coral reefs. 4.11.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Most of the outdoor recreation in Monroe County (and the Service Area) relates directly to marine resources. Implementation of the Proposed Action would decrease loadings of nutrients and other pollutants into nearshore waters, improve water quality, and subsequently, benefit recreation resources. Improvements in nearshore water quality, combined with fewer incidences of beach advisories and closings, would increase recreation opportunities as well as the perception of these opportunities, thereby improving the local economy in the Service Area. Draft Environmental Assessment 80 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Construction activities associated with completing the proposed project would result in minor, temporary impacts to recreation activities. Discontinuing use of septic tanks and cesspools and • construction of the WWTFs and infrastructure would result in temporary traffic delays and construction disturbances (e.g. staging sites, equipment). All of these construction related impacts would be temporary and minor, and state parks and other recreation areas would remain open during these activities. Reducing nuisance odors (by discontinuing use of septic tanks and cesspools) in Lower Keys would enhance the recreation opportunities as well. 4.11.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Under Alternative Funding Sources, delayed implementation of the proposed project would delay improvements in nearshore water quality, beach health and recreational opportunities in the Service Area described under the Proposed Action. The eventual benefits would be significant because of the importance of the marine environment to recreation in the Keys. Construction related impacts would also occur over an extended period of time under this alternative. 4.12 Open Space and Aesthetic Resources Visitors to the Florida Keys enjoy a unique sightseeing experience over the miles of U.S. Highway 1 that link the numerous islands across open water. Water quality is important to the maintenance of healthy ecosystems and the open spaces of the Keys and the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. 4.12.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, wastewater treatment would continue to rely primarily on individual treatment systems and no impacts to aesthetic resources beyond those described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment are anticipated. Nuisance odors and views associated with increased algal blooms and fish kills caused by continued nutrient loading from wastewater discharges would continue. 4.12.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The proposed WWTF will be constructed on approximately 3 acres of a larger 10.2 acre parcel and is located on Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe County. Impacts to the open space and aesthetic resources would be minimal under the Proposed Action. The construction of a WWTF would be beneficial to the Cudjoe Regional Service Area by reducing the water quality degradation of the nearshore waters of the Marine Sanctuary. 4.12.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Under Alternative Funding Sources, benefits to open space and aesthetic resources would be delayed until alternative funding is acquired and wastewater improvement projects could be implemented. However, once projects are implemented, benefits would be similar to those under Draft Environmental Assessment 81 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences the Proposed Action, albeit at a slower pace. Nuisance odors and sights due to algal blooms and fish kills would be reduced over time. 4.13 Environmental Justice As required by EO 12898, this section focuses on potential impacts to minority and low income residents as they relate to environmental justice (see Section 3.13 for a description of federal requirements). Impacts to minority and low income populations that may occur as a result of the proposed alternatives include: • Sitting of wastewater and stormwater improvements, especially treatment facilities, in minority or low income neighborhoods. • Increase costs for wastewater management services in the form of sewer charges and property taxes that disproportionately impact low income residents. • Abandonment fees for outdated onsite treatment facilities. Under both State of Florida statues and Monroe County ordinances, residents of the Florida Keys are required to replace existing cesspools and failing septic tanks with adequate wastewater treatment facilities. The financial impact to residents for these improvements would be uniformly applied in accordance with Monroe County Codes and Tax Structure. 4.13.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, residents would make wastewater improvements in the form of on-site treatment systems sufficient to meet the county 2015 wastewater treatment requirements. Estimated costs for these on-site treatment systems ranges from $18,000 to $22,000 per household, and monthly costs range from $63 to $118 (FEMA 2002). Due to a lack of discretionary income, low income and fixed income residents would be adversely impacted by these costs. Residents who comply with the 2015 requirements by meeting interim requirements would partially offset the costs of implementing the Proposed Action alternative. 4.13.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The Proposed Action would impose an adverse economic impact on residents of the Cudjoe Service Area, particularly on lower income residents. While facility sitting is not considered an environmental justice issue under the Proposed Action, the increased costs to lower income residents under the Proposed Action does constitute a potential environmental justice issue. The implementation schedule for the proposed wastewater improvement project is accelerated in comparison with the Alternative Funding Sources alternative (below) and would therefore eliminate the need to install costly interim treatment facilities and allow residents to connect directly to a central sewer system. Once the proposed facility is completed, residents would be connected to the new facility over an anticipated two to three year period of time. The potential to reduce, or address, the financial impact imposed on residents to replace cesspools and any other substandard wastewater management system could benefit all residents, regardless of income. Draft Environmental Assessment 82 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Under the Proposed Action alternative, residents and businesses in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would be subject to higher utility costs in comparison with the No Action alternative. Without subsidies residents and businesses connecting to the central wastewater system would incur a system development charge as high as $15,000 to $20,000 per residence or EDU in addition to a connection cost that could cost as much as $5,000 per residence. Finally, the approximately recurring service cost could be as high as $60 per month per residential unit. While this cost is generally comparable to that for an OWTS, the initial costs to residents and businesses would be significantly greater. The system development costs and cost of connecting to the wastewater transmission system would be an especially difficult financial burden for lower income residents in the Lower Keys regardless of whether the cost is evaluated alone or compared with OWTS costs. This is an important consideration, even though the residents of the Lower Keys enjoy a median household income greater than that of Monroe County as a whole and considerably higher than the State of Florida. While the median household income in the Service Area is relatively high, about seven percent of the residents live below the poverty line. This percentage may actually be larger given that the cost of living in Monroe County is higher than ten percent higher than that of the state. The Service Area has a proportion of residents over the age of 65 comparable to the county and the state. This segment of the population often lives on fixed income and, while their income may not be below the poverty level, they are more affected by cost of living changes. These factors suggest that while the majority of the residents are financially secure, there is considerable disparity in wealth and income among residents, raising potential environmental justice concerns. Three potential approaches that the FKAA may use to address this issue are presented below, as previously outlined in the PEIS. Subsidize Initial Connection Costs. With other central wastewater systems previously constructed in the Florida Keys, lower income residents have received subsidies, mainly from two sources: Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) and the FEMA. For certain projects, Monroe County made CDBG funds available to help defray the combined cost of service development fees and connecting residences to the wastewater transmission system (Mark Bell 2004). These subsidies have been in the range of$5300 per qualifying resident. For projects receiving funding from FEMA, grant funds have themselves been used to subsidize residents' initial costs, and utility systems have pursued other funds, such as general fund revenues, to provide the remaining system development costs. Presently, the only known funding source is the federal government through the Corps. No CDBG funding is currently available. Subsidize Cost of Sewer Service. While the Proposed Action alternative will not have a significant net impact on recurring charges for wastewater services, lower income residents will be faced with a major financial burden from those charges regardless of whether they are incurred for on-site treatment facilities or the central facilities developed under the Proposed Action alternative. The only known source of funding for subsidizing those costs is Monroe County general fund revenues. Such funding would probably not be practical over an extended period of time, however. Draft Environmental Assessment 83 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Implement an Increasing Block Rate Structure. Generally viewed as another form of subsidy, a graduated rate structure can also provide water conservation benefits when it is based on metered water use. A rate structure that provides a lifeline sewer bill would include a lower base charge and volume charge for the first 3,000 gallons, for example, of water use per month, with an increasing charge for more water use. Such a rate structure links sewer charges to metered water use, a common method for charging for sewer services. This type of rate structure has several drawbacks. First, it runs counter to the prevailing practice of charging on the basis of the cost of service. Under most conditions, the cost of providing sewer service is relatively fixed, especially in an older system with significant amounts of inflow and infiltration, so a cost of service based rate normally has a high base charge and flat volume charge. Second, a low base charge and low charge for the first two or three thousand gallons of water use places the sewer utility at financial risk because its revenue is tied to water use by larger customers. Any significant reduction in water use has a magnified affect on sewer utility revenues and, equally important, the very factors that lead to a decline in water use often cause increased wastewater management expenses. Third, higher rates for larger water users are arbitrary and discriminatory, with no basis other than providing a subsidy for low volume customers. Finally, such a rate structure subsidizes all low volume water customers, regardless of ability to pay. 4.13.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) With delayed implementation of central wastewater systems, Alternative Funding Sources alternative would result in many of the same impacts described for the No Action alternative, albeit more slowly. However, similar to the No Action alternative, any such impacts would not be related to the proposed federal action. 4.14 Land Use and Planning The Proposed Action directly addresses the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandated reductions in nutrient loadings to the marine ecosystem, and EO 98-309, which directed local and state agencies to coordinate with Monroe County in the implementation of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to eliminate cesspools, failing septic systems, and other substandard on-site sewage systems. 4.14.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Land use and planning in the Service Area would continue as described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. The absence of federal funding for implementation of improved wastewater treatment infrastructure under the No Action alternative is not anticipated to impact existing land uses. However, planned future land use development would be limited under the No Action alternative. Without wastewater treatment improvement projects, the Lower Keys risks non- compliance with EO 98-309 and the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. In turn, noncompliance with these plans could jeopardize the allocation of credits for new development. Draft Environmental Assessment 84 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences 4.14.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) No adverse impacts to land use are anticipated under the Proposed Action. The proposed WWTF parcel is designated on the FLUM as public facilities (Figure 3-6). The proposed project is consistent with the Monroe County ROGOs developed to control growth and maintain a high standard of living while protecting remaining natural resources. Although the proposed WWTF would support and facilitate planned growth, it would not induce growth, increase permit allocations, or facilitate floodplain development beyond that which is already planned. While county ROGO considerations include public safety and environmental needs (including water quality and habitat protection), the primary limiting factor in the ROGO is hurricane evacuation time. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect permit allocation and associated development in the Service Area. The proposed WWTF site on Cudjoe Key would be compatible with adjacent land uses, as the adjacent site is a decommissioned landfill. Construction activities would result in minor, temporary impacts to land use (anticipated to last 24 months). Short-term traffic delays as well as general construction disturbances would occur during construction. 4.14.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Under Alternative Funding Sources, impacts on land use would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action once alternative funding is acquired and wastewater improvement projects are implemented. However, potential impacts would occur at a slower pace. Prior to implementation, residents and businesses in the Service Area remain at risk of non-compliance with the 2015 treatment standards. 4.15 Infrastructure The affects of the Proposed Action and other alternatives on transportation and utilities and services in the Lower Keys are discussed in this section. 4.15.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, residents within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would continue to rely on individual treatment systems (septic tanks and cesspools) and privately owned cluster or package treatment facilities, as described under Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Individual property owners and businesses would be responsible for meeting the state or county defined LOS standards. Residents and businesses would risk non-compliance but have no impacts to transportation or infrastructure; or they would implement many smaller projects, which would in turn result in larger numbers of small traffic and infrastructure disruptions. Draft Environmental Assessment 85 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences 4.15.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Transportation. The construction of the new WWTF would result in minor, temporary impacts to traffic in the vicinity of the proposed project due to heavy equipment and trucks accessing the construction site. In addition, the construction of the wastewater collection system could affect traffic patterns. Depending on available ROWs, transmission lines are generally constructed under roadways, and segments of U.S. Highway 1 would be closed during construction. A traffic maintenance plan would be prepared to accommodate residential and business traffic during construction of the WWTF,pump stations,and associated sewer lines. The operation of the WWTF would result in additional traffic due to workers traveling to the facility site. However, the impacts on the area roadway system of the trips produced by the WWTF would be insignificant. Utilities and Services. The construction of the centralized WWTF and collection systems would result in minor, temporary impacts to utilities at various locations and times throughout the Service Area. Utility transmission lines are often constructed under roadways or in roadway ROWs. Consequently, it may be necessary to relocate buried transmission lines during construction thus impacts would be localized and short in duration. 4.15.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Transportation. Under Alternative Funding Sources, impacts would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action. Although potential impacts would be delayed while alternative funding is acquired to implement the proposed project, delayed funding could result in a larger number of small projects and therefore greater traffic disruptions. Utilities and Services. Under Alternative Funding Sources, wastewater treatment improvement projects would not be constructed until alternative funding is acquired. Consequently, impacts would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action but would be delayed (construction activities would occur at a slower pace, and may be drawn out for an extended period of time). 4.16 Hazardous and Toxic Materials This section addresses the potential impacts of hazardous and toxic materials relevant to the proposed project. Specifically, known areas of hazardous contamination would be avoided and mitigation necessary should hazardous contamination be encountered and identified. 4.16.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) Without federal funding for the Proposed Action, responsibility for implementing wastewater treatment improvement projects would remain with individual property owners and businesses. Disturbance or lands would be limited to individual actions and conditions would continue as described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Draft Environmental Assessment 86 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences 4.16.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action, construction and implementation of the proposed WWTF site and the associated transmission lines and pump stations would include soil disturbance, grading, and moving, and may, as a result, uncover or expose hazardous materials. For individual infrastructure improvement projects, the non-federal sponsor would be responsible for investigating the potential presence or extent of a hazardous substance regulated under the CERCLA. The construction of the proposed WWTF and the infrastructure and normal Operations and Management(O&M) of the treatment facility would not generate hazardous wastes under normal circumstances. Contractors would be required to provide pollution prevention plans and contain any petroleum spills that may occur during construction. If hazardous wastes should enter the system, a monitoring system typically identifies the malfunction and corrective actions are taken to prevent the discharge. Effluent disposal via shallow well injection would not generate hazardous wastes during the operation of the WWTF, nor would it result in the discharge of hazardous wastes into the groundwater. Treated effluent would be monitored for hazardous material contamination. 4.16.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) Impacts would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative until the FKAA acquires sufficient alternative funding sources to implement the proposed WWTF. Once the . proposed wastewater project is implemented, the impacts would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. 4.17 Predicted Attainment of the Program Objectives The primary goal of the FKWQIP is to provide federal funding for local municipalities and entities to implement wastewater treatment projects that would result in commensurate water quality improvements in the Sanctuary. The proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure would provide improved wastewater treatment for the Lower Keys and associated Service Area and decrease pollutant loads to local canals and nearshore waters. As a result, water quality improvements in the nearshore waters of the Sanctuary would be anticipated, thereby meeting federal, state and local goals and objectives. 4.18 Predicted Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those that "result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonably foreseeable future actions". The cumulative impacts of an action may be undetectable, but can add to other disturbances and eventually lead to a measurable environmental change. Potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project are primarily beneficial and should be considered in the spatial and temporal context of the wastewater and stormwater improvement Draft Environmental Assessment 87 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences projects funded by federal, state, and local source. Multiple wastewater projects in the Keys would be located closely both spatially and temporally and the cumulative impacts of these facilities would be beneficial in terms of improved water quality in the Sanctuary. Improved water quality would in turn enhance marine habitats, and would increase recreation and tourism opportunities. Due to construction activities, minor cumulative adverse impacts to protected species or protected habitat, terrestrial habitat loss, or both, may occur, depending on the locations of the individual projects. Appropriate measures would be taken to minimize or mitigate for these impacts at the individual project level. Implementation of multiple FKWQIP projects would not have a cumulative environmental justice impact, since each community's financial impact would be limited to its individual project. While there is an overall trend to balance development and resource protection, development trends continue to pressure South Florida. These trends include increased development within the constraints of ROGOs, transportation corridor widening, and changes in land uses from trailer parks to single family homes and multi-family units. Consequently, this cumulative impacts analysis addresses the affects of the proposed FKWQIP projects in the context of larger trends in South Florida, including the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), anticipated development, as well as other wastewater improvement projects. Issues and potential impacts are outlined in Table 4-2 and described below. CERP. Importantly, the WWTF and other proposed FKWQIP projects are consistent with the effort of the CERP, and in combination with CERP, would cumulatively benefit the restoration, protection, and preservation of water resources in South Florida. The CERP covers 16 counties in central and South Florida, including the Everglades and the Keys, addresses water quality through the multi-step Everglades Construction Project, and also focuses on species diversity and habitat protection. Cumulative adverse impacts to water quality and habitat would be greatest under the No Action alternative due to the continued discharge of inadequately and untreated wastewater into the shallow aquifer, canals and nearshore waters in the Service Area and in the Keys in general. Under the No Action and Alternative Funding Sources alternatives, the conservation of relatively larger, contiguous habitats would be unlikely in the absence of regional planning and facilities. In contrast, conservation of sensitive lands would be more likely as part of a regional plan under the Proposed Action. Cumulative adverse impacts to water quality would be reduced under the Proposed Action as a result of reduced discharges of nutrients, suspended solids, and pathogenic organisms into the aquifer, canals, and nearshore waters of the Keys. Urban Growth and Development. Cumulative adverse impacts of urban development include increased impervious surface and stormwater runoff and fragmented habitat. Adverse cumulative impacts of wastewater loads, although stormwater runoff and habitat fragmentation are not expected to change as a direct result of the proposed project, would be reduced under the Proposed Action and Alternative Funding Sources due to improved wastewater treatment. Although the proposed WWTF, as well as other FKWQIP projects, would support and facilitate planned growth, they would not induce growth and no specific future development activities are Draft Environmental Assessment 88 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences currently identified that would not proceed without the proposed project. The FKWQIP is consistent with Monroe County ROGOs developed to control growth and maintain a high standard of living while protecting remaining natural resources. ROGOs are based on several conditions, including hurricane evacuation times, public safety, and environmental needs (including water quality and habitat protection). FKWQIP implementation would not increase permit allocations and would not contribute to or support floodplain development beyond that which is already planned. Cumulative adverse impacts to land use and planning in the Keys are not anticipated under any of the alternatives. Ecological Habitats and Protected Species. Under the Proposed Action, beneficial cumulative affects of the proposed wastewater improvement projects on marine biological resources are anticipated due to reduced nutrient and pathogen inputs and subsequent improvement in quality of groundwater, surface water, and nearshore waters, as discussed in Section 3.3 and 3.4 of this Draft EA. Cultural Resources. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action because federally funded actions would include coordination and review of projects at the state (SHPO) and local (Monroe County Historic Preservation Society) level. Under the No Action alternative, projects would not be reviewed for potential impacts to cultural resources and cumulative impacts to these resources would be anticipated. Potential affects on cultural resources and potential cumulative affects on historic and cultural resources may occur. Table 4-2 Potential Cumulative Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Wastewater Improvement Projects Issue No Action: No Federal Proposed Action: Alternative Fundin. for FKW$IP Im•lementation of FKW I IP Fundin' Sources Water Quali Cumulative increases in Anticipated nutrient Cumulative water nutrient loads to soils, aquifer, reductions are between 85-88, quality benefits, canals and nearshore waters 79-81 and 77-91 percent in similar to the that reduce water clarity and TN, TP and TSS loadings, Proposed Action, a) may adversely impact offshore respectively,using AWT. except that there zcoral reefs. Post-treatment nutrient levels may be delays in may pose ecological risks for improvements surface water,but cumulative until alternative reductions in nutrients are funding is antici.ated. ac•uired, as well Draft Environmental Assessment 89 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Potential long-term and Cumulative improvements in as less effective cumulative adverse impacts to water quality in soils, canals implementation °' human and ecological health in and nearshore waters, and due to fragmented absence of wastewater possibly offshore marine approach. 2 disinfection and treatment and waters anticipated due to o, continued discharges of combined wastewater and untreated or inadequately stormwater improvements ccl treated effluents. throughout the Keys as well as the CERP. y Potential release from aquifer Unknown,but potential •g matrix and discharge into release from aquifer matrix wdo nearshore environment via due to interaction of injected o SGD due to injected freshwater freshwater effluent with saline 4 effluent. However, no tracer aquifer and subsequent studies available for evaluation. discharge into nearshore environment is possible. ° No USDWs, therefore no risk No USDWs present. Also, to potable water supplies. proper siting, construction and However, cumulative adverse operation restrict fluid ,s impacts to soils, canals and movement and physically nearshore waters. Potential isolate potential stressors. In non-compliance with 2010 all cases,the risk would be treatment standards. further reduced with disinfection and treatment to AWT standards. Habitat and Protected Species i Continued cumulative decrease Cumulative loss of habitat Cumulative habitat • in habitat for protected species associated with construction of loss, as in the rn anticipated due to habitat loss projects, although minor. Proposed Action, and fragmentation, within Coordination with federal, but impacts greater O constraints of county state and local agencies will when compared o regulations. ensure avoidance, with other minimization and mitigation. alternatives due to �, Continued cumulative loss and Short-term cumulative less centralization, .5 fragmentation of vegetation reduction in amount of greater habitat xunder existing county vegetation,however, fragmentation. .b regulation. conservation areas will decrease fragmentation and 45 guard against future losses that may occur, consistent with county regulations. _ Growth and Development Requirements Draft Environmental Assessment 90 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences eu Existing land uses may be Cumulative increase in Cumulative ] inconsistent with future conservation lands, consistent increases in gconservation areas and may be with future land uses. development and ►-a incompatible with adjacent Proposed projects are outside impervious resource protection efforts. existing conservation areas, surfaces, similar to therefore adverse impacts to other alternatives, these lands are not anticipated. consistent with No cumulative impacts in ROGO. Multiple combination with CERP, projects could Comprehensive Plans. result in multiple road closures and New development would Consistent with Monroe subsequent t remain limited by existing County ROGO and Floodplain impacts to tourism. aROGOs. Existing residences Ordinance. Would facilitate Also, adverse o and businesses would continue planned growth, but would not impacts more bto operate without centralized induce growth and no specific likely due to less a) WWTFs. Would not comply future development activities coordination with with 2010 Treatment are currently identified that state and federal z, Standards. would not proceed without the agencies and larger proposed project. number of smaller, No impacts to potable water No impacts to potable water less centralized supplies. Little change in supplies. Changes in land use, facilities and ;' number of EDUs to be treated e.g. from trailer park to greater disruption 415 anticipated. multifamily residential, may of existing or change EDU volumes and proposed land use improve connection/treatment plans. efficiency. No state and federal Increased protection due to a coordination required and compliance with state and g disturbance and/or removal of federal agencies during Ucultural resources during construction and development 6. construction and development activities. activities could occur. Tourism Economy Continued health advisories Cumulative improvements to Similar to and beach closings, and tourism and related economy Alternative 2,with subsequent decreases in beach due to reduced numbers of potential delays visitors, potential for adverse health advisories and beach until funding is cumulative impacts to related closings. Improved fisheries. acquired. 174 economy. Loss of recreational Cumulative affects of strong aopportunities under some tourism on the Keys economy scenarios. would be positive, with a commensurate increase in demand for goods and services. Draft Environmental Assessment 91 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Environmental Justice No impacts beyond those Cumulative water quality Overall impacts to presently occurring. improvements would benefit employment, all demographics. Cost may income, population pose economic hardships in and housing would some municipalities and,to be minor. Short- help local municipalities term construction address low income and fixed gains would be income issues, approaches greater due to cts have been proposed to assist larger number of with the capital costs facilities being associated with 2010 treatment constructed. standards compliance. Cost may pose economic hardships in some municipalities. Short-term economic gains Both short-term and long-term from construction activities. beneficial economic affects cLong-term gains dependant on would be expected from intensity of development. project construction, although minor. 4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts The Cudjoe Regional WWTF would be constructed on Cudjoe Key, adjacent to Monroe County's Solid Waste Transfer Station. Fugitive dust from vehicle traffic and earth moving would be unavoidable but temporary and short-term in nature. Temporary disruption of soils is expected from the construction of sewer systems and clearing and grubbing of the WWTF site. Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may include the loss of the some mangrove habitat, resulting from installation of the transmission may along U.S. Highway 1. No historic or archeological sites are documented to occur on the proposed WWTF site. The protection of potentially occurring cultural, archaeological, and historical resources is ensured via major federal laws including the NHPA, ARPA,NAGPRA, and AIRFA of 1978. In addition, the SHPO, relevant tribal historic preservation officers, and if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, would review and comment on a Proposed Action. 4.20 Indirect Affects Substantial environmental benefits are anticipated due to indirect affects of the proposed project on physical, human, and biological environments, primarily due to improved water quality in nearshore waters of the Sanctuary. The only identified negative indirect consequence of program implementation is increased potential growth as a result of constructing centralized sewer and wastewater treatment systems. However, a number of local ordinances regulate growth, both for private residences and new businesses. Advocates for property rights are very active in the Keys and support continued growth and development of private property. Changes to the rate of Draft Environmental Assessment 92 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences growth and building permit allocation system are at the discretion of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)and the FDCA. 4.21 Compatibility with Federal, State and Local Objectives As a result of declining nearshore water quality in the Keys, a number of federal, state, and local laws and regulations have been implemented to improve wastewater management, monitor water quality, assist in financing water quality improvements, and establish new water quality monitoring standards. In particular, the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan, as well as Florida EO 98-309 and FAC. 99-395, mandate that nutrient loading levels be reduced in the marine ecosystem of the Keys by the year 2015. Specific actions include eliminating cesspools, failing septic systems, and other substandard on-site sewage systems as well as requiring all wastewater discharge be treated to Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. In response to the mandated water quality improvements, a number of master plans have been prepared by Monroe County and municipalities within Monroe County and these have been compiled into the Master List of Projects provided in Appendix C of the PEIS. The proposed project is part of the FKWQIP and therefore directly supports federal, state, and local objectives for improvement of water quality in the Keys. The program is a direct result of the Act of 2001 that directed the USEPA and the State of Florida to develop a water quality protection plan for the Sanctuary. 4.22 Conflicts and Controversy Controversial issues associated with the FKWQIP are the cost of program implementation, the means of recovering initial capital investment, and the means of generating revenues to support maintenance and operational activities. New urban development in the Florida Keys is limited by the ROGO, consequently the number of new users would increase too slowly to share the cost of new and improved wastewater infrastructure. A significant portion of the population in the Keys is classified as low-income and/or fixed income. Many of the typical measures of affordability are based on median family income which does not adequately reflect the abilities of those least able to afford the capital costs associated with the installation of new treatment systems or connecting to a new public sewer system. Some users may be subject to the cost of immediate replacement of individual systems as well as future sewer connections. Users with cesspools or septic tanks may be required to replace existing systems with an OWNRS before a public sewer system can be made available to their neighborhood. However, once a public sewer system is available, the user would be required to connect to the public system, adding additional costs to the user. Under this scenario, the user would be required to pay for both an OWNRS and for connection to the sewer system. The disposal of wastewater effluent into the groundwater through injection wells and the potential for groundwater contamination is of concern to the public. Most wastewater in the Service Area remains untreated or inadequately treated. Disinfecting and treating the effluent to AWT standards and disposing of it via shallow injection wells is an acceptable alternative. The Draft Environmental Assessment 93 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences proposed wastewater improvements for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System would use shallow well injection. Average estimated reductions in wastewater loading to nearshore waters in the Keys due to implementation of FKWQIP are on the order of 69 and 73 percent in TN and TP loadings, respectively,using AWT standards. Reductions in TN, TP, and TSS loadings between 85-88, 79- 81, and 77-91 percent, respectively, are anticipated for the Service Area as a result of implementing the proposed wastewater improvements. 4.23 Uncertain, Unique, or Unknown Risks The Act (2001) was passed with an authorization of up to $100 million to implement the program. To date, however, limited funding has been appropriated for program implementation. Without Congressional appropriation or identification of other funding sources, water quality degradation would continue within the Sanctuary and the Florida Keys would not meet state mandated statutory effluent standards for wastewater treatment systems. Without program implementation, the number or health advisories in beaches and canals in the Keys can be expected to increase. Local municipalities must also identify how they plan to raise the necessary funding to meet the cost requirements (i.e. the 35 percent match required for the non- federal sponsor). 4.24 Energy Commitments and Conservation Potential Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the expenditure of energy resources to construct treatment facilities, pump stations, and central sewers. These energy resources would include fuel for construction vehicles and equipment. Once the facilities are built and placed into operation, there would be an increase in energy demands to operate the treatment and pump stations. Energy available within the Service Area is adequate to accommodate the minimal increase in energy demand required for the Proposed Action. Conservation potential for any of the alternatives would be minimal. 4.25 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity While water quality improvements in the Sanctuary are anticipated as a result of the proposed project, short-term, or localized, adverse impacts would undoubtedly occur. For example, the construction of centralized sewer systems throughout the Keys would disrupt local traffic conditions. These construction activities would be sequenced to minimize traffic congestion. 4.26 Environmental Commitments Habitat and protected species surveys have not been conducted on the proposed WWTF sites, but would be conducted prior to implementation of the project. Appropriate measures would be implemented to minimized adverse affects. Draft Environmental Assessment 94 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences 4.27 Compliance with Environmental Requirements This section of the Draft EA addresses compliance with applicable laws and regulations under the Proposed Action. All environmental regulatory requirements are being addressed as part of this NEPA documentation, as described in individual sections pertaining to protected species, habitats,wastewater treatment, and other relevant issues. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Early identification of issues was conducted as part of the FKWQIP, of which the Cudjoe Regional wastewater project was a component. Scoping, a Notice of Intent to prepare a draft PEIS, and a draft and final PEIS were all released for the FKWQIP between September 2002 and September 2004. Environmental information on the Cudjoe Regional WWTF project has been compiled and an EA has been prepared and released for public and agency review. The project is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Coordination with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA will occur during the NEPA review of the Draft EA. The Draft EA will constitute the Corps' Biological Assessment and Section 4.6 addresses the affects to threatened and endangered species. Section 7 coordination will be completed prior to construction. Because construction activities are terrestrial and there would be no adverse impacts to marine resources, the Corps has determined there would be no affect to federally-listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the jurisdiction of National Marine Fisheries Service. No further coordination with NMFS is required. The project will be in compliance with the Act. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1958. The FKWQIP PEIS has been coordinated with the USFWS and the protection of sensitive ecological resources, federal land resources,protected species and critical habitat have been addressed in Sections 3.5, 3.6, 4.5, and 4.6 of this Draft EA. Coordination under the FWCA will be conducted during the NEPA review of the Draft EA. This project is in full compliance with the Act. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Inter Alia) (PL 89-665, the Archeology and Historic Preservation Act [PL 93-291] and Executive Order 11593). A review of the Master Site Files was completed for the proposed WWTF site and is addressed in Sections 3.9 and 4.9 of this Draft EA. Clean Water Act of 1972. All state water quality standards will be met. The project is in compliance with this Act. There are no wetlands on the proposed facility sites therefore, a 404 Permit is not required. Clean Air Act of 1972. The Service Area is in a Clean Air Act compliance area. No air quality permits would be required for this project. To comply with Section 309 of the Act, this Draft EA will be reviewed by concerned agencies including the USEPA, other stakeholder agencies, and the public. Draft Environmental Assessment 95 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. A federal consistency determination in accordance with 15 CFR 930 Subpart C has been included in this Draft EA as Appendix A. The consistency review, delegated to the state of Florida, was performed during the public review of this Draft EA. The state has determined that at this stage, the project is consistent with the Florida CZMP. Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. Implementation of the proposed project would not impact any prime or unique farmland. The proposed project is in compliance with the Act. Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968. No designated wild and scenic river reaches would be affected by project related activities. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. No construction work would be conducted in the water. Therefore, project related activities would not result in take as defined by Marine Mammal Protection Act. Estuary Protection Act of 1968. Implementation of the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure would decrease or eliminate nutrient and contaminant seepage from cesspools and septic systems within the Service Area and consequently decrease pollutant loadings into adjacent estuarine habitats. This project is in full compliance with the Act. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The proposed project has been coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service and is in compliance with the Act. Submerged Lands Act of 1953. The proposed project would not occur on submerged lands of the State of Florida. This Act is not applicable. Coastal Barrier Resources Act and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. A review of the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) maps shows that three designated CBRS units lie within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area (FL-50, FL-52 and FL-54). Construction of the proposed central WWTF and all of the infrastructure and transmission lines needed to convey wastewater to the facility will occur outside the boundaries of these CBRS units. However, several decentralized cold spots, located on Summerland Key, Big Torch Key and No Name Key,are within the CBRS units. The project will be in compliance with these Acts. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The proposed work would not obstruct navigable waters of the United States. The proposed project is in full compliance. Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. Anadromous fish species would not be affected. The project has been coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service and is in compliance with the Act. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Migratory birds do not currently use the proposed WWTF site and therefore would not be affected by proposed activities. The project is in compliance with these Acts. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. The term "dumping" as defined in the Act (3[33 U.S.C. 1402][f]) does not apply to this project. Therefore, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act does not apply to this project. Draft Environmental Assessment 96 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 4.0 Environmental Consequences Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. A preliminary records search completed for the Service Area during the preparation of this Draft EA found limited potential for hazardous, toxic or radioactive waste substances to be encountered during implementation of the proposed project. Hazardous waste for this project is addressed under Sections 3.16 and 4.16 of this Draft EA. T he project is in compliance. Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. No substances regulated under this Act and related laws have been identified in project lands. The project is in compliance. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. No adverse affects to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) are anticipated by implementing the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed WWTFs and associated infrastructure would decrease or eliminate nutrient and contaminant seepage from cesspools and septic systems within the Service Area and consequently decrease pollutant loadings into adjacent marine and estuarine habitats, therefore benefiting EFH. This Draft EA will be coordinated with the NMFS for concurrence. The project is in full coordination of the Act. E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands. There are no wetlands on the proposed WWTF sits Overall, implementation of the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure is anticipated to benefit wetland habitat throughout the Service Area by decreasing or eliminating nutrient and contaminant seepage from cesspools and septic systems. This project is in compliance with the goals of this Executive Order. E.O. 11988, Flood Plain Management. The project has been evaluated in accordance with this Executive Order. This project is in compliance. E.O. 12898, Environmental Justice. Executive Order 12898 requires the Federal Government to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing disproportionately high adverse affects of its activities on minority or low-income populations, and by involving potentially affected minorities in the public coordination process. Environmental justice is specifically addressed in Sections 3.13 and 4.13 of this Draft EA. The project is in compliance with the Executive Order. E.O. 13089, Coral Reef Protection. This Executive Order applies to coastal projects that might directly or indirectly impact coral reefs. The Executive Order refers to "those species, habitats, and other natural resources associated with coral reefs." This project will not adversely impact coral reefs or coral reef resources and may, in fact, benefit these resources by improved water quality of the nearshore waters adjacent to the Service Area. The project complies with this Executive Order. E.O. 13112, Invasive Species. Much of the vegetation within the WWTF footprints consists of non-native invasive species, which will be removed within the immediate footprint as a consequence of construction of the impoundment. Construction equipment will use standard measures to avoid the spread of invasive species. This project will not authorize, fund, or carry out any action that might spread or introduce invasive species. Therefore, this project complies with the goals of this Executive Order. Draft Environmental Assessment 97 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 5.0 Public Involvement The topics of wastewater degradation in the Sanctuary and the need to reduce nutrient loading in the nearshore waters of the Keys are of particular interest to regulatory agencies and citizens alike. For this reason, public participation throughout the previously prepared PEIS included actions by the Corps to accomplish the goals listed below. • Comply with the intent of NEPA and other applicable statutes • Solicit and address public and agency opinions during this process • Document the process and characterize the project accurately 5.1 Public Involvement for Master Plans As described in Chapter 1, the Corps did not undertake planning activities to delineate alternatives in this Draft EA, but rather relied upon results of planning initiatives of Monroe County municipalities. Thus, it is important to recognize the extensive public outreach and involvement associated with these efforts. Public involvement was an integral component of the Monroe County wastewater planning process and the development of the MCSWMP. Public involvement activities conducted as part of this master plan included over 30 meetings with key stakeholders and the public,hosted by the FKAA and the county between 1998 and 2000. Public forums in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys were held to allow key stakeholders and interested citizens of Monroe County the opportunity to participate in, and influence, the outcome of the Master Plan. Interaction with the public throughout the development process significantly assisted in the development of the contents of the Master Plan. Numerous public involvement efforts were implemented as part of the Master Plan development process and are outlined below. • Public forums and workshops • Meetings with civic,business, and environmental groups throughout the Keys • Preparation and distribution of project fact sheets and brochures • Media coordination • Production of two videos • Development of a project web site Interested citizens and key stakeholders directly influenced the development of the decision and evaluation processes, identified key issues to be addressed, and defined the elements of the MCSWMP guiding Monroe County to achieve compliance with the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. Comments provided by participants generally expressed concerns regarding: • Implementation costs • Extent of improved water quality • Implementation approaches • Alternative wastewater conveyance/treatment technologies • Measure of project performance • County responsiveness to public input Draft Environmental Assessment 98 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 5.0 Public Involvement 5.2 Public Involvement for PEIS Applicable regulatory agencies, affected stakeholders, and interested members of the Keys community have been provided opportunities to participate in the decision-making process during the development of this Draft EA. The Notice of Intent (NOI), scoping letter, and the responses to the scoping process can be found in Appendix G of the PEIS. A public meeting was held in Marathon, Florida, on February 27, 2003 to solicit comments and input on issues to be addressed during the NEPA documentation process. Issues raised at this public meeting are listed below. • Need for federal funding to support wastewater infrastructure development in the Keys • Engineering and environmental issues associated with specific projects • Cost of implementing wastewater improvements to residents of the Keys 5.3 Scoping and Public Involvement for Cudjoe Regional EA On December 8, 2008 and December 11, 2008 public meetings were held in Big Pine Key and Summerland Key,respectively. Additional means of public outreach are planned following issuance of the Final EA. In accordance with Corps procedures and NEPA public notification requirements, the Final EA will be advertised in local newspapers and made available at local repositories for a 45-day comment period. Public comments submitted to the Corps during this time will be reviewed and addressed, as appropriate. SPACE INTENTIOANLLY LEFT BLANK Draft Environmental Assessment 99 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 6.0 Conclusion This Draft EA provides the basis for examining and evaluating potential environmental impacts of the proposed Cudjoe Regional Central Wastewater Treatment System on the physical, biological, and human environment in the Sanctuary. Three project alternatives were evaluated as part of this Draft EA, premised on the need to implement water quality improvement projects that would reduce nutrient loadings to nearshore waters and result in commensurate improvements in water quality of the Sanctuary. The three alternatives are briefly summarized below. • Alternative 1: No Action. No federal agency would provide funding to the FKAA for implementation of wastewater treatment improvement projects that would address state mandates to meet wastewater treatment standards. Public entities would not construct or operate WWTFs. Lower Keys residents, communities, and businesses would be responsible for addressing state mandates aimed at improving water quality in the Sanctuary. • Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Provide federal financial and technical assistance from the Corps, as part of the FKWQIP, to develop and implement a regional wastewater collection and treatment system for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area that would address mandatory state wastewater treatment standards. • Alternative 3: Pursue Other Sources of Funding for Project Implementation. In the absence of federal funding, provided by the Corps, alternative funding sources would be pursued to implement projects for the FKAA that would address state mandates and improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Sources of monies may include other state and federal funding mechanisms (other than Corps) and/or additional costs levied against Florida Keys residents. The preferred alternative, based on an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative discussed in detail in Chapter 4, is the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), under which a regional WWTF would be constructed to serve the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. The WWTF is designed to reduce nutrient loading to nearshore waters and subsequently improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Importantly, the Corps' previously developed FKCCS model provided a means of quantifying the affects of wastewater improvement projects, specifically the reductions in nutrient loads, within the Sanctuary. An independent contractor from the team who originally developed the FKCCS model coordinated with and assisted the South Florida Regional Planning Council in running the mode for FKWQIP projects, specifically for Key Largo, Islamorada and Marathon. These similar wastewater districts provided the basis for calculating the anticipated range of nutrient reductions associated with construction of the Cudjoe Regional WWTF. Improved treatment technology is anticipated to reduce TN, TP, and TSS loads by an estimated 85-88, 79- 81, and 77-91 percent, respectively. The use of federal funds to assist in the construction of the WWTF is the best means to reduce this nutrient source and protect the Sanctuary. Most of the residents and businesses within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are connected to septic tanks and outdated on-site package plants that, if not properly operated, can result in harmful bacteria and nutrient inputs to nearshore waters. Under the No Action alternative, Draft Environmental Assessment 100 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 6.0 Conclusion wastewater inputs and commensurate water quality degradation of the Sanctuary would continue. As a result, businesses, property owners, and residents within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area may risk non-compliance with federal and state regulatory treatment standards for wastewater. Under Alternative Funding Sources, federal funding would be unavailable and the FKAA would pursue alternate funding for water quality improvement projects. Consequently, project implementation,management, and expenditures would be less affective. The Proposed Action addressed by this Draft EA is the construction of a centralized wastewater treatment system to service residents and commercial businesses located in the Lower Keys. The proposed WWTF would use a five-stage Bardenpho system capable of meeting the Monroe County effluent standards. This technology is considered appropriate for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area because it is very stable and capable of operating over a range of influent flow rates, which is important in consideration of the Lower Key's seasonal fluctuations in population and tourism. The anticipated plant capacity is less than one MGD, so the WWTF will use shallow well injection for effluent disposal. The Proposed Action is anticipated to accomplish the following goals and objectives. • Meet objectives of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act; • Address regional water quality issues; • Achieve reductions in nutrient loadings and commensurate improvement in water quality in the nearshore waters of the Sanctuary associated with the Cudjoe Regional Service Area; and • Comply with federal and state regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely manner. SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Draft Environmental Assessment 101 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Alexander, T.R. and J.D. Dickson. 1972. Vegetational changes in the National Key Deer Refuge, Part II. Q.J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 35(2-3):85-89. Allen, D.M., J.H. Hudson, and T.J. Costello. 1980. Postlarval shrimp (Penaeus) in the Florida Keys: species, size, and seasonal abundance. Bull. Mar. Sci. 30:21-33. Aronson,R.B. 1990. Onshore-offshore patterns of human fishing activity. Palaios 5:88-93. Aronson, R.B., W.F. Precht, I.G. Macintyre and T.J.T. Murdoch. 2000. Coral bleach-out in Belize. Nature 405:36. Aronson, R.B., and Precht, W.F. 2001a. White-band disease and the changing face of Caribbean coral reefs. Hydrobiologia 460:25-38. Arthur, J.D., A.A. Dabousl, and J.B. Cowart. 2002. Mobilization of arsenic and other trace elements during aquifer storage and recovery, southwest Florida. In George R. Aiken and Eve L. Kuniansky, editors, U.S. Geological Survey Artificial Recharge Workshop Proceedings Sacramento, California April 2-4, 2002. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-89. Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack and G.A. Meester. 1998. A retrospective (1979-1996) multispecies assessment of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys. Fishery Bulletin 96:395-414. Ault, J.S., S.G. Smith, J. Luo, G.A. Meester, J.A. Bohnsack and S.L. Miller. 2001. Baseline multispecies coral reef fish stock assessments for the Dry Tortugas. Final Report to the National Park Service. RSMAS-University of Miami,Florida. Avery, G.N. 1982. Cereus robinii in Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory office, Tallahassee, Florida. Babson, J. 2003. Scientists race for clues to what's killing coral—Two reefs off Keys raise fear of spreading infection. Miami Herald, Sunday June 15, 2003. Barada, W. and W.M. Partington, Jr. 1972. Report of investigation of the environmental effects of private waterfront canals. Environmental Information Center, Florida Conservation Foundation,Inc. 63 pp. As cited in Kruczynski, 1999. Barbour, D.B. and S.R. Humphrey. 1982. Status and habitat of the Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse(Neotoma floridana smalli and Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola). Journal of Mammalogy 63(1):144-148. Barnes, D.J., and B.E. Chalker. 1990. Calcification and photosynthesis in reef-building corals and algae. Pages 109-131 in Z. Dubinsky, editor. Ecosystems of the World, Volume 25. Elsevier Science Publishing,New York. Draft Environmental Assessment 102 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Beeler, I.E. and T.J. O'Shea. 1988. Distribution and mortality of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) in the southeastern United States: a compilation and review of recent information. Report prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. PB 88-207 980/AS. National Technical Information Service. Birkeland, C. 1997. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. C. Birkeland, editor. Chapman & Hall, ITP, New York. Boesch, D.F., N.E. Armstrong, C.F. D'Elia, N.G. Maynard, H.W. Paerl, and S.L. Williams. 1993. Deterioration of the Florida Bay Ecosystem: An Evaluation of the Scientific Evidence. Report to the Interagency Working Group of Florida Bay. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,Washington D.C., 27 pp. Bohnsack, J.A., D.E. Harper and D.B. McClellan. 1994. Fisheries trends from Monroe County, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54:982-1018. Boucot, A.J. 1981. Principles of Benthic Marine Paleoecology. Academic Press, New York. Boulon, R.H., K.L. Eckert and S.A. Eckert. 1988. Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) migration. Herp. Rev. 19(4):88. Boyer, K.E., P. Fong, A.R. Armitage and R.A. Cohen. 2002. Elevated nutrient content of tropical macroalgae increases rates of herbivory in coral, seagrass, and mangrove habitats. Prog. & Abstracts, 83rd Annual Meeting Western Society of Naturalists, 27 pp. Brand, L.E. 2002. The transport.of terrestrial nutrients to south Florida coastal waters. Pages 361-414 in J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, editors. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys—An Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Brinson, M.M. 1988. Strategies for Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Wetland Alteration on Water Quality. Environmental Management, 12(5):655-662. Brisbin, I.L., C.A. Ross, M.C. Downes, M.A. Staton, and B. Gammon. 1986. A Bibliography of the American Alligator. Savannah River National Environmental Research Park, 310 pp. Bruckner, A.W. 2002. Proceedings of the Caribbean Acropora Workshop: Potential Application of the U.S. Endangered Species Act as a Conservation Strategy. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFSOPR-OPR-24. Brown, B.E. 1997. Disturbance to reefs in recent times. Pages 354-379 in C. Birkeland, editor. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Chapman&Hall, ITP,New York. Burnett, W.C., J. Chanton, D.R. Corbett, and K. Dillon. 2000. The Role of Groundwater in the Nutrient Budget of Florida Bay. PART I. FINAL REPORT. NOAA Project #NA96OP0234. Department of Oceanography Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida. Draft Environmental Assessment 103 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Butler, IV, J.H. Hunt, W.F. Herrnkind, M.J. Childress, R. Bertelsen, W. Sharp, T. Matthews, J.M. Field and H.G. Marshall. 1995. Cascading disturbances in Florida Bay, USA: cyanobacterial blooms, sponge mortality, and implications for juvenile spiny lobster Panulirus Argus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Serv. 129:119-125. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. 2009. 2009 Florida price level index. Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. 2001. City of Marathon Reuse Component of Central Wastewater RFP. Causey, B.D. 2001. Lessons learned from the intensification of coral bleaching from 1980-2000 in the Florida Keys, USA. Pages 60-66 in R.V. Salm and S.L. Coles Coral Bleaching and Marine Protected Areas. Proceedings of the Workshop on Mitigating Coral Bleaching Impact through MPA Design. Asia Pacific Coastal Marine Program Report#0102, Honolulu. Causey, B.D. 2002. The role of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in the south Florida ecosystem restoration initiative. Pages 883-894 in J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, editors. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys—An Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Causey, B., J. Delaney, E. Diaz, D. Dodge, J.R. Garcia, J. Higgins, W. Jaap, C.A. Matos, G.P. Schmahl, C. Rogers, M.W. Miller and D.D. Turgeon. September 2000. Status of coral reefs in the US Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and Navassa. Pages 239-259 in C. Wilkinson, editor. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: City of Key Colony Beach Sewer System Evaluation. Prepared for the City of Key Colony Beach by URS Corporation. Chen, E. and J.F. Gerber. 1990. Climate. Pages 11-34 in L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida. Chiappone, M., S.L. Miller and D.W. Swanson. 2002. Status of Acropora corals in the Florida Keys: habitat utilization, coverage, colony density, and juvenile recruitment. Pages 125-135 in A. Bruckner, editor. Proceedings of the Caribbean Acropora Workshop: PotentialApplication of the U.S. Endangered Species Act as a Conservation Strategy. NOAA—OPR-24. Cho, L.L. and J.D. Woodley. 2003. Recovery of reefs at Discovery Bay, Jamaica and the role of Diadema antillarum. Proc. 9th Intl Coral Reef Symp. Bali 1:331-338. City of Key West by Engineering Services. June 2001. City of Key West Long Range Stormwater Utility Plan. City of Key West. 1999. City of Key West Water Quality Improvements Program. City of Key West 2010. Key West City.com. Draft Environmental Assessment 104 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography http://www.keywestcity.com/depts/port/cruiseships/cruiseships.asp. June 2010. City of Marathon, 2003, City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan, adopted 1990, amended 1996, amended 2003 (Ordinance 03-09-01). City of Marathon by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. January 2002. Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management System(DBOWMS) for the City of Marathon, Key West, Florida. Classification of sea grass communities in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science 54:696- 717. As cited in FEMA,2000. Close, Kathy 2004, Personal Communication between Kathy Close, Long Key State Park Manager and Kim Fitzgibbons, PBS&J, Jacksonville, FL., October 6, 2004. Communication with representative, Operations Management International,Inc. Key West. Cook, C. 1997. Reef corals and their symbiotic algae as indicators of nutrient exposure. Final Report submitted to the Water Quality Protection Program as cited in Kruczynski, 1999. As cited in FEMA, 2000. Corbett, D.R., J. Chanton, W. Burnett, K. Dillon, C. Rutkowski and J.W. Fourqurean. 1999. Patterns of groundwater discharge into Florida Bay. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44:1045-1055. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cox, J. R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Craft C.B., J. Vymazal and C.J. Richardson. 1995. Response of Everglades plant communities to nitrogen and phosphorus additions. Wetlands 15:258-271. Crewz, D.W. and R.R. Lewis III. 1991. An evaluation of historical attempts to establish emergent vegetation in marine wetlands in Florida. Florida Sea Grant technical paper TP-60. Florida Sea Grant College, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Crosby, M.P., K. Geenen, D. Laffoley, C.1 Mondor and G. O'Sullivan. 1997. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium and Workshop on Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: Integrating Science and Management,NOAA, Silver Spring, MD. 167 pp. Davis, J.H. 1942. The ecology of the vegetation and topography of the sand keys of Florida. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 524:113-195. Davis, J.H. 1943. The natural features of southern Florida, especially the vegetation and the Everglades. Fla. Geol. Surv. Bull. 30:1-247. Draft Environmental Assessment 105 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Davis, J.H., Jr. 1940. The ecology and geologic role of mangroves in Florida. Carnegie Inst., Wash. Publ. No. 517. Pap. Tortugas Lab. 32:304-412. Davis S.M. 1991. Growth, decomposition and nutrient retention of Cladium jamaicense Crantz and Typha domingensis Pers. in the Florida Everglades. Aqu. Bot. 40:203-224. Day, J.W., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine Ecology. John Wiley& Sons, Inc.,New York. Desola, C.R. 1935. Herpetological notes from southeastern Florida. Copeia. 1:44-45. Diaz-Soltero, H. 1999. Endangered and threatened species: a revision of candidate species list under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 64:33466-33468. Duarte, C.J. 1995. Submerged aquatic vegetation in relation to different nutrient regimes. Ophelia 41:87-112. Dubinsky, Z. and N. Stambler. 1996. Marine pollution and coral reefs. Global Change Biol. 2:511-526. Dustan, P. and J.C. Halas. 1987. Changes in the reef-coral community of Carysfort Reef, Key Largo,Florida: 1974-1982. Coral Reefs 6:91-106. Eakin, C.M. 1993. Post-El Nino Panamanian reefs: less accretion, more erosion and damselfish protection. Proc. 7th Internat. Coral Reef Symp., Guam 1:387-396. Edds, P.L., T.J. Maclntyre and R. Naveen. 1984. Notes on a sea whale (Balaenoptera borealis Lesson) sighted off Maryland. Cetus 5(2):4-5. Eisenberg, J.F. and J. Frazier. 1983. A leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea feeding in the wild. J. Herp. 17:81-82. Endries, M., R. Kautz, and T. Gilbert. 2001. Integrated wildlife habitat ranking system. Agency technical report and CD-ROM with GIS data for application to Florida Department of Transportation highway planning and design projects(FFWCC), Tallahassee, Florida. English, D.B.K., W. Kriesel, V.R. Leeworthy and P.C. Wiley. 1996. Economic contribution of recreating visitors to the Florida Keys /Key West. A part of Linking the economy and environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay series. Enos, P. 1977. Quarternary sedimentation in south Florida. Part I. Holocene sediment accumulations of the south Florida shelf margin. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 147:1-130. Epstein, P.R., B. Sherman, E. Spanger-Siegfried, A. Langston, S. Prasad and B. McKay. 1998. Marine ecosystems—emerging diseases as indicators of change. Health Ecological and Economic Dimensions of Global Change Program, 85 pp. Draft Environmental Assessment 106 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Evans, C.C. 1987. The relationship between the topography of an ooid shoals and complex: The Upper Pleistocene Miami Limestone. Pages 18-41 in J.M.R. Maurrasse, editor. Symposium on South Florida Geology. Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). 2002. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment,Wastewater Management Improvements in the Florida Keys, Florida. URS Group, Inc.,Miami Springs, Florida. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group(FISRWG). Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/newgra.html. 13 June 2003. Federal Transit Authority(FTA). Endangered Species: Background. http://www.fta.dot.gov/office/planning/ep/subjarea/endspec.html. 14 February 2003. Ferren,R. 2003. Longstreet Highroad Guide to the Florida Keys &Everglades. http://www.sherpaguides.com/florida/everglades/everglades_np.html Florida Administrative Weekly,April 12, 1996. After the USACOE. http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/projects/fkccsfeslstrev.htm. Florida Administrative Code. Effective December 1996. Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications, Chapter 62-302.530. Florida Administrative Code. June 1994, revised November 1999. Ground Water Guidance Concentrations, Chapter 62-550. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). 2001. Rules of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Plant Industry, Chapter 5B- 0.0055 Regulated Plant Index. Preservation of Native Flora of Florida. Florida Statutes, Section 581.185 (4). http://www.doacs. state.fl.us/-pi/5b-40.htm. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1985. Proposed designation of the waters of the Florida Keys as Outstanding Florida Waters. Report to the Florida Environmental Regulatory Commission. As cited in Kruczynski, 1999. Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP). 2001. Drinking Water: Miscellaneous Contaminants. Assessed from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/st_misc.htm. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER). 1987. Florida Keys Monitoring Study: Water quality assessment of five selected pollutant sources in Marathon, Florida. FDER, Marathon Office, 187 pp. As cited in Kruczynski, 1999. Florida Department of Health. 2003. Public health indicators data system. http://hpeapps.doh.state.fl.us/phids/Phidsl.asp 8 February, 2003. Draft Environmental Assessment 107 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Master Site File information,personal communication October 2010. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 1997. Florida's Endangered Species,Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2002a. Land Cover Classes, 30- meter ArcInfo Grid, 1985-1989. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FFWCC). 2002b. Potential Species Habitat Models, 100-meter ArcInfo Grid. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2002d. Wildlife Observation Database. Florida Geographic Data Library County Series (FGDL). 1994. USGS 1:24,000 (7.5-min) Digital Line Graph(DLG), hydrography polygon layer. Version 3. CD-ROM publication. Florida Geographic Data Library County Series (FGDL). 2000. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database and National Wetlands Inventory Maps. Version 3. CD-ROM publication. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authortity(FKAA). http://www.fkaa.com. Florida Keys Electric Cooperative Association. 2003. http://www.fkec.com/index.HTML. Florida Keys Virtual Traveler. Keys Historical Highlights. http://www.vtraveler.com/vt/history/history.html. June 2010. Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI). 1998. Technical Report TR-4: Benthic Habitats of the Florida Keys. In association with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). FNAI Occurrence Database. Provided by FNAI in September 2010. Folk, M.L. 1991. Habitat of the Key deer. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,Illinois. Fong, P. and M.A. Harwell. 1994. Modeling seagrass communities in tropical and subtropical bays and estuaries: a mathematical model synthesis of current hypotheses. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54(3):757-781. Fonseca, M.S., M.J. Kenworthy and G.W. Thayer. 1981. Transplanting of the Seagrasses Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii for the Stabilization of Subtidal Dredged Material. Annu. Rep. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Beaufort Lab. to U.S. Army Corps of Eng. Draft Environmental Assessment 108 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Forys, E.A. and S.R. Humphrey. 1992. Biology of the Lower Keys marsh rabbit at Navy lands in the Lower Florida Keys. Semi-annual performance report no. 3, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Fourqurean, J.W., G.V.N. Powell, W.J. Kenworthy, and J.C. Zieman. 1995. The effects of longterm manipulation of nutrient supply on competition between the seagrasses Thalassia testudinum and Halodule wrightii in Florida Bay. Oikos 72:349-353. Fourqurean, J.W., M.J. Durako, M.O. Hall, and L.N. Hefty. 2002. Seagrass Distribution in South Florida: A Multi-Agency Coordinated Monitoring Program. J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, editors. The Everglades, Florida Bay and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Fourqurean, J.W. and J.C. Zieman. 2002. Seagrass nutrient content reveals regional patterns of relative availability of nitrogen and phosphorous in the Florida Keys, FL, USA. Biogeochemistry 61:229-245. Frankovich, T.A. and J.0 Zieman. 1994. Total epiphyte and epiphytic carbonate production on Thalassia testudinum across Florida Bay. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54:679-695. Gaines S.D. and M.W. Denny. 1993. The largest, smallest, highest, lowest, longest, and shortest: extremes in ecology. Ecology 74:1677-1682. Garrett, G. 2001. Director of Marine Resources, Monroe County. Personal communication with Jonathan Randall, URS Group, Inc. As cited in FEMA, 2000. Genin, A., B. Lazar and S. Brenner. 1995. Vertical mixing and coral death in the Red Sea following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Naturalist 377:507-510. Getter, C.D., J. Michel, G.I. Scott, and J.L. Sadd. 1981. The sensitivity of coastal environments and wildlife to spilled oil in south Florida. South Florida Regional Planning Council, Miami. 126 pp. Gilbert, T. and B. Stys. Descriptions of Plant Communities for Landsat Habitat Mapping. FFWCC, Office of Environmental Services, Tallahassee, Florida. Glynn, P.W. 1993. Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs 12:1-17. Glynn, P.W. and L. D'Croz. 1990. Experimental evidence for high temperature stress as the cause of El Nino-coincident coral mortality. Coral Reefs 8:181-191. Good, B.J., and Patrick, W.H., Jr. 1987. Root-water-sediment interface processes, in Reddy, K.R., and Smith, W.H., eds., Aquatic plants for water treatment and resource recovery: Orlando, Florida, Magnolia Publishing Company,p. 359-371. Draft Environmental Assessment 109 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Goodyear, N.C. 1987. Distribution and habitat of the silver rice rat, Oryzomys argentatus. Journal of Mammalogy 68:692-695. Grauss, R.R. and I.G. Macintyre. 1982. Variations in growth forms of the reef coral Monastraea annularis: a quantitative evaluation of growth response to light distribution using computer simulation. Pages 441-464 in K. Rutzler and I.G. Macintyre, editors. The Atlantic barrier reef ecosystems at Carrie Bow Cay, Belize, I. Structure and communities. Smithson. Contr. Mar. Sci. 12. 539. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Griffin, D.W. et al. 1999. Detection of Viral Pathogens by Reverse Transcriptase PCR and of Microbial Indicators by Standard Methods in the Canals of the Florida Keys, 65 Applied and Envtl. Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia—Reptilia red data book, part I. Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Haig, S.M. 1992. Piping Plover. No. 2 The Birds of North America. in A. Pools, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences. The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Halley, R.B., H.L. Vacher, and E.A. Shinn. 1997. Geology and hydrology of the Florida Keys in Geology and Hydrology of Carbonate Islands, Developments in Sedimentology 54, pages 217-248. Elsevier Science B.V.,Amsterdam. As cited in FEMA, 2000. Hallock, P. 1997. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Pages 13-42 in C. Birkeland, editor. Chapman &Hall,New York. Hallock, P., F.E. Muller Karger, and J.C. Halas. 1993. Coral reef decline—Anthropogenic nutrients and the degradation of western Atlantic and Caribbean coral reefs. Research and Exploration 9:358-378. Hammer, D.A. 1992. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, USA. Hammer, L. 1968. Anaerobiosis in marine algae and marine phanerogams. Pages 414-419 in K. Nisizawa, editor. Proceeding of the 7th International Seawood Symposium. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo. Hanisak, M.D. and L.W. Siemon. 1999. Macroalgal tissue nutrients as indicators of nitrogen and phosphorus status in the Florida Keys. J. Phycol. 14:28. Harlin, M.M. 1980. Seagrass epiphytes. In R.C. Phillips and C.P. McRoy, editors. Handbook of seagreass biology: An ecosystem perspective. Garland STPM Press,New York. Harmer, S.F. 1923. Cervical vertebrae of a gigantic blue whale from Panama. Pages 1085- 1089.Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. Harvell, C.D., K. Kim, J.M. Burkholder, R.R. Colwell, P.R. Epstein, D.J. Grimes, E.E. Hofmann, E.K. Lipp, A.D. Osterhaus, M.E. Overstreet, R.M., Porter, J.W., Smith, and G.R. Vasta. Draft Environmental Assessment 110 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography 1999. Emerging marine diseases-climate links and anthropogenic factors. Science 285:1505- 1510. Hay, M.E. 1981. Herbivory, algal distribution, and the maintenance of between-habitat diversity on a tropical fringing reef. Amer. Nat. 118:520-540. Hay, M.E. 1984. Patterns of fish and urchin grazing on Caribbean coral reefs: Are previous results typical?Ecology 65:446-454. Hay, M.E. and T. Goertemiller. 1983. Between-habitat differences in herbivore impact on Caribbean coral reefs. The Ecology of Deep and Shallow Coral Reefs. Pages 97-102 in M.L. Reaka, editor.NOAA Symposia Series for Undersea Research, Washington, D.C. Hay, M.E. and P.R. Taylor. 1985. Competition between herbivorous fishes and urchins on Caribbean reefs. Oecologia 65:591-598. Hayes, R.L. and N.I. Goreau. 1998. The significance of emerging diseases in the tropical coral reef ecosystem. Rev. Biol. Trop. 46(5):173-185. Hayes, M.L., J. Bonaventura, T.P. Mitchell, J.M. Prospero, E.A. Shinn, F. Van Dolah, and R.T. Barber. 2001. How are climate and marine biological outbreaks functionally linked? Hydrobiologia 460:213-220. Hirsh, S.L. 1981. Ecology of the Key Largo Woodrat (Neostomafloridana smalli). Journal of Mammalogy 62:201-206. Hubbard, D.K. 1997. Reefs as Dynamic Systems. Pages 43-67 in C. Birkeland, editor. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Chapman&Hall, ITP, New York. Hudson, J.H., K.J. Hanson, R.B. Halley, and J.L. Kindinger. 1994. Environmental implications of growth rate changes in Montastrea annularis: Biscayne National Park, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54:647-669. Hughes, T.P. 1994. Catastrophes, phase shifts and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science 265:1547-1551. Hughes, T.P., A.M. Szmant, R. Steneck, R. Carpenter, and S. Miller. 1999. Algal blooms on coral reefs: What are the causes?Limnol. Oceanogr. 44:1583-1586. Humphrey, S.R. 1988. Density estimates of the endangered Key Largo Woodrat and Cotton Mouse (Neostoma floridana smalli and Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola) using the nested-grid approach. Journal of Mammalogy 69(3):524-531. Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Key Largo cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola). Pages 110-118 in S.R. Humphrey, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume I. Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Draft Environmental Assessment 111 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Hurt, G.W., C.V. Noble and R.W. Drew. 1995. Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington,D.C. Illinois Department of Natural Resources(IDNR). Ponds. http://dnr.state.il.us/wetlands/pond.htm. 13 February 2003. J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter (editors). 2003. Keys—An Ecosystem Sourcebook. Pages 629-648. CRC Press,Boca Raton, Florida. Jaap, W.C. 1982. The ecology of the coral reefs of south Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, USFWS/OBS-82/08, Washington, D.C. Jaap, W.C. and P. Hallock. 1990. Coral Reefs. Ecosystems of Florida. Pages 574-616 in L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida. Jaap, W.C., J.W. Porter, J. Wheaton, K. Hackett, M. Lybolt, M.K. Callahan, C. Tsokos, and G. Yanev. 2001. USEPA/Sanctuary Coral Reef Monitoring Project: Updated executive summary, 1996-2000. Jackson, J.B.C. 2001. What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98:5411- 5418. Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629-638. Jensen, J.R., K. Rutchey, M.S. Koch and S. Narumalani. 1995. Inland wetland change detection in the Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A using a time series of normalized remotely sensed data. Photogram Engnr Remote Sensing 61:199-209. Johnson A.F. and M.G. Barbour. 1990. Dune and maritime forests. Ecosystems of Florida. Pages 429-473 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Johnston, I.S. 1980. The ultrastructure of skeletogenesis in hermatypic corals. Inter. Rev. Cyt. 67:71-214. Jokiel, P.L. and S.L. Coles. 1977. Effects of temperature on the mortality and growth of Hawaiian reef corals. Marine Biology 43:201-208. Jones, R. and J. Boyer. 2001. Water Quality Monitoring Project: FY 2000 Annual Report. Published by the Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University under contract to USEPA. As cited in FEMA, 2000. Draft Environmental Assessment 112 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Kenworthy, W. J. and D. E. Haunert (editors). 1991. The light requirements of seagrasses. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-287. Keys Energy Services. 2003. Utility Board of the City of Key West, Florida.http://www.kwcityelectric.com/. Accessed September 2010. Kisinger, Campo and Associates Corporation. September 1994. Stormwater Runoff Study. Prepared for the City of Key West. Kissling, D.L. 1965. Coral distribution on a shoal in Spanish Harbor, Florida Keys. Bull. Mar. Sci. 15(3):599-611. Kissling, D.L. 1977. Coral reefs in the lower Florida Keys: A preliminary report. Pages 209-215 in H.G. Multer, editor. Field Guide to Some Carbonate Rock Environments—Florida Keys and Western Bahamas. Klima, E.F., G.A. Matthews and F.J. Patella. 1986. Synopsis of the Tortugas pink shrimp fishery, 1960-1983, and the impact of the Tortugas Sanctuary. N. Am. J. Fish. Mgt. 6:301-310. Klimstra, W.D., J.W. Hardin, N.J. Silvy, B.N. Jacobson, and V.A. Terpening. 1974. Key deer investigations final report: December 1967-June 1973. Big Pine Key, Florida: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Knowlton, N. 1992. Thresholds and multiple stable states in coral reef community dynamics. Amer. Zool. 32:674-682. Knowlton, N. and J.B.C. Jackson. 2000. The Ecology of Coral Reefs. Pages 395-417 in M.D. Bertness, S.D. Gaines, M.E. Hay, editors. Marine Community Ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,MA. Knowlton,N. 2001. The future of coral reefs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98:5419-5425. Kohout, F.A. 1965. A hypothesis concerning cyclic flow of water related to geothermal heating in the Floridan aquifer. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, series 2, 28:249-271. Kruczynski, W.L. 1999. Water quality concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources, effects and solutions. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program, NOAA. Kruczynski, W. 1999. Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources, Effects and Solutions. EPA. Kruczynski, W.L. and F. McManus. 2002. Water quality concerns in the Florida Keys: sources, effects, and solutions. J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, editors. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and coral reefs of the Florida Keys: An ecosystem sourcebook. CRC Press, Florida. Draft Environmental Assessment 113 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Kruer, C.R. 1992. An assessment of Florida's remaining coastal upland natural communities: Florida Keys. Unpublished report, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. Kushlan, J.A. 1990. Freshwater Marshes. Pages 324-363 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida. Kushlan, J.A. and F.J. Mazzotti. 1989. Historic and present distribution of the American crocodilein Florida. J. Herp. 23(1):1-7. Kuta, K.G., and L.L. Richardson. 1996. Abundance and distribution of black band disease on coral reefs in the northern Florida Keys. Coral Reefs 15:219-223. Lapointe, B.E. 1987. Phosphorus- and nitrogen- limited photosynthesis and growth of Gracilaria tikvahiae (Rhodophyceae) in the Florida Keys: An experimental field study. Mar. Biol. 93:561-568. Lapointe, B.E. 1987. A preliminary investigation of upwelling as a source of nutrients to Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS MEMD 9. NOAA, Washington, D.C. Lapointe, B.E., J.E. O'Connell, G.S. Garrett and N.P. Smith. 1990. Nutrient couplings between on-site sewage disposal systems, ground waters, and nearshore surface waters of the Florida Keys. Biogeochemistry 10:289-307. Lapointe, B.E. and M.W. Clark. 1992. Nutrient inputs from the watershed and coastal eutrophication in the Florida Keys. Estuaries 15:465. Lapointe, B.E., J.E O'Connell, G.S. Garrett, N.P. Smith, D.A. Tomasko and W.R. Matzie. 1994. Eutrophication and trophic state classification of seagrass communities in the Florida Keys. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54:696-717. Lapointe, B.E and W.R. Matzie. 1996. Effects of stormwater discharges on eutrophication processes in nearshore waters of the Florida Keys. Estuaries 19:422-435. Lapointe, B.E. 1997. Nutrient thresholds for bottom up control of microalgal blooms on coral reefs in Jamaica and southeast Florida. Limnol. Oceanogr 42:1119-1131. Lapointe, B.E. 1999. Simultaneous top-down and bottom-up forces control microalgal blooms on coral reefs. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44:1586-1592. Lapointe, B. E., W.R. Matzie and P.J. Barile. 2002. Biotic phase-shifts in Florida Bay and fore reef communities of the Florida Keys: linkages with historical freshwater flows and nitrogen loading from Everglades' runoff. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida. Draft Environmental Assessment 114 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Larkum, A.W.B., A.J. McComb and S.A. Shepard. 1989. Biology of seagrasses: a treatise on the biology of seagrass with special reference to the Australian region. Elsevier, Amsterdam, New York. 842 pp. Lawler, H.E. 1977. The status of Drymarchon corais couperi (Holbrook), the eastern indigo snake, in the southeastern U.S.A. Herp. Rev. 8(3):76-79. Layne,J.N. 1974. The land mammals of South Florida. Memoirs of the Miami Geologic Society. 2:386-413. Leeworthy, V.R. and P.C. Wiley. 1996. Visitor profiles: Florida Keys /Key West. Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The Nature Conservancy, Monroe County Tourist Development Council, University of Georgia, and U.S. Forest Service. Leeworthy, V.R. and P. Vanasse. 1999. Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West: Updates for the Years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Leichter J.J., Shellenbarger G., Genovese S.J., Wing S.R. (1998). Breaking internal waves on a Florida(USA)coral reef: a plankton pump at work?Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 166:83-97. Leichter, J. J. and S.L. Miller. 1999. Predicting high frequency upwelling: spatial and temporal patterns of temperature anomalies on a Florida coral reef. Cont. Shelf Res. 19:911-928. Levinton, J.S. 1982. Marine Ecology. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Thurman, H.V., H.H. Webber. 1984. Marine Biology. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company: Columbus, Ohio. Levinton J.S. 1995. Marine biology: function, biodiversity, ecology. Oxford University Press, Inc.,New York. Lewis, S.M. 1986. The role of herbivorous fishes in the organization of a Caribbean reef community. Ecol. Monogr. 56:183-200. Lewis, J.B. 1977. Process of organic production on coral reefs. Biol. Rev. 52:305-347. Lipp, E.K., J.L. Jarrell, D.W. Griffin, J. Jacukiewicz, J. Lukasik, and J.B. Rose. 2002. Preliminary evidence for human fecal contamination in corals of the Florida Keys, U.S.A. Mar. Pollu. Bull. 44:666-670. Livingston, R.J. 1990. Inshore Marine Habitats. Pages 549-573 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida. Luce, C.H., E. Kluzek and G.E. Bingham. 1995. Development of a High Resolution Climatic Data Set for the Northern Rockies. Interior West Global Change Workshop: April 25-27, 1995. Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-GTR-262. pp. 106-111. Draft Environmental Assessment 115 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Marathon Key, Florida Keys Official Tourism Site, Heart of the Florida Keys. http://www.flakeys.com/marathon/. Accessed October 2010. Marzelek, D.S., G. Babashoff, M.R. Noel and D.R. Worley. 1977. Reef distribution in south Florida. Proceedings: 3rd International Coral Reef Symposium. Volume 2, pages 223-230 in D.L. Taylor, editor. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami,Florida. McClanahan, T.R. and N.A. Muthiga. 1988. Changes in Kenyan coral reef community structure and function due to exploitation. Hydrobiologia 166:269-276. McCook, L. J., E. Wolanski, and S. Spagnol. 2001. Modeling and visualizing interactions between natural disturbances and eutrophication as causes of coral reef degradation. Pages 113-125 in E. Wolanski, editor. Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs: Physical and Biological Links in the Great Barrier Reef. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. McField, M. 1999. Coral response during and after mass bleaching in Belize. Bull. Mar. Sci. 64(1):155-172. McMillan, C. and F.N. Moseley. 1967. Salinity tolerances of five marine spermatophytes of Redfish Bay,Texas. Ecology 48:503-506. McMillan, C. 1979. Differentiation in response to chilling temperatures among populations of three marine spermatophytes, Thalassia testudinum, Syringodium filiforme, and Halodule wrightii. Am. J. Bot. 66(7):810-819. Mead, J.G., and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1993. Order Cetacea. Pages 349-364 in D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder, editors. Mammal Species of the World. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Meylan, A. 1992. Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys umbricata. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Pages 95-99 in P. Moler, editor. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Meylan, A., B. Schroeder and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach, Florida, II. Post-nesting movements of Caretta caretta. Biol. Conser. 26:79-90. Miller, J.A. 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. HA 730-G. Contents of HA 730-G. Miller, J.A. 1997. Hydrogeology of Florida. Pages 69-89 in Randazzo and Jones, editors. The Geology of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Miller, M.W., M.E. Hay, S.L. Miller, D. Malone, E.E. Sotka, and A.M. Szmant. 1999. Effects of nutrients versus herbivores on reef algae: a new method for manipulating nutrients on coral reefs. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44:1847-1861. Draft Environmental Assessment 116 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Mitchell, N.C. 1996. Silver rice rat status. Draft final report to Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Moler, P.E. 1992. Introduction. Pages 1-8 in P.E. Moler, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Monroe County. 1997a. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Species and Natural Community Summary for Monroe County, Tallahassee, Florida. Monroe County. 1997. Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document. Adopted by the Monroe County Boardof County Commissioners, Department of Community Affairs and Administration Commission of the State of Florida. Monroe County. April 1998. Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan with Phased Implementation for the Marathon Area of the Florida Keys (Marathon Wastewater Facilities Plan). CH2MHill in association with Lindahl, Browning Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc. and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Monroe County. June 2000. Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. Prepared for Monroe County by CH2Mhi11 in association with Lindahl, Browning Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc., Ayers Associates, Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Bryant, and Yon, P.A. and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Monroe County. 2001a. Stormwater Management Master Plan. Prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee,Inc. Monroe County. 200lb. Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, Volume 1. Prepared by CH2MHill. Monroe County. Undated-a. Environment of Florida Keys /Florida Bay. NOAA. The Nature Conservancy, Monroe County Tourist Development Council, 22 pp. Monroe County. Undated-b. Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA, The Nature Conservancy, Monroe County Tourist Development Council. Montague, C.L. and R.G. Wiegert. 1990. Salt Marshes. Pages 481-516 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida. Morris, L.J. and D.A. Tomasko (editors). 1993. Proceedings and conclusions of workshops on submerged aquatic vegetation and photosynthetically active radiation. Special publication SJ93-P13. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida. Draft Environmental Assessment 117 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Muhs, D.R., C.A. Bush, K.C. Stewart, T.R. Rowland and R.C. Crittenden. 1990. Geochemical evidence of Saharan dust parent materials for soil development on Quarternary limestones of Caribbean and Western Atlantic Islands. Quarternary Res. 33:157-177. Muller-Parker, G. and C.F. D'Elia. 1997. Interactions between corals and their symbiotic algae. Pages 96-113 in Birkeland, editor. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Chapman and Hall, New York. Multer, H.G. (editor). 1977. Field guide to some carbonate rock environments: Florida Keys and western Bahamas. Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Iowa. Muscatine, L. 1990. The role of symbiotic algae in carbon and energy flux in reef corals. Coral Reefs. Ecosystems of the World. Volume 25, Pages 75-87 in Z. Dubinsky, editor. Elsevier, Amsterdam. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Guidance for Integrating Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act EFH Consultations with Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitatlhabitatprotection/images/guidance 1.pdf. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). 1996. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (FMP/EIS). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington, D.C. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). October 1998a. Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions for Caribbean Fishery Management Plans. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/images/CFMChabitat_types.pdf. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998b. Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential Fish habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, South Carolina. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). 1999a. Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, South Atlantic (North Carolina to Key West, Florida). http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov/protect/sa_cand.htm. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999b. Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Florida-Atlantic Coast. http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov/protect/flac_can.htm. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). 1999c. Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Florida-Gulf Coast. http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov/protect/flgc_can.htm. Draft Environmental Assessment 118 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). 2001a. Response and Restoration,Exposed Tidal Flats. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oilaids/coastal/ExTideFl.pdf. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 200lb. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Sanctuary Resources. http://www.flcnms.nos. noaa.gov/sanctuary_resources/welcome.html. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). 2003. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Visitor Information. hftp://www.flcnms.nos.noaa.gov/visitor_information/. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). 2003c. Strategic Assessment of Florida's Environment; Total Average Annual Precipitation. http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/safe/environ/wqn9.html. Neckles, H.A., E.T. Koepfler, L.W. Haas, R.L. Wetzel, and R.J. Orth. 1994. Dynamics of epiphytic photoautotrophs and heterotrophs in Zostera marina (eelgrass) microcosms: responses to nutrient enrichment and grazing. Estuaries 17(3):597-605. Neil, W.T. 1971. The Last of the Ruling Reptiles. Columbia University Press, New York. NOAA. 2000. http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/scied/science/habitat/reefdescriptions.html. Norse, E.A. and L. Watling 1999. Impacts of Mobile Fishing Gear: the Biodiversity Perspective (pages 31-40) in Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. Edited by Lee R. Benaka. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22. ISBN: 1-888569-12-3. Odum, W.E. and C.C. McIvor. 1990. Mangroves. Pages 517-548 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Florida. Ogden, J.C. and B.W. Patty. 1981. The Recent Status of the Wood Stork in Florida and Georgia. Georgia Dept. Nat. Res. Game and Fish Div. Tech. Bull. WL 5:97-101. Operations Management International,Inc. http://www.keywestwastewater.com/future.htm. Patterson, K.L., J.W. Porter, K.B. Ritchie, S.W. Poison, E. Mueller, E.C. Peters, D.L. Santavy, and G.W. Smith. 2002. The etiology of white pox, a lethal disease of the Caribbean althorn coral,Acropora palmata. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99(13):8725-8730. Paul, J.H., J.B. Rose, J.K. Brown, E.A. Shinn, S. Miller, and S.R. Farrah. 1995. Viral tracer studies indicate contamination of marine waters by sewage disposal practices in Key Largo, FL. Applied Environmental. Microbiology 61:2230-2234. Draft Environmental Assessment 119 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Paul, J.P., J.B. Rose, S. Jiang, X. Zhou, P. Cochran, C. Kellogg, J. Kang, D. Griffin, S. Farrah, and J. Lukasik. 1997. Evidence for groundwater and marine water contamination by waste disposal wells in the Florida Keys. Water Research 31:1448-1454. Pauly, D.W., J. Christiansen, J. Dahsgaard, R. Froese, and F.C. Tones, Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279:860-863. Pennings, S.C. 1997. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Pages 249-272 in C. Birkeland, editor. Chapman&Hall, ITP,New York. Perkins, R.D. 1977. Depositional framework of Pleistocene rocks in south Florida. P. Enos and R.D. Perkins, editors. In Quarternary sedimentation in south Florida, 131-98. Geological Society of America Memoir no. 147. Peters, E.C. 1997. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Pages 114-136 in C. Birkeland, editor. Chapman&Hall, ITP, New York. Phillips, R.C. 1960. Observations on the ecology and distribution of the Florida seagrasses. Prof. Paper Ser.,No. 2. Fla. St. Bd. Conserv. Mar. Lab., St. Petersburg. 72 p. Pitts, P.A. 2003. The role of advection in transporting nutrients to the Florida reef tract. Proc. 9th Intl. Coral Reef Symp. Bali 2:1219-1224. Porter, J.W., P. Dustan, W.C. Jaap, K.L. Patterson, V. Kosmynin, O.W. Meier, M.E. Patterson, and M. Parsons. 2001. Patterns of spread of coral diseases in the Florida Keys. Hydrobiologia 460:1-24. Prospero, J.M., R.A. Glaccuum, and R.T. Nees. 1981. Atmospheric transport of soil dust from Africa to South America.Nature 289:570-572. Randazzo, A.F. and R. Halley. 1997. Geology of the Florida Keys. Pages 251 259, Chapter 14. Geology of Florida. University Press of Florida, Florida. Reich, C.D., E.A. Shinn, T.D. Hickey A.B. and Tihansky. 2002. Tidal and meteorological influences on shallow marine groundwater flow in the upper Florida Keys. Pages 827-881 in J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, editors. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys—An Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Richardson, L.L. and R.B. Aronson. 2003. Infectious diseases of reef corals. Proc. 9th Intl Coral Reef Symp. Bali 2:1225-1230. Richardson, L.L., W.M. Goldberg, K.G. Kuta, R.B. Aronson, G.W. Smith, K.B. Richie, J.C. Halas, J.S. Feingold, and S.L. Miller. 1998. Florida's mystery coral-killer identified. Nature 393:557-558. Draft Environmental Assessment 120 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Roberts, C.M. 1995. Effects of fishing on the ecosystem structure of coral reefs. Conserv. Biol. 9:988-995. Ross, M.S., J.J. O'Brien and L.J. Flynn. 1992. Ecological site classification of Florida terrestrial habitats. Biotropica 24:488-502. Rudnick, D.T., Z. Chen, D.L. Childers, J.N. Boyer and T.D. Fontaine, III. 1999. Phosphorus and Nitrogen Inputs to Florida Bay: the Importance of the Everglades Watershed. Estuaries 22(2B):398-416. As cited in FEMA, 2000. Santavy, D.L., E. Mueller, E.C. Peters, L. MacLaughlin, J.W. Porter, K.L. Patterson, and J. Campbell. 2001. Quantitative assessment of coral diseases in the Florida Keys: strategy and methodology. Hydrobiologia 460:39-52. Schomer, S.N. and R.D. Drew. 1982. An ecological characterization of the lower Everglades, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-82/58.1. 246 pp. Scoffin, T.P. 1970. The trapping and binding of subtidal carbonate sediments by marine vegetation in Bimini Lagoon, Bahamas. J. Sediment. Petrol. 40:249-273. Sheppard, C. 1993. Coral reef environmental science: dichotomies, not the Cassandras, are false. Reef Encounter 14:12-13. Shinn, E.A., R.S. Reese and C.D. Reich. 1994. Fate and pathways of injection-well effluent in the Florida Keys. U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Report 94-276, St. Petersburg, Florida. Shinn, E.A. 1996. No rocks, no water,no ecosystem. Geotimes 41:16-19. Shinn, E.A., G.W. Smith, J.M. Prospero, P. Betzer, M.L. Hayes, V. Garrison and R.T. Barber. 2000. African dust and the demise of Caribbean coral reefs. Geophys. Res. Letters 27:3029- 3032. Shinn, E.A. 2001. African dust causes widespread environmental distress. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-246, St. Petersburg, Florida. Small, J.K. 1917. The tree cacti of the Florida Keys. Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 18:199-203. Smith, H.T. 1996. Roseate tern. Pages 246-256 in J.A. Rodgers, H.W. Kale, and H.T. Smith, editors. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida Vol. V: Birds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,Florida. Snedacker, S.C. and A.E. Lugo. 1973. The role of mangrove ecosystems in the maintenance of environmental quality and a high productivity of desirable fisheries. Final Rep. on Contract 14- 6-008-606. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildlife,Washington, D.C. Draft Environmental Assessment 121 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Snyder, J.R., A. Herndon and W.B. Robertson. 1990. South Florida Rockland. Pages 230-277 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando,Florida. Starck,W.A. 1968. A list of fishes of Alligator Reef, Florida, with comments on the nature of the Florida reefs fish fauna. Undersea Biol. 1(1):4-40. Steneck, R.S. 1998. Human influences on coastal ecosystems: does overfishing create trophic cascades?Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:429-430. Steneck, R.S. 1988. Herbivory on coral reefs: a synthesis. Proc. 6th Internat. Coral Reef Symp., Townsville, 1:37-49. Stober, Q.J., K. Thornton, R. Jones, J. Richards, C. Ivey, R. Welch, M. Madden, J. Trexler, E. Gaiser, D. Scheidt and S. Rathbun. 2001. South Florida Ecosystem Assessment-Phase I/II— Everglades stressor interactions: hydropatterns, euthrophication, habitat alteration, and mercury contamination. Monitoring for adaptive management: implications for ecosystem restoration. United States Environmental Protection Agency,USEPA 904-R-01-002. Szmant, A.M. 1997. Nutrient effects on coral reefs: a hypothesis on the importance of topographic and trophic complexity to reef nutrient dynamics. Proc. 8th Intl. Coral Reef Symp. Szmant, A.M., and A. Forrester. 1996. Water column and sediment nitrogen and phosphorus distribution patterns in the Florida Keys, USA. Coral Reefs 15:21-41. Szmant, A.M. 2002. Nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: is it a major cause of coral reef decline? Estuaries 25(4b):743-766. Taylor, J.L., C.H. Saloman and K.W. Priest, Jr. 1973. Harvest and regrowth of turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) in Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 71(1):145-48. Teas, H. and J. Kelly. 1975. Effects of herbicides on mangroves of S. Vietnam and Florida. Pages 719-728 in G. Walsh, S. Snedaker and H. Teas, editors. Proc. Int. Symp. Biol. Manage. Mangroves. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Terrell, B.G. Cultural History of the Florida Keys. 1999. Sustainable Seas Expeditions Sanctuary Log, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program. http://sustainableseas.noaa.gov/missions/florida2/background/culturalhistory.html. Thayer, G.W. and A.J. Chester. 1989. Distribution and abundance of fishes among basin and channel habitats in Florida Bay. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44:200-219. Draft Environmental Assessment 122 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Tilton, D.L. and R.H. Kadlec. 1979. The Utilization of a Freshwater Wetland for Nutrient Removal from Secondarily Teated Wastewater Effluent. JEQ 8:328-334. Tomasko, D.A. and B.E. Lapointe. 1991. Productivity and biomass of Thalassia testidinum as related to water column nutrient availability and epiphyte levels: field observations andexperimental studies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 75:9-16. Tomlinson, P.B. 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press, London, England. Turmel, R.J. and R.G. Swanson. 1976. The development of Rodriguez Bank, a Holocene mud bank in the Florida ref tract. J. Sediment. Petrol. 46(3):497-518. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program. U.S. Census Bureau. 1997. Economic Census: Summary Statistics for Monroe County, FL. http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/f1/FL087.HTM. October 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. 1998. County estimates for people of all ages in poverty for Florida 1998. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/stcty/a98_12.htm. October 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable. Accessed October 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. County business patterns for Monroe Florida. http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/map/00data/12/087.txt. October 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000b. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/FL/05012087.pdf. October 2010. U. S. Census Bureau. 2004. Subcounty population datasets. Accessed from the Internet at http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2003-states.html. October 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. Undated. People quickfacts. http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/12/12087.html. October 2010. U.S. Congress. 1996. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). USEPA 2003. Relative Risk Assessment of Management Options in South Florida. USEPA 816- R-03-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Phase II Report. Final report submitted to the Draft Environmental Assessment 123 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Environmental Protection Agency under Work Assignment 1, Contract No. 68-C2-0134. Continental Shelf Assoc.,Inc., Jupiter, FL and Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). 1994. Executive Order 12898, federal actions to address environmental justice in minority and low-income populations. http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/justice/eo12898.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Batelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Jupiter, Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). 2001. National health protection survey of beaches for the 2001 swimming season. http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/beach2002.nsf/CountyMap/12087. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Undated-a. National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations System(NPDES), Storm Water Program. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfin?program_id=6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). Undated-b. Environmental. Justice Web Page. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982a. Schaus swallowtail butterfly recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982b. Stock Island tree snail recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. American crocodile recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Species Account—Key Largo Woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli). http://endangered.fws.gov/i/a/saa7v.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Biological Opinion on FEMA's Administration of the National Flood Insurance Program in Monroe County, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. USFWS Southeast Region, Atlanta,Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000a. What are coastal barrier resources? http://www.fws.govicep/whatbarr.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000b. Types of coastal barriers. http://www.fws.gov/cep/typebarr.html. 13 February 2003. Draft Environmental Assessment 124 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Undated-a. The National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program. http://www.fws.gov/cep/cwg.dec02.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Undated-b. Threatened and Endangered Species System(TESS). http://ecos.fws.gov/servlet/TESSWebpage. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Undated-c. National Wildlife Refuges of the Florida Keys. http://library.fws.gov/refuges/florida_keys.pdf. U.S. Government, Federal Executive Order 12898. http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/ej/htmldoc/execordr.htm. 9 February 2003. University of Florida(UF). Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 2001 Florida price level index. 2001 University of Florida (UF). 2002. Florida Water Resource Primer, Soil and Water Science Department. http://waterquality.ifas.ufl.edu/PRIMER/h2o4.html. University of Florida (UF). Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS). 2003. Invasive Exotic Removal Guide. http://monroe.ifas.uffedu/invasive_exotic2.htm. University of Miami-Rosensteil School of Marine Science (UMRSMAS). 2001-2003. The Florida Current. http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/florida.html. Urban,N.H., S.M. Davis and N.G. Aumen. 1993. Fluctuations in sawgrass and cattail density in Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A under varying nutrient, hydrologic and fire regimes. Aqua Bot 46:203-223. URS Group, Inc. 2002. Draft programmatic environmental assessment in the Florida Keys, Florida. Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia. Valiela, I., K. Foreman, M. LaMontagne, 1992. Couplings of watersheds and coastal waters: sources and consequences of nutrient enrichment in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries 15:443-457. Vessey, S.H., D.B. Meikle and S.R. Spaulding. 1976. Biological survey of Raccoon Key Florida: a preliminary report to the Charles River Breeding Labs, Wilmington, Massachusetts. Vitousek, P.M., J. Aber, R.W. Howarth, G.E. Likens, P.A. Matson, D.W. Schindler, W.H. Schlesinger and D. Tilman. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7:737-750. Voss, G.L. and N.A. Voss. 1955. An ecological survey of Soldier Key, Biscayne Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 5(3):203-229. Draft Environmental Assessment 125 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Walsh, G.E., R. Barrett, G.H. Cook and T.A. Hollister. 1973. Effects of herbicides on seedlings of the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle. L. BioScience 23:361-364. Weiner, A.H. 1979. The Hardwood Hammocks of the Florida Keys: An Ecological Study. Natl. Audubon Soc. and Florida Keys Land Trust. Weller, M.W. 1994. Freshwater Marshes Ecology and Wildlife Management. Third edition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,Minnesota. Wenner, E.L., G.F. Ulrich and J.B. Wise. 1987. Exploration for golden crab, Geryon fenneri, in the South Atlantic Bight: distribution, population structure and gear assessment. Fishery Bulletin 85(3):547-560. White, W.A. 1970. The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Florida Bureau of Geology. Bulletin 51. Wilkinson, C.R. 1987. Interocean differences in size and nutrition of coral reef sponge populations. Science 236:1654-1657. Wilkinson, P.M. and M. Spinks. 1994. Winter distribution and habitat utilization of piping plovers in South Carolina. Chat 58(2):33-37. Wilkinson, C. 2000. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2000. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Cape Ferguson and Dampier. Wilson, D.E. and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 750pp. Wood, P.B., T.C. Edwards and M.W. Collopy. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nesting habitat in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):441-449. Wood, E.J.F. and J.C. Zieman. 1969. The effects of temperature on estuarine plant communities. Chesapeake Sci. 10:172-174. Zieman, J.C. 1982. The ecology of the seagrasses of south Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS- 82/25. Zieman, J.C. and R.G. Wetzel. 1980. Methods and rates of productivity in seagrasses. Handbook of seagrass biology. Pages 87-116 in R.C. Phillips and C.P. McRoy, editors. Garland STMP Press,New York. Zischke, J.A. 1973. An ecological guide to the shallow-water marine communities of Pidgeon Key, Florida. Published by the author and supported in part by N.S.F. Sci. Fac. Fellowship No. G1213, St. Olaf College,Northfield,Minnesota. Draft Environmental Assessment 126 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System Appendix Alfisols. A class of soils that have light colored surface horizons, low organic matter content and loamy subsoil horizons, with moderate to high base saturation. They occur throughout the physiographic provinces in the south Florida ecosystem. Aquifer. An underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, silt, or clay) from which groundwater can be usefully extracted using a water well. Brackish Water. Water that has more salinity than fresh water, but not as much as seawater. It may result from mixing of seawater with fresh water, as in estuaries, or it may occur in brackish fossil aquifers. Brackish water contains between 0.5 and 30 grams of salt per liter—more often expressed as 0.5 to 30 parts per thousand(ppt or%o). Caliche. A sedimentary rock, a hardened deposit of calcium carbonate. This calcium carbonate cements together other materials, including gravel, sand, clay, and silt. Category I Pest. Plant or animal species that alter native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project. A multi-purpose project authorized by Congress in 1948, that provides flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, water supply for Everglades National Park, and protection of fish and wildlife resources. The primary system includes approximately 1,000 miles of levees, 720 miles of canals and approximately 200 water control structures. Class I Deep Injection Well. The first of five well classifications developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under their underground disposal control program to categorize the injection of various types of liquid wastes. Class I wells are typically used by hazardous waste generators and operators, as well as industrial and municipal disposal systems, to inject fluids into a geologic formation that is beneath the lower-most formation containing an underground source of drinking water within one quarter mile of the well bore. A Class I Well must meet siting, construction, operation, and maintenance criteria specific to this well class, as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida State regulating agency. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Plan developed to modify the Central and Southern Florida Project. The Plan was approved in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000. It includes more than 60 elements and will take more than 30 years to construct. The goal of CERP is to capture fresh water that now flows unused to the ocean and the gulf and redirect it to areas that need it most. The majority of the water will be devoted to environmental restoration. The remaining water will benefit cities and farmers by enhancing water supplies for the south Florida economy. Degasifed. To remove dissolved gases from water, or other liquid. Demineralized. To remove dissolved mineral salts from water, or other liquid. Draft Environmental Assessment November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Desalination. The process of removing dissolved salt and other minerals from seawater to create freshwater. Endangered [species]. A plant or animal that is in danger of becoming extinct through loss of habitat, habitat degradation, over hunting or harvesting, or other reasons. In the United States, animals and plants are added to the Endangered Species List by the Fish and Wildlife Service, part to the Department of Interior(DOI). Endemic [species]. A plant or animal that is found exclusively in a particular area, and are naturally not found anywhere else. Entisols. A class of soils that have a minor or undeveloped soil profile. Entisols are found in nearly all of the physiographic provinces in the south Florida ecosystem. Environmental Assessment (EA). A study of land to determine any unique environmental attributes, considering everything from endangered species to existing hazardous waste to historical significance. Depending on the findings of an EA, and Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) may or may not be needed. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity(Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq). Herbaceous. A plant that has leaves and stems that die down at the end of the growing season to the soil level. They have no persistent woody stem above ground. A herbaceous plant may be annual,biennial or perennial. Annual herbaceous plants die completely at the end of the growing season or when they have flowered and fruited, and they then grow again from seed. Histosols. A class of soils that are dominantly organic, consisting of peat and muck deposits of varying thickness over sand, marl, or limestone. These soils usually are found in swamps, mangroves, and fresh and saltwater marsh environments. They are less frequently found in rockland areas. Lower East Coast (LEC) Water Supply Plan. Plan developed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to meet future water demands of urban and agricultural uses, while meeting the needs of the environment. The process identified areas where historically used sources of water will not be adequate to meet future demands, and evaluates several water source options to meet those demands. Natural Forest Community. All stands of trees, including their associated understory, which were designated as Natural Forest Communities on the Miami-Dade County Natural Forest Community Maps and approved by the BOCC,pursuant to Resolution No. R-176-84. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A Congressional act established in 1969 that directs all federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of their programs, projects, and funding decisions. NEPA considers the effects on all resources of natural and built environments and includes compliance requirements with all other applicable federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Justice Executive Order. Draft Environmental Assessment 128 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System 7.0 Bibliography Oolitic Facies. A formation of rocks consisting mostly of small, spherical calcium carbonate grains. Phsiography. Physical geography. Pine Rocklands. A plant community unique to southern Florida and the Bahamas. In Florida they are found on limestone substrates on the Miami Rock Ridge, in the Florida Keys, and in the Big Cypress Swamp. Pine rocklands are dominated by a single canopy tree, South Florida slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa), a diverse hardwood and palm subcanopy, and a very rich herbaceous layer. The flora of pine rocklands is composed of a diverse assemblage of tropical and temperate taxa. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). A concise public document prepared pursuant to NEPA. It contains sufficient analysis to determine the likely significance of a group of similar Proposed Actions (projects) and alternatives' impacts, to aid decision making. A project-and site-specific affects evaluation document supplements the PEIS, generically called a Supplemental NEPA documentation. Reverse Osmosis (RO). A method of obtaining pure water from water containing a salt, as in desalination. Pure water and the salt water are separated by a semi permeable membrane and the pressure of the salt water is raised above the osmotic pressure, causing water from the brine to pass through the membrane into the pure water. Reverse Osmosis (RO) Concentrate. Brine solution that has not passed through the semi permeable membrane. Reverse Osmosis (RO) Permeate. Freshwater that has passed through the semi permeable membrane. Saltwater Intrusion. The migration of saltwater into freshwater, resulting when water is withdrawn from an aquifer system at a rate that exceeds its recharge capacity Siliciclastic. Non-carbonate rocks that are almost exclusively silica-bearing, either as forms of quartz or other silicate minerals, and are formed by inorganic processes, or deposited through some mechanical process, such as stream deposits that are subsequently lithified. Spodosols. A class of soils characterized by a spodic horizon, a zone where organic matter combined with aluminum and/or iron has accumulated due to downward leaching. These soils usually are associated with flatwoods and dry prairies, sandhill and sand pine scrub, mixed hardwood forests, swamps, marshes, and infrequently in salt marsh and mangrove ecosystems. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). A measure of the combined content of all inorganic and organic substances contained in a liquid in molecular, ionized or micro-granular suspended form. Transmissivity. The rate at which limestone allows the transmission of water into an aquifer system. Draft Environmental Assessment 129 November 2010 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System