Item B1 Policy Document /
.T.
,. 011 cz ,t,„,,, )
...,
A , ,
., ,
, ...._......
.,
. ..., ‘ ...it.... ...
o
mT
v.4 � QC, -.4,.... 1
4 - ! t '
:y' Monroe Count
I
rr
µ�; '+r � ,`._ Year 2030
A '11
r Comprehensive
A 0.. Plan
Policy Document
►. • iiiiiciiitir - _�.._ ,.sue -.. .......
' ...
_.
..
w9 t
eiii
n
,
' f�
i
wi
,
iii I (t , ! t ,
.
t x. , , \‘ 1 ; ' ,\. ,,,, : - A ,,,.;1/4 .
st
,...,,.,
,, ,...,
....„.,
.... .c. . ' ,L,, .... ' ' : . P 4 -._ ''. r.,,..,-.2._ -.44, i „.- ,..-., .,
{ - " ' ' , i - - .. As Adopted by the Board of Coun s
if �, :, � ' ,..° � � � �' COnlIn1SS1011e1S On
D iu ! ftM 7,,N.4•••%. `� . 4 Ota- �
.A 1 „ J y ,
: ?+ "^r t \
r 0 r te`• I. .0 .
fib MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WWW.KEYSCOMPPIAN.COM
(800) 488-1255
"" a ;:. j 1J[fJ I� ,ICI. 'Tl
a _ -
c<
Table of Contents
Element Section
Introduction and Background 1
Future Land Use 2
Conservation and Coastal Management 3
Traffic Circulation 4
Mass Transit 5
Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities 6
Housing 7
Potable Water 8
Solid Waste 9
Sanitary Sewer 10
Drainage 11
Natural Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge 12
Recreation and Open Space 13
Intergovernmental Coordination 14
Capital Improvements 15
Cultural Resources 16
Energy and Climate 17
Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures 18
Public Participation and Comment 19
Glossary 20
Comment Response Forms 21
Table of Contents Keith and Schnars, P A.
Comprehensive Plan: Jan 2015
1 " r .-. .
t ``'• R , frq - .. ..-- , ' ' I j 34 ' 11 11::_ M. ,.
V 7,. a '"� . • .1^ _` ,01 ti
6
ma 7 41, a i•4. ,..14..... l�
4
, . .6, .. _......... ,.. 0)1
Y
T Ar
y -
c
n
'''' .i., -a-' 7.5 ., ':--e-: :: ' °'' , ') , ( ..
'le A 1p 40
'< y `I
cc. - - Ci) * 0 ,
D � CD N
o O °1 Dy o 3
_ _ -' ,
a.) g z `' ,
N - d' _ r 116,V+ .0
CO o2 ' 0 m t i ce
_ X � A'
ce)
z ,
••
im
ir ..
• 4
• 1
11 y.
• _
F r 4
S
lal ill 1, .
t
,, ori )
.1 .. 1 A k ' ‘ ,
e AilE_ Th
a'
, 2 ontents
... _
_,I. 1
g
e,'«n - d ' VOLUME 1 •
,•
t,. ' =- Chapter Page
4 F +; , +i; Acknowledgements A -1
C=:s iP f r
=: � 4,1 r, h'4, : ; �, . Executive Summary ES -1
• ` 1111 ; ;.. rJ Goals and Objectives ES -1
CFO:* '' '` tit, Existing Wastewater Facilities ES -2
+-4.-, Recommended Sanitary Wastewater Management Plan ES -2
Capital Costs Required to Implement the Master Plan ES -4
' 9 Ill, Wastewater Reuse ES -4
4 , Offsetting Costs Per Customer ES -7
•, Fiscal Impact Analysis ES -8
Finance Recommendations ES -8
N. Management Structure Implementation ES -9
Recommended BOCC Implementation Actions ES -9
1 Introduction 1 -1
r 1.1 Goals and Objectives 1 -2
411 .
• `" 1.2 Planning and Study Areas 1 -2
..r 1.3 Planning Period 1 3
1.4 The Decline of Water Quality 1 -3
1.5 Background 1 -4
• ' °` 1.5.1 Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan 1 -4
1.5.2 Identification and Elimination of Cesspools (Monroe
County Ordinance 031 -1999) 1 -5
I ii
Contents, continued
Chapter Page
1.6 Treatment Standards—Basis for Costs and
Recommendations 1 -6
1.7 Cost Estimates 1 -6
• t r iie 1.8 Master Plan Organization 1 -7
2 Public Involvement Approach 2 -1
2.1 Public Involvement Activities 2 -1
2.1.1 Public Forums and Workshops 2 -2
2.1.2 Civic /Business /Environmental Groups Stakeholder
Meetings 2 -2
2.1.3 Rack Cards /Information Booklets 2 -3
2.1.4 Media Activities 2 -4
2.1.5 Project Videos 2 -4
2.1.6 Internet Connection 2 -4
2.1.7 Other Activities 2 -4
2.2 Decision Models for Siting and Wastewater Management
Alternatives 2 -5
_... 2.2.1 What a Decision Model Does 2 -5
irriv„\\. How the Decision Models Were Developed (Step-
' by -Step) 2 -5
- 2.2.3 Siting Design Model 2 -6
i. I 2.2.4 Wastewater Management Alternatives Decision
- ` .,. � PO Model 2 -7
AO
i. 3 Wastewater Treatment System Evaluation 3 -1
3.1 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the Keys 3 -1
3.1.1 FDEP- Permitted Wastewater Treatment Plants 3 -2
'"fit 3.1.2 Existing Wastewater Collection Systems 3 -3
,, • - . 3.1.3 Current Solids Handling Practices 3 -3
,,� ,, - ' "` 3.1.4 Current Effluent Dis osal Practices 3 -3
""" 3.1.5 Wastewater Reuse p 3 -3
,-- 3.2 Existing and Projected Wastewater Flows and Customers_3 -4
""" 1. '' 3.2.1 1998 Baseline Estimates 3 -5
. ` ' 3.2.2 2008 Projections 3 -5
�° " "" giellta. _ .. 3.2.3 2018 Projections 3 -6
14 iv
Contents, continued
Chapter Page
3.2.4 Estimated Distribution of Wastewater Flow by
Treatment Method 3 -7
3.3 Existing Onsite Wastewater Systems 3 -7
3.3.1 Cesspools and Seepage Pits 3 -7
3.3.2 Conventional OWTS and Subsurface Wastewater
Infiltration Systems 3 -7
3.3.3 Aerobic Treatment Units 3 -8
3.3.4 Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems to
Reduce Nutrients 3 -8
3.3.5 Cluster System Alternatives 3 -11
3.3.6 Costs of Cluster Systems 3 -13
3.3.7 Summary of Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
Alternatives Costs 3 -13
3.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Alternatives 3 -14
3.4.1 Range of Plant Sizes Evaluated 3 -14
3.4.2 Required Level of Treatment 3 -15
3.4.3 Selection of Liquid Treatment Processes 3 -15
3.5 Selection of Effluent Disposal Methods 3 -19
3.5.1 Effluent Reuse 3 -19
3.5.2 Underground Injection Through Shallow Wells _ 3 -21
3.5.3 Underground Injection Through Deep Wells 3 -21
3.5.4 Summary of Effluent Disposal Methods 3 -23
3.6 Selection of Solids Handling Systems 3 -23
3.6.1 Regulatory Considerations 3 -23
3.6.2 Existing Solids Handling Practices in Monroe
County 3 -23
3.6.3 Summary of Solids Handling Systems 3 -24
3.7 WWTP Cost Estimates 3 -24
3.7.1 Cost Estimates for New WWTPs 3 -24
3.7.2 Cost Estimates for Plant Retrofits 3 -25
3.7.3 Cost Estimates for Wastewater Reuse 3 -25
3.8 Wastewater Collection Alternatives 3 -26
3.8.1 Collection System Construction Cost Estimates 3 -27
3.8.2 Utilization of Existing Wastewater Collection
Systems 3 -28
fit
Contents, continued
Chapter Page
-111i IF r 3.9 GIS Database and Data Collection 3 -29
I 1 t 3.9.1 Sources of Data 3 -30
3.9.2 GIS Database Development 3 -30
f or
J 'YMu ,,,
4 Wastewater Facilities Siting 4 -1
a 5 Wastewater Management Alternatives and Service Area
Analyses 5 -1
5.1 Preliminary Screening of Wastewater Management
Alternatives 5 -3
5.2 Final Screening of Wastewater Management Alternatives 5-4
5.3 Combining Study Areas to Evaluate Regional Wastewater
Collection and Treatment 5 -5
5.4 Basis of Cost 5 -5
•
6 Water Quality Hot Spots 6 -1
7 The Recommended Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan 7 -1
7.1 Onsite Systems for "Cold Spots" 7 -3
' 7.2 Central /Community and Regional Wastewater Systems 7 -3
1115111
7.2.1 Lower Keys 7 -3
a. + 7.2.2 Middle Keys 7 -7
T
?It? , :.,' 7.2.3 Upper Keys 7 -7
``" 7.2.4 Interim Treatment Plants 7 -9
'r.4 44 a.
'� 7.3 Wastewater Solids Management 7 -9
7.3.1 Regionalization Options 7 -9
r ' 7.3.2 Recommended Solids Management Plan 7 -10
7.4 Capital Costs Required to Implement the Master Plan 7 -11
7.5 Wastewater Reuse 7 -11
- - 7.6 Alternatives for Implementing Wastewater Infrastructure
iii Z o'- ' Systems 7 -12
7.6.1 Traditional Project Delivery 7 -13
L
-- Ain op
- f
, " 7.6.2 Construction Management 7 -13
- Wit. 40 ':" 7.6.3 Construction Management -at -Risk 7 -13
. , "' "'"1 _ ,, 7.6.4 Design /Build 7 -14
4 vi
Contents, continued
Chapter Page
7.6.5 Privatization 7 -14
7.7 Recommended BOCC Implementation Actions 7 -15
8 Funding and Financing Options 8 -1
8.1 Funding and Financing Options 8 -2
8.1.1 Funding and Financing Evaluation Criteria 8 -2
8.1.2 Types of Funding and Financing 8 -2
8.2 Funding and Financing Issues 8 -8
8.2.1 High Cost Per Customer 8 -8
8.2.2 Cost Differences Between Service Areas and
Types of Treatment 8 -10
8.2.3 Availability of Grant Funding 8 -11
8.2.4 Low and Fixed Income Population 8 -11
8.2.5 Limited Growth Potential 8 -11
8.2.6 Potential Double Charging 8 -11
8.2.7 Countywide, Regional, or Service Area Rates and
Fees 8 -12
8.3 Fiscal Impact Analysis 8 -12
8.4 Approach for Analysis of Funding Options 8 -12
8.4.1 Regional Analysis 8 -12 .
8.5 Funding Recommendations for Monroe County 8 -15
quk,
9 Recommended Wastewater System Administration,
Management, and Operation and Maintenance Plan 9 -1 �`''� 'IPIIIIP
9.1 Existing Wastewater Management Structure 9 -1
9.1.1 Existing OWTS Administration and Management _ 9 -2 � - �,
9.1.2 Existing Package Plant Administration and
Management 9 -2
9.2 Wastewater Management Objectives 9 -2 = liiiii.-
9.3 Administration and Management Options 9 -3 •
9.3.1 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems 9 -3
9
iikor
.3.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants 9 -5
9.4 Management Scenarios 9 -8 4
9.4.1 Recommended Administration and Management s. `� -�
Plan 9 -8
9.4.2 Implementation Mechanisms 9 -8
vii
ON
Contents, continued
Chapter Page
de
4. 9.4.3 Specific Implementation Requirements 9 -9
9.4.4 General Implementation Requirements 9 -10
9.5 Case Studies of OWTS Management Structures 9 -11
9.5.1 Georgetown, California 9 -11
9.5.2 Stinson Beach, California 9 -11
.
9.5.3 Westboro, Wisconsin 9 -12
a
9.5.4 Cass County, Minnesota 9 -13
9.5.5 Paradise, California 9 -14
9.5.6 Nova Scotia, Canada 9 -15
10 Works Cited 10 -1
_ Exhibit Page
A SWMP TAC Members A -2
B WQSC Members A -3
C Local Citizen Task Force on Wastewater A -3
ES -1 Thirty percent, or 7,200 of the 23,000 onsite wastewater
„ . systems in the Keys are not permitted, and may include up
"14! to 2,800 illegal cesspools ES -2
t 'il - q 1 1. ES -2 Recommended Wastewater Management Implementation
--� -' 'i", Plan for the Lower Keys ES -3
"` ES -3 Recommended Wastewater Management Implementation
Alallo
Plan for the Middle Keys ES -4
ES-4 Recommended Wastewater Management Implementation
Plan for the Upper Keys ES -5
ES -5 Estimated Costs to Upgrade Existing Treatment Facilities
Recommended for Continued Operation throughout the Keys _ ES -6
1r , - ES-6 Estimated Capital Costs Required to Implement the
�' ' s Wastewater Master Plan ES -7
ES-7 Monroe County's estimated monthly wastewater cost is well
"' • - �„ . '' above national average wastewater rates ES -8
" ` * faset z . ...... ES -8 Total Grant Money Needed in the Entire Keys to Fund
Wastewater Management Improvements ES -8
ill viii
Contents, continued
Exhibit Page
1 -1 The planning area for the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater
Master Plan extends from Stock Island to the south, up to Ocean
Reef Club to the north 1 -2
1 -2 Study Areas in the Lower Keys Area for the Monroe County
Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan 1 -3
1 -3 Study Areas in the Middle Keys Area for the Monroe County
Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan 1 -3
1 -4 Study Areas in the Upper Keys Area for the Monroe County
Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan 1 -3 -. - 4.
1 -5 Thirty percent, or 7,200 of the 23,000 onsite wastewater systems " -
in the Keys are not permitted, and may include up to 2,800
illegal cesspools 1 -4
1 -6 Recent Chronology of Monroe County's Wastewater System
Development 1 -6
1 -7 The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandates
that all wastewater facilities meet AWT or BAT standards 1 -6
1 -8 Florida Statutory Treatment Standards 1 -7
1 -9 Compliance Schedule for Wastewater Treatment Systems in
Monroe County 1 -7
2 -1 Fact sheets describing components of the Sanitary Wastewater
Master Plan were produced and made available to the public 2 -3
2 -2 Rack cards describing key project milestones and recommenda-
tions of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan were produced and
' 441111 W
made available to the public 2 -3
2 -3 Two project videos were produced to describe the program to
the public 2-4
100.00e.
2 -4 A web site developed for the Master Plan contains up -to -date +
milestones and information relevant to the project 2 -5 ,
2 -5 Siting /Wastewater Management Alternatives Decision Process _2 -6
Ow •
2 -6 The decisionmaking process for facility siting alternatives
ranked "Maximizing Public Acceptance" highest, with a score
of 210 2 -7 C,
ix
Contents, continued
Exhibit Page
2 -7 The decisionmaking process for wastewater management
alternatives ranked "Maximizing Environmental Benefits"
highest, with a score of 214 2 -8
k ( I 3 -1 Onsite systems and package plants such as these are the present
,msµ,
method of wastewater treatment in the Keys 3 -2
I .- ,,, - 3 -2 The 246 WWTPs contribute approximately 1/3 or 2.40 mgd of
the wastewater flow generated in the Keys 3 -2
3 -3 Capacity of the Five Largest Existing WWTPs in the Study Area _3 -3
4 3-4 Typical Class V Shallow Injection Well 3 -4
F '
3 -5 KW Resort Utility uses golf course spray irrigation for effluent
-
disposal 3 -4
3 -6 Total Estimated 1998 Wastewater Flows 3 -5
3 -7 Total Estimated 2008 Wastewater Flows 3 -5
k 3 -8 Total Estimated 2018 Wastewater Flows 3 -5
3 -9 Projected Wastewater Flow Increases Over the 20 -Year Planning
Period 3 -6
3 -10 Estimated Distribution of Wastewater Flow Treatment Methods 3-6
a 3 -11 Early onsite wastewater systems in the Keys were cesspools or
seepage pits, and provide little, if any, wastewater treatment 3 -7
3 -12 Conventional Septic Tank and Subsurface Wastewater
Infiltration System 3 -8
:� 3 -13 Small aerobic biological treatment units (ATUs) are common in
. 41 e•,,.- ' the Keys, and function similarly to centralized secondary
' wastewater treatment facilities 3 -8
a,. 3 -14 Onsite wastewater nutrient reduction systems (OWNRS)
recommended for Monroe County remove nitrogen and
phosphorus in a 3 -step process 3 -9
3 -15 Cost Evaluation of OWNRS and ATU Upgrade to BAT
Standards 3 -10
- r , . f 3 -16 Cluster systems are two or more homes connected to an Onsite
" ' . - Wastewater Nutrient Reduction (OWNRS) 3 -11
T t 40 4P - 3 -17 Up to four homes can be connected to a shared cluster system _ 3 -11
aS
1,,,.. 3 -18 Multiple home cluster systems are connected by low pressure
.. `" o " =� '_ sewers and grinder pumps 3 -12
x
Contents, continued
Exhibit Page
3 -19 Comparison of Annual Costs of Individual OWNRS vs. Cluster
OWNRS Systems 3 -13
3 -20 Summary of Onsite and Cluster Wastewater Treatment System
Capital Costs 3 -14
3 -21 Summary of Onsite and Small Cluster System Annual Costs 3 -15
3 -22 Treatment Requirements for Community and Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plants in Monroe County 3 -16
3 -23 Process Schematic of a Typical Wastewater Treatment Process _ 3 -16
3 -24 Activated Sludge Process 3 -17
3 -25 Nitrogen Removal Using Modified Ludzak - Ettinger (MLE)
Process 3 -18
3 -26 Nitrogen Removal Using Four Stage Bardenpho Process 3 -18
3 -27 Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal Using Five -Stage Bardenpho
Process 3 -19
3 -28 Summary of Recommended Liquid Treatment Processes 3 -20
3 -29 Effluent reuse potential for 97% of Monroe County's active
WWTPs is poor because of the high associated cost and
difficulty in meeting effluent water quality standards 3 -20
3 -30 Number of Shallow Injection Wells Required for Selected
WWTP Capacity 3 -21
3 -31 Comparison of a Deep Injection Well With a Shallow Injection
Well 3 -22
3 -32 Summary of Recommended Effluent Disposal Methods 3 -23
3 -33 Construction and O &M Costs of New BAT /AWT WWTPs at
Various Design Capacities 3 -24
3 -34 Incremental Construction and O &M Costs to Upgrade Existing
Secondary WWTPs to Nutrient and Suspended Solids Removal
Facilities at Various Design Capacities 3 -25
3 -35 Construction and O &M Costs for Wastewater Reuse
Facilities 3 -26
3 -36 Summary of Reuse Project Costs for Full Reuse within Marathon
Primary Service Area 3 -27
3 -37 Vacuum sewers were the most cost - effective collection system
alternative when more than 350 EDUs were collected in
sewered areas in Lower and Middle Keys 3 -28
xi
Contents, continued
Exhibit Page
flpp 3 -38 Vacuum sewers were the most cost-effective collection system
' 4 alternative when more than 350 EDUs were collected in
sewered areas in the Upper Keys 3 -29
4 $ 3 -39 Common Sources of Infiltration and Inflow 3 -30
lit 4 -1 Ranking Objectives and Evaluation Criteria 4 -2
f '' 4 -2 Potential Facility Sites that Meet Evaluation Criteria 4 -2
a
4 -3 Suggested Community and Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant Sites to Consider for Purchase 4 -3
4 -4 Site Characteristics of Most Promising Regional and
Community WWTP Sites 4 -4
111101410 -
5 -1 The varied character and land uses of the Keys is a challenge to
x: ry developing a wastewater management plan 5 -2
5 -2 Wastewater Management Alternatives Screening Process 5 -3
5 -3 Seven Study Areas Selected for Preliminary Screening of up to F ortt t 43 Wastewater Management Alternatives 5 -4
0: 6 -1 Hot Spot Areas and Rankings - Lower Keys 6 -3
6 -2 Hot Spot Areas and Rankings - Middle Keys 6 -4
6 -3 Hot Spot Areas and Rankings - Upper Keys 6 -5
— 7 -1 Recommended Wastewater Master Plan Service Areas and
- Wastewater Treatment Plants 7 -2
... Allib
6,, 7 -2 Estimated Capital Costs Required to Replace or Upgrade
Onsite Systems with Nutrient Reduction OWNRS in "Cold
Spot" Areas 7 -3
7 -3 Recommended Wastewater Management Implementation Plan
a • 1 for the Lower Keys 7 -4
. 7 -4 Recommended Wastewater Management Implementation Plan
u" �, . w for the Middle Keys 7 -5
,
7 -5 Recommended Wastewater Management Implementation Plan
for the Upper Keys 7 -6
7 -6 Estimated Costs to Upgrade Existing Treatment Facilities
.` Recommended for Continued Operation in the Lower Keys 7 -7
xii
Contents, continued
Exhibit Page
7 -7 Estimated Costs to Upgrade Existing Treatment Facilities
Recommended for Continued Operation in the Middle Keys 7 -8
7 -8 Estimated Costs to Upgrade Existing Treatment Facilities
Recommended for Continued Operation in the Upper Keys 7 -9
7 -9 Cost Comparison of Solids Handling Location Options 7 -10
7 -10 Estimated Capital Cost Required to Implement the
Master Plan 7 -12
7 -11 The seven largest systems represent 89% of the total
$438,000,000 capital cost of the Monroe County program 7 - 12
7 -12 The Public -to- Private Spectrum of Project Delivery _
Alternatives 7 -13
8 -1 Monroe County's estimated monthly wastewater cost is well
above national average wastewater rates 8 -9
8 -2 Connection Fees and Monthly Sewer Charges for Monroe
County Utilities 8 -9
8 -3 Monthly Water and Sewer Bill Comparison -1999 8 -9
8 -4 Impact Fees of Florida Communities 8 -10
8 -5 Current Funding Available for Monroe County's Cesspool
Identification and Elimination Grant Program 8 -10
8 -6 Funding Scenarios 8 -13
8 -7 Total Grant Money Needed in the Lower Keys to Fund
Wastewater Management Improvements 8 -13
8 -8 Total Grant Money Needed in the Middle Keys to Fund
Wastewater Management Improvements 8 -141
8 -9 Total Grant Money Needed in the Upper Keys to Fund
Wastewater Management Improvements 8 -14
8 -10 Total Grant Money Needed in the Entire Keys to Fund
Wastewater Management Improvements 8 -15
9 -1 Functions and Responsibilities of an Effective Wastewater
Management Structure 9 -4
9 -2 Technical and Institutional Factors in Onsite Wastewater
Systems Management Planning 9 -5
9 -3 Types of Management Structures for Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems 9 -6
xiii
Contents, continued
Exhibit Page
9 -4 Scenario 1 supports all of the Master Plan objectives 9 -9
i 9 -5 Recommended Management Plan Implementation
/ Novi, Requirements, Onsite Wastewater Systems, and Private
Treatment Plants 9 -10
4, tr $ -.
4 V" 11 . 24116 VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES
1 ` � . Appendix A
A . _
illta : , �" List of Technical Memoranda and Other Deliverables
MILL * w -a` Appendix B
Exhibit B -1 Attendees for the Three Public Forums Held January 26 -28,
1998
Exhibit B -2 Attendees for the Initial Civic/ Business/ Environmental
Groups Meetings Held September 1997 through March 1998
Exhibit B -3 Attendees for the Additional Civic /Business /Environmental
. \ '4 Groups Meetings Held in December 1999
E xhibit B-4 Attendees for Additional Civic /Business /Environmental
- • -0.0• Groups Meetings Held March through June 1999
`�,
•
? - -- , •/n
- ..,,1:11,. itililiei Appendix C
" ie Exhibit C -1 Locations of Existing WWTPs in Unincorporated Monroe
. i iii i ib i County -Lower Keys, Middle Keys, and Upper Keys
Exhibit C -2 Summary Information for FDEP- Permitted WWTPs in Monroe
County
= 4 • . ,.,,,_ Exhibit C -3 Estimated 1998 Wastewater Flows
.si. �'",� """ lo Exhibit C-4 Estimated 2008 Wastewater Flows
#„ A Exhibit C -5 Estimated 2019 Wastewater Flows
,"'`' - "` Exhibit C -6 Estimated Distribution of Wastewater Flow by Treatment
e °`' mi mo in Methods
. 40,
xiv
Contents, continued
Appendix D
Exhibit D -1 Potential WWTP Site Maps
Exhibit D -2 Model Output Numeric Scores
Appendix E
Exhibit E -1 Top Three Wastewater Management Alternatives Meeting
Current Effluent Standards
Exhibit E -2 Combinations of Study Area Significant to Formulating
Master Plan Recommendations
Appendix F
Exhibit F -1 Hot Spot Areas
Exhibit F -2 Hot Spot Areas and Community Wastewater Collection
and Treatment Service Areas
Exhibit F -3 Boca Chica Community Service Areas Phasing
Exhibit F -4 Summerland, Cudjoe, Upper Sugarloaf Regional
Wastewater Management District Phasing
Exhibit F -5 Big Pine Key Regional Wastewater Management District
Phasing
Exhibit F -6 Tavernier /Key Largo Regional Wastewater Management
District Phasing
'"'
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
VOLUME 3
Proceedings and Summary Report for Decision Analysis Phase A
Decision Analysis, Phase B, Proceedings and Summary Report for Siting
Decision Model
Decision Analysis, Phase C, Proceedings and Summary Report for Waste-
water Management Alternatives Decision Model
Decision Analysis, Phase D, Timing and Implementation Issues
x
tat
Contents, continued
Initial Public Forums Summary Report
it .. Public Forums Summary Report
*i Summary Report of Initial Meetings Conducted with Civic, Business and
Environmental Groups Throughout the Keys
it ( s .
Summary Report of Meetings Conducted with Civic, Business, and Environ-
f mental Groups throughout the Keys during Solutions Phase of the Master
1 Plan
TM1— Evaluation of Existing Databases
TM2 — Master Wastewater Database Development
TM3 — Wastewater Flow Analysis
41410114 TM4 — Analysis of Wastewater Derived Nutrients from Developed Land-
Based Areas of the Keys
VOLUME 4
.\: TM5 — Evaluation of Existing Wastewater Facilities
TM6 — Collection System Alternatives
., Iat =� TM7— Technology Assessment of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
" ' 'I.
OWTS Technology Assessment No. 1: A Primer on Onsite Wastewater Treat-
, , ao 1 ment Systems (OWTS)
OWTS Technology Assessment No. 2: Non -Water Carriage Toilets
TM8— Assessment of Secondary and Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Technologies
* „ ` ,� TM8S— Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Costs to Provide Phosphorus
- 4 ""' .r Removal Only
'' "` TM9 — Effluent Management Technologies
. , r
0. "'4%
TM10— Solids Management Technologies Wastewater Solids Management
Plan for Monroe County
xvi
Contents, continued
VOLUME 5
TM11— Wastewater Facilities Siting Analysis
TM12— Wastewater Management Alternatives and Service Area
Analyses
Preliminary Screening Areas—Wastewater Management Alternatives
Screening Process
Final Screening of Wastewater Management Alternatives
Combinations of Wastewater Study Areas
Service Area Expansions of Existing WWTPs
VOLUME 6
Preliminary Screening Areas—Wastewater Management Alternatives
Screening Process
VOLUME 7
Final Screening Alternatives of Wastewater Management Alternatives
VOLUME 8
TM13 — Service Area Implementation Plan
•
4 �
1 p
TM14 — Wastewater Management and Administration Plan tio
Funding Evaluation Report'
Marathon Area Wastewater System Funding Proposal
rr
Funding History Summary Report „„„
TM15—Wastewater Treatment Financing Plan
TM16 — Review of Agency Statutes/ Regulations
TM17— Overview of Other Wastewater - Related Studies
xvii
Glossary of Terms
.b Glossary of Terms
10 � m Photography Credits: Bill Keough, p. 5 -2
- Larry Benvenuti, cover and reef scenes 1101 k
throughout this Master Plan
I
r r..
ADF average daily flow
'` AMSA Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
ASR aquifer storage and recovery
_ ATU aerobic treatment unit
AWT advanced wastewater treatment
BAT best available technology
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
BOCC Board of County Commissioners
CARL Conservation and Recreation Lands Program
CBOD carbonaceous 5 -day biochemical oxygen demand
_ -� cf s cubic feet
........ r ' cfm cubic feet per minute
` CFR Code of Federal Regulations
_ +a - for' COBRA Coastal Barrier Resources System
. , ±l/ DBOOT design, build, own, operate, and transfer
vi DIW deep injection well
L
DO dissolved oxygen
1 y DUS Department of Utility Services
` EDU equivalent dwelling unit
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
;0 • 1'+-
f 4~ 111 , 4 r , FAC Florida Administrative Code
., . FDBOOT finance, design, build, own, operate, and transfer
*" ' ,
-„„Yo.., . FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
• or ., FDOH Florida Department of Health
,'` °* FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration
xviii
Glossary of Terms
FKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
FMRI Florida Marine Research Institute
ft feet
gal gallon
GIS Geographic Information System
gpd gallons per day
GO general obligation
I/ I infiltration and inflow
ID inner diameter
LID local improvement district
Master Plan Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
MCDOH Monroe County Department of Health _
MCPHU Monroe County Public Health Unit ...
MDWASD Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department
MLE Modified Ludzak - Ettinger Process
mgd million gallons per day
mg /L milligrams per Liter
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency "
MSTU Municipal Services Taxing Units �._
MSBU Municipal Services Benefit Units
N nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPV net present value 4
Sew-
O &M operation and maintenance '.►
OWMZ Onsite Wastewater Management Zone
OWNRS onsite wastewater nutrient reduction system "' "'
OWTS onsite wastewater treatment system
P phosphorus '---'° ,`
PAED Planning Area Analysis /Enumeration District
PB performance -based
6
xix
Glossary of Terms
RE real estate
RFP request for proposal
1/ 's . ROGO Rate of Growth Ordinance (Monroe County)
't SA service area
SBR sequencing batch reactors
SDI subsurface drip irrigation system
! N., SFRWQCB San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
SFWMD South Florida Water Management District
SRF State Revolving Fund
SWIS subsurface wastewater infiltration system
.. SWMP TAC Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan Technical Advisory
"" Committee
Task Force Monroe County Citizens Task Force on Wastewater
TIF tax increment financing
TMDL total maximum daily load
TN total nitrogen
,. TP total phosphorus
, AN\ • . ,
TSS total suspended solids
a USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
'' R 1 �. USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water
USGS Unites States Geological Survey
-. UV ultraviolet
N
"` s , WAS waste activated sludge •
.,, WQSC Water Quality Steering Committee
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
— , '41 +" - • _ * * * * **
0
F �
), . ,.. ., Ctn .p,
° This Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (Master Plan) was
mandated by the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, and was
prepared by The Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan Team, comprised of the
professional engineering consulting firm of CH2M HILL, in association
;.^ _ ; u'' with Ayres Associates; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.; Hazen & Sawyer,
PC; Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Bryant and Yon; and Lindahl,
+:��' ' Browning, Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc., under the direction of the Monroe
• ,, i +, r y . 0. County Department of Marine Resources.
°e=_:1 : :• . .
`*� . -,-.4.',.:4, ` .6 , • This plan g lan resulted from the contributions and oversight of numerous indi-
, . u yti , " viduals and organizations over many months, including the Monroe •
..; ,, . County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), the Sanitary Wastewater
r - � Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee (SWMP TAC), the Florida Keys
t� National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Steering Committee (WQSC),
+ '-
!� and the Local Citizen Task Force on Wastewater (Task Force).
t - Members of the SWMP TAC were provided with copies of each technical
' support document for review and comment as they were completed. In
r+ '� addition, the SWMP TAC reviewed progress of the team and provided
.: i input into the development of this Master Plan in four separate workshops.
SWMP TAC members are presented in Exhibit A at the end of this section.
"'� Also, the progress of the development of this Master Plan was reviewed at
practically every quarterly WQSC meeting over the 21/2-year study period.
WQSC members are included in Exhibit B at the end of this section.
The Task Force on Wastewater, appointed by the BOCC, provided invalu-
able input and guidance into the development of this Master Plan. The
�` . dedicated and unselfish giving of these citizens' time is greatly appreciated.
They met monthly, and sometimes semi - monthly, for more than 2 years to
review and address many wastewater issues related to the County's
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
Cesspool Identification and Elimination
Program and this Master Plan. Members
are included in Exhibit C at the end of this
section.
Milestones in the development of this EXHIBIT A
Master Plan have been reviewed with the SWAP TAC Members
BOCC at their regularly scheduled meet- �— _ __ ings and special meetings over the past Name Affiliated Agency or Organization
2 years. 1I1!!! Rick Alleman South Florida Water Management District
* * * * * * Charles Baldwin, Village Manager Islamo rad a, Village of glands
Bart Bibbr, Bureau Chief Fbrida Department of Health
Robert Brock Everglades National Park
Patrick J. Cotter Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
i Rebecca Jetton d Da Cr>Aff
Richard Drew FDE a P Divis epion rtment of Water of Resoommuuces ityairs
Dave Ferrell U.S. Fish and Wi knife
Roland Flowers, City Engineer City of Key West
Robert J. Freeman, Jr. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
i, George Garrett, Director Morroe County Department of Marine Resources
Ralph Goukly, Senior Environmental Plamer Morroe County
Rhonda Haag South Honda Water Management District
4 r ' ° w R.J. Hebling Fbrida Department of Env rorrnental Protection
w ' i John Heber, Chief, Onsite Sewage Program Fbrida Department of Health
. �' , Dave Koppel, County Engineer Morroe County
�" ''. Bill Kruczynski, Program Scientist U.S. Envi ro rrne ntal Protection Agency
+ ,*' . Clark Lake, Director Morroe County Department of Solid Waste
, , Y , F' " , "t, R Tim McGarry Director Morroe County Growth Management Division
l , Fred McManus � U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jim Muler Consultant to Governor's Office
■ Debbie Peterson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jim Reynolds, Deputy Executive Director Fbrida Keys Aqueduct Authority
Gus Rios Fbrida Department of Environmental Protection
Richard Smith Fbrida Department ofEnviro rmental Protection
G.P. Schmahl Fbrida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Jack Teague Morroe County Public Health Unit
Fritz Wettstein Fbrida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Zully Willi ams Islamorada, Village of Islands
0 A-2
Planning for a Better Environment
EXHIBIT B
WQSC Members
Name Affiliated Agency or Organization
John H. Hankinson, Jr., Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Kirby Green, Deputy Secretary Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Jeff Benoit, Director, Ocean and Coastal
Resources Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Bart Bibler, Chief, Onsite Sewage Program Florida Department of Health
William H. Botten City of Key Colony Beach
Charles W. Causey Florida Keys Environmental Fund
Mike Collins, Chairman, Governing Board South Florida Water Management District
William E. Graham, Governing Board Member South Florida Water Management Distirct
Sam Hamilton, Assistant Regional Director for
Ecological Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
John Heber, Chief, Onsite Seage Program Florida Department of Health
Frank Kulisky, Councilman Islamorada, Village of Islands
Karl Lessard Monroe County Commercial Fisherman
Colonel Joe R. Miller, District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District
Commissioner George Neugent, Advisory Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County
Council Chair Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
James C. Reynolds, Deputy Executive Director Everglades National Park
Richard G. Ring, Superintendent Florida Department of Community Affairs
Steve Seibert, Secretary City of Key West
Honorable Jimmy Weekley, Mayor Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County
Commissioner Nora Williams Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County /
EXHIBIT C
Local Citizen Task Force on Wastewater t r g
Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys
Nick Mulick, Chairman Bill Smith James Brady, Sr. - -
Charles Brooks David Combs
Dagney Johnson George Leydic
David Makepeace Jerry Polverino "•'t
William Plummer Alicia Putney
Paul Winklejohn
4 4
A-3
I
.
+ I
.._
I
( r ‘,..... :, ..,,-..,-- , _'1')
x c sue Summary
The marine ecosystem in the Florida Keys is dependent on clear water with
4 • -) . low levels of nutrients. However, as population and tourism within the
ti ° •j. Keys have increased over the years, imp
rovements in wastewater treatment
)111 40
.04,,, - Y Y p
_ � and management practices have not kept pace with this growth, which has
i resulted in a significant degradation of water quality in canals and
r ;r ,
nearshore waters surrounding the Keys.
r
•, i , ` J ±` Ongoing research has determined that nutrients from wastewater are one
4% 7.'2: • • k of the major contributors to the decline of the water quality in the Florida
i 4 A: ' Keys, prompting the proposal to provide better sewage treatment practices.
1• "11ti;4ti " In this vein, the Water Quality Protection Program Steering Committee
`�. t ., „
concurred with the following conclusions: - . �� • Cesspits are illegal, provide very little treatment, and are a health
r+ 1 hazard
P
' .m_ , ! Sewage discharges from cesspits and septic tanks are a source of nutri-
ents and human pathogens
. : . :
`w Septic tank systems remove a very small amount of nutrients
♦ Aerobic treatment units (ATUs) and package treatment plants do not
j:r remove dissolved nutrients
��
{ 5a. � „ � � ; a ii , Moreover, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandated 0.
P° ; ?, t' that nutrient loading levels be reduced in the marine ecosystem of the
' ' Florida Keys. This Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (Master Plan) has been
JR "�Y� * prepared as an initial step towards satisfying that directive.
` '"' Goals and Objectives
,1 The objective of this Master Plan is to provide an equitable, ecologically
sound, and economical implementation strategy for managing wastewa-
j'r ter and improving the water quality in the Florida Keys. The goals of
ES-1
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
the final selected plan are to provide of existing systems
23,000 Qnsita Wastewater Systems
responsive, flexible, and cost - effective in the Keys and _
solutions that improve wastewater man- applicable tech- 1-4 I. , .
agement practices throughout the Keys nologies that 16.240 Perrnirt�r1 7.200
tii: system
and satisfy the existing and future needs would fulfill the seKi (661,:,) _. -e Urtknowrt
— 2,4300 — I I
of the community. objectives of I c soots
Monroe County 1p _ 1
Existing Wastewater Facilities and the Year 2010 I
Approximately 23,000 private onsite Comprehensiv
systems and approximately 246 small Plan. This waste -
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) WWTPs are water manage -
p
EXHIBIT ES.1
ment plan recom-
currently operating throughout the Keys. p Thirty percent a 7 200 oe tie 23 000 ansae wastewater systems in fie Keys are no, or
As illustrated in Exhibit ES-1, the onsite mends that exist- and may include up 10 2,800 illeget cesspools
in
systems are comprised of approximately onsite systems
15,200 permitted septic systems, located in lower
density areas of the Keys be upgraded or this proposed system is a challenge, and a
640 ATUs, and 7,200 unknown systems.
About 2,800 of the 7,200 unknown sys- replaced with onsite wastewater nutrient goal of Monroe County officials is to phase
terns are suspected to be illegal cesspools. reduction systems (OWNRS). The recom - this program and seek grant monies to
mended plan also includes 12 community help offset the implementation costs. This
It is estimated that the onsite systems wastewater collection and treatment strategy will also keep the monthly sewer
contribute 4.88 million gallons per day systems and five regional systems. Five of charges to residents at an affordable level.
(mgd) of wastewater, and the WWTPs the 12 community wastewater collection These central wastewater collection and
contribute 2.40 mgd of wastewater. systems feature interim WWTPs that, over treatment systems to service designated
Each of these onsite systems and treatment time, are recommended to be phased into "Hot Spot" areas will be implemented as
plants provide minimal nutrient removal, larger regional systems. grant monies become available, and in the
order of priority shown in Exhibits ES-2
and generally discharge effluent contain- Exhibits ES-2 through ES-4 illustrate the through ES-4.
ing nutrient levels of about 20 milligrams recommended implementation plan for
per liter (mg /L) of total nitrogen (TN), and the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys, In addition to the new systems and exten-
5 mg /L of total phosphorus (TP). respectively, and also include "Hot Spot" sion of existing systems, it is recommended
areas by priority ranking. "Hot Spots" are that 17 existing facilities continue to
Recommended Sanitary defined as those areas that will receive a operate and upgrade their treatment
Wastewater Management Plan community wastewater collection and processes to meet the best available tech -
treatment system within the next 10 -year nology/ advanced wastewater treatment
The conclusions and recommendations period, or by the year 2010. (BAT /AWT) standard by July 1, 2010.
reached in this Master Plan are the results These existing systems and the estimated
of a comprehensive, 21/2-year study effort, Like any major public works capital costs of the associated upgrades are sum -
which included extensive evaluations program, total funding for implementing marized in Exhibit ES-5.
FS-2
Planning for a Better Environment
Key UVcst Resort Utility Community Service Area - l ovicr Sugarloaf Community Ser:eco Area' '
Preartty' Study Mot Soot Proteot Master Plan PrrorAy' Study mot Spot Proms Matte. Plan
Area Area Sorved Coot Itroorn.rsesdatien law Aiwa Served Coat Aeeommandatron
;toe% Urs - won:DO r' S' czr 00C Extorts xsastowater seism to urlsoworad air Lowor &g Wanes 99 349 O w
C0 Pnovrgo %sistosonic* to( collection sonic* to Hot
terand Resort U!i -, :treated KIN.0laort LINO Ihm ...a Ma W Sugarloaf Crtt d Peat. *sewer* SW. area Pro de 0 t 2 rnpd l/WTP for the
--- ----_ _-- -____ --. area along U S 1 tame° ilea
80ca Ch Ice Community Service Area ° latcito SUI11,10111 BO Torch KAY y Lower Keys
; Wad* Teeth Ke
Prrerdyb Study Hal are1 Peeiaol Master Nom Am .� , i �j A ,
Area A Sieved Ca Recommendation re w w era • Baas I &armada: Torch Kay Cuctoe Key
„ca ego l,ehrl onnlr 1�ayq
St 800.000 PFOrrde rl,�tel pp/e[ mime . 10 ._
Caron G w Porno-so 1404 Spat area Can do cf 0 9 mgd WWTP Loeser » flails 1 % 4 Part•13utrrst Pent *spendable to 0.40 mpg Othor oglons 1 Honda Ke
and adjacent area eckade negotiate wells NAS Key West ter Ohio Kay
along t; is. 1 capecey or exteas ion al then WINTP. a
n►pofehr wilt KW Resod Weis kr t►i dl�dY1S
4plcty or 11101041110A 01 11104 ►W
r VTP `4 - - -r
Slack Wand' i '. dg Pine Key
* Boos R Kay ►4.570.000 Ronde nessaralar colotIon saw.AP to ' Ramrod "�' y
Caeca Hot Spot area Expand YWlrP lo 040 mod.
,A,. flocs Boca Chita Ocean 14 100 000 Provpe westeareter caasr:Snn woo* ec tkrrat Ctycal. Rockttnd. dg Copg Larger
A Crew Shores. Tamarac Park Hot Spat mar itr
— — 1200 C00 Concoct package penis In sys ere .
_ -- Big Pine Regional Service Arms 1
ton
gay Point Community Service Arta nerdy' Shot, llot Spol Maject Martyr Plan
Prlortty Study , Mot Spol Proirct Mutter lean Atre Arse Served Cos[ Rar unnrwrxliurstt
Area Area Served Cost Recommendation, ler Bg p tPM4pen , ng P 111.000.000 Pr idc Baird Wa1ct colatbon
• .dam bay Pons Bat °oprt 5+�6dirrsarr Pror/do wv:+szwrset tc•Iccoon sensor so Srnsts,Cersencloi�s Havr,1'fl 1or.r:,r to Hot "p tea Prowda
* and oaddbtd.nch 1401 Spat area Rro.ide 0 09 "rod WATP a along U. Cora. adjaciM nir10 3;1 d fop ion swami** S
Shoran capable 0 wow.; tx: 0 OP ,S mgt far ft; area along U.S. 1. d 090 mud fui re raannrl LIMOS
a'aa.
*•anna rraa ConneQ package perry la ,1'1*m Kyoto * 819 Pine Doctor sArmtarrterlt 14.500000 Pron Mwr
de ow colezSon
— 'AWTPlo 0 075 mpg flopkd! Bey. Palma V114 SONIC* b3 -tot Spot antis
YVhrspereg Penes
Su rrtrraarts[nd "Ctmdi tsaltJplpet► slgrlrbaA Rag tonal Sort) tea Ana' * ' Ltt se Cone Moran, Wridrerd Rom& $13.210.000 PK:vies wa,■tetat totwcir t
Torch Estams 11aMSBeerh. inner 90001 scrvco to Hal Spat area Expand
�T Estates. andante east of Males
•
natty [ Study HW Spat Passim Matter Plan Hracl+en Finger Employ
re9+onel'rtMr G 40 mud.
Aran Area Sewed Coat M ecommend. ratan IMO '
Bq Pry Edon Pairs Calone 16.000 Prevtcae Weeto*Otorcollodion
• '.umnrnrtand Srw.nwrend Key St2 160 Ronda wrservrriot Cote:9rn LKnea 10 esnxr• 10 Hot Spot area Espana
Core.' Hot Spot area Prowdo ntul022 nigel regional WWTP to 0110 mod
94.mworiand Cove yWfTP !'Pb vrmae a: 016 IT tor the * R49 Rea Big Pose Kay, Inc . Tropical Key $1300 000 Provrps weslewelar calbctgn
MO repots! woes ens Colony. Pine Channel Ealing. sorter to Hui Spot area
.1 Cuckoo Cutthroat Habor 910420 000 Pravda waslawatar cotrtiror sorv.:r to Cahill Pines 6 Palms, and Estates Gudpe Hot Spat area Expand rigonal WNrP adjacent ante along U S 1
Ocean Snares l0 0 44 m9d * Rotrrcd &eezet reps Buaeh 611111 11890.000 Pravrpe wegliwitir coltedron
dt
* Upper Indian Mound 1.3 125 imo Prost wastewater collection sorvka to Retried Shores, Ramrod Sheers maim 10 Hot Spot sees
Bug ■Sod Estates GuN 3rgees Hot Spot ante Manna. and area along U 5 1
* c a Cudjea Gardens 13 925 000 Prayed* wastewater colgdton servka to * IBM Pat Piro" HeigM$ se 744 000 Pro.+dr rwstanomar oolrmon
e Pe ° Hot Spot pea sonic* to Hot Spot alas
14 000.000 Expand 'oaorol wren. to 0.05 freed: — — 1400 000 Connwet package *net 10 gag tom
nomad ornicag r rra'+rs Ir. woks'
"Tae plan tocorrwendo peeing out V paters* playa and conneceng surfers to cownunly or regional tyaterm vr1Mn al Het Spah am monad.
- Tea plan roconwuu ds that soars Meng Yours carrurdlo ro optima aid upgrado dear veelrrrnl rvDtess 10 BAT?AWT- For c1iwPe, IMae tacilrs me trot shoves M this *Oita rotor to Exhtlt E8;9 toy +hose aerating
racattes
hs.mb.r, rMun .,..Ors ndr7M pr ranting* : i lent =5pr't meet tow are Er 1.r oetnwl in Ckaritor 11 and to E.hittl, (1.1.15.2. and 43
EXHIBIT E 1.2
R.eoornrrlerded Alastawatet Ma tagernent Imolernentation Plan for t'ie Lather Keys
E53 4
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
Capital Costs Required to
Middle Keys
I Illatono. Secondure . * Implement the Master Plan
Stu Kop.L,,rlo•
M�ry c nrCa. As shown in Exhibit ES-6, the capital costs
required to improve wastewater manage -
Marathon s.[Orrirrr, ment practices, as recommended by this
Conch Kay Conrnunity Sarvnve A t,ta Master Plan, are approximately
prleriey' Sandy Het Spot Protect M•.I.r Pion
$438,000,000 and include approximately
ANY Are. Served Cosa Roca mm.nd.tIon 45 projects. The capital costs presented in
to
t an
ron caneconch si 750 000 •_ Yid& ...7waiG c u a r zaMc
Sao I wy ! Spin a rts wa Pr r I
d o 6. 041 ctcr mod I M t P this exhibit reflect implementation of new
j 4 i tu, ^'`: C� NT* service areas, as presented in ES-2, ES-3,
Hawk's Cay Connmunity Service Area' __ and ES-4, as well as the costs of upgrading
Pru:wd a study Mat Spot Prel.ct M..t.r Plan existing facilities, as presented in ES-5.
.4 fee Arta Served csstl RtcomrNrnds+Idr These costs assume that, other than those
J� Maratrcn Praatde'*atiewalcr GOI- cbcn 5er i Ir
}t ;„wary Gr xey f5,53C,DDO Dock Key F'p.r4 Ho.. e* Cory wt ATP In existing WWTPs that will continue to
°'° "°° . serve given isolated areas or existing
Long ttcy'Layton Cornr 'Se ru ice Arca' _ functioning private wastewater utilities,
Pno!My Study •mot spot Project Massa Pia. all WWTPs will connect into either the
AM. A s. $erred Coe 1160Pentolopiloliop
central community or regional wastewater
Lain io`r4 tctlr IMIA . $3 540.000 Pro.,d htt
. waaaYf mll.eliart ti aa
Kph tyytp, C+rYOr�asmn aiea 10 Hot 5pot ..... dttal. octsrtlpa systems once all the "Hot Spot" areas are
aconx to u s , NHVTP brant trt►n►too ane served, or by 2010, whichever occurs first.
Marathon Regional Service Area
Prieys Study Hot Spot Project Morin Plan - -- -
@ Wastewater Reuse
Area Arno Salved Coat R.comn'rrdab.n
Meraalton L its. Von .. s5 6100 c a Poo: co cnmmun w..w
tarl.r cett.ciipn Although there are advantages associated
Pnmry I :l o 1> :ys1 man rror re 0 14 tried wwTP with wastewater reuse, the high cost
Nrr awtn n F+ti $3-.` 450000 Pravda .wsLawo1o. colocbon savco b Hat' r g
Ptirrl.Pt RialatrLi spar area Pro. do renal 1 0 n+pd WtM1TP associated with additional facilities and
4P x Beni oxpendebto to 2 0 mod. br HIS rl>Qaxtal
'I + � l
^a+rY PAS DHOWOR *' 'ter'^ IM the limited availability of suitable areas to
and cnrwlad etc. r.ljcrerl .yslem
M.eaMiea A4r-gnrdp' ra $00.26J.000 Provd. wtw. at.r cclrcion arrcr Ia Hal irrigate make this option more difficult to
Prinyry R.`wn.l 5y 'b.rn are■ a. C crr CI al p.drag. plan to
(Musa 111 y 2.D nai nq d. systarn Expand regional WIMP to I implement in the Florida Keys than in
ton G ., y � $5 21X .30C Preree. we 'reb t
d■r collection ramp so !
Mar other areas. Wastewater reuse requires
Gads. Kay Trainload at Maraltton Rogion>r'
s iW TP j additional facilities at the treatment plant
'no pen tatcoarnamb ph.anp out al t aaaq. plaits and C'^am^P *awns to eo.wsi rrtly or rqonal beyond those required to provide BAT/
systims while al Hot Spats aro osn,od
2 The pen reconniends till some milling 'nectar) contrition operate and •.ypradt tr.?, it eatmtnt AWT treatment, including high -level
noon* to EAT.AWT Far Wady. fumbling an not aficw r n Itua bk rani In Fa tit i F .S -S fn+
them as<6,nnpp tarts disinfection facilities, reuse water storage
Numbers wrtfirn thus Indicate prtcrty ranbnps M *►:t Spot a* oat. and re trror aotrod n Ctuplr' 6.
ano In Erhjbf 6 t . 6 2. and 5 3 facilities, and high service pumping facili-
EEX1MBIT ES-3 , ties to transmit reuse water from the
F�ec�ari�rjenced tllaetewaler Management IlTlplemenoaeon Plan for the Made Keys treatment plant to the reuse site. In addi-
ES-4
9 553 £'9
pu 'D AO 4A u Oa'WP la ib alt P- WOK. MPS MI Io ifkrpw., due iiir IQli . 4ovSI us r
, MIC•1 54p1 Iad4114; 4 1 ,171c I.■G :I,.a4Alajwl 111.11.dgelURVI ►a1Pw%cse,V pa0.1 =.1.uarepy
?1341.? ?say l04 9 S9 1 1 )4 Pfau I4 *4 sit; u. OM04L:DJ al• S44/x1 ?sail ii..co 033 L \Yp11Y8 t1 1
Iseh Wd fuiaufffir4 mWI4, k•111f•34I Ixw .YIIM1n. I31 001.444O tires ;04 fuck r k 611..01. 0I41 Igx4Ml•lP:xii1 Mild O4
pianlx ass ,3H In n.a-P 4u1•ltiai uw.soz cl ra)1 t.atelund
001.0:4400 c huriat..Ir :1 rlavw« fr.tF4+MI1r: loaf ll$ d p5pawd Iltr loo Nr1Il1.EIN1 Myd «411 1)0 shield aGG:pD1 I?+wlu7.! •X( U9 -
(um* rA SLawl atlaw ed mew* (:40.:11:+3'25 - - i u :.Lows, ►gNirN14Nw 4,+:11,1 51 CGJ 913 IIY)4 txtroI. P P14Ie Od ' Il 1d
misfit wn 1414 001.0a19 I 1 t III 0 'I.GIM -1
uoo?a1ro.p.mewsttser■ 0 05 Z S !moon tr.nj salo+l5 elrwieli et 031Lid + y Po' aatIPA1•afa'.lq,
NNIN.4I. 11111 \1t WAP. M� ! wed a 1I 111 •4131 imrrnrk. I
un9?7i4a? 17CICr.154 JP►�n1�I boa Xii "R3 rain 4.714 srSS1w $WIIl Ixurtg . 1 11 fiAi ' J j NM/r IISM; 1:4114:3 Is:trar« -+o>r Unle6.41d laglM
Prw52'ZoL ti,DOIa?lJle.aOMIAOf44pld of ::In -13 LOIXO sEiw.+alglaloOP -O (gam lLd �
.4 IMO Muu[wl 1larllr N.a I7`i3 +C1i G1 ao Nx iaua lg c aQPIIi X
1 dL S �a:4clw:>: :.WIW 14 EW. *tam; U O .L.; i:3 s u 1W $d A O
C .
gaol'. U�'tial 147 d 1 4141 I pie dW//I 5 111140.11 «1111 :4101:11 IMuHd +NI I w gaol'. 1t1.4'Md lad` lap al
1 -1 QV iAJ
MN' MN' Men t*5 Iq ni I IA e4 171+ S+1 . 17_ 141 a&.0 ! I C
or.0:4r0• ..000.alsem apwoud 000 045 L n S MAP: U PO 51 aWci 3 aim? p7lug F*t c aawai 1 . 4 31 v,r
I�4i11 J W+++t t +rII•t}�rJ Wia ne; r n VJAKQ JN elalrir A.7N}Jd no 1;01 P$ F04,0 Aire; 4trli . AMMAN, .
gas y awes LraD rseD eele was t0H al WINOS 1+31
ilOpi 400$ pi l Ul .rha.I:+d. accqv 'load aoku(IR '14;1 3 I.aflaauca lagiwaliaw. apricud 4X 4SC. SS YNII{l I'Y�I
{ti IIMIN• Ip7ler.oy
uorrIirr• wirrmanarm •1<1NOIr1 OC4 1$ N+Yar,� wan uR•nH leg 9t 03v1d , wa1GAi ?3.746?, at Gala
I :I:NU4Z 11 a I IC»s )Cl pa .r xpmpl +l!lretl le
'swam »4m14 'l0,1Pyy I0a1C1.1 4 Id� -li OPJ4 p 17h it a?1Ux iqulr11M11 17
NNIN 11:413; 11144 04 14nntwt 1K+ari ' Fad I man 'WIMP.. i "R'CMI -0 Iwl4WiHtat aCimw1 004 C•IG 91% / Aprce3 aIIU3 » 1f a
UOI?ai,rr» lauaraISerr a ocud .X Ott 9S ra.eH 1 )1 e• 5 WEL! L1 0 3Wd i 1)8
Itiuk 4 Iatl C:1 arxa:ti. SAO104 OM LAIIOW V4lit ' �I( cat¢ Y'WaS leual6al :WOW laXJ I 1
un l�l•'Ir5?.17tlarrelsew a01 Me 905 Zia Nl+•"Nd.iutolsj lap Nr,Ng et 03Md 1 �Y �Ili I:9 1}4.1.14;4; Pa NS{«r.i I M ! rwsI
n 0 ) 4 (.0 0 0i tN
1r ?1/1111 P�+• 4t 0 KIM! ^Wl��p . uo
a•*? LOV.nB roan m MNII {nrn1N :all W .irnA4tl 6yP/pu 10}1 u d 40 . 1 A
(uKkald Wr?d'•+Cfi012' lain untxalr>? lake.. MON*- q - 'nld b00 1 pa wene3 -1' vary u011Cr- Id .
?*l Dnn...rGln9 7.}!„'418 - ,..__._....
?iW'B saroslaw7H iopapuawuloaoy pa
t
Pooiw _ panugaaa' arty
•NV 14+4 4rtr.I N 1 mid Jump i -. yew
waft kIll$ JO &
11;u2 li3OS 1044 at appuas °.agtag .lCO7d ceon layl
Irr1114yat IN11WOI Iw wanes,' (01' 'WA aft 06tol Aillt '.rfuCt LAM t L IJ3ud 4 __._... 1 eon" ;IOiraas Ieuor6oH epe oweisl
cum.,4lax46a1 •a I?+'Itige Pea .J
' Matt I: I e. 1 'N±' AlIN4I ._-.
Iatlg xw avtriL?eva odu ; r Z _
• t Wwpuaaw korAal cAu 9 r„ 1 40.7EuC1 Sal'3 a1.1.,0H alcoV Rua wpm* pia i "P-'Ml Pfiva:1 I
I',st») dim., Imp.1ruatal o6rvl.G1rA ahavcs, .i•A :i iiid►f.W. raw Ill 1 000 01d Axes .wuro p _ang
a1rCllul c ' 1 1, 41 17r]S+cf4 111 7 o . i u a c 1 4 4 0 14 iPClL5d•1I0d II i ^1IS DZ 151 i n w , el•ph I 1 4 4 a5/+alrt 61 ,0 41 AMA!, N'wl .141 nII.,.•:.,1MW
rwpNrt:n .N1r.W11P+N Nprn4J 3CIO OP) 923 02:6I 03r3d P laWawat! tl NO I f L /'I7Ola? 131CrWGSNM OP.aald •XC ?Y 9s 0,Gals ark. I:i xigrzH labs !?*.?1
-ILWr1 r Dew 1 5 fl aJcle p %led , 1
t. I,.Ul.Ir -Iy1+ ,{610 Mal -1Otal IurCd Ia.wR44 old Fp...ati ( i MPRIIR+wlet+aaOW peti+e say Ueny
.7401 STM 4u" v' .,t1) ,d )00 009 9S 'FPS wugrel wed urrn0 %1344 51 03W1d 4 ; Maki 4M ON lion Pofald wade toM9 tams e tilia ld
11#;10F1 t4nIM1 1)I Bally aoi,uag A.punwwoD acpanaaiept 1aML01
kl7eye? 7Sa3.a atvibaoa a+ea ca
Icrivddin LAIta la 4191.0 .ad,010AI , s -
Cut,` IIROL a 4114 JO IrJO CO - --
I:rM i uu PAO •Odn ICI. 01 ONA.k111 � i - �.,...n
, :*1 7 "1 t•.' Y•INwn11N NI:un4d o0'OL4' L$ Ixty V {,eyyg I k VI",,V 91 C130:1
L S rt641 N IIIW
dt�INm. 1:1•:C Jtii1y441aa1711TaSyaiatcga '.►+'.,41.04_,_.._..
1 L 0 01)140 rater utrYSM 1lrrPP1KO $trill i+r hIY14 d Ir110S 06/a1 1 '"" ""4' -- ''
.44avFasa'M l ltu!4.4IOa aarcid DOOM t'9S it S14l'$ iroucat 4ti 6 0,1 Imo)) ei a3Uid •h•�+
I d1f A pb.al 1 S n : UMW
:x141 I: u *I4u I� IaI l 1 Dor 3 i0Pd 0 3000 tl] .4
SO000a4W 4 1 1 6o104.00 o9MOid oixi os2'01 c6/k1°1j a61k1 Lail 471 U3ttJ 471 -0 _ _
, urrr
d1AW Pew 59t' L S f1 us mum JJI1�rlkal
, r 1. - - a ti 97ti 4a.4•u =
•
,.,Mal., IOW ual�•a11a? Pie saLelis3 OM urLVlp C2.16l f y�1 pr
Priewllaem IIIUr((WISO op4'4ald 000 IS IirYd'0 aa1reS .aile'1 I1 tr.t ! 'F Trt' i_
• tnI a wog D ally ppty prey ''
wqd 1181112111 Pliatel wit lic4r (MIS ,AFIPo71d . ; rt.»a,
r , MIN 0 4CLICO . o6Jc7 da}I;.1311J1ar w»
.ry say.
ar
111.914.1110.112143 .14ja8 11 .1of Suduun7d
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
lion, reuse water transmission and distri- EXHIBIT ES
button piping systems would be required, Estimated Costs to Upgrade Existing Treatment Facilities Recommended for Continued Operation throughout the Keys
which adds additional cost.
Upgrade to Capital
The high cost of potable water in the Keys Capacity BAT /AWT Cost
Study Area WWTP (MGD) Standard ($)
limits the practice of potable water irriga-
tion ($4.93/1,000 gallons for monthly use Stock Island KW Resort Utility 0.50 AWT 760,000
up to 12,000 gallons, ' AWT $5.93/1 000 Stock Island Key Haven Utility 0.20 AT 500,000
Stock Island Monroe County' Detention Center 0.105 AWT 250,000
gallons for monthly use over 12,000 gal- Total for Stock Island 826,000
Ions). Because there are no potential large -
volume reuse customers, such as olf Boca Chica NAS Key West 0.40 AWT 670,000
g Total for Boca Chica 670,000
courses, the proportion of potable water
that could be replaced with reuse water is Bahia Honda Bahia Honda State Park 0.0083 BAT 98,000
low. (The two golf courses that Bahia Honda State Park 0.010 BAT 102,000
relatively ( g Sunshine Key Campground 0.060 BAT 187,000
do not use reclaimed wastewater for Total for Bahia Honda 387,000
irrigation have installed reverse osmosis
Marathon Secondary Hawk's Cay-' 0196 AWT 1,600,000
facilities for irrigation water.) Total for Marathon Secondary 1,600,000
The cost required to provide reuse water West End Long Key Ocean Bay Condominium 0.006 BAT 93,000
for irrigation is expected to be consider- Long Key State Park 0.010 BAT 99,000
ably higher than the current cost to pro- Outdoor Resorts 0.060 BAT 192,000
y h th
g p Total for West End Long Key 384,000
vide potable water (an estimated $12.52/
1,000 gallons for reuse water vs. $4.93/ East End Long Key Oceanside Isle Apartments 0.0070 BAT 94,000
Fiesta Key Campground 0.060 BAT 192,000
1,000 gallons for potable water). Conse- Total for East End Long Key 286,000
quently, initiating wastewater reuse does
not provide a cost-savings incentive to Ocean Reef Club (Study Area 27) No Key Largo Utility Company 0.55 AWT 1,500,000
Extend sewer service to unsewered area 4,160,000
wastewater customers in the Keys. There- Total for Ocean Reef Club 5,660,000
fore, a policy mandating wastewater reuse
would have to be initiated by local, state, PAED 22 at Jewfish Creek Gilbert's 0.010 BAT 100,000
y ' , (Study Area 25 -2)
or federal regulatory agencies before full- Anchorage 0.010 BAT 100,000
scale wastewater reuse could be imple- Total for PAED 22A (SA 25 -2) 200,000
mented. However, mandating a reuse PAED 22 at County Line Barefoot Cay Treatment Plant 0.045 BAT 164,000
policy should be carefully considered (Study Area 25 -1)
because it may be more economically Barefoot Cay Sewer Extension' 300,000
sound to produce more potable water Total for Barefoot Cay (SA 25 -1) 464,000
from seawater and distribute it to the 'Though located in the City of Key West and beyond the boundaries of this Master Plan, the Detention Center is owned
existing potable water distribution system and operated by Monroe County, and therefore, has been included in the Master Plan study.
Upgrade of Hawk's Cay portion of treatment capacity only.
401 than to produce and distribute re- 'Low pressure sewer grinder pump system to serve unsewered adjacent areas.
Planning for a Better Environment
EXHIBIT ES-6 claimed water through a separate reuse
' • Estimated Ca•ital Costs Rewired to Im element the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan distribution system.
Wastewater stem Service Areas _ Estimated Capital Cost' An immediate initial step in determining
KW Resort Utility $3,080,000 the practicality and economics of waste -
Big Coppitt Service Area $20,500,000 water reuse in the Keys should be to
Bay Point Service Area $4,000,000 conduct reuse feasibility studies through -
Lower Sugarloaf Service Area $9,350,000 out the different service areas. These
Summerland /Cudjoe /Upper Sugarloaf Regional $34,300,000 studies should establish firm amounts of
Big Pine Regional $55,900,000 reclaimed water to which reuse customers
KW Resort Utility (AWT for non reuse) $760,000 are willing to commit and pay for.
Key Haven Utility $500,000 Offsetting Costs Per Customer
Monroe County Detention Center (AWT for non reuse) $250,000
I''! NAS Key West (Boca Chica) $670,000 One of the most significant constraints on
Bahia Honda $390,000 the ability of the County to implement the
j!'+ Marathon Regional $72,300,000 wastewater management improvements
I4 Grassy Key (Treatment at Marathon Regional) $5,200,000 needed to achieve the water quality goals
` Duck Key (Treatment at Hawk's Cay) $5,500,000 in and around the Florida Keys is the high
Conch Key Service Area $1,750,000 cost of the projects per connection or
Long Key /Layton Service Area $3,540,000 resident served.
Hawk's Cay (Hawk's Cay portion for AWT upgrade) $1,600,000
The total estimated capital cost of the
West End Long Key $380,000 identified improvements to serve the
• East End Long Key $290,000 wastewater service areas in Monroe
' Lower Matecumbe Service Area $8,900,000 County is $438 million, or approximately
, Islamorada Regional $66,800,000 $9,149 per equivalent dwelling unit
Tavernier /Key Largo Regional $119,400,000 (EDU). When combined with operation
' Ocean Reef Club $5,660,000 and maintenance (O &M) costs, this is
PAED 22 at Snake Creek $200,000 equivalent to an average cost per EDU of
PAED 22 at County Line $460,000 approximately $89 per month. These costs
ii!', Onsite Upgrade of Unknown Systems $3,520,000 well exceed what would generally be
?' Onsite Systems Upgrade in 2010 $12,750,000 considered affordable for wastewater
Total $437,950,000 service. They are much higher than is
typical not only in Florida, but throughout
'Capital costs include a 20% contingency and include all construction costs, tYp Y g
induding the costs to decommission existing onsite systems and the costs of new the United States in general, in which the
building sewers on private property from the house or building to the street. Capital average rate is about $17.40 per month
costs also include all engineering, construction administration and inspection, land (see Exhibit ES-7).
acquisition, legal fees, and financing charges.
P,-.7 dr
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
these four sources of funding and financ- A $10 per month increase (Scenario 3)
120 . ins, this should not be interpreted as a further decreases the needed grant fund -
110 -�-"` " recommendation to exclude other sources ing to $165.0 million (38 percent). Finally,
it
of funding, and therefore other financing under Scenario 4 ($50 /month and a
qp .. - mechanisms should be explored. $3,500 connection fee), $117.1 million, or
o The total average amount of grant monies 27 percent of the total capital costs, would
- _ necessary, when all countywide projects need to be raised through grants to sup-
1 To
z. port the recommended wastewater im-
— "" , are analyzed together, is presented in provement projects in the Keys.
!S Exhibit ES-8, and includes the following
.o _ four scenarios: Finance Recommendations
30 Scenario 1: $35 monthly fee It is the recommendation of this Master
$1,600 connection fee Plan that the County and Florida Keys
10 1 < 1 :, Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) aggressively
Scenario 2: $40 monthly fee
o $2,500 connection fee pursue grant funding for virtually all of
Estrnalad Average the projects included in this wastewater
"'1 o u nty aMSA s S S 3: $50 monthly fee management program. Projects that
County Rates Scenario g p g j
Coat ;1996i $2,500 connection fee
EXIIIWT ES-7 Countywide
Nonce County's estimated monthly wastewater cost is Scenario 4: $50 monthly fee Total Capital Cosi $437,950.000
well above national average wastewater rams
$3,500 connection fee Grant Money
Fiscal Impact Analysis The projects are estimated to require vetoed
between $117.1 million to $290.4 million Scenario 1
As the costs of the wastewater manage- S21tU 4 M Olot,
in grants to be financially feasible under
ment program are well beyond the finan- these four scenarios. Grants totaling
cial capability of the residents of the
County to afford without outside assis- approximately 66 percent of the projects Scenario 2
combined costs, or $290.4 million, would S219.9 Minion
tance, the fiscal impact analysis presented be necessary for the projects to be finan-
herein evaluates the level of grant or cially feasible under Scenario 1 ($35 per alliScenand external funding that would be needed to month and $1,600 connection fee). 4 n
make the program financially feasible. It
was assumed for this analysis that funding With an increase in the monthly charge to
and financing for the wastewater manage - $40 per EDU and the connection fee to Scenario 4
ment program would come from four $2,500 (Scenario 2), the amount of grant $ 117.1 Milton
main sources: revenues from rates, con - funding needed falls by $70 million to
EXHIBIT ES-8
nection fees (including impact fees), $219.9 million, or 50 percent of the total 'Total 3rant Money Needed n the Entre
revenue bonds, and grants. While this cost. l�sys Furd $ti sewater t taraye�rent
analysis only considers the use of Irnprave r r is
FS-8
Planning for a Better Environment
involve improvements to privately -owned of uniform rates throughout all unsewered tems and privately -owned package plants.
utilities are not typically grant eligible. areas and could undermine the viability of By consolidating wastewater management
this program. It is recommended that an responsibilities under the FKAA, econo-
Recognizing that it may not be possible to oversight entity, such as the Water Quality mies of scale in terms of capital, facility,
accomplish initially, it is the recommenda- Steering Committee, be charged with the and labor costs should be achieved.
tion of this Master Plan that a major goal responsibility to oversee the goal of imple-
of the FKAA and the incorporated areas menting countywide rates and fees to Recommended BOCC
not under the jurisdiction of the FKAA assure all areas equitable and affordable Implementation Actions
should be to implement uniform wastewater rates.
countywide rates and connection/ impact To accomplish the water quality objectives
fees for all unsewered areas. This would Management Structure of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, and
offset the higher cost of implementation to move the implementation of this Master
presented by some of the smaller and more Implementation Plan forward, the BOCC should take the
remote service areas. The FKAA's enabling legislation autho- following actions:
affordable uniform wastewater rizes the FKAA to supply both potable
Providing 1. Continue to pursue state and federal
rates to all Monroe County residents is an water and wastewater services in Monroe grant money in association with the
important issue, and has been further County, including acquiring, financing, FKAA.
complicated by the recent incorporation operating, and maintaining wastewater
efforts. Setting uniform wastewater rates collection, transmission, treatment, and 2. Request the FKAA to adopt sewer
disposal systems. A Memorandum of districts as recommended in the Master
and fees throughout all the unsewered
areas of the County is the most equitable Understanding (MOU) between the Plan.
rate - setting approach and the recommen- Monroe County Board of County Commis- 3. Take legal action to establish municipal
dation of this Master Plan. To do other- sioners (BOCC) and the FKAA established service districts for the respective
wise poses the danger that more devel- the FKAA as the wastewater authority for sewer districts.
oped areas, where implementation costs all of Monroe County, except for the Cities 4. Initiate land purchases of wastewater
tend to be lower, would be implemented of Key West and Key Colony Beach and facility sites, as outlined in the Master
first, and would charge lower rates. The Islamorada, Village of Islands. As such, it Plan. This should also include the
smaller or more remote service areas is the recommendation of this Master Plan smaller vacuum station sites and the
where implementation costs will be higher that the FKAA would administer and interim WWTP sites, if additional
would then be forced to set higher rates manage all wastewater facilities (publicly- facilities are required.
and fees. This has the potential to compro- owned WWTPs, privately -owned WWTPs,
mise affordability, and therefore jeopar- and OWNRS) throughout the area of their 5. Develop and adopt interim onsite
dine implementation of this program in jurisdiction. The FKAA would own all wastewater system standards and
these areas. publicly -owned WWTPs and would policies for "Hot Spot" areas; this will
administer, manage, operate, and main- have to be coordinated with the
The "go it alone" funding and rate and fee tain all such facilities. In addition, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH).
setting approach currently being pursued FKAA would administer and manage, but
in certain areas is in conflict with the goal generally would not own, all onsite sys-
ES-9 tilt
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
6. Adopt a policy to address the "double
charge" issue. (Paying to upgrade an
onsite system to a nutrient reduction
system, and then paying again to
connect to the sewer system when
central sewers are completed.) 1
* * * * **
k ) (
4 0 4 . f if
fp s
c iaA
l k
ES 10