Item T3BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: 16 April 2003 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes X No Department: Marine Resources
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Approval of a Resolution in support of the Program Management Plan for the Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvement Program and the specific wastewater improvement priorities within the document for Monroe
County
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Under Public Law 106-554, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Section 109, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is authorized to
provide technical and financial assistance to carry out projects for the planning, design, and construction of
treatment works to improve the water quality of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Under the ACOE
policy for development of such projects, the ACOE develop a Program Management Plan (PMP) using a group
called the Program Delivery Team (PDT). In large part, the PDT is synonymous with the Intergovernmental
Task Force previous acknowledged by the Commission.
The attached Resolution adopts the Final Draft Program Management Plan and the specific priority wastewater
improvements for Monroe County found within the document. Staff has fully participated in the development
of the PMP and fully reviewed the document and its conclusions and/or recommendations.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
Approval to participate on the PDT
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
NA
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS;
Approval
TOTAL COST: None
BUDGETED: Yes
COST TO COUNTY: None SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT Per Month
APPROVED BY: County Atty X
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION:
DISPOSITION:
BC0304100
04/02/03 2:42 PM
OMB/Purchasing NA Risk Management
z Timothy McGarry, Director of Growth
Included X To Follow Not Required
AGENDA ITEM NO.:
No
Year
-1"-10V-WJ aW -Qa r-c V'Z V... --- ----IA -,. ......... ... --- — - - I — ...__ _ .-
Marine Resources
RESOLUTION NO. 2003
A RESOLUTION OF TTTE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS A.DOP'fING THE PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE FLORIDA KEYS WATER
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND THE SECTIONS
OF THE PLAN, TABLE 3.3, SPECIFIC TO PRIORITIZING
WASTEWATER PROJECTS IN UNINCORPORATED MONROE
COUNTY
WHEREAS, Under Public Law 106-554, Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001,
Section 109, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is authorized to provide
technical and financial assistance to carry out projects for the planning, design, and
construction of treatment works to improve the water quality of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary; and
WHEREAS, under the ALOE policy for development of such projects, the
ACOE must develop a Program Management Plan (PMP) using a group called the
Program Delivery Team (PDT); and
WHEREAS, the PDT is currently synonymous with the Intergovernmental
Task Force previous acknowledged and approved by the Board of County
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, County staff represented on the PDT have fully participated in
the development of the PMP and fully reviewed the document and its conclusions
and/or recommendations, and
WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes the value of the PMP in further
developing wastewater projects in Monroe County and its use to justify federal
wastewater and stormwater project appropriations before Congress; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
Section 1. The Commission adepts the Final Draft Program Management Plan,
which are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Resolution.
Res SWMP PMP 030416
04/07/03 9:32 AM
Marine Resources
Section 2. The Commission adopts the specific priority wastewater improvements
for unincorporated Monroe County found within the document as Table 3.3, which
are attached as Exhibit B and ina)rporated into this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners,
Monroe County, Florida at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 161h day
of April , A.D., 2003.
Mayor Dixie Spehar
Mayor Pro Tem. Murray Nelson
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner David Rice
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
C�
(SEAL)
MAYOR/CHAIR PERSON
ATTEST: DANNY 1. KOLHAGE, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERIC
Rcs SWMP PMP 030416
04107/019:32 AM
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
B
v�-
ATTOWWTS OFFICE
Exhibit A
FINAL DRAFT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN
FINAL DRAFT (2/23/03)
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM(FKWQIP)...................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Program Description........................................................................................1-1
1.2 Program Authorization.....................................................................................1-1
1.3 Program Location.............................................................................................1-2
1.4 Program Management Plan..............................................................................1-2
1.5 Program Delivery Team...................................................................................1-3
1.6 Funding Sources for the FKWQIP...................................................................1-3
1.7 Regulatory Requirement..................................................................................1-3
1.8 Agency Coordination / Cooperation................................................................1-6
1.9 Non -Federal Sponsorship.................................................................................1-6
1.10 Related Projects................................................................................................1-6
2.0 PROGRAM SCOPE.................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Problems and Opportunities.............................................................................2-1
2.2 FKWQIP Goals and Objectives.......................................................................2-2
2.3 Program Issues.................................................................................................2-2
2.4 Engineering Considerations.............................................................................2-4
2.4.1 Wastewater Systems.................................................................................2-4
2.4.1.1 Collection Systems...............................................................................2-5
2.4.1.2 Effluent Disposal Methods...................................................................2-5
2.4.1.3 Solids Waste Management...................................................................2-7
2.4.1.4 Wastewater Management Alternatives................:................................2-8
2.4.1.5 Wastewater Reuse................................................................................2-8
2.4.2 Stormwater Systems.................................................................................2-9
2.4.2.1 BMP Alternatives.................................................................................2-9
2.4.2.2 Special Considerations for Bridges....................................................2-11
2.5 Public Involvement / Outreach.......................................................................2-11
3.0 PROGRAM COMPONENTS..................................................................................3-1
3.1 Planning Process Summary ..............................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Wastewater...............................................................................................3-1
3.1.1.1 Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan..............................3-1
3.1.1.2 Marathon Wastewater Facilities Plan...................................................3-2
3.1.1.3 City of Key West Water Quality Improvement Program.....................3-2
3.1.1.4 City of Key Colony Beach Sewer System Evaluation .........................3-2
3.1.1.5 City of Marathon Reuse Component Central Wastewater RFP...........
3-3
3.1.1.6 Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management System for the City
of
Marathon, FL........................................................................................................3-3
3.1.1.7 Federal Emergency Management Agency Programmatic Environmental
Assessment...........................................................................................................3-3
3.1.2 Stormwater...............................................................................................3-3
3.1.2.1 Village of Islamorada Stormwater Management Master Plan .............3-3
3.1.2.2 Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan.......................3-4
3.1.2.3 City of Key West Stormwater Runoff Study.......................................3-4
i
3.1.2.4
City of Key West Long Range Stormwater Utility Plan ......................
3.1.3
Master Project List...................................................................................3-4
3.2 Prioritization Rationale....................................................................................3-6
3.2.1
Water Quality "Hot Spots".......................................................................3-6
3.2.2
Wastewater Project Prioritization.............................................................3-6
3.2.2.1
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan..............................3-6
3.2.2.2
Marathon Wastewater Facilities Plan...................................................3-6
3.2.2.3
City of Key West Water Quality Improvement Program.....................3-7
3.2.2.4
City of Key Colony Beach Sewer System Evaluation .........................3-7
3.2.2.5
City of Marathon Reuse Component Central Wastewater RFP...........
3-7
3.2.2.6
Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management System for the City
of
Marathon, FL........................................................................................................3-7
3.2.2.7
Federal Emergency Management Agency Programmatic Environmental
Assessment...........................................................................................................3-7
3.2.3
Stormwater Project Prioritization.............................................................3-7
3.2.4
Allocation of Program Funds...................................................................3-7
3.2.4.1
Intergovernmental Task Force.............................................................3-7
3.2.5
Readiness to Proceed Criteria..................................................................3-7
3.2.6
Revised Readiness to Proceed Criteria.....................................................3-8
3.2.6.1
Distribution Formula Approved by the ITF.......................................3-10
3.3 Initial Projects................................................................................................3-11
3.3.1
Selection Process....................................................................................3-11
3.3.2
Initial Project List...................................................................................3-11
3.3.3
Project Descriptions...............................................................................3-13
3.3.3.1
City of Key West................................................................................3-13
3.3.3.2
City of Layton....................................................................................3-13
3.3.3.3
City of Key Colony Beach.................................................................3-13
3.3.3.4
City of Marathon................................................................................3-13
3.3.3.5
Key Largo Wastewater Board............................................................3-13
3.3.3.6
Village of Islamorada.........................................................................3-14
3.3.3.7
Monroe County..................................................................................3-14
3.4 Method of Execution......................................................................................3-15
3.4.1
Federal Appropriations...........................................................................3-15
3.4.2
Program Implementation Guidance Document......................................3-15
3.4.3
Program Cooperative Agreement...........................................................3-15
3.4.4
Independent Technical Review Process.................................................3-16
3.4.5
Contracting and Acquisition Plan..........................................................3-16
3.4.6
Design Process.......................................................................................3-17
3.4.7
Real State Acquisition............................................................................3-17
3.4.8
Construction Activities...........................................................................3-18
3.4.9
Reimbursement.......................................................................................3-18
4.0 PROGRAM SCHEDULE........................................................................................4-1
LIST OF ACRONYMS
REFERENCES
ii
APPENDICIES
Appendix A
Roster of PDT Members
Appendix B
Plan Formulation Memorandum
Appendix C
Readiness to Proceed Document Prepared by the
Intergovernmental Task Force
Appendix D
Revised Readiness to Proceed Criteria
Appendix E
Funding Allocation Scheme Prepared by the PDT
Appendix F
Master Project List
Appendix G
Initial Projects Schedule
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Water Quality Standards
Table 1.2 Recent Chronologies of Regulatory Milestones of Wastewater
Management in the Florida Keys
Table 2.1 Ranking by Citizens of Stormwater Related Issues
Table 3.1 Summary of Master Project List
Table 3.2 Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program Readiness Assessment
Table 3.2 Initial Projects
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Program Area
iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (FKWQIP)
1.1 Program Description
The Florida Keys (Keys) are a chain of islands extending from the southern tip of the
Florida mainland southwest to the Dry Tortugas in portions of both Dade and Monroe
counties. Among the many conservation areas in the Keys are Biscayne National Park,
several National Wildlife Refuges, and the Dry Tortugas National Park, all of which are
encompassed within the larger Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary)
(Figure 1). The Sanctuary includes 2,800 square nautical miles of nearshore waters that
are part of a complex ecosystem that also includes seagrass meadows, mangrove islands,
and the only living coral barrier reef in North America. Consequently, water quality is
critical to maintaining the marine ecosystem of the Sanctuary.
Importantly, as population and tourism in the Keys have increased over the years,
improvements in wastewater treatment and stormwater management practices have not
kept pace with this growth. Ongoing research has suggested that this trend has resulted in
a significant degradation of water quality in canals and nearshore waters surrounding the
Keys and that nutrients commonly found in wastewater and stormwater are one of the
major contributors to the decline of water quality.
For these reasons, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) proposes to assist local
municipalities in Monroe County with the development and implementation of
wastewater and stormwater improvements as part of the Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvements Program (FKWQIP or Program). The Program is designed to:
• reduce nutrient loading to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary;
• subsequently improve water quality in the Sanctuary; and,
• meet relevant Federal and State regulatory standards.
The FKWQIP is to be accomplished through the implementation of several wastewater
and stormwater master plans that have been prepared or are in the process of being
prepared for Monroe County and other local municipalities in Monroe County. These
plans are designed to provide cost-effective, environmentally sound, and feasible
programs for managing pollutants that are now, or have the potential to, adversely impact
the water quality of the Keys and the Sanctuary. The FKWQIP is intended to provide the
technical and financial assistance for planning, engineering, and construction of
wastewater and stormwater treatment improvement projects.
1.2 Program Authorization
Under authority of Public Law 106-554, Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Section 109
and Conference Report H.R. 4577, the Corps is authorized to provide technical and
1-1
financial assistance to carry out projects for the planning, design and construction of
treatment works to improve the water quality of the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary. It should be noted that programs/projects of this nature (e.g., wastewater
treatment and stormwater management construction programs) are not in accordance with
Administration Program priorities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; however, the
Corps routinely undertakes similar non-traditional projects as "work for others."
1.3 Program Location
The Florida Keys are a chain of approximately 800 independent islands located in
Monroe county off the southern tip of Florida, representing the most southerly point of
the continental United States. The more developed islands are connected by U.S.
Highway 1, a 110-mile stretch of roadway extending from Key Largo to Key West. The
FKWQIP targets the portion of the Keys connected by U.S. Highway 1, and the
remaining developed portion of the Keys. The entire study area is within the Sanctuary
and is depicted within Figure 1.
1.4 Program Management Plan
The purpose of this Program Management Plan (PMP) is to establish the framework for
development of projects slated for implementation under Federal Authority. The PMP
will:
• Outline the specific projects to be initially funded,
• Identify required resources, and
• Establish preliminary budgets and construction schedules.
The PMP will describe the rationale used by the FKWQIP Program Delivery Team
(PDT) to prioritize specific wastewater treatment and stormwater management projects
contained within various master plans prepared by Monroe County or municipalities
within Monroe County.
This PMP is intended to be a dynamic document used to define expected outcomes as
well as guide execution and control the FKWQIP. Primary uses of the PMP are to
facilitate communication among participants, assign responsibilities, define assumptions,
and document decisions. This PMP establishes baseline plans for scope, cost, schedule
and quality objectives against which performance can be measured, and to adjust plans as
monies are appropriated by Congress. The FKWQIP PDT is responsible for development
of the PMP, which will be updated as required throughout the life of the program.
Updates are defined as changes to the PMP that occur on a regular basis and do not
substantially modify the schedule, cost, or annual management plan for the program.
Scheduled revisions, after the completion of key major project development products,
will reflect the changes in the project's development resulting from the completion of a
decision document or design/acquisition document. The revisions will provide additional
levels of detail for upcoming project development and execution of a Project Cooperation
Agreement (PCA).
1-2
1.5 Program Delivery Team
The Program Delivery Team (PDT) is responsible and accountable for ensuring that
effective, coordinated actions combine for successful implementation of the FKWQIP.
Membership of the PDT consists of one elected represented from each municipal
governmental agency in Monroe County (see Appendix A). A program manager from
the Corps (Federal Sponsor) and the non -Federal Sponsor will be assigned to the PDT, to
be responsible for the successful implementation of the FKWQIP, and to ensure that
projects are planned, designed and constructed consistent with the conditions outlined in
the PUT. The PDT is also responsible for budgeting, evaluating procurement options
during project planning and execution, identifying potential conflicts and adhering to
health and safety standards.
In short, the PDT is an interdisciplinary group formed from the resources of the
implementing agencies that develops the products necessary to ensure program success.
1.6 Funding Sources for the FKWQIP
Section 109 allocated $420,000 for the Corps to begin coordination activities with the
non -Federal Sponsor. Federal assistance for design and construction of Section 109
projects may be in the form of grants or reimbursements. The non -Federal Sponsor will
contribute 35 percent of the total project cost. The non -Federal Sponsor shall receive
credit for the reasonable costs of design work completed for the project prior to entering
into an agreement with the Government. The non -Federal Sponsor shall receive credit
for interest and other associated financing costs incurred as a result of a delay in
reimbursement of the Federal share of the design or construction assistance project. The
non -Federal Sponsor (SFWMD) will be responsible for providing all lands, easements,
rights -of -way, and relocations (LERR) required for the project and for obtaining any
necessary permits. The non -Federal Sponsor shall receive credit for the value of such
LERRs and the cost of obtaining permits toward its share of project costs, but not to
exceed 35 percent of the total costs of the project. The non -Federal Sponsor will be
responsible for 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement costs associated with a completed construction project; these costs are not
part of the cost share.
1.7 Regulatory Requirement
As a result of concerns regarding water quality in the Keys, the Monroe County Year
2010 Comprehensive Plan (1997) mandated nutrient loading levels be reduced in the
Keys marine ecosystem by the year 2010. In 1998, the Florida Governor issued
1-3
Executive Order-9S 309 which directed local and State ag
encies to coordinate with
Monroe County to implement the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and eliminate cesspits.
failing septic systems, and other substandard on -site sewage systems.
In 1999 the Florida Legislature set statutory effluent standards and associated compliance
schedules for existing and new wastewater treatment system in Monroe County. These
standards address treatment for several water quality constituents and require best
available technology (BAT) standards for flows less than 100,000 gpd and advanced
wastewater treatment (AWT) standards for design flows greater than 100,000 gpd.
Adopted water quality standards are listed below.
Table 1.1 Water Quality Standards
BAT AWT
Constituent (mg/L) (mg/L)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 10 5
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 10 5
Total Nitrogen (TN) 10 3
Total Phosphorus (TP) 1 1
Statutory compliance schedules for wastewater treatment systems in the county are listed
below.
• All unknown (or unpermitted) onsite systems in "Cold Spots" and new installations
shall be replaced or upgraded with an Onsite Wastewater Nutrient Reduction System
(OWNRS) by July 12, 2003.
• All existing onsite systems shall cease discharging or shall be upgraded to an
OWNRS by J 2010.
i` • All existin onsite vastewater treatment facilities must be upgraded to either BAT or
AWT effluen standards by July 1, 2010.
In 1998, additional legislation addressed wastewater concerns in the Keys by amending
the enabling legislation of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), the principal
potable water supplier for the Keys. Legislation was passed (F.L. 76-441) to strengthen
FKAA involvement in wastewater management for Monroe County. A Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between Monroe County and the FKAA was signed to "request
that the FKAA exercise its authority to purchase, finance, construct, and otherwise
acquire and to improve, extend, enlarge, and reconstruct a wastewater collection,
transmission, treatment, and disposal system or systems in the Florida Keys." A
chronological summary of these and other events relevant to wastewater management in
the Keys is presented in Table 1.2.
1-4
Table 1.2 Recent Chronology of Regulatory Milestones of
Wastewater Management in the Florida Keys
1993
. Initial adoption of Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
1997
. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Amended to comply with Florida Statutes.
• Administration Commission adopts amendments to Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan and established Five-year Work Program (Rule 28-20.100).
• MCSWMP begins.
• Monroe County established original Identification and Elimination of Cesspools Ordinance, 03-
1997; this ordinance was unsuccessful and was later rescinded.
1998
• Governor's Executive Order 98-309 (State and Local Agency Participation in Carrying Out
Monroe County Year 2010 Plan).
• Florida Legislature amends the enabling legislation of the FKAA (F.L. 76-441) to reinforce the
FKAA's involvement in wastewater for Monroe County
• Monroe County enters into a Memorandum of Understanding with the FKAA requesting that the
FKAA exercises its authority to finance, construct, and operate wastewater systems in the Keys
1999
. Governor Bush and his cabinet amend the 1997 Five -Year Work Program (Rule 28-20.100) to
accelerate pace of program, identify "Hot Spots," and initiate cesspool identification outside of
"Hot Spot" areas.
• Monroe County passes ordinance 031-1999 (Revised Identification and Elimination of Cesspools)
to comply with the Governor's revised Five -Year Work Program.
• F.L. 99-395 passed (New requirements for all sewage treatment, reuse and disposal facilities, and
all on -site systems Monroe County; prohibits new or expanded discharges into surface waters,
and require existing surface water discharges be eliminated before July 1, 2006).
Source: Modified from Monroe County, 2000
In addition to local regulations, Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires
all states to develop a list of priority surface waters that do not meet applicable water
quality standards (impaired waters) after implementation of technology -based effluent
limitations. States are require to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) which
designate the maximum amount of a pollutant a water body can assimilate without
exceeding water quality standards.
Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, sets forth the process by which the 303(d) list is refined
through more detailed water quality assessments. It also establishes the means for
adopting TMDLs, allocating pollutant loadings among contributing sources, and
implementing pollution reduction strategies. Implementation of TMDLs can include any
combination of regulatory, non -regulatory, or incentive -based actions necessary to reduce
the pollutant loading. Non -regulatory or incentive -based actions may include
development and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), pollution
prevention activities, and habitat preservation or restoration. Regulatory actions may
include issuance or revision of wastewater, stormwater, or environmental resource
permits necessary for consistency with the TMDL. Permit conditions may be quantitative
effluent limitations or, for technology -based programs, a combination of structural and
non-structural BMPs necessary for achieving the desired pollutant load reduction.
1-5
Florida is comprised of fifty-two major hydrologic basins, which in turn make up five
TMDL groups, each of which undergoes five phases of development, beginning with
basin assessment and concluding with actual implementation. The five phases of the
study for each group are as follows:
• Phase I Preliminary Basin Assessment
• Phase II Strategic Monitoring
• Phase III Data Analysis and TMDL Development
• Phase IV Management Action Plan
• Phase V Implementation
The Keys are in the fifth group of water bodies to undergo TMDL implementation and
are scheduled to begin Phase I in fiscal year 2004-2005 and complete it by fiscal year
2008-2009. Currently, Phase II for water bodies in Group I was completed in April of
2002. The results of the five phases for Group 5 cannot be predicted at this early date and
as such, consideration to TMDLs has not been given in this Program.
1.8 Agency Coordination / Cooperation
The FKWQIP is a cooperative effort between the Corps (lead Federal Agency) and the
South Florida Water Management District (non -Federal Sponsor). During
implementation of Section 109 activities the Corps of Engineers will consult with the
Water Quality Steering Committee established under Section 8(d)(2)(A) of the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act; the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task force established by Section 528(f) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996; and the Commission on the Everglades established by
Executive Order of the Governor of the State of Florida.
1.9 Non -Federal Sponsorship
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is the non -Federal Sponsor for
the FKWQIP. The SFWMD will coordinate and facilitate interaction with the Corps for
the municipalities of Monroe County.
1.10 Related Projects
Discussed below are ongoing Federally sponsored projects in the Florida Keys related to
the FKWQIP:
1-6
FEMA Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) of Wastewater
Improvements in the Florida Keys - The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) on September 20, 2002 issued a draft programmatic environmental assessment
for four specific projects in the Middle Keys. One project is with the Village of
Islamorada and three projects are with the FloridasYva cs Aqueduct Authority. Under the
four projects FEMA will issue a roxim p � pp y $10 M in grants to fund the construction of
the subject projects. Matching funds wil a pr ee through the Florida Division of
Emergency Management and local government applications. This EA broadly addresses
the purpose and need for wastewater improvements in the Florida Keys and presents
alternative wastewater management options that might be considered. This EA is
considered to be one level below the programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) under preparation because the EIS is more comprehensive and potentially will fund
several more projects. However, extensive information was extracted from this EA for
inclusion in the FKWQIP programmatic environmental impact statement, particularly the
description of the existing environment.
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study. This study was recently conducted to assess
the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem to support continued growth. This study
examined past, present, and future impacts to the ecosystem and developed a database
and analysis of consequences that may be used to determine the level of land
development activities that will avoid further irreversible and/or adverse impacts to the
Florida Keys ecosystem. This is accomplished using an interactive, spatially explicit
Carrying Capacity Analysis Model (CCAM) that simulates the conditions of land
development activities and population growth through time to determine and inventory
the impacts on the natural resources and human infrastructure in the Florida Keys.
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Related Projects - The FB&FK
FS will comprehensively examine the Florida Bay and Florida Keys marine
environments, and the actions and land uses upstream, to determine the modifications that
are needed to successfully restore water quality and ecological conditions of the Bay.
The study may also include analyses of alternatives for restoration of the marine
environment surrounding the Florida Keys, if there are positive impacts on Florida Bay.
For example, additional tidal creek restoration projects (beyond those authorized in the
Florida Keys Tidal Restoration Project) may be considered.
The study goal, developed by the Project Delivery Team (PDT) for the FB&FK FS, is:
"Evaluate Florida Bay and its connections to the Everglades, the Gulf of Mexico and the
Florida Keys marine ecosystem to determine the modifications that are needed to
successfully restore water quality and ecological conditions of the Bay, while maintaining
or improving these conditions in the Keys' marine ecosystem."
Likewise, the PDT has determined that the objectives of the FB&FK FS are:
■ Determine the quantity, timing, distribution and quality of freshwater that should
flow to Florida Bay and provide recommendations for any modifications of water
deliveries that will result from current CERP plans for Everglades wetlands.
1-7
• Determine the nutrient sources and loads to the study area, evaluate their impacts
to reef and Bay ecosystems, and recommend restoration targets and
implementation plans.
■ Establish water quality and ecological performance measures.
■ Evaluate the effects of restoring historical connectivity between Florida Bay and
the Atlantic Ocean.
• Evaluate management alternatives in a holistic manner employing, where
necessary, hydrodynamic, water quality and ecological models. The models
developed as part of FB&FK FS will be useful for estimating the impacts of
restoring the tidal connections at the four sites identified for the FKTR projects.
This Florida Keys Tidal Restoration (FKTR) Project includes the use of bridges or
culverts to restore some tidal connections between Florida Bay and the Atlantic Ocean in
Monroe County. The four locations are located in the Middle Keys near Marathon and
include: 1) Tarpon Creek, just south of Mile Marker 54 on Fat Deer Key (width 150 feet);
2) unnamed creek between Fat Deer Key and Long Point Key, south of Mile Marker 56
(width 450 feet); 3) tidal connection adjacent to Little Crawl Key (width 300 feet); and 4)
tidal connection between Florida Bay and Atlantic Ocean at Mile Marker 57 (width 2,400
feet).
The purpose of this project is to restore the tidal connection in a section of the middle
Keys that was eliminated in the early 1900's during the construction of Flagler's railroad.
Restoring the circulation to areas of surface water that have been impeded and stagnant
for decades will significantly improve water quality, benthic floral and faunal
communities, and larval distribution of both recreational and commercial species (e.g.
spiny lobster) in the near shore waters in the vicinity of these restoration sites.
Im
2.0 PROGRAM SCOPE
2.1 Problems and Opportunities
The Florida Keys is home to a complex and dynamic ecosystem, including the world's
third largest coral reef system, and offers a natural beauty that has drawn visitors from
around the world. Supporting major fishing and tourist industries, the reef and the entire
marine ecosystem are the lifeblood of the Florida Keys, and hence, protecting their
existence and vitality is critical to the economic and environmental future of the islands.
Numerous scientific studies have documented the contribution of failing septic tanks and
cesspools to the deterioration of canal and nearshore water quality in the Keys (Lapointe
et al. 1990 and Kruczynski et al. 1999). In addition, research has suggested that increased
nutrient loadings from wastewater and deterioration of canal and nearshore water quality
are major contributors to the decline of water quality in the Sanctuary. Therefore, the
primary purpose of the FKWQIP is to improve the water quality in the Sanctuary by the
development and implementation of improved wastewater and stormwater treatment in
the Keys.
At the Federal level, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of
1990 directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Florida
to develop a water quality protection plan for the Sanctuary. Locally, the Monroe County
2010 comprehensive plan mandates that nutrient loadings be reduced in the marine
ecosystem by the year 2010 and that wastewater systems meet more stringent Florida
Statutory Treatment Standards. In light of regulatory requirements and in the interest of
protecting public health and water quality, the FKWQIP was created.
The marine ecosystem of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is dependent on
acceptable water quality to maintain fragile aquatic habitats. However, as population and
tourism within the Keys have increased over the years, improvements in wastewater
treatment and management practices have not kept pace with this growth. Ongoing
research has suggested that this trend has resulted in a significant degradation of water
quality in canals and nearshore waters surrounding the Florida Keys and that nutrients
C from stormwater discharges and wastewater are one of the major contributors to the water
quality decline. This, in turn, is prompting the proposal to improve sewage treatment and
stormwater management practices throughout the Florida Keys. This program shall be
known as the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program.
JA
The marine ecosystem of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is dependent on
hti acceptable water quality to maintain fragile aquatic habitats. However, as population and
tourism within the Keys have increased over the years, improvements in wastewater
treatment and management practices have not kept pace with this growth. Ongoing
research has suggested that this trend has resulted in a significant degradation of water
quality in canals and nearshore waters surrounding the Florida Keys and that nutrients
from stormwater discharges and wastewater are one of the major contributors to the water
uality decline. This, in turn, is prompting the proposal to improve sewage treatment and
2-1
stormwater management practices throughout the Florida Keys4p�nd presents an
opportunity for making some significant contributions to improving the water quality of
the Sanctuary and helping to stabilize the economy of the Keys.
2.2 FKWQIP Goals and Objectives
The primary purpose of the FKWQIP is to improve the water quality within the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary. During the initial meeting of the PDT (November 22,
2002) a program objective and two goals for the FKWQIP were unanimously adopted by
the PDT. These are cited below:
Objective — The FKWQIP will provide an equitable, ecologically sound, and
economical implementation strategy for managing wastewater and stormwater to improve
water quality of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
Goal - The FKWQIP will provide responsive, flexible, and cost-effective
solutions that improve wastewater and stormwater management practices throughout the
Keys and satisfy the existing and future needs of the community.
Goal — The FKWQIP will address affordability issues, and must satisfy all
applicable environmental and regulatory criteria.
2.3 Program Issues
Significant issues that were identified during the NEPA scoping process for preparation
of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and discussion with regulatory
agencies, stakeholders, and residents of the Florida Keys fall into two general categories:
• Water quality degradation of the nearshore waters in the Sanctuary, and
• Economic equitability for program implementation for all citizens of the Keys
The primary issue associated with the proposed FKWQIP is degraded water quality in the
Sanctuary that has resulted from inadequate treatment of wastewater and stormwater in
the Keys. Listed below are the significant issues identified during the scoping process:
Issue 1: Water Quality Degradation.. A number of recent scientific studies have
documented the contribution of failing septic tanks and cesspools to the deterioration of
the Florida Key's canals and nearshore marine water quality. Lapointe et al. (1990) and
Lapointe and Clark (1992) found that septic tanks increase nutrient concentrations in
groundwater that subsequently discharges into shallow nearshore marine waters, resulting
in coastal eutrophication. The studies attribute increased algal blooms, seagrass dieoff,
and the loss of coral cover on patch and bank ecosystems to inadequate on -site
wastewater management systems. Scientists concur that one of the principle causes
sources of water quality degradation in the Sanctuary is the elevated level nutrients in the
2-2
surrounding canals and nearshore waters. Nutrients, comprised of nitrogen and
phosphorous, are found in high levels in raw sewage and secondary treated wastewater
discharges.
A direct connection with septic tank waste disposal and the nearshore marine waters was
shown by a viral tracer study in Key Largo. Tracers added to a domestic septic tank
appeared in a canal in 11 hours and in nearshore marine waters in 23 hours (Paul et al.,
1995a). An ensuing study that used a simulated injection well in Key Largo and an
active disposal well in the Middle keys found that viral tracers appeared after short
periods of time in groundwater (8 hours after injection) and marine waters (10 hours and
53 hours for Key Largo and the Middle Key, respectively) (Paul et al., 1997). The study
indicated that present wastewater practices allow inadequately treated effluent to make its
way rapidly to marine waters were it "may contribute to water quality degradation" (Paul
et al., 1997). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that the
magnitude and extent of estimated nutrient loadings from wastewater sources are a strong
indication that domestic wastewater sources are regionally substantial (EPA, 1993a)
Issue 2: Facility Siting. Construction of wastewater collection and treatment facilities
will require sizeable tracts of land (2-25 acres) to host physical facilities. Vacant parcels
of land are scare in the Keys, particularly in the general vicinity of urban areas. The
further a treatment facility is located from the area it serves, the greater will be
conveyance costs both to construct and operate. As the FKWQIP is implemented, a
potential exists that municipalities may be required to exercise their powers of eminent
domain to obtain needed lands. This process may displace current residences and reduce
tax revenue for smaller municipalities. Another aspect of facility siting that will be
important as individual projects are implemented is consideration of potential intrusion
unto sensitive lands.
Issue 3: Cesspools. There are an estima d 2, 0 egal cesspools in Monroe County.
Monroe County Ordinance 03-1997 est�program to identify and eliminate
cesspools, concentrating on the older developed lots where most of the cesspools are
suspected to be located. Elimination of cesspools is a significant component of assigning
priority to projects in the FDWQIP.
Issue 4: Effluent Disposal Practices. The primary method of disposing t�ed effluent
from wastewater treatment plants in the Florida Keys is through the"�se of shallow
injection wells. Current Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) rules
require these wells to be drilled to a depth of 90 feet and cased to 60 feet, however many
of the existing injection wells are less than 90 feet deep, and many have shallow casings,
or are entirely uncased, which increases the possibility of effluent leakage. FDEP is
requiring many of these non -complying wells to be replaced prior to the issuance of new
permits for the treatment facilities.
Issue 5: Impacts on Tourism. The economy and quality of life of the Florida Keys
depend upon a healthy marine ecosystem and are negatively impacted by water quality
degradation. Tourism. Water related activities, including snorkeling, diving, fishing, and
2-3
other beach activities make up 70 percent of the tourism in the Keys, which generates n
over $1.3 billion per year and supports over 21,000 jobs (English et al. 1996). Poorly
treated wastewater presents a public -health risk due to fecal contamination, which in turn
can result in beach advisories, decreases in tourism, and commensurate negative impacts
on the local and regional economy.
Issue 6: Cost of Implementing FKWQIP. A low and fixed -income population makes
up a significant portion of the Monroe County population and affects the ability of the
County to fund improvements to wastewater and stormwater facilities. About 12 percent
of the population was below the poverty level in 1993 and over 15 percent of the
population was over 65 years old in 1996. Many of the standard measures of affordability
are based on median family income which do not adequately reflect the abilities of those
least able to afford the capital costs associated with the installation of a OWNRS or
connecting to a new public sewer system.
In addition, new development in the Keys is limited by the Rate of Growth ordinance
(ROGO) that restricts the annual number of new housing initiatives. As a result, the
number of new users will increase too slowly to share the cost of new and improved
wastewater treatment facilities and therefore decrease the cost over time.
Some users may be subjected 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 their existing systems with an OWNRS system before a public sewer t '�
system can be made available to their neighborhood. However, once a public sewer
system is available, the user will be required to connect to the public system, adding
additional costs to the user. is system, and thus a user would have to pay for both an
OWNRS and for connection to the sewer system.
Differences in the cost of implementing centralized wastewater collection and treatment
are significant between proposed service areas in the Keys. These differences contribute
to potential problems in identifying equitable and affordable means of funding
wastewater and stormwater improvements and activities.
2.4 Engineering Considerations
2.4.1 Wastewater Systems
Except for the Cities of Key West and Key Colony Beach where regional wastewater
systems are in operation, development of wastewater facilities throughout most of
Monroe County has occurred with limited forethought of regional wastewater planning.
Without access to any regional wastewater utilities, each developer or homeowner has
had to construct private onsite or package wastewater treatment facilities to serve their
development or individual home. These conditions have resulted in the present mix of
approximately 23,000 onsite systems and 246 small wastewater treatment plants..
2-4
Although the existing wastewater collection systems are not adequate for regional
wastewater transmission, they could be used to provide source collection and
transmission to a regional collection system. The following components of wastewater
treatment had to be evaluated in the process of developing a wastewater master plan for
Monroe County and incorporated municipalities.
2.4.1.1 Collection Systems
The three wastewater collection technologies identified by the various master plans as
best suited for use in the study area were centrifugal grinder pump systems, progressive
cavity grinder pump systems and vacuum sewers. All three technologies are capable of
providing reliable wastewater service, if properly installed and maintained. Gravity
sewers would also provide reliable service, but at a significantly higher cost than the
alternative collection systems. Based on cost estimates prepared for the four collection
system options, vacuum sewers were identified as the lowest cost collection sytem
alternative.
Of the three preferred alternative wastewater collection systems, vacuum systems have a
clear advantage with respect to system reliability. Vacuum sewers do not require a power
source at individual connection points and the system can remain in service during a
power outage if auxiliary power is provided at the vacuum stations. Maintenance costs
for the four wastewater collection system options are similar. Owners and operators of
existing systems reported similar frequencies of maintenance calls for the two types of
grinder pump stations and the vacuum valves. On the average, repairs to vacuum valves
were reported to be less costly than repairs to grinder pump station.
2.4.1.2 Effluent Disposal Methods
Requirements for effluent disposal in Monroe County were amended by the 1999 Florida
Legislature, prohibiting new or increased discharges into surface waters and mandating
the elimination of existing discharges to surface waters by July 1, 2006. While this
legislation allows effluent reuse systems, but otherwise requires the use of underground
injection for effluent disposal, under the following conditions:
• Shallow Injection Wells - If the design capacity of the facility is less than 1 million
gallons per day (mgd), the injection well must be at least 90 feet deep and cased to a
minimum depth of 60 feet (this is considered a shallow injection well).
• Deep Injection Wells - If the design capacity of the facility is equal to or greater than
1 mgd, the injection well must be cased to a minimum depth of 2100 feet (a deep
injection well).
• Water Reuse — The Monroe County Master Plan recommended limited use or reliance
on effluent reuse. Among the drawbacks sited for effluent reuse is that land
application requires full storage or backup disposal systems whenever treatment
requirements are not achieved, or when the land application site cannot accept
reclaimed effluent, including extended periods of wet weather. Additionally,
relatively large tracts of land are required to accommodate the effluent being
2-5
disposed. Such tracts may be distant from the plant site, causing high transmission
conveyance costs.
Potentially feasible effluent management alternatives were identified and subjected to a
preliminary screening. Those alternatives that contained major obstacles to
implementation were eliminated from further consideration. The alternatives that passed
the preliminary screening were evaluated further. Upon completion of the in-depth
evaluation, the remaining effluent management alternatives were either eliminated from
further consideration or incorporated into the Facilities Plan. Reuse by land application,
underground injection through deep wells, underground injection through shallow wells,
and surface water disposal were identified as potentially feasible methods for effluent
management in the Marathon area.
Recommendation: A total of four scenarios were considered:
It should be noted that order of magnitude costs are reported herein. These are
considered planning level costs, and their "accuracy" should be in the range of plus or
minus 30%. Also costs may not be all inclusive, and are provided as a frame of reference
for the various alternatives.
Scenario No. 1 — WWTP Capacity of 0.02 mgd. FDEP does not allow reuse for systems
this small. A shallow injection well system is the only remaining feasible alternative for
effluent management. The order -of -magnitude construction cost estimate for this system
is $33,000 for two wells, wellfield piping, and polishing tank only.
Scenario No. 2 — WWTP Capacity of 0.1 mgd. It was recommended that the primary
effluent management system be a shallow injection wellfield system. The order -of -
magnitude construction cost estimate for the shallow injection wellfield, including four
wells, piping effluent, and polishing, is $100,000.
Reuse should be pursued as the secondary effluent management method. 0.1 mgd is the
minimum allowable size for a reuse system. The order -of -magnitude cost estimate for the
reuse system is approximately $1 million for WWTP filters, disinfection, effluent storage
tank, continuous on-line turbidity and chlorine residual monitoring equipment, and high
service pumping. This cost does not include transmission and distribution piping and
connection to the existing irrigation systems. These offsite costs will be determined
when site -specific areas for reuse are defined and can be expected to add substantially to
the cost of the reuse alternative.
Scenario No. 3 — WVVTP Capacity of 1.0 mod:) As with Scenario No. 2 above, a shallow
injection wellfield system is-r�mmended for the primary effluent management system.
The order -of -magnitude construction cost for the shallow injection well system, including
14 wells is $750,000.
2-6
Reuse should be pursued as the secondary method of effluent management, depending on
economic feasibility. The order -of -magnitude construction cost estimated for the filters,
disinfection, effluent storage tank, continuous on-line turbidity and chlorine residual
monitoring equipment, and high service pump station is approximately $2.5 million.
Again, offsite facilities, to be evaluated later in the Facilities Plan, will add substantially
to the cost of the entire reuse system.
Scenario No. 4 — WWTP Capacity of 2.0 mgd. A deep injection well system was
recommended as the primary effluent management system. Two injection zones exist
that are suitable for wastewater disposal were identified. These constitute the upper part
of the Floridian Aquifer System (FAS); these are an intermediate -depth zone, extending
from 2,100 to 2,500 feet below the surface.
Preliminary design indicates that a 12-inch diameter steel casing set to a depth of
approximately 650 feet bls will convey effluent to the injection horizon. The well will be
completed with open -hole construction from 650 to 1,200 feet bls.
Typical surface facilities will include a pump station, surge control system, yard piping,
and instrumentation. A second, redundant intermediate depth injection well would
provide a back-up system for periods in which the primary injection well is off-line for
testing. An order -of -magnitude construction cost for two intermediate -depth injection
wells and surface facilities is approximately $1.52 million, with an annual O&M cost of
approximately $90,000.
If the intermediate -depth deep well described above could not be permitted, another
potential injection zone exists at 2,100 to 2,500 feet bls, commonly known as the Boulder
Zone. This injection horizon is most likely confined by dense limestone from 1,200 to
2,100 feet bls. This option would include a 22-inch casing set to 650 feet bls, and a 12-
inch-diameter casing set to 2,100 feet bls, with open -hole construction to 2,500 feet bls.
The estimated order -of -magnitude construction costs for two deep wells and surface
facilities is $2.82 million, with an annual O&M cost estimated to be $90,000.
Reuse should be pursued as the secondary effluent management method, if economically
feasible. The order -of -magnitude estimate of the construction cost for reuse facilities at
the WWTP site is approximately $3.5 million.
2.4.1.3 Solids Waste Management
Alternatives for processing and disposing of residual wastewater solids (treatment plant
sludge and septage) that would be generated in the study area upon implementation of
regional or subregional wastewater collection and treatment systems were evaluated. The
alternatives evaluated included various processes for stabilizing, dewatering,
transporting, and disposing of solids produced by two WVVTPs serving the primary and
secondary service areas. Alternative means of handling treatment plant solids and
septage from the remaining areas of the planning area were evaluated.
2-7
Proven solids handling processes in general use in the United States today were first
screened with respect to their applicability at a new regional WWTP serving the primary
service area. For the wastewater collection/treatment option utilizing subregional
WWTPs, it was assumed that a single centralized solids handling facility would be
constructed at one WWTP site, and solids from the other WWTPs would be transferred to
that site for processing. The most feasible processes were then formulated into
alternative systems, which were compared on the basis of both capital and O&M costs.
2.4.1.4 Wastewater Management Alternatives
The wastewater management alternatives were evaluated to identify the most cost-
effective and environmentally favorable plan for wastewater management. The
alternatives consisted of:
• Upgrade individual onsite systems with Best Available Technology (BAT) and
upgrade existing package plants to Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT)
standards.
• Serve the primary service area with subregional WWTPs.
• Serve the primary service area with a regional WWTP.
All regional management alternatives were evaluated on the basis of providing AWT
where treatment plant flows were greater than 100,000 gpd in accordance with the
Monroe County Board of County Commissioner's (BCC's) selection of AWT as the most
environmentally sound treatment level. Alternatives were evaluated on the basis of cost
and environmental and implementation factors.
Approximately 23,000 private onsite systems and approximately 246 small wastewater
treatment plants are currently operating throughout the Florida Keys. The �ss
are comprised of approximately 15,200 septic systems, 640 ATUs, an 2200
systems. As previously stated, approximately 2,800 of the 7,200 unkno systems are
suspected to be illegal cesspools. The Monroe County Master Plan estimated that the
onsite systems contribute 4.88 mgd of wastewater and the WWTPs contribute 2.4 mgd of
wastewater. Each of these onsite systems and treatment plants provide minimal nutrient
removal with effluent from all facilities containing nutrient levels of about 20 milligrams
per liter (mg/1) of total nitrogen (TN) and 5 mg/1 of total phosphorous. The onsite
systems primarily serve single family residences and small commercial establishments,
while the small WWTPs serve condominium and apartment complexes, resorts, motels,
restaurants and other larger commercial establishments where higher volumes of
wastewater are generated.
2.4.1.5 Wastewater Reuse
Although there are advantages associated with wastewater reuse, the high cost associated
with additional facilities and the limited availability of suitable areas to irrigate make this
option more difficult to implement in the Florida Keys than in other areas of Florida. An
2-8
immediate initial step in determining the practicality and economics of wastewater reuse
in the Keys should be to conduct reuse feasibility studies throughout the different service
areas. These studies should establish firm amounts of reclaimed water to which reuse
customers are willing to commit and pay.
2.4.2 Stormwater Systems
According to the Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan and the
information provided by the Municipalities which have prepared Master Plans, historical
reports, staff input and public comments indicate that there are two types of Stormwater
concerns in the Florida Keys: water quality and nuisance flooding. A survey of citizens
present at public meetings on the MCSMMP ranked a number of stormwater-related
issues from most important to least important:
Table 2.1 Ranking by Citizens of Stormwater Related Issues
Issue
Rank
Water Quality Protection/Im provement
1
Development Controls
2
Enforcement of Existing Regulations
3
Flooding
4
Costs
5
Operation & Maintenance
6
Recreational Opportunities
7
Generally, the plan for addressing these concerns consists of developing a list of
stormwater problem areas. The problem areas are then ranked using a criteria such as:
flood severity, water quality benefits from improving the problem, expected growth of
the study area, overall benefit (i.e., does the problem area affect many citizens?), and
historical priority assigned. Many of the problem areas were investigated and found to be
on private property.
Following the ranking, the projects are then analyzed versus a list of potential
improvement alternatives and the best management practice (BMP) alternative for each
problem area is selected. The alternatives generally considered in the Florida Keys
include those discussed in the following section.
2.4.2.1 BMP Alternatives
The MCSMMP listed 19 structural BMPs and 16 nonstructural source controls
considered in for the Florida Keys.
Structural BMPs
• Shallow grassed swales
• Retention basins
2-9
• Buffer strips
• Porous pavement
• Water quality inlets and baffle boxes
• Hydrodynamic separators
• Underdrains and stormwater filter systems
• Infiltration drainfield
• Dry Wells
• Modular treatment systems
• Stormwater wetlands
• Alum injection systems
• Aeration
• Level spreaders
• Oil/grease separators
• Recharge wells and bore holes with pretreatment
Based upon the climate of the Florida Keys, the topography and soils of the islands, and
stormwater management experience of engineers within the Keys, the following
structural BMPs are recommended for application for all types of land development:
• Buffer Strips Porous Pavement
• Water Quality Inlets
• Baffle Boxes Hydrodynamic Separators
• Dry Wells w/Pretreatment
• Modular Treatment Stormwater Wetlands
• Alum Injection
• Aeration Oil & Grease Separators
• Vegetated Swales
Of this list, it was recommended that hydrodynamic separators, baffle boxes, modular
systems and alum injection be pilot tested prior to full-scale recommendation since there
has been no experience with these BMPs within the Florida Keys.
Nonstructural Stormwater Controls
• Land use planning
• Public information programs
• Stormwater management ordinance requirements
• Fertilizer application controls
• Pesticide use controls
• Control of gray water (Cisterns and Rainbarrels)
• Solid waste management
• Hazardous materials management
• Street sweeping
• Vehicle use reduction
• Directly connected impervious area (DCIA) minimization
• Low impact development
2-10
• Illicit connections (non-stormwater discharges) identification and removal
• Erosion and sediment control on construction sites
• Source control on construction sites
• Operation and maintenance
For non-structural or source controls all of the BMPs on the list are recommended except
for street sweeping. While street sweeping can be effective in some urban environments,
a curb and gutter road system is generally needed (non -vacuum system) and most of the
Keys do not have such roads. Recommended source controls include:
• Land Use Planning
• Public Information
• Ordinance Requirements
• Cisterns/Rainbarrels
• Vehicle Use Reduction
• Impervious Reduction
• Low Impact Development
• Erosion/Sediment Control
• Operation & Maintenance
2.4.2.2 Special Considerations for Bridges
The study lists the islands along US 1 within the Monroe County study area with the
approximate lengths and bridges connecting them (lengths given to the nearest 0.1 mile).
It can be seen that, of the 107 miles indicated, 18.9 miles (about 18 percent) of US 1 are
bridges of various lengths.
Related to stormwater runoff, a bridge is 100 percent impervious and rain that falls on the
bridge either runs off directly to the near shore waters under the bridge or flows down the
bridge to the entrance or exit. The question, of whether or not runoff directly from the
bridge can be treated efficiently and at a reasonable cost was studied in the MCSMMP
and it was concluded that bridge runoff control is not recommended on a large scale.
However, it was suggested that bridge runoff treatment should be tried at one or more
sites for a few years, with monitoring to confirm treatment efficiencies. Depending on the
outcome, bridge runoff control could be implemented on selective bridges.
2.5 Public Involvement / Outreach
An extensive public involvement program for the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater,
Master Plan was implemented to allow key stakeholders and interested citizens of
Monroe County with 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 they included:
2-11
• Public forums and workshops
• Meetings with civic, business, and environmental groups throughout the Florida 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 models and evaluation processes, identified key issues to be addressed, and
defined the elements of what was believed to be an acceptable sanitary wastewater master
plan. Throughout the process, citizens clearly stated that cost was the most critical issue
to plan implementation. Secondly, there were concerns raised by stakeholders regarding
the effectiveness and reliability of the selected wastewater treatment options. Finally,
County residents demanded that issues related to potential "double -pay" be addressed
A Scoping Letter was issued to various stakeholders and interested parties on February 9,
2003 and comments were received through March 15, 2002. A public meeting was held
in Marathon, FL on February 27, 2003 to elicit comments and determine issues to be
addressed during the NEPA process. Significant issues that were identified during the
scooping process and discussion with regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and residents of
the Florida Keys fall into two general categories:
• Water quality degradation of the Sanctuary; and
• Economic equitability of program funding.
The primary issue associated with the proposed FKWQIP is degraded water quality in the
Sanctuary that has resulted from inadequate treatment of wastewater and stormwater in
the Keys.
2-12
3.0 PROGRAM COMPONENTS
3.1 Planning Process Summary
Several stormwater and wastewater master plans have been prepared for Monroe County
and municipalities located within Monroe County. The Corps plans to utilize these
decision -making documents as the foundation for the planning component of the Florida
Keys Water Quality Improvements Program. Since 1994, the following plans and
documents have been produced and were reviewed for inclusion in this PFM:
3.1.1 Wastewater
3.1.1.1 Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
This document is dated June 2000, and was prepared by CH2M11ill, Inc. et al. The
stated objective of this Master Plan was to "develop a plan that would provide an
equitable, ecologically sound, and economical implementation strategy for managing
wastewater and improving the water quality in the Florida Keys." The stated goal was to
"provide responsive, flexible, and cost-effective solutions that improve wastewater
management throughout the keys and satisfy existing and future needs of the
community." Additionally, The Master Plan's goal was to address affordability and
equity issues, and to satisfy environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines. The
planning and study area included the entire developed area of the Florida Keys, except
for the Cities of Key West and Key Colony Beach (see Figure 1).
The recommendations presented in this master plan include:
• That existing onsite systems located in lower density areas of the Florida Keys be
upgraded or replaced with an OWNRS
• Installation of 12 community wastewater collection and treatment systems
• Installation of 5 regional wastewater collection and treatment systems
• That 17 existing facilities continue to operate and upgrade their treatment processes to
meet BAT or AWT, as required, by July 2010
The master plan further recommended that 5 of the 12 community wastewater collection
and treatment systems feature interim wastewater treatment plants that, over time, be
phased into the larger regional systems. Details of the recommendation from the Monroe
County master plan for each of the three regions of the Florida Keys are presented below:
Lower Keys — In the Lower Keys, four new community wastewater systems and two
new regional wastewater systems were recommended for construction. The two
proposed regional systems in the Lower Keys are relatively small, in terms of both
volume of flow and area, thus the first phase of these WWTPs can be constructed at the
actual regional WWTP site. In addition to the new systems or extension of existing
systems that are were discussed, the master plan recommended that seven existing
facilities in the Lower Keys continue to operate and upgrade their treatment processes to
meet the BAT/AWT standard by July 1, 2010.
3-1
Middle Keys — in the Middle Keys, two new community wastewater systems and one
new regional system are recommended. The proposed Middle Keys service areas are
shown on Figure 1. Other than Duck Key, Conch Key, and Long Key/Layton, all study
areas of the Middle Keys will continue to operate and upgrade their treatment process to
meet the BAT/AWT standard by July 1, 2010. These systems include:
• Hawk's Cay (Hawk's Cay portion of AWT upgrade)
• West End Long key (three facilities)
• East end Long Key (two facilities)
Upper Keys — In the Upper keys, one new community wastewater system is
recommended in Lower Matecumbe, and two new regional systems are recommended:
the 1.5 mgd system to serve Islamorada Regional Wastewater Management District; and
a 2.25 mgd system to serve the Tavernier/Key Largo Regional Wastewater Management
District.
3.1.1.2 Marathon Wastewater Facilities Plan
This document is dated April 1998, and was prepared by CH2MHill, Inc. et al. The
purpose of this Plan was "to define the most cost-effective, environmentally sound, and
implementable program for the management of existing and future wastewater pollutants
that presently act, or will act, to deteriorate the Key's water quality in the Marathon
area." The planning area encompasses the area from the Seven Mile Bridge through
Conch Key (see Figure 1). The three steps that comprised the implementation of the
wastewater management system were stated to be "planning, design, and construction."
The scope of work for this Facilities Plan is defined in Construction Grants, 1985, a
manual published by the Environmental Protection Agency (July 1984).
3.1.1.3 City of Key West Water Quality Improvement Program
This program, dated June 2001, was developed by the City of Key West in order to
facilitate the City's commitment to "divert stormwater runoff away from Outstanding
Florida Waters", eliminate potential sewer/stormwater conflicts and to reduce Infiltration
and Inflow in their sewer system. This program contains both wastewater and stormwater
projects.
3.1.1.4 City of Key Colony Beach Sewer System Evaluation
This document, dated September 2002, was prepared by URS Corporation. The City has
"continuously expended funds" over the last five years in rehabilitating their existing
wastewater collection system. The purpose of this report was to assist the City's
wastewater system operation staff in identifying additional sources of Inflow and
Infiltration in their wastewater system. Closed Circuit TV monitoring of the sewer lines
was used to identify lines in need of repair. The report presented recommendations for
3-2
repair of the various sewer lines. Repair methodology included Slip Lining of cracked or
broken sewer lines and re -grouting of a number of service connections.
3.1.1.5 City of Marathon Reuse Component Central Wastewater RFP
This document was prepared in May 2001, and revised in August 2001 and again in
October 2001, by Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. The purpose of this study was "to
determine water reuse feasibility for the City of Marathon". The scope of this study was
generally based on FDEP's Guidelines for Preparation of Reuse Feasibility Studies for
Applicants Having Responsibility for Wastewater Management.
3.1.1.6 Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management System for the City of
Marathon, FL
This document prepared by the FKAA represents a set of specifications that accompanied
a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management
System (DBOWMS) for the City of Marathon, FL. The specifications establish certain
minimum technical requirements and minimum level of quality for the treatment system
to be constructed and operated for the City.
3.1.1.7 Federal Emergency Management Agency Programmatic Environmental
Assessment
FEMA has received grant applications to fund the construction of several wastewater
treatment systems in Monroe County. Much of the proposed project funding would be
provided through FEMA 1249-DR post Disaster — Unmet Needs funds. Matching funds
will be provided through the Florida Division of Emergency Management and local
government applications. While the EA prepared in September of 2002 was
programmatic in nature, it was written to address the environmental consequences of
constructing four planned wastewater treatment projects.
3.1.2 Stormwater
3.1.2.1 Village of Islamorada Stormwater Management Master Plan
This document was prepared in September 2000 by Law Engineering and Environmental
Services, Inc. The purpose of this plan was to "address water quality improvements to
stormwater discharges into the Village's canals and near shore waters of the Atlantic
Ocean and Florida Bay." The planning area was the entire Village, which spans from
Mile Marker 90.94 to the north to 72.66 to the south and consists of four islands:
Plantation Key, Windley Key, Upper Matecumbe Key and Lower Matecumbe Key (see
Figure 1).
3-3
3.1.2.2 Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan
This document, dated August 2001, was prepared by Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. The
stated purposes of the Stormwater Management Master Plan are to "assess the adequacy
of existing systems, prioritize stormwater management needs for each island, identify
regulations and policy needs, and develop a plan to finance the construction, operation
and maintenance of required facilities.". The geographic area of this project consists of
the islands in the County (the Florida Keys), which are traversed by US 1 (see Figure I).
3.1.2.3 City of Key West Stormwater Runoff Study
This document dated September 1994 was prepared by Kisinger, Campo and Associates
Corp (KCA). The stated purpose of the study was to identify and map the existing
flooding locations and ultimately develop a Drainage Improvement Development Plan.
3.1.2.4 City of Key West Long Range Stormwater Utility Plan
This plan, dated June, 2001 was prepared by the City's Engineering Services Division.
The purpose of the plan was to document the studies previously prepared by KCA and
CH2M Hill as well as information regarding flooding problems after 1994, and make
recommendations as to required future projects and funding to alleviate flooding and
improve water quality in and around the City of Key West.
3.1.3 Master Project List
As part of this program management plan, the plans or studies listed above were
reviewed and the recommended list of improvement projects from each was extracted to
be incorporated in the FKWQIP master project list. Information contained in this master
list includes:
• The FKWQIP Project Number (simply a tracking number)
• Whether the project is a wastewater or stormwater project,
• The governmental or other entity supporting the project,
• The source of the data,
• The region of the Keys this project is in (i.e. Upper, Middle or Lower Keys),
• The service or study area name,
• Whether or not the project served a "Hot Spot" area,
• The project name, and wastewater service area if applicable,
• The "Hot Spot" area name it will serve if applicable,
• The project rank by region if available,
• The overall rank of the project based on each of the various master plans or studies,
• The proposed action or project description,
• The date the cost estimate for the project was published and the estimated cost,
3-4
• A updated cost for 2002 based on the Engineering News Records Construction Cost
Index
After the list was prepared, it was distributed to the PDT, which contains members from
each of the entities supporting the projects. The PDT members were asked to update the
list as required and data for the following additional fields were made part of the master
list:
• Results of project bidding if available,
• Tentative start and finish dates for each project,
• Current status and projected cost estimate of the project,
• Anticipated procurement method (e.g. Design -Bid -Build, Design -Build, Design -
Build Operate),
• Anticipated Corps level of involvement (e.g. Construction Administration, Design,
Construction Management),
• Current Funding Available,
• Funding Source,
• Readiness Score
The Master Project List, which can be found in Appendix F, contains nearly 260
wastewater and stormwater projects with a total estimated cost'of over $615 million. A
summary of the Master Project List can be found in Table 3.1:
Table 3.1 Summary of Master Project List
Wastewater Projects
Stormwater Projects
Total Water Quality
Im rovement Projects
NumberEstimated
Cost'
NumberlEstimated
Cost'
Number
stimat Cost'
Monroe Count
34
$ 165,663,213
22
$ 6,332,641
56
$ i
Village of Islamorada
7
$ 107,455,090
63
$ 52,069,268
f
70
$ 132,443,981
City of Key West
8
J$ 20,671.000
99
$ 17,404,567
107
$ 38,075,567
City of Key Colony Beach
1
$ 335,000
0
$ -
1
$ 335,000
Key Largo Wastewater Board
14
$ 139,693,435
0
$ -
14
130,001 7
City of Layton
1
$ 4,650,000
0
$ -
1
$ 4,650,000
City of Marathon
7
$ 101,634,979
0
$ -
7
$ 142,233,606
Totals
72
$ 540,102,717
184
$ 75,806,477 1
256
$ 615,909,194
' These costs are based solely on information provided in each of the respective plans or
studies and have been updated based on information provided by the various PDT
members or based on the ENRCCI
3-5
3.2 Prioritization Rationale
In implementing the FKWQIP authorizing legislation stated, "In selecting projects under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider whether a project will have substantial water
quality benefits relative to other projects under consideration." This is precisely what
was accomplished by the various Wastewater and Stormwater Master Plans prepared for
the County and Municipalities in the Florida Keys and amended by the PDT.
3.2.1 Water Quality "Hot Spots"
In July of 1992, the USEPA Oceans and Coastal Protection Divisions produced a report
entitled "Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary; Phase 1 Report". The report provided a list of 84 water quality "Hot Spots".
These are areas with, based upon workshops and discussion groups, known or suspected
water quality degradation. The list of 84 was later refined to a list of 88 "Hot Spots'
according to a meeting summary dated March 19, 1996. This report list was mainly
related to water quality issues associated with wastewater influences. In July of 1999,
Monroe County produced " Water Quality `Hot Spots' in the Florida Keys: Evaluations
for Stormwater Contributions". This report assessed the previously identified concerns,
visited the areas in the field, and defined the most probable stormwater-influenced
problem areas.
3.2.2 Wastewater Project Prioritization
3.2.2.1 Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
Given the MCSWMP's goal of eliminating unknown systems, and cesspools, other
parameters, such as annual cost per pound of nitrogen or phosphorous removed, while
important, were deemed to be secondary in importance to the goal of eliminating
cesspools. Consequently the parameter of annual cost per unknown system eliminated
was the principle criteria used for determining the extent of a community wastewater
collection and treatment system, and for establishing and ranking Water Quality "Hot
Spot" areas.
Table 3-2 lists the ranked "Hot Spots", and includes "Hot Spots" for the entire
wastewater master plan study area. The rankings are shown for the entire Keys, with a
ranking of 1 for the "Hot Spot" areas that the MCSWMP recommended be addressed first
as well as for each region of the Florida Keys, regardless of political boundaries.
Generally, "Hot Spot" areas encompass two or -more subdivisions and adjacent areas. As, �,._..
indicated above, the Monroe County Ordinance dealing with elimination of _cesspools
required that each area of the Keys (Upper, Middle, Lower) establish priority "Hot Spots"
and initiate planning, design, an construction of these community wastewater systems.
3.2.2.2 Marathon Wastewater Facilities Plan
They Marathon Wastewater Facilities Plan used a project prioritization rational similar to
that used in the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan.
3.2.2.3 City of Key West Water Quality Improvement Program
Prioritization rational used in developing this program was not available.
3.2.2.4 City of Key Colony Beach Sewer System Evaluation
The evaluated the recommended rehabilitation projects based on the severity of the
deterioration of the sewer collection or transmission segment. They then combined all of
the repairs recommended in the Sewer System Evaluation into one project.
3.2.2.5 City of Marathon Reuse Component Central Wastewater RFP
No specific projects were identified as part of this study.
3.2.2.6 Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management System for the City of
Marathon, FL
This document pertained to only one project. The project was one of those developed in
both the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan and the Marathon Wastewater
Facilities Plan.
3.2.2.7 Federal Emergency Management Agency Programmatic Environmental
Assessment
The purpose of this document was to provide a programmatic level environmental
assessment for three projects previously identified in the MCSWMP, and as such, no
project prioritization was considered other than that previously performed in the Master
Plan.
3.2.3 Stormwater Project Prioritization
With regard to stormwater, each master plan prioritized project areas based on criteria
similar to that indicated in section 2.4.2, which listed the highest priority concern as
water quality protection/improvement.
3.2.4 Allocation of Program Funds
3.2.4.1 Intergovernmental Task Force
The Intergovernmental Task Force (ITF) in Monroe County is an organization with
representatives from each of the Municipal Governments of the Florida Keys. The
general purpose of this group is to provide a common voice to ensure that progress is
made on water quality issues in the Florida Keys.
3.2.5 Readiness to Proceed Criteria
The Readiness to Proceed Criteria dated June 22, 2001 was prepared by the FKAA,
Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection to "define when a recipient is eligible to receive a percentage of their share of
3-7
any federal/state appropriation for wastewater and stormwater improvements authorized
under the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act.
According to the Criteria, to be deemed "ready to proceed", all planning (including the
selection of sites, wastewater/stormwater systems to be implemented, reclaimed water
evaluation, and financing must be complete; sites must be established as available for the
intended purposes, public participation must be documented; and a design/build/operate,
design/build or a construction contract would have to be either executed or authorized for
execution by the project sponsor's governing body
Further definition of theses criteria presented in this document include requirements in
the areas of: project site identification and availability, engineering, planning
documentation, financial planning, connection and pretreatment ordinances, user charge
fees, and public participation. Additionally, the document discusses the idea that
acceptance of any federal grant funds shall not be contingent upon the receipt of
additional federal/state funds in subsequent appropriations. Finally, the document calls
for Quarterly Progress Assessment Meetings and deadlines for establishing "Readiness to
Proceed". The document can be found in Appendix C.
3.2.6 Revised Readiness to Proceed Criteria
A Revised Readiness to Proceed Criteria was drafted by a sub -committee of the Project
Delivery Team and distributed for comment on December 6, 2002. The revised document
includes the following major changes:
• The requirement for completed "financing" was changed to "financial planning"
• The requirement for a design/build/operate, design/build or a construction contract
was changed to add the receipt of a bid would qualify
• A time limit for execution or authorization for execution of a contract was established
at within six (6) months of availability of grant funds.
• The requirement for Environmental Assessments to be "completed" was changed to
be "underway".
• The requirement for Environmental Assessment, as required, to be completed was
stricken.
• The requirement that a treatment process be identified was stricken.
• The requirement for a "financial plan identifying the rates, fees, and charges
associated with providing wastewater/stormwater management services" was changed
to a "financial plan identifying the method of collecting rates,......" .
• The deadline for Readiness to Proceed was stricken.
Based on this revised Criteria, the point system presented below was develop in order to
assess each projects readiness.
UP
Table 3.2 Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program
Readiness Assessment
Assessment Criteria Score If Satisfied
Site 4
A Identification of Site
B Environmental and Technical Suitabili
C Availability of Interest
D
Legal and Zoning Designations
1
2.1
Engineering for WW Management Projects
3
A
Plant Identification
1
B
Collection and Transmission System Identification
I
C
Overlay of Plant on Survey
1
2.2
Engineering for SW Management Projects
3
A
Treatment and Disposal Identification
1.5
B
Conveyance and Storage System Identification
1.5
3
Planning Documentation
5
A
Completion of Planning
2
B
Financial Plan
3
B.I
Financial Breakdown
I
B.2
Estimated Costs for WW/SW Management and Additional
Work
I
B.3
Financial Commitments
1
4
Legal
3
A
Connection Ordinance for WW
I
B
Pretreatment Ordinance for WW
1
C User Charge or Fee Provisions
5 Public Participation 5
3-9
Assessment Criteria
Score If Satisfied
A Selection of Project Sites
2
B Establishment of Ordinances/Resolutions
1
Adoption of Recommendations for WW/SW Management
C Option and Reuse
1
D Financial Planning1
The total potential points for any project would be 20.
3.2.6.1 Distribution Formula Approved by the ITF
The ITF has developed the "Distribution Formula Approved by the Intergovernmental
Task Force and Presented for Approval to the Various Municipal Governments of the
Florida Keys" (Distribution Formula). This document is included in Appendix E.
The Distribution Formula documents the desired and agreed upon distribution of a $100
million Federal Appropriation. The agreed upon distribution includes the following
points:
• ".... all priority project should participate in any funding that occurs until such time
as their promised amounts of funding were reached, as long as all such prioritized
project were considered `ready to proceed' within the fiscal year in which the
appropriation was made.."
• Readiness to proceed will be based on the "Readiness to Proceed" document
developed by the ITF (Appendix Q.
Five different funding scenarios were developed based on different funding levels that
could be expected from the Federal Appropriation and various levels of "readiness to
proceed" of different projects.
Once the appropriation is made or scheduled to be made, the ITF proposes to confer with
its State "partners" to review the "readiness to proceed" status of each prioritized project.
If the amount of funding is deemed too small to be divided according to scenarios stated
above such that "substantial progress can be made", the ITF will meet to propose a
project be funded for which it is presumed "substantial progress" can be made.
The PDT has agreed to utilize the Revised Readiness to Proceed Criteria (Appendix D) to
assess a project's readiness to proceed as part of the FKWQIP.
3-10
3.3 Initial Projects
3.3.1 Selection Process
In developing the list of initial projects as a sub -set of the Master Project List. the
following were considered:
• The Distribution Formula Approved by the ITF (Distribution Formula). Each local
entity, as dictated in the Distribution Formula, is to receive a specified amount of the
total funding. While this document does not specify the distribution for any funding
greater than $30 million, the PDT and ITF has agreed to the following distribution of
the $100 million in funding should it be appropriated:
o City of Key West $10,300,000
o City of Marathon $29,300,000
o Village of Islamorada $29,300,000
o Monroe County $29,300,000
o City of Layton $ 1,582,250
o City of Key Colony Beach $ 335,000
• As discussed above, should the appropriation be less than $100 million, the
Distribution Formulas would be used as guidance in selecting which projects would
be funded.
• For each of the entities which makeup the ITF, the highest priority projects from the
Master Project List were selected for inclusion in the Initial Project List up to the
amount of funding allocated for each entity.
3.3.2 Initial Project List
As with the PMP, the Initial Project List is a dynamic document, as some projects will
become substantially closer to Ready to Proceed as the FKWQIP proceeds. Additionally,
other sources of funding may become available such that high priority projects may be
completed prior to distribution of funds from the FKWQIP.
The Initial Project List includes the name of the entity responsible for the project, the
project name and type of project (wastewater or stormwater), whether or not the project is
in a "Hot Spot" area, a readiness assessment ,and, the projected cost of the project as well
as what FKWQIP funds would be allocated to the project, the local match funds required
and the need for any additional funds. Detailed descriptions of the work involved in each
of the projects can be found on the Master Project List ad the respective planning
documents used to compile the Master Project List.
3-11
V
�O
V1
V1
V1
1n
R
OC
7
M
f":
V1
OC
OD V1
Ny
O
-pl
VI
!+y V
W�
00
C,
00
N
00
C`
h
?
'n
ZS
N
OD
yV.
h
h
m
C�
V
Q
—
—
1�
V_
h
rl
V^.
P
n
V1
M
—
N O
h
h
M
to
C
mM
O
00
Vl
O
—
M
fn
M
M
M
f►1
N
T
�
—
O
�O
N .:.._. .Q.
H
1 V/
H
Vi
1 H
1 Ul
H
H 1
H
H
1 V!
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
N
H
H.
H
H
H
H H
'C
8
8
O
h
O
h
O
V'1
O
h
'�
O
M
1-t
\i
O
C
8
—
o0
00
0o
—
M
O
Op
O c
N
h
�O
N
t
oo
M
O
oc
vl
O� O
M Op
n O
— H
el
ei
I r
['
v�
e!
S
h
h
of
MS
O
N
O
o o
n
`
�?
6rpi C iL
O
M
O
'►y
00
h
00
VI
—
N
•r
N
r
P
N
M
ery
7
M
O
Q
O:
O
!'
O
h
00
oo
N
�O
Ol
V
N
O�
un
O
h OO
N
O
—
00
00
N
M
—
N O
C
I
H
H
H
N
H
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
401 .. H
v1
—
Ol
O
•�:. Q
'y0
O
h
O
h
v'i
M
h
M
p
O
p
O
e•i
v^
O
00
v�
N
00
of
N
C1
0`
O�
01
N
e�
N
O�
v1
O
QQ
v1
O�
O
O
00
00
pQ�
O�
O
0
O
P
�
N
00 - vi
00. 1p
H
T
�O
�O
M
M
NV.
O
! '
—
v1
C :
Vf
O
C <
Q
M
00
R
8
�'1
M
F�
00 . O
CL
H
H
1 40)-1
H1
V/
H
H
H
H
N
H
H
H
H
fA[
H
H
H
H
-1
H
4014
4111
4,11
4.41
Vl - fA
h
N
00cc
N
—
N
N
c
WE
h
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
�c
=,
aF3
�
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
e
0
�
3
o
=
c
v
r
-
�
L
cn
A
A
H
W
Z
A
-p
�
�
c
'a
y
fy7
h
n
C
H
y
U
m
>
06
U
y
v
e
C
=
-•
%�
o
U
0
U
0
U
Y
Q
m
m
o
m
o
0
Y
Y
Y
X
O
ae
U
Q
O
u
u
c
0
A
A
vca
eCa
l.
GLl
[r]
Q
IS]
¢
&n
�
U
i
�
i
�
a�
Cl.
i
s
c-
Ln
m
m
m
is
•V �
a�
C
�+
y
ci
d
X
�G
N
_
O
i
N
M
3.3.3 Project Descriptions
3.3.3.1 City of Key West
Projects included in the Initial Project List for the City of Key West include Stormwater
Projects 1 though 89. Each of these projects generally consists of relatively small
(averaging approximately $180,000) improvements such as installing new drainage wells
and inlets or treatment structures upstream of outfalls.
3.3.3.2 City of Layton
The service area for this project generally consists of the City of Layton. The project will
provide wastewater collection system and a 0.05 mgd BAT wastewater treatment plant.
3.3.3.3 City of Key Colony Beach
This project consists of numerous collection system improvements within the City of Key
Colony Beach's wastewater collection and transmission system. Items identified by the
City and in their planning document include lining of gravity sewer lines and replacement
of the main sewage transmission line that runs from a pump station to the treatment plant.
3.3.3.4 City of Marathon
Marathon II
This project will provide wastewater collection service to "Hot Spot" areas within the
Phase II area, and provide initial 1.0 mgd wastewater treatment plant meeting AWT
standards expandable to 2.0 mgd for this regional service area. Additionally, this project
will include the decommissioning of the Little Venice wastewater plant and connection of
its service area to the regional system.
Marathon III
This project will provide wastewater collection service to "Hot Spot" area within the
Phase III area. All of the package plants in the Phase III area will be connected to the
regional system. The regional wastewater treatment plant will be expanded to 2.0 mgd.
3.3.3.5 Key Largo Wastewater Board
PAED 18 Cross Key Waterway Estates
The service area for this project generally consists of the Cross Key Waterway Estates,
Largo Sound Park, Anglers Park Shores, and South Creek Village area along U.S. 1.
This project will provide community wastewater collection system with interim 0.140
mgd wastewater treatment plant meeting AWT standards.
PEAD 16 Area A
The service area for this project generally consists of what is known as Area A, and
Winken, Blyken & Nod. This project will provide wastewater collection systems to "Hot
Spot" areas, and that system will connect to one of two adjacent existing wastewater
3-13
treatment plants, each of which appears to have adequate excess capacity to serve this
"Hot Spot".
3.3.3.6 Village of Islamorada
Plantation Key Colony Phase IA
This project generally consists expansion of the AWT plant built in Phase I of this project
and connection of Plantation Key Elementary School and Coral Shores High School to
the expanded plant. Additionally, the project will include decommissioning existing
package treatment plants.
Plantation Key Colony Phase II
This project generally consist of expansion AWT plant built in Phase I and Expanded in
Phase 11 to 0.23 mgd, and construction of a vacuum sewer system for the remainder of
North Plantation Key Colony from Tavernier to the northeast, High Street to the
southeast and Plantation Key Elementary to the southwest.
Plantation Key
This project consists of providing a wastewater collection and treatment system to serve
the remainder of Plantation Key. It is anticipated that the required AWT wastewater
treatment plant would have and average daily flow of approximately 0.35 mgd.
3.3.3.7 Monroe County
Boca Chica - Big Coppitt
The service area for this project generally consists of Coppitt, Johnsonville, Gulfview
Porpoise, Point, Gulfrest Park subdivisions and adjacent area along U.S. 1. The project
will provide wastewater collection system to "Hot Spot" areas, and a 0.2 mgd AWT
wastewater treatment plant expandable to 0.40 mgd.
Bay Point
The service area for this project generally consists of Bay Point Subdivision and
Saddlebunch Shores. The project will provide wastewater collection system to "Hot
Spot" areas, and a 0.05 mgd wastewater treatment plant expandable to 0.075 mgd for this
service area. Additionally, this project will connect existing package plants to system
and upgrade wastewater treatment plant to 0.075 mgd.
Big Pine Regional - Whispering Pines
The service area for this project generally consists of Whispering Pines South, Sands,
Grieser, Ross Haven, Pat & Mary's, Big Pine Cove, and the adjacent area along U.S. 1.
The project will provide wastewater collection system to "Hot Spot" areas, and an initial
0.30 mgd AWT wastewater treatment plant, expandable to 0.50 mgd for this regional
service area.
3-14
Big Pine Regional - Doctor's Arm
The service area for this project generally consists of Doctor's Arm, Lambert, Tropical
Bay, Palma Villa, and Whispering Pines North Subdivisions. The project will provide
wastewater collection system to "Hot Spot" areas.
3.4 Method of Execution
3.4.1 Federal Appropriations
Public Law 106-554, Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education.
and related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Section 109, allocated $420,000 for the
USACE to begin coordination activities with the non -Federal Sponsor and to prepare the
PMP (subject document) that defines the program scope, guidelines, schedule and
resources required for program implementation. Additionally, monies are being used to
prepare the appropriate level of NEPA documentation to evaluate program alternatives
and address the impacts of program implementation.
Since the funding stream per year is presently an unknown factor, this PMP has assumed
Congressional appropriations of various amounts each year for the next four years to
implement the initial projects discussed in Section 3.3. Appropriation assumptions are
discussed in Section 4.
3.4.2 Program Implementation Guidance Document
The USACE Headquarters has prepared a Program Implementation Guidance (PIG)
document to assist in the implementation of the FKWQIP that contains the following
elements:
• Program Objective
• Authority
• Appropriations and Use of Funds
• Program Management
• Applicable Policy
• Procedures
• Reporting Requirements
3.4.3 Program Cooperative Agreement
The USACE is currently developing a model Program Cooperation Agreement (PCA) to
govern FKWQIP implementation. The PCA will be executed between the Federal
Sponsor (USACE) and the Non -Federal Sponsor (SFWMD). The Non -Federal Sponsor
may or may not then execute sub -agreements with the municipalities of Monroe County,
3-15
including the County itself. Subject to the procedures established in the executed PCA.
funds appropriated for the FKWQIP will be used to execute agreements for selected
design and construction assistance projects. All work will be performed within available
funds. The draft agreement is being prepared to address FKWQIP issues that will evolve
as the program is implemented in future years.
Before entering into the PCA, the USACE will ensure the non -Federal Sponsor has
completed adequate planning and design activities, as appropriate. The USACE will
ensure the non -Federal Sponsor has completed a financial plan for each project approved
by the Program Delivery Team (PDT) for Federal funding and has identified and secured
the financial sources for the non -Federal portion of each project. Additionally, the
USACE will ensure that each project or project component implemented under the
program complies with applicable growth management ordinances of Monroe County,
Florida; applicable agreements between Monroe County, Florida, and the State of Florida
to manage growth in Monroe County, Florida; and applicable water quality standards.
Also, the USACE will ensure all projects selected for Federal funding are consistent with
the master wastewater and stormwater plans prepared for Monroe County, Florida.
3.4.4 Independent Technical Review Process
An Independent Technical Review (TTR) is required for USACE planning projects. This
is a part of the USACE Headquarters level policy and is further defined by USACE
Engineer Regulations. TTR is part of the corporate QC/QA process followed by USACE
for all engineering projects. QC is comprised of peer reviews, normal technical review
and the ITR. In general, QA oversight is for areas of responsibility (and governance)
outside the authority assigned to the PDT. All planning, engineering and design products
shall have an TTR. The TTR team will be established prior to work starting on individual
projects and will conduct reviews as necessary to insure that the product is consistent
with established criteria, guidance, regulations, procedures, and policy. The TTR process
implemented for the FKWQIP will be a continuous process with reviews coordinated
with the appropriate project manager to minimize lost planning and design effort.
3.4.5 Contracting and Acquisition Plan
A general contracting strategy for the FKWQIP will be outlined and included in the PCA
that will be utilized for implementing subsequent phases of the FKWQIP. Contracting
and acquisition strategies to be utilized during design and construction phases will be
developed in subsequent updates of this PUT.
Contract specific acquisition strategies will be developed for each individual project to be
advertised and awarded. Procurement statues, regulations and procedures applicable to
the procuring Agency (SFWMD, Monroe County, or municipalities with Monroe
County) will dictate the acquisition process. Factors to be considered in determining the
specific acquisition strategies include but are not limited to technical complexity of the
work, environmental considerations/constraints, construction schedules and magnitude of
3-16
construction. Socioeconomic statues, regulations and procedures applicable to the
respective procuring Agency will be applied to the procurement process for each
individual project.
3.4.6 Design Process
A detailed scope of work will be determined during the design phase of each project with
the FKWQIP. The scope of design investigations to be conducted will be determined
jointly by the USACE and the SFWMD during PDT meetings to include sufficient
engineering, economic, environmental, and institutional analyses and public involvement
activities necessary to implement the project in compliance with applicable Federal and
state laws.
In selecting projects for funding under criteria contained within Section 109, the USACE
will consider whether a project will have substantial water quality benefits relative to
other projects under consideration. Sufficient analysis, coordination, and documentation
will be prepared to comply with applicable Federal environmental laws, statutes, and
Executive Orders and to provide a basis for obtaining the necessary permits and licenses
for project implementation. Using information provided by the SFWMD, the USACE
will develop and coordinate as required, an Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact or a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of
Decision in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 for
each Federally funded project or program component. This project specific NEPA
documentation will include tiering off the program level NEPA documentation currently
under preparation. The non -Federal Sponsor is responsible for obtaining all necessary
permits and licenses.
Whether the design phase of the project takes the form of a grant, design assistance, or
partial cost -reimbursement for design performed by non -Federal interests, the end
product will be a set of plans and specifications suitable for the advertisement and award
of a construction contract for the identified project. The design phase will also produce
documentation of the engineering, economic, environmental, and institutional analyses
and public involvement activities necessary to implement the project. Requirements
include preparation of either an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact or a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision that
tiers from the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement currently under preparation
for NEPA compliance and obtaining all the necessary permits required for project
implementation.
3.4.7 Real State Acquisition
Credit for real estate acquisition associated with the purchase of lands by the non -Federal
Sponsor is not currently reimbursable under terms of the enabling legislation, thus is not
subject to review by the USACE. If however, in the future, a determination is made that
real estate purchases are reimbursable, the USACE will conduct a real estate evaluation
3-17
to insure that fair market value was received for purchased property needed to construct
the wastewater and stormwater treatment facilities.
If a real estate analysis is needed in the future, an inventory of all lands adjacent to the
project improvements, followed by a list of lands to be acquired for each specific
wastewater or stormwater improvement project will be developed. An appraisal of the
costs of lands and damages, and preparation of a plan for acquisition of these lands will
also be reviewed. Other tasks include an analysis of physical takings, attorney's opinion
of compensability, and obtaining rights of entry for various field collection activities.
This activity includes all written memoranda, opinions, database development reports and
other document provided by Real Estate personnel as required in support of feasibility
phase planning efforts and eventually the purchase of the necessary land and rights -of -
way.
3.4.8 Construction Activities
For construction phase work for which the non -Federal Sponsor will be responsible, the
non -Federal Sponsor is responsible for development and approval of all products
pertaining to the performance of work (whether performed under contract or by non -
Federal Sponsor personnel) and will provide the USACE with an opportunity to review
such products. The non -Federal Sponsor will also prepare and furnish to the USACE for
review a proposed Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement
(OMRR&R) Manual. If at any time the USACE is responsible for construction, it will be
responsible for development and approval of all contract products and the OMRR&R
Manual and will provide the non -Federal Sponsor an opportunity to review such
products.
3.4.9 Reimbursement
The cumulative project financial commitments will be limited to actual appropriations up
to the authorized amount of $100M Federal dollars. Assistance that involves credits or
reimbursements to the non -Federal Sponsor is subject to the requirements established in
the implementing legislation (i.e., Public Law 106-554 of 2001 and the executed PCA.
Subject to the availability of Federal funding, and execution of the PCA between the non -
Federal Sponsor and the USACE, the non -Federal Sponsor will be reimbursed for the
non -Federal share of previous design, future design, or future construction work
performed by the non -Federal Sponsor, to the extent the credited value of the non -Federal
Sponsor's total contributions to the project exceed its required cost share. Creditable prior
design is limited to work specifically completed for projects selected by the PDT to be
funded by the USACE, or separable components for which assistance is being provided.
Credit for design which occurred before the law was enacted (21 December 2001) is not
allowable. Likewise, reimbursement for past construction is not authorized. The amount
of the credit to be afforded for non -Federal work shall be determined as specified in the
executed Program Cooperative Agreement.
3-18
The USACE will process reimbursement payments based on proper invoices submitted
by the non -Federal Sponsor. If there are unforeseen delays in making reimbursement,
reasonable interest and financing charges will be credited to the non -Federal Sponsor by
the Government. The amount of the interest and financing charges creditable shall be
limited to the amount computed in accordance with the provisions of the Prompt Payment
Act.
Federal costs for review of existing design performed by non -Federal interests,
developing the scope of work, financial analysis, NEPA compliance, and negotiating the
construction agreement will be included in the total project cost that is subject to cost
sharing. All Federal and non -Federal costs incurred subsequent to execution of the
agreement will be included in total project costs and subject to cost sharing, crediting,
and reimbursement under the terms of the construction agreement.
3-19
4.0 PROGRAM SCHEDULE
The program schedule has been developed assuming funding of $100 million
appropriations over four years as follows:
Fiscal Year 2004
Fiscal Year 2005
Fiscal Year 2006
Fiscal Year 2007
$26.3
Million
$38.6
Million
$19.7
Million
$15.4
Million
For the projects contained in the Initial Project List, a program level schedule has been
developed which considers work completed to date and includes any required planning,
preparation of Requests for Proposal, advertisement for bid, bid review and award, and
design and construction.
4-1
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ATU
Advanced Treatment Unit
AWT
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
BAT
Best Available Technology
BCC
Board of County Commissioners
BLS
Below Land Surface
BMPs
Best Management Practices
BOD5
Biological Oxygen Demand
CCAM
Carrying Capacity Analysis Model
CERP
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
CWA
Clean Water Act
DBOWMS
Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management System
DCIA
Directly Connected Impervious Area
EA
Environmental Assessment
ENRCCI Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FAS
Floridian Aquifer System
FB
Florida Bay
FDEP
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FK
Florida Keys
FKAA
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
FKTR
Florida Keys Tidal Restoration
FKWQIP
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program
FS
Florida Statutes
ITF
Intergovernmental Task Force
ITR
Independent Technical Review
KCA
Kisinger, Campo and Associates Corp
LERR
Land, Easements, Rights -of -way, Relocations
MCSMMP
Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan
MCSWMP
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
MGD
Million Gallons per Day
MOU
Memorandum Of Understanding
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
O&M
Operation & Maintenance
OMRR&R
Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement
OWNRS
Onsite Wastewater Nutrient Reduction Systems
PCA
Project Cooperation Agreement
PDT
Program Delivery Team
PIG
Program Implementation Guidance
PMP
Program Management Plan
QC/QA
Quality Control / Quality Assurances
RFP
Request For Proposal
ROGO
Rate Of Growth Ordinance
SFWMD South Florida Water Management District
SW
Stormwater
TMDLs
Total Maximum Daily Loads
TN
Total Nitrogen
TP
Total Phosphorus
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
WW
Wastewater
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
REFERENCES
Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary:
Phase 1 Report". Prepared by the USEPA Oceans and Coastal Protection Divisions. July
1992.
"Water Quality `Hotspots' in the Florida Keys: Evaluations for Stormwater
Contributions". Prepared by Monroe County. July 1999.
Lapointe, B.E., J.D. O'Connell, and G. Garrett. 1990. Nutrient couplings between on -site
sewage disposal systems, groundwaters, and nearshore surface waters of the Florida
Keys, Biogeochemistry, 10:2289-307.
Kruczynski, William L. and Fred McManus. 1999. "Water Quality Concerns in the
Florida Keys: Sources, Effects, and Solutions", The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral
Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook, 31.
Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan with Phased Implementation for the Marathon Area of
the Florida Keys (Marathon Wastewater Facilities Plan). Prepared for Monroe County,
Florida by CH2Mhil1 in association with Lindahl, Browning Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc.
and Continental Shelf Association, Inc. April 1998.
Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management System (DBOWMS) for the City of
Marathon. Prepared for the City of Marathon by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority.
Key West, Florida. January 2002.
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. Prepared for Monroe County by
CH2Mhill in association with Lindahl, Browning Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc., Avers
Associates, Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Bryant, and Yon,
P.A. and Continental Shelf Association, Inc. June 2000.
City of Marathon Reuse Component of Central Wastewater RFP. Prepared for the City of
Marathon by Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. May 2001.
City of Key Colony Beach Sewer System Evaluation. Prepared for the City of Key
Colony Beach by URS Corporation. September 2002.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Draft Programmatic Environmental
Assessment. Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency by URS Corporation.
September 2002.
Stormwater Runoff Study. Prepared for the City of Key West by Kisinger Campo and
Associates, Corporation. September 1994.
City of Key West Water Quality Improvement Program. Developed by the City of Key
West. 1999.
Islamorada, Village of Islands, Stormwater Management Master Plan. Prepared by Law
Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. September 2000.
City of Key West Long Range Stormwater Utility Plan. Prepared for the City of Key
West by Engineering Services. June 2001.
Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan. Prepared for Monroe County by
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. August 2001.
Stoker, Y.E. "Effectiveness of a stormwater collection and detention system for reducing
constituent loads from bridge runoff in Pinellas County, Florida". USGS Open File
Report 96-484.
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Roster of PDT Members
O
O
J
LL
N
M
O
f7
L
S
J
J
O
O
O
u'
O
LA.
W
�r
J
O
L
m
Y
N
P)
m
An O
LL
WO
M
C.4
3
LL
LL
m
W
_
W
LL
cn
O
l7
A
S
y
S
W
1f1
N
N
C
J
lL
LL
W
W
L_
W
en
LL
E
N
m
W
U)
W
O
LL
4
O
>
l0
m
J
L
TC
LL
m
r
O
m
>
L
0
Oi
ai
N
'
y
W
vi
J
M
M
W
W
O
N
y
W
>`
Y
�_
m
f7
N
N
V
A
1(1
>
tp
C
R
O
W
7
p
>
0
O
x
m
O
>
0
C7
Y.
O
t
m
O
0
m
m
rn
3
m
a
9
rn
o
0
0
o
O�
0
0
O
p
N
a
0:
ao
a
N
C:
o
g
E
'o
E
E
W
c
c
W
CR
M
.E
_
C
>
W
L
D
c
7
M
E,
c
Y
Y
>
4K
D
Y
E
"
?
N
9
C
r
7
>
`
C
t
.Q
w
E
o>$
y
2
Q
O
N
r<
�Op
S
N
I?
S
�
M
Ff
N
N
O�
e�f
O
?
'D
"1
<
O
O,
00
N
en
.
CD
m
Ch
co
N
C.
OO
D
O
CO
A
K
vi
vi
vi
vi
�n
vi
N
N
N
N
N
W
U.
0
0
0
0
0
0
In
0
m
O
S
O
m
O
m
e
v
<
t0
O
Q
PI
U
o
<
N
N
N
m
Q
fD
R
O
N
m
(7
N
N
A
PI
O
N
R
A�DD
Qi
Q
O
ONE
N
m
N
0
fD
1I
fD
<
117
w
N
N
1Ln
O
M
N
f�
COO
N
O
L
0
0
In
W
W)
0
7
0
w
<
0
0
d
O
m
O
e7
O
f7
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
m
O
m
O
f7
O
f7
O
N
y
C
-_T
O
Q
C
m
C
Q
f0
U
m
E
U
W
N
m
o
0
U
3
L
5
D
U
w
c
W>
W
o
'o,
v
o,
m
0
Q
y
L`
0
o
E
o
U
m
.
m
3
c
W
>
5
p
Y>
W
0
W
o>
Y
w
7
e
0
g
r
0
Mn
C
W
C
E
4!
(CC
p
l6
C
m
Ci
H
C
a
l
W
m
cl
2
m
�'
E
m
:cc
o
>
o,
w
m
E
E
c
m
c
c
E
o
N
U
W
C
o
7
7
>.
a
S
Y
F=
0,U
0.m
a
d
W
y
Z
W
C
LL
y
7
W W
5 C
m
m
ym
C
N
LL
CD
Z
j'
m
C
m
y
>
W
H
U
y
O
E
m
t
c
a o
m
Y
a
g
m
o
E
E
L
c�
W
o
m
m
inm
Appendix B
Plan Formulation Memorandum
a
PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Prepared by Everglades Partners Joint Venture
February 10, 2003
14-Feb-03 1 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program .....................................................
1.1.1 Program Location........................................................................................................ 4
1.1.2 Program Purpose......................................................................................................... 5
1.1.3 Program Authorization and Background ............................................
1.1.4 Water Quality Protection Program: Hot Spots and Cold Spots ................................... 5
1.1.5 Applicable Regulatory Requirements......................................................................... 6
1.2 Plan Formulation Memorandum......................................................................................... 8
1.2.1 Purpose of Memorandum............................................................................................ 8
1.2.2 Memorandum Organization........................................................................................ 9
1.2.3 Master Plans and Other Documents Reviewed...........................................................9
2.0 ALTERNATIVES SELECTION AND ANALYSIS....................................................11
2.1 Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan...........................................................11
2.1.1 Existing Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities in the Keys .....................12
2.1.2 Water Quality Hot Spots...........................................................................................12
2.1.3 Estimated Flow Volume During Planning Period.....................................................12
2.1.4 Monroe County Wastewater Management Alternatives Screening Process.............12
2.1.5 Priorities of Proposed Projects..................................................................................14
2.1.6 Proposed Onsite Systems for Cold Spots
..................................................................14
2.1.7 Wastewater Solids Management
...............................................................................14
2.1.8 Wastewater Collection Alternatives
..........................................................................15
2.1.9 Selection of Effluent Disposal Methods
....................................................................15
2.1.10 Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan Recommendations ....................16
2.2 Marathon Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan..............................................................17
2.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility Siting Alternatives..................................................17
2.2.2 Collection System Alternatives.................................................................................17
2.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
..........................................................................18
2.2.4 Wastewater Effluent Management Alternatives
.......................................................18
2.2.5 Solids Management Alternatives..............................................................................20
2.2.6 Wastewater Management Alternatives
......................................................................
2.3 Islamorada Village of Islands, Stormwater Management Master Plan .............................
20
21
2.4 Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan (SMMP)....................................
22
2.4.1 Goals and Objectives of the- Master Plan..................................................................22
2.4.2 Alternatives Considered
............................................................................................
2.5 Stormwater Runoff Study Prepared for the City of Key West
23
..........................................
2.6 City of Key West Water Quality Improvement Program ..................................................
27
28
2.7 City of Key West Long Range Stormwater Utility Plan...................................................28
2.8 City of Key West Wastewater Enterprise Fund Capital Improvements Program .............
29
2.9 City of Key Colony Beach Sewer System Evaluation
30
......................................................
14Feb-03 2 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
2.10 City of Marathon Reuse Component for Central Wastewater Request For Proposal....... 3c
2.11 Des'Wigement System (DBOWMS) for the City of
Marathon........................................ ................................................................................... 31
2.12 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Draft Programmatic Environmental
Assessment........................................................................................................................ 31
3.0 COST ESTIMATES........................................................................................................32
4.0 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................32
14-Feb-03 3 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Florida Keys (Keys) are a chain of islands extending from the southern tip of the Florida
mainland southwest to the Dry Tortugas in portions of both Dade and Monroe counties. Among
the many conservation areas in the Keys are Biscayne National Park, several National Wildlife
Refuges, and the Dry Tortugas National Park, all of which are encompassed within the larger
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) (Figure 1). The Sanctuary includes_',800
square nautical miles of nearshore waters that are part of a complex ecosystem that also includes
seagrass meadows, mangrove islands, and the only living coral barrier reef in North America.
Consequently, water quality is critical to maintaining the marine ecosystem of the Sanctuary.
Importantly, as population and tourism in the Keys have increased over the years, improvements
in wastewater treatment and stormwater management practices have not kept pace with this
growth. Ongoing research has suggested that this trend has resulted in a significant degradation
of water quality in canals and nearshore waters surrounding the Keys and that nutrients
commonly found in wastewater and stormwater are one of the major contributors to the decline
of water quality.
For these reasons, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposes to assist local
municipalities in Monroe County with the development and implementation of wastewater and
stormwater improvements as part of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program
(FKWQIP or Program). The Program is designed to:
• reduce nutrient loading to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary;
• subsequently improve water quality in the Sanctuary; and,
• meet relevant Federal and State regulatory standards.
The implementation of several wastewater and stormwater treatment master plans prepared for
municipalities in Monroe County is integral to the success of the FKWQIP. The purpose of this
Plan Formulation Memorandum (Memorandum) is to document the analysis and subsequent
recommendations that resulted in the development of these master plans that the Corps will use
as the foundation for implementing the Program. The following sections provide information
relevant to the Program and the master plans that will be used in its implementation.
1.1 Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program
The FKWQIP provides a means of improving the water quality of the Sanctuary. A description
of the Program is presented here to provide the context in which the Plan Formulation
Memorandum has been developed. The Memorandum is presented in subsequent sections.
1.1.1 Program Location
This program targets the portion of the Keys connected by U.S. Highway 1, a 110-mile stretch of
roadway extending from Key Largo to Key West, and the remaining developed portion of the
Keys. The entire study area is within the Sanctuary (Figure 1).
14-Feb-03 4 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
1.1.2 Program Purpose
Numerous scientific studies have documented the contribution of failing septic tanks and
cesspools to the deterioration of canal and nearshore water quality in the Keys (Lapointe et al.
1990 and Kruczynski et al. 1999). In addition, research has suggested that increased nutrient
loadings from wastewater and deterioration of canal and nearshore water quality are major
contributors to the decline of water quality in the Sanctuary. Therefore, the primary purpose of
the FKWQIP is to improve the water quality in the Sanctuary by the development and
implementation of improved wastewater and stormwater treatment in the Keys.
At the Federal level, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990
directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Florida to develop a
water quality protection plan for the Sanctuary. Locally, the Monroe County 2010
Comprehensive Plan mandates that nutrient loadings be reduced in the marine ecosystem by the
year 2010 and that wastewater systems meet more stringent Florida Statutory Treatment
Standards. In light of regulatory requirements and in the interest of protecting public health and
water quality, the FKWQIP was created.
The FKWQIP will be accomplished through the implementation of several wastewater and
stormwater master plans prepared for Monroe County and other local municipalities in Monroe
County. These plans are designed to provide cost-effective, environmentally sound, and feasible
programs for managing pollutants that are now, or have the potential to, adversely impact the
water quality of the Keys and the Sanctuary. The FKWQIP is intended to provide the technical
and financial assistance for planning, engineering, and construction of wastewater and
stormwater treatment improvement projects.
1.1.3 Program Authorization and Background
Under authority of Public Law 106-554, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Section 109 and Conference
Report H.R. 4577, 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 the water
quality of the Sanctuary. It should be noted that programs of this nature (i.e., wastewater
treatment and stormwater management construction programs) are not in accordance with
Administration Program priorities of the Corps of Engineers; however, the Corps routinely
undertakes similar non-traditional Corps projects.
1.1.4 Water Quality Protection Program: Hot Spots and Cold Spots
In July 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
produced a report entitled Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary; Phase I Report. The report was based on workshops and discussions and
provided a list of 84 water quality Hot Spots with known or suspected water quality degradation.
According to a meeting summary dated March 19, 1996, the list of 84 was later expanded to
include 88 Hot Spots based primarily on water quality issues associated with wastewater
influences. In July of 1999, a Monroe County document entitled Water Quality 'Hotspots' in the
14Feb-03 5 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Florida Keys: Evaluations for Stomiwater Contributions was released. The report assessed
previously identified stormwater concerns, documented the results of field visits, and defined the
areas most likely to have stormwater-associated problems. Stormwater systems in Monroe
County are regulated through Monroe County Code Section 9.5-293.
In contrast with Hot Spots, Cold Spots were defined as areas where onsite systems will continue
to operate. Cold Spots fall into two categories:
• Properties with unknown systems that must replace or upgrade their systems immediately
with an onsite wastewater nutrient reducing system (OWNRS). All these systems must
be replaced or upgraded by July 12, 2003.
• Properties that currently have permits for their onsite systems and will not be required to
upgrade or replace them until 2010, when all onsite systems must be upgraded or
replaced with nutrient reduction OWNRS to meet the regulatory effluent limits described
below.
1.1.5 Applicable Regulatory Requirements
As a result of concerns regarding water quality in the Keys, the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan (1997) mandated nutrient loading levels be reduced in the Keys marine
ecosystem by the year 2010. In 1998, the Florida Governor issued Executive Order 98-309
which directed local and State agencies to coordinate with Monroe County to implement the
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and eliminate cesspits, failing septic systems, and other
substandard on -site sewage systems.
In 1999 the Florida Legislature set statutory effluent standards and associated compliance
schedules for wastewater treatment systems in Monroe County. These standards address
treatment for several water quality constituents and require best available technology (BAT)
standards for flows less than 100,000 gpd and advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) standards
for design flows greater than 100,000 gpd. Adopted water quality standards are listed below.
Water Quality Standards
BAT AWT
Constituent (mg/L) (mg/L)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 10 5
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 10 5
Total Nitrogen (TN) 10 3
Total Phosphorus (TP) 1 1
Statutory compliance schedules for wastewater treatment systems in the county are listed below.
• All unknown (or unpermitted) onsite systems in "Cold Spots" and new installations shall
be replaced or upgraded with an O,VNIRS by July 12, 2003.
• All existing onsite systems shall cease discharging or shall be upgraded to an OWNRS by
July 1, 2010.
14-Feb-03 6 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
• All existing onsite wastewater treatment facilitys must be upgraded to either BAT or
AWT effluent standards by July 1, 2010.
In 1998, additional legislation addressed wastewater concerns in the Keys by amending the
enabling legislation of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), the principal potable water
supplier for the Keys. Legislation was passed (F.L. 76-441) to strengthen FKAA involvement in
wastewater management for Monroe County. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between Monroe County and the FKAA was signed to "request that the FKAA exercise its
authority to purchase, finance, construct, and otherwise acquire and to improve, extend, enlarge,
and reconstruct a wastewater collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal system or systems
in the Florida Keys." A chronological summary of these and other events relevant to wastewater
management in the Keys is presented in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Recent Chronology of Regulatory Milestones of
Wastewater Management in the Florida Keys
1993
• Initial adoption of Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
1997
• Monroe County Comprehensive Plan amended to comply with Florida Statutes.
• Administration Commission adopts amendments to Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan and established Five -Year Work Program (Rule 28-20.100).
• Monroe County Stormwater Management Plan (MCSWMP) begins.
• Monroe County established original Identification and Elimination of Cesspools Ordinance. 03-
1997: this ordinance was unsuccessful and was later rescinded.
1998
. Governor's Executive Order 98-309 (State and Local Agency Participation in Carrying Out
Monroe County Year 2010 Plan).
• Florida Legislature amends the enabling legislation of the FKAA (F.L. 76-441) to reinforce the
FKAA's involvement in wastewater for Monroe County.
• Monroe County enters into a Memorandum of Understanding with the FKAA requesting that the
FKAA exercises its authority to finance, construct, and operate wastewater systems in the Keys.
1999
• Governor Bush and his cabinet amend the 1997 Five -Year Work Program (Rule 28-20.100) to
accelerate pace of program, identify "Hot Spots." and initiate cesspool identification outside of
"Hot Spot" areas.
• Monroe County passes Ordinance 031-1999 (Revised Identification and Elimination of
Cesspools) to comply with the Governor's revised Five -Year Work Program.
• F.L. 99-395 passed (new requirements for all sewage treatment, reuse and disposal facilities, and
all on -site systems in Monroe County; prohibits new or expanded discharges into surface waters,
and requires existing surface water discharges be eliminated before July 1, 2006).
Source: Modified from Monroe County, 2000
In addition to local regulations, Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires all states
to develop a list of priority surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards
(impaired waters) after implementation of technology -based effluent limitations. States are
required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) which designate the maximum
amount of a pollutant a waterbody can assimilate without exceeding water quality standards.
14-Feb-03 7 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, sets forth the process by which the 303(d) list is refined
through more detailed water quality assessments. It also establishes the means for adopting
TMDLs, allocating pollutant loadings among contributing sources, and implementing pollution
reduction strategies. Implementation of TMDLs can include any combination of regulatory, non -
regulatory, or incentive -based actions necessary to reduce the pollutant loading. Non -regulatory
or incentive -based actions may include development and implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs), pollution prevention activities, and habitat preservation or restoration.
Regulatory actions may include issuance or revision of wastewater, stormwater, or
environmental resource permits necessary for consistency with the TMDL. Permit conditions
may be quantitative effluent limitations or, for technology -based programs, a combination of
structural and non-structural BMPs necessary for achieving the desired pollutant load reduction.
Florida is comprised of fifty-two major hydrologic basins, which in turn make up five TMDL
groups, each of which undergoes five phases of development, beginning with basin assessment
and concluding with actual implementation. The five phases of the study for each group are as
follows:
• Phase I Preliminary Basin Assessment
• Phase II Strategic Monitoring
• Phase III Data Analysis and TMDL Development
• Phase IV Management Action Plan
• Phase V Implementation
The Keys are in the fifth group of waterbodies to undergo TMDL implementation and are
scheduled to begin Phase I in fiscal year 2004/2005 and complete it by fiscal year 2008/2009.
Currently, Phase II for waterbodies in Group I was completed in April of 2002. The results of the
five phases for Group 5 cannot be predicted at this early date and as such, consideration to
TMDLs has not been given in this Program.
1.2 Plan Formulation Memorandum
Previously developed wastewater and stormwater master plans developed by local municipalities
in Monroe County provide the individual plans necessary for implementation of the FKWQIP
and also alleviate the need for the Corps to develop additional planning documents. Therefore,
the Memorandum is necessary to provide the documentation of the analyses and subsequent
recommendations of the plans.
1.2.1 Purpose of Memorandum
The purpose of this Memorandum is to document the analyses and planning processes used in
developing the various master plans and other documents prepared to date for Monroe County
and municipalities within Monroe County with regard to wastewater improvements and
stormwater management planning. Based on the extensive work undertaken to date in the
identification of potential alternatives and recommended plans, no additional plan formulation
work will be undertaken by the Corps as part of the FKWQIP. Consequently, the purpose of this
14-Feb-03 g PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
memorandum is to summarize the decision -making process used in each master plan or other
relevant documents, and to document the recommendations made as part of each plan.
1.2.2 Memorandum Organization
Chapter 2 of this Memorandum outlines the range of alternatives considered within the
previously prepared master plans and other reviewed documents and also summarizes the
decision making process used to select the recommended action(s) within each plan. Chapter 3
provides an overview of available cost information. Chapter 4 presents conclusions regarding
decision making processes for future wastewater and stormwater treatment plans in Monroe
County as well as the future use of this Memorandum.
1.2.3 Master Plans and Other Documents Reviewed
Several stormwater and wastewater master plans have been prepared for Monroe County and
other municipalities located within Monroe County. The Corps plans to use these decision
making documents as the foundation for the planning component of the FKWQIP. Since 1994,
several plans and documents have been produced and were reviewed for inclusion in this
Memorandum. Descriptions of each plan are provided below.
1.2.3.1 Wastewater
Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan with Phased Implementation for the Marathon Area of the
Florida Keys (Marathon Wastewater Facilities Plan). CH2MHill, Inc. et al. 1998. The purpose
of this Plan was "to define the most cost-effective, environmentally sound, and implementable
program for the management of existing and future wastewater pollutants that presently act, or
will act, to deteriorate the Key's water quality in the Marathon area." The planning area extended
from Seven Mile Bridge through Conch Key (see Figure 1). Implementation of the wastewater
management system was comprised of "planning, design, and construction" and the scope was
defined as part of Construction Grants, 1985, a manual published by EPA (July 1984).
Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management System (DBOWMS) for the City of Marathon,
FL. FKAA 1998. This plan presented a set of specifications that accompanied a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management System for the City of
Marathon, FL. The specifications were intended to establish minimum technical requirements
and level of quality for the treatment system to be constructed and operated for the City.
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. CH2MHill, Inc. et al. 2000. The objective
of this master plan was to "develop a plan that would provide an equitable, ecologically sound,
and economical implementation strategy for managing wastewater and improving the water
quality in the Florida Keys." Goals of the plan were to "provide responsive, flexible, and cost-
effective solutions that improve wastewater management throughout the keys and satisfy existing
and future needs of the community," address affordability and equity issues, and satisfy
environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines. The planning area included the entire
developed area of the Florida Keys, except for the Cities of Key West and Key Colony Beach
(see Figure 1).
14-Feb-03 9 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
City of Marathon Reuse Component of Central Wastewater RFP. Calvin, Giordano &
Associates, Inc 2001. The purpose of the requested work was "to determine water reuse
feasibility for the City of Marathon." The scope of this study was based on the FDEP Guidelines
for Preparation of Reuse Feasibility Studies for Applicants Having Responsibility for
Wastewater Management.
City of Key Colony Beach Sewer System Evaluation. URS Corporation 2002. The City had
"continuously expended funds" over the last five years in rehabilitating their existing wastewater
collection system and this evaluation was prepared to assist the City wastewater system staff in
identifying additional sources of inflow and infiltration in the existing wastewater system.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Draft Programmatic Environmental
Assessment. FEMA has received grant applications to fund the construction of several
wastewater treatment systems in Monroe County. Much of the proposed project funding would
be provided through FEMA 1249-DR Post Disaster — Unmet Needs funds. Matching funds will
be provided through the Florida Division of Emergency Management and local government
applications. While the Environmental Assessment prepared in September of 2002 was
programmatic in nature, it was written to address the environmental consequences of
constructing four planned wastewater treatment projects.
1.2.3.2 Stormwater
Stormwater Runoff Study prepared for the City of Key West. Kissinger, Campo and Associates
Corp. (KCA) 1994. The purpose of this study was to identify and map existing flooding locations
and develop a Drainage Improvement Development Plan.
City of Key West Water Quality Improvement Program. City of Key West 1999. The intent of
this program was to facilitate a commitment by the City to "divert stormwater runoff from
Outstanding Florida Waters," reduce infiltration, inflow, and exfiltration in their sewer system.
Islamorada Village of Islands, Stormwater Management Master Plan. Law Engineering and
Environmental Services, Inc. 2000. This master plan was developed to "address water quality
improvements to stormwater discharges into the Village's canals and near shore waters of the
Atlantic Ocean and Florida Bay." The planning area consisted of the Village of Islands, which
extends from the north side of the Islands, at Mile Marker 90.94, south to Mile Marker 72.66,
and consists of Plantation Key, Windley Key, Upper Matecumbe Key, and Lower Matecumbe
Key (see Figure 1).
City of Key West Long Range Stormwater Utility Plan. City of Key West 2001. This plan was
developed to review studies previously prepared by KCA and CH2MHill as well as problems
associated with flooding since 1994, and make recommendations for future projects and funding
required to alleviate flooding and improve water quality in and around the City of Key West.
Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan. Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. 2001.
This master plan, like those previously described, was prepared to "assess the adequacy of
14-Feb-03 10 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
existing systems, prioritize stormwater management needs for each island, identify regulations
and policy needs, and develop a plan to finance the construction, operation and maintenance
(O&M) of required facilities" for the Keys.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES SELECTION AND ANALYSIS
A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) is presently being prepared to meet
Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation requirements for the
FKWQIP. One component of the PEIS is the analysis of alternatives for the FKWQIP.
However, because the document being prepared is a programmatic level EIS, individual EISs
will eventually be required for each treatment facility proposed.
This Section of the Memorandum provides the basis for the proposed alternatives and describes
the decision making process used to make recommendations regarding alternatives and
summarizes the recommendation(s) made as part of each master plan or other decision
document. Individual wastewater treatment and stormwater management alternatives were
identified as part of the various master plans and other documents previously developed to
address wastewater treatment and stormwater management needs in the Florida Keys.
2.1 Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
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 areas of Monroe County. More specifically, the plan included the
items listed below.
• Establish more stringent nutrient limits to ensure that maximum, tolerable, nutrient loads
to the County's nutrient -sensitive waters and ecosystems are not exceeded and short -or -
long -term adverse impacts do not occur.
• Prevent further degradation to groundwater, as well as confined, nearshore, and offshore
waters.
• Ensure improvements of these waters 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 is the result of a comprehensive three-
year study effort, which included extensive evaluations of existing treatment systems in the
Florida Keys and applicable technologies that would fulfill the objectives of the Monroe County
2010 Comprehensive Plan. The master plan was prepared as an initial step towards satisfying
directives of this plan
The planning area for this master plan included the entire developed area of the Florida Keys,
with the exceptions of the Cities of Key West and Key Colony Beach (see Figure 1). During the
study, the Islamorada Village of Islands and the City of Marathon were incorporated. Thus, the
planning area included unincorporated Monroe County in the Florida Keys, as well as the cities
of Layton, Marathon, and Islamorada Village of Islands.
14-Feb-03 j ] PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
2.1.1 Existing Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities in the Keys
Except for the cities of Key West and Key Colony Beach, where regional wastewater systems are
in operation, wastewater facilities throughout most of Monroe County have been built with
limited consideration of regional wastewater planning. In the absence of regional wastewater
utilities, private onsite or package wastewater treatment facilities have been constructed to serve
a development or individual homes. As a result, there is presently a mix of approximately
23,000 onsite systems and 246 small wastewater treatment facilities. Although the existing
wastewater collection systems are inadequate for regional wastewater transmission. they could
be used to provide source collection and transmission to a regional collection system.
Recommendation. The Monroe County master plan recommended existing collection systems
and lift stations remain under private ownership because upgrading these facilities to standards
required for a regional utility would be too costly.
2.1.2 Water Quality Hot Spots
A goal of the Monroe County master plan is to coordinate the Cesspool Identification and
Elimination Ordinance with the master planning efforts. This 1999 Ordinance calls for the
establishment of water quality "Hot Spots" that identify areas anticipated to be served by central
community wastewater systems within the next 10 years or by the year 2010.
Recommendation. The recommendation made in the Monroe County master plan was that
wastewater treatment and collection system improvements be located in "Hot Spots" as defined
by the Monroe County Ordinance governing Cesspool Identification and Elimination (1999).
2.1.3 Estimated Flow Volume During Planning Period
The planning period addressed by the Monroe County master plan was the 20-year interval
between 1998 and 2018. Projected wastewater flows and numbers of customers were estimated
using FKAA water use records for each of the 27 master plan study areas for the baseline year
1998. Wastewater flow projections were then made based on anticipated growth for the 10-year
and 20-year planning horizons (i.e., 2008 and 2018 respectively). Wastewater flow was assumed
to be equal to water use at each residential and commercial location.
Recommendation. The recommendation in the Monroe County master plan was to base
planning estimates on a seven percent in total wastewater flow for the first 10-year planning
period and a 14 percent increase in total wastewater flow in all 27 study areas for the entire 20-
year planning period.
2.1.4 Monroe County Wastewater Management Alternatives Screening Process
The decision making (or priority) model approach implemented for the Monroe County master
plan incorporated technical information related to wastewater treatment, as well as cost and
schedule data. This information was evaluated in tandem with concerns expressed by key
14-Feb-03 12 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
decision makers, stakeholders, and the public, and used to reach consensus on a recommended
plan. A two-step process was implemented.
1. Screen potential land areas for possible facility siting.
2. Evaluate the wastewater management alternatives.
Decision models were developed through a joint, collaborative effort among Sanitary
Wastewater Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee (SWMP TAC), Monroe County
Citizens Task Force on Wastewater (Task Force), and the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC), as well as through consultation with representatives of the community -
at -large. The process resulted in the identification of alternatives that reflected the concerns of
stakeholders and the technical feasibility of treatment solutions.
In evaluating wastewater management alternatives for Monroe County, decision -makers
considered multiple issues: cost, technical feasibility, performance, environmental impacts,
service disruption potential, reliability, and implementation. Policy concerns and differences in
opinion among the stakeholder community were addressed and resolved as objectively as
possible. The process provided a means of evaluating alternatives against a common framework
and identified factors that most strongly influenced alternative rankings.
The evaluation model examined wastewater treatment alternatives. The first level of evaluation
examined the principal objective: maximize benefits of the wastewater management alternative.
The second level addressed important issues identified by stakeholders, while the ability of each
alternative to meet the program objective was evaluated at the third level.
The Wastewater Management Alternatives Screening Process implemented for the Monroe
County Master Plan is summarized below.
• Identify Alternatives. 43 alternatives were identified.
• Preliminary Screening. Each of the 43 alternatives were scored for their ability to meet
criteria in each of 7 screening areas.
• Alternative Shake -Out. Alternatives that did not meet criteria were eliminated from
further evaluation.
• Next Level Screening. Alternatives that passed preliminary screening were further ranked
for their ability to meet criteria within the 27 study areas.
• Feasibility Study. Ranked list of alternatives for each study area were studied for
consideration in the master plan.
Recommendation. Results of the Monroe County Master Plan Feasibility Study concluded that
providing community wastewater collection and treatment in most areas of the Keys (25 of the
27 study areas) would be more cost effective and have fewer adverse environmental impacts
when compared with upgrading or replacing all existing onsite systems with shared cluster
OWNR systems and upgrading all existing wastewater treatment facilities.
14-Feb-03 13 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
2.1.5 Priorities of Proposed Projects
The identification and elimination of presently undocumented treatment systems and associated
cesspools that have been in service for a number of years without ever having been permitted has
been identified as a priority. In comparison, the annual cost per pound of nitrogen or phosphorus
removal was assigned secondary importance. Consequently, the annual cost of removing
undocumented treatment systems was identified as the primary criteria in determining the
primary need of a community wastewater collection and treatment system and establishing and
ranking water quality Hot Spots. Hot Spot areas generally encompass two or more residential
subdivisions and adjacent greenway areas.
Recommendation. As described previously, Monroe County requires that each area of the Keys
(Upper, Middle, Lower) establish a priority Hot Spot list and initiate planning, design, and
construction of community wastewater systems for these areas. The planning, design, and
construction of treatment facilities for water quality Hot Spots in Monroe County was
recommended in order of the priority ranking assigned to the Hot Spots as part of the Monroe
County master plan.
2.1.6 Proposed Onsite Systems for Cold Spots
Properties with Cold Spots where onsite systems will continue to operate fall into two categories,
as described here.
• Properties with treatment systems of unknown type or origin must replace or upgrade
their systems immediately with a nutrient reduction OWNRS by July 12, 2003.
• Properties that currently have permits for their onsite systems and will not be required to
upgrade or replace them until 2010, when all onsite systems must be upgraded or
replaced with nutrient reduction OWNRS to meet the regulatory effluent limits of
10/10/10/1.
Recommendation. Install OWNRS as prescribed by regulatory requirements and local
ordinance.
2.1.7 Wastewater Solids Management
A summary of the solids management plan recommended as pan of the Monroe County Master
Plan for the 28 existing and proposed wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) and the options
considered is provided here. Three options were evaluated.
• Option 1. Minimum Regionalization. Operate solids handling facilities at all 14
WWTFs of 100,00 gpd capacity or greater.
• Option 2. Maximum Regionalization. Operate solids handling facilities only at the
largest WWTTs in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys with solids from all other
WWTFs trucked to these facilities.
14-Feb-03 14 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
• Option 3. Intermediate Regionalization. Operate solids handling facilities at the nine
WWTFs of 400.000 gpd capacity or more, with solids from the remaining plants trucked
to the nearest of these facilities.
Recommendation. Option 1: Operation solids handling facilities at all 14 WWTFs of 100,00
gpd capacity or greater was recommended as part of the Monroe County Master Plan.
2.1.8 Wastewater Collection Alternatives
Wastewater collection alternatives were analyzed for their suitability in each of the 27 study
areas. The collection system technologies that were evaluated are listed below.
• Conventional gravity sewers.
• Simplified gravity sewers.
• Smaller diameter gravity sewers.
• Sewer grinder pump systems,
• Septic effluent pump systems.
• Vacuum sewers.
Of these six collection system types, three systems were found to be best suited for the Florida
Keys and were evaluated in more detail: vacuum sewers, grinder pump systems, and progressive
cavity grinder pump systems. Conceptual designs for these collection systems were prepared
and construction cost estimates developed. In 22 of the 27 study areas, vacuum collection was
the lowest cost alternative for serving the entire study area, particularly when the number of
equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) collected was more than 350.
Recommendation. In addition to being the most cost-effective collection system alternative,
vacuum sewers offer the following advantages:
• No electrical power is required at each home or vacuum value.
• Wastewater collection service is maintained during short-term or long-term utility power
losses with a standby generator located at each vacuum station that will automatically be
triggered in the event of power loss.
• Air drawn into the vacuum system with the sewage will help to keep the sewage aerated,
and thus will help to eliminate odors
2.1.9 Selection of Effluent Disposal Methods
Requirements that prohibit new or increased wastewater effluent discharges into surface waters
in Monroe County and mandate the elimination of existing discharges to surface waters by July
1, 2006 were passed by the 1999 Florida Legislature. This legislation allows effluent reuse
systems, but requires the use of underground injection for effluent disposal, under the conditions
described below.
14-Feb-03 15 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
• Shallow Injection Wells. If the design capacity of the facility is less than 1 mgd, the well
must be at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet (this is considered
a shallow injection well).
• Deep Injection Wells. If the design capacity of the facility is greater than or equal to one
mgd, the well must be cased to a minimum depth of 2,100 feet (a deep injection well).
• Water Reuse. The Monroe County Master Plan recommended limited use or reliance on
effluent reuse and cited the drawbacks outlined here.
1. Land application requires full storage or backup disposal systems whenever
treatment requirements are not achieved, or when the land application site
cannot take reclaimed effluent. This includes extended periods of wet weather.
2. Relatively large tracts of land are required to accommodate the effluent being
disposed. Such tracts may be distant from the plant site, causing high
transmission conveyance costs.
Recommendation. Design and construct effluent disposal systems in compliance with applicable
regulatory requirements.
2.1.10 Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan Recommendations
The recommendations presented in this master plan include:
• Upgrade or replace existing onsite systems located in lower density areas of the Florida
Keys with onsite nutrient reduction systems (OWNRS)
• Install 12 community wastewater collection and treatment systems.
• Install five regional wastewater collection and treatment systems.
• Continue to operate and upgrade treatment processes for 17 existing facilities to meet
BAT or AWT, as required, by July 2010.
The master plan further recommended that five of the 12 community wastewater collection and
treatment systems feature interim wastewater treatment facilities that, over time, would be
phased into the larger regional systems. Details of the recommendation from the Monroe County
Master Plan for each of the three regions of the Florida Keys are presented below.
Lower Keys. In the Lower Keys, construction of four new community wastewater systems and
two new regional wastewater systems was recommended. The two proposed regional systems in
the Lower Keys are relatively small, in terms of both flow and area served, thus the first phase of
these WWTFs can be constructed at the regional WWTF site. Master plan recommendations
also include the continued operation and upgrade of seven existing facilities in the Lower Keys
to meet the BAT/AWT standard by July 1, 2010.
Middle Keys. Two new community wastewater systems and one new regional system were
recommended.. Other than Duck Key, Conch Key, and Long Key/Layton, all study areas of the
Middle Keys continue to operate and upgrade their treatment process to meet the BAT/AWT
standard by July 1, 2010. These systems include:
14-Feb-03 16 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
• Hawk's Cay (Hawk's Cay portion of AWT upgrade)
• West end Long Key (three facilities)
• East end Long Key (two facilities)
Upper Keys. In the Upper Keys, one new community wastewater system is recommended in
lower Matecumbe, and two new regional systems are recommended: the 1.5 million gallon per
day (mgd) system to serve Islamorada Regional Wastewater Management District, and the _'._5
mgd system to serve the Tavernier/Key Largo Regional Wastewater Management District.
2.2 Marathon Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan
A wastewater treatment facilities plan was developed for Marathon for which potential WWTF
site locations were evaluated.
2.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility Siting Alternatives
This preliminary screening process resulted in identification of 19 potential WWTF sites. These
sites were narrowed down through a selection criteria matrix to six sites, including at least three
regional WWTF sites (greater than ten acres). The sites with the highest scores in the site
selection criteria matrix were selected for further evaluation, including field environmental
assessments. Assessed values of the sites were obtained from records of the Monroe County
Property Appraiser. The tasks completed as part of the Environmental Assessments of the six
selected sites are listed below.
• Review existing Monroe County Land Use Classification Maps.
• Review USEPA Florida Keys Wetlands Advanced Identification Project Land Cover
Maps.
• Review any site specific development and proposed development plans available through
Monroe County.
• Review the most recent available color infrared and tax assessor aerial imagery.
• Review threatened and endangered species data relative to each selected site.
• Site inspection by a qualified environmental scientist.
Recommendation. Site Number Four (West of 48`h Street) was recommended as the first priority
site for a regional WWTF. An analysis of collection system alternatives indicated that use of this
site will not incur significantly higher collection/transmission system costs than use of the more
centrally located Site Number Six. This site has the added advantages of being partially cleared,
absent of environmentally sensitive lands, and in proximity to a reclaimed water application site
(Sombrero Country Club Golf Course).
2.2.2 Collection System Alternatives
The three wastewater collection technoiogies identified as best suited for use in the study area
were centrifugal grinder pump systems, progressive cavity grinder pump systems, and vacuum
sewers. All three technologies are capable of providing reliable wastewater service if properly
installed and maintained. Gravity sewers would also provide reliable service, but at a
14-Feb-03 17 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
substantially higher cost than the alternative collection systems. Based on cost estimates
prepared for the four collection system options, vacuum sewers were identified as the lowest cost
alternative.
Of the three alternative wastewater collection systems, vacuum systems have the greatest system
reliability. Vacuum sewers do not require a power source at individual connection points and the
system can remain in service during a power outage if auxiliary power is provided at the vacuum
stations. Maintenance costs for the wastewater collection system options are similar. Owners
and operators of existing systems reported similar frequencies of maintenance calls for the two
types of grinder pump stations and the vacuum valves. On the average, repairs to vacuum valves
were reported to be less costly than repairs to grinder pump station.
Recommendation. The entity responsible for the wastewater utility should participate in the
decision process for selection of the type of collection system to be used. Final selection should
be based on cost and on preference of the wastewater utility, provided the difference in cost is
not large enough to adversely impact users of the system.
2.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives relied on the evaluation of treatment
alternatives with varying degrees of effluent water quality over a wide range of capacities. The
intent was to screen all potential applications for the study area, although the emphasis was on
fundamental processes and not on the diversity of proprietary processes available. Such process
variations were left for further evaluation to be undertaken subsequent to establishment of the
fundamental process train.
The study area included some 70 FDEP permitted WWTFs. Consideration was given to
upgrading one or more of these existing plants for use as a regional or subregional WWTF. The
cost estimates developed were based primarily on information provided by a number of
equipment vendors. Cost information from prior CH2M11ILL projects was also used. Unit
sizing criteria were developed in accordance with Ten States Standards. The estimates were
prepared to emphasize relative cost differences between the alternatives rather than the absolute
magnitude of the costs.
Recommendation. Capital and O&M costs were estimated for each treatment alternative at
capacities of 0.02 mgd, 0.10 mgd, 1.0 mgd, and 2.0 mgd. Pre-engineered, field -erected treatment
units were assumed for the cost estimates, however, the entity ultimately responsible for
wastewater treatment may wish to consider cast -in -place construction. The initial construction
cost would be somewhat higher, however, a cast -in -place plant would offer advantages in
reduced O&M and increased operational flexibility.
2.2.4 Wastewater Effluent Management Alternatives
Potential effluent management alternatives were identified and were first screened for
implementation obstacles and those alternatives with major obstacles were eliminated from
further evaluation. Reuse by land application, underground injection through deep wells,
14-Feb-03 18 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
underground injection through shallow wells, and surface water disposal were identified as
potentially feasible methods for effluent management in the Marathon area.
Recommendations were made based on four scenarios, described below.
Scenario Number 1. WWTF Capacity of 0.02 mgd. FDEP does not allow reuse for systems this
small. A shallow injection well system is the only remaining feasible alternative for effluent
management. The order -of -magnitude construction cost estimate for this system was an
estimated $33,000 for two wells, wellfield piping, and polishing tank only.
Scenario Number 2. WWTF Capacity of 0.1 mgd. The estimated order -of -magnitude
construction cost estimate for the shallow injection wellfield, including four wells, piping
effluent, and polishing, was $100,000.
Reuse should be pursued as a secondary effluent management method (0.1 mgd is the minimum
allowable size for a reuse system). The order -of -magnitude cost estimate for the reuse system
was approximately $1 million for WWTF filters, disinfection, effluent storage tank, continuous
on-Iine turbidity and chlorine residual monitoring equipment, and high service pumping. This
cost does not include transmission and distribution piping and connection to the existing
irrigation systems. These offsite costs will be determined when site -specific areas for reuse are
defined and can be expected to add substantially to the cost of the reuse alternative.
Scenario Number 3. WWTF Capacity of 1.0 mgd. The order -of -magnitude construction cost for
the shallow injection well system, including 14 wells, was an estimated $750,000.
Reuse was recommended as the secondary method of effluent management. The order -of -
magnitude construction cost estimated for the filters, disinfection, effluent storage tank,
continuous on-line turbidity and chlorine residual monitoring equipment, and high service pump
station was approximately $2.5 million. Offsite facilities will be evaluated later in the Facilities
Plan and will add substantially to the cost of the entire reuse system.
Scenario Number 4. WWTF Capacity of 2.0 mgd. A deep injection well system was
recommended as the primary effluent management system. Two injection zones exist and were
identified as suitable for wastewater disposal. These constitute the upper part of the Floridan
Aquifer System (FAS)and are an intermediate -depth zone, extending from 650 to 1,200 feet
below the surface (bls) and the deeper Boulder zone, extending from 2,100 to 2,500 feet b1s.
Preliminary design indicates that a 12-inch diameter steel casing set to a depth of approximately
650 feet bls will convey effluent to an injection horizon in the intermediate depth zone. The well
will be completed with open -hole construction from 650 to 1,200 feet bls.
Typical surface facilities will include a pump station, surge control system, yard piping, and
instrumentation. A second, redundant intermediate depth injection well would provide a back-up
system for periods in which the primary injection well is off-line for testing. An order-of-
14-Feb-03 19 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
magnitude construction cost for two intermediate -depth injection wells and surface facilities is
approximately $1.52 million, with an annual O&M cost of approximately $90.000.
If the intermediate -depth deep well described above could not be permitted, another potential
injection zone exists and is the deeper Boulder Zone. This injection horizon is most likely
confined by dense limestone from 1,200 to 2,100 feet bls. This option would include a 22-inch
casing set to 650 feet bls, and a 12-inch-diameter casing set to 2,100 feet bls, with open -hole
construction to 2,500 feet bls. The estimated order -of -magnitude construction cost for two deep
wells and surface facilities is $2.82 million, with an annual O&M cost estimated to be $90,000.
Recommendation. Shallow well injection of wastewater effluent was recommended for three
WWTFs with capacities less than or equal to 1.0 mgd, and deep well injection for WWTFs with
capacities of 2.0 mgd. Reuse of effluent was recommended as a secondary effluent management
method, if economically feasible.
2.2.5 Solids Management Alternatives
Alternatives for processing and disposing of residual wastewater solids (treatment facility sludge
and septage) generated as a result of implementation of regional or subregional wastewater
collection and treatment systems were evaluated. The alternatives evaluated included various
processes for stabilizing, dewatering, transporting, and disposing of solids produced by two
WWTFs serving the primary and secondary service areas. Alternative means of handling
treatment facility solids and septage from the remaining areas of the planning area were also
evaluated.
In general, proven solids handling processes in the United States today were first screened with
respect to their applicability at a new regional WWTF serving the primary service area. For the
wastewater collection/treatment option using subregional WWTFs, it was assumed that a single
centralized solids handling facility would be constructed at one WWTF site, and solids from the
other WWTFs would be transferred to that site for processing. The most feasible processes were
then formulated into alternative systems, which were compared on the basis of both capital and
O&M costs.
Recommendation. A residual solids handling system consisting of aerobic digestion,
dewatering, and contract hauling to remote agricultural land was recommended for a new
regional WWTF. The regional WWTF or central subregional solids management facility should
also be equipped to receive and co -process residual solids from the Key Colony Beach and
Hawks Cay WWTFs serving the secondary service area. Continued disposal of residual solids to
the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) using contract haul services was
also recommended.
2.2.6 Wastewater Management Alternatives
Wastewater management alternatives were evaluated to identify the most cost-effective and
environmentally favorable plan for wastewater management in the Marathon Study Area. The
three alternatives examined are listed here.
14-Feb-03 20 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
• Upgrade individual onsite systems with Best Available Technology (BAT) and upgrade
existing package plants to Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) standards.
• Serve the primary service area with subregional WWTFs.
• Serve the primary service area with a regional WWTF.
All regional management alternatives were evaluated on the basis of providing AWT where
treatment facility flows were greater than 100,000 gpd in accordance with the Monroe County
BOCC's selection of AWT as the most environmentally sound treatment level. Alternatives
were evaluated on the basis of cost and environmental and implementation factors.
Depending on the size of the initial reuse capacity at the regional plant, additional capital costs
could vary from approximately $2,050,000 to $10,500,000. Total project costs could vary from
approximately $2,600,000 to $13,400,000; these costs would have to be included and financed in
the total project cost of the regional facility. Annual O&M costs would increase between
$18,000 and $50,000.
Recommendation. A recommendation for a legally binding commitment by customers to use
reuse waster at a guaranteed level should be obtained before any reuse facilities are incorporated
into the design and construction of the reuse facility. Based on these commitments, the initial
reuse demand and the size and extent of the initial reuse facility can be determined and
incorporated into the project.
2.3 Islamorada Village of Islands, Stormwater Management Master Plan
To evaluate potential reductions in pollutant loads from storm events in the Islamorada Village
of Islands (Village), an analysis of pollutant load reduction scenarios was conducted for each of
the drainage basins. The qualitative aspects of various attributes for each alternative treatment
technology were evaluated with regard to program priorities and future land use projections.
When present, environmental impacts for each alternative were evaluated on the basis of their
potential affects on natural resources, including flora and fauna, water and sediment water
quality standards; habitat communities, and unique physical features of the environment within
each basin as they relate to future land use activities. The ten alternative pollutant load reduction
scenarios were evaluated and are listed below.
1. Installation of sediment removal mechanisms.
2. Installation of drainage wells and associated sediment removal mechanisms.
3. Construction of swales.
4. Installation and maintenance of native vegetative buffers.
5. Construction of retention/detention facilities.
6. Wetland hydrologic enhancement.
7. Creation of wetland habitats.
8. Infrastructure/system maintenance.
9. PubIic education.
10. No action.
14-Feb-03 21 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
A ranking system was developed to assess the relative degree of potential adverse environmental
impacted and reduction of pollutant loadings associated with each of the ten alternatives listed
above. The alternatives were ranked on a scale of one to five, with five being the most desired
ranking or representing negligible adverse environmental impacts, and one where significant
ecosystem impacts were anticipated, or estimated costs were disproportionate to benefits.
Each alternative was ranked with regard to categories of:
• Water quality (e.g. nutrient loading; suspended solids; oil and grease; and heavy metals),
• Physical parameters (e.g. maintenance; public safety; and erosion and sedimentation),
• Sediment storage capacity,
• Flora and fauna (e.g. avifauna; fish; benthos; and threatened/endangered plant and animal
species),
• Alteration of coastal habitats,
• Land use,
• Level of Service provided (water quality and quality discharge requirements of the
Village Comprehensive Plan), and
• Relative cost.
The categories were then averaged to determine the final ranking of each ten alternatives for
each of the Village's 13 proposed future land use categories. The result was a recommended
strategy for reduction of pollutant loads for each land use type.
Each drainage basin may contain one or more land use types. As stated above, for each land use
type a preferred methodology for pollutant reduction was developed. Each drainage basin was
then ranked with regard to priority for implementation of pollution reduction measures based on
the improvement's ability to meet Program Priorities developed by the Village and the potential
benefits of the improvements.
Recommendation. A priority list of 63 projects developed as part of the master plan was
recommended for implementation over 30 years with an associated cost in current dollars of
$48,916,882.
2.4 Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan (SMMP)
2.4.1 Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan
Based on public input and the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the following is a list of recommended
goals and objectives for the Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan.
Goal 1. Identify, assign priority and recommend remedial improvements for the water quality
related problem areas in unincorporated areas of the County.
Goal 2. Provide recommended actions that will reduce the sediment and nutrient loading of
nearshore waters resulting from runoff.
14-Feb-03 22 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Goal 3. Review existing regulatory requirements for the control of new development related to
flooding and water quality and recommend improvements as needed. As a related issue, the
SMMP will review existing enforcement activities and recommend changes necessary to
improve the compliance of existing or new regulations.
Goal 4. Recommend activities related to the stormwater management of future growth that will
be expected to result in no increase in sediment or nutrient loads to nearshore waters.
Goal 5. Encourage the use of nonstructural and source controls to achieve a reduction in existing
sediment and nutrient loads and, when necessary, recommend structural controls associated with
the publicly owned infrastructure.
2.4.2 Alternatives Considered
As part of this plan, various alternative strategies for stormwater management with particular
emphasis on those to be used in the Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan were
considered.
2.4.2.1 Onsite Approach.
In the case of future urban development or retrofit of existing development, the onsite approach
(also known as piecemeal approach to stormwater control) involves the delegation of
responsibilities for BMP deployment to local land developers or the use by the County of BMPs
serving small areas due to site constraints. Each developer is responsible for constructing a
structural BMP at the development site to control nonpoint pollution loadings from the site.
Onsite detention ponds typically have contributing areas of 20-50 acres. The local government is
responsible for reviewing each structural BMP design to ensure conformance with specified
design criteria, for inspecting the constructed facility to ensure conformance with the design, and
for ensuring that a maintenance plan is implemented for the facility. The treatment facility
usually consumes 15% of developable site based on research done in Florida by CDM and
others.
2.4.2.3 Regional Approach.
The regional approach to stormwater control involves strategically locating regional structural
BMPs to control nonpoint pollution loadings from multiple development projects. For ponds
serving new development, the front-end costs for constructing the structural BMP are assumed
by the developer and/or the local government that administers the regional BMP plan. BMP
capital costs can then be recovered from upstream developers on a "pro-rata" basis as
development occurs. Individual regional BMPs are phased in as development occurs rather than
constructing all regional facilities at one time. Maintenance responsibility for regional structural
BMPs can be assumed by the developer (or designee with certified maintenance bonds) or by the
local government. For retrofit of existing development, regional BMPs may also be used to cost-
effectively treat areas near the areas that cannot be cost-effectively treated. The regional
approach can address concurrence for the entire watershed.
14Feb-03 23 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
2.4.2.3 BMP Alternatives
The study listed 19 structural BMPs and 16 nonstructural source controls considered for the
Florida Keys.
Structural BMWs
• Shallow grassed swales
• Retention basins
• Buffer strips
• Porous pavement
• Water quality inlets and baffle boxes
• Hydrodynamic separators
• Underdrains and stormwater filter systems
• Infiltration drainfield
• Dry wells
• Modular treatment systems
• Stormwater wetlands
• Alum injection systems
• Aeration
• Level spreaders
• Oil/grease separators
• Recharge wells and bore holes with pretreatment
Nonstructural Stormwater Controls
• Land use planning
• Public information programs
• Stormwater management ordinance requirements
• Fertilizer application controls
• Pesticide use controls
• Control of gray water (cisterns and Rain barrels)
• Solid waste management
• Hazardous materials management
• Street sweeping
• Vehicle use reduction
• Directly connected impervious area (DCIA) minimization
• Low impact development
• Illicit connections (non-stormwater discharges) identification and removal
• Erosion and sediment control on construction sites
• Source control on construction sites
• Operation and maintenance
14-Feb-03 24 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Bridges
The Monroe County Stormwater Master Plan lists the islands along U.S. 1 in the Monroe County
study area and associated bridges and bridge lengths connecting them (lengths given to the
nearest 0.1 mile). Of the 107 miles of U.S. 1, 18.9 miles (about 18 percent) are bridges of various
lengths. Approximately 17 miles of bridges and potential stormwater runoff retrofit are
addressed as part of the Plan.
The bridges represent 100 percent impervious surface and runoff to nearshore waters or bridge
land fall. As a result of concerns over treatment of this stormwater, the U.S. Geological Survey
conducted a study of the Bayside Bridge in Clearwater, Florida from 1993 to 1995 (Stoker
1996). For the Bayside Bridge, stormwater runoff was collected along the bridge through inlets,
and conveyed to a land -based detention facility near the bridge entrance. The study monitored 33
storm events and found that stormwater runoff quality varied with total runoff volume,
antecedent dry period, and season. Many parameters, including sediments and nutrients, were
inversely related to runoff volume. Treatment efficiencies indicated that suspended solid loads
were reduced by 30 to 45 percent, inorganic nitrogen by 60 to 90 percent and most metals by 40
to 99 percent. However, outflow concentrations were greater than inflow concentrations for total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), alkalinity, pH, specific conductance, and other water quality
parameters.
The study concluded that: 1) stormwater should be conveyed to and treated at land based
facilities; 2) regular maintenance is necessary, and 3) treatment efficiencies are highly variable
and some constituent concentrations increase. While similar studies have not been performed in
the Keys, bridge runoff control was not recommended on a large scale. Implementation on a trial
basis at one or more sites for a few years, with monitoring, was recommended, and depending on
the outcome, bridge runoff control could be implemented on selected bridges.
Recommendation. Based on an analysis of the benefits and costs, retrofit and rehabilitation
projects were recommended for areas with documented water quality problems and projects were
recommended that: 1) would retrofit and rehabilitate areas with flooding and water quality
problems that would be of public concern; 2) improve maintenance for existing and future
stormwater management facilities, and 3) minimize stormwater-associated pollutant loading to
nearshore waters from existing and future developments and other sources. The following
actions were recommended.
• Monroe County should adopt a 95 percent treatment requirement and strictly enforce its
application on new development and significant redevelopment. This means that new
developments must remove 95 percent of the annual average load of pollutants from
developed property. For the purposes of this plan, the 95 percent standard means 95
percent capture of the mean annual rainfall volume. Stormwater pollutant loading models
for future growth indicate that this will achieve Goal 4 (no increase in future loads). The
anticipated consequences of this requirement are first, the County should review each
new development to confirm that the 95 percent requirement is met and through
construction inspection, confirm that the stormwater systems are being built according to
14-Feb-03 25 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
the approved design. Second, the County should work to define reasonable stormwater
retrofits that meet the 95 percent rule and then allow redevelopment based on water
quality benefits.
• Monroe County should implement an O&M program for public stormwater management
systems and inspection of private systems. The O&M program adopted by the Countv
should include routine maintenance for critical stormwater systems as well as routine
inspection of others. Furthermore, private stormwater systems should receive proper
maintenance with annual certification by owners.
• Monroe County or South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) should develop
a stormwater well inventory. Runoff from both public and private properties is
discharged into drainage wells. Unfortunately, very little is known about the location,
tributary area and land use draining to each well. While drainage wells provide
significant stormwater flood relief, the benefits and impacts on water quality are not well
documented because of the lack of information.
• Monroe County and SFWMD should enforce existing regulations through inspection and
as -built drawings. Review of existing federal, state, regional and local stormwater
regulations confirmed that sufficient regulatory controls exist. However, field inspections
confirmed that many of the permitted systems were not built or are not maintained
according to the permit. County and SFV;MD inspectors should be trained in sediment
and erosion control inspection.
• Monroe County should pay special attention to marinas with respect to stormwater
runoff. Many of the stormwater quality problem areas identified in the Florida Keys were
related to private marinas. Field inspections identified major problems that were related
to runoff from material storage areas, unpaved areas, and lack of stormwater controls
prior to discharge. The County should encourage the state to continue the Clean Marina
Program, and marina retrofits should be reviewed on a case -by -case basis to meet the 95
percent rule.
• Monroe County should encourage redevelopment and retrofit with reductions in
impervious area. Many of the existing stormwater problems occur as a result of
development —associated increases in impervious surfaces and commensurate changes in
volume, timing, peak flow, and pollutant content of stormwater runoff. The County
should offer incentives to reduce impervious areas using vegetated and landscaped
swales, rain gardens, bio-filters, and pervious pavement.
• Monroe County should encourage the use of vegetated buffers and conservation
measures. As noted previously, the major water quality problems in the Florida Keys are
a result of inadequate stormwater control. Simple, effective, controls consist of vegetated
buffers such as swales, rain gardens, bio-filters and bio-retention. Also, water
conservation methods such as re -use of stormwater runoff for residential irrigation,
cisterns, rain barrels, and xeriscapinge also reduce runoff volume and associated pollutant
loadings.
14-Feb-03 26 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
• Monroe County should require all vegetated systems such as swales, medians, etc., to be
planted with native vegetation to minimize maintenance. Planting of vegetated systems
with native plants will maintain the beauty of the Florida Keys' natural environment as
well as minimize special maintenance. Public and private construction and development
should be encouraged to use salt -tolerant plants near shoreline spray areas and other
native plants away from the coast line.
• With the support of federal, state, and regional governments, Monroe County should
implement the recommended retrofit and rehabilitation projects to address existing
problem areas. Twenty-two retrofit and rehabilitation projects have been identified to
address problem areas within Monroe County. The projects include improvements to be
implemented by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Heritage Bike
Trail), Florida Department of Transportation (along US 1), Monroe County and
Marathon. Three additional projects on private property have been considered as well: K-
Mart in Marathon, Key Largo Trailer Village, and the Safe Harbor area on Stock Island.
These represent example projects to illustrate the possible retrofit or rehabilitation of
private property.
• Where possible, FDOT should include stormwater controls as part of all Florida Keys
projects, including bridge entrances and exits. A review of existing designs and a field
survey of FDOT systems showed that many areas have limited stormwater quality
controls. Many of the bridge entrances and exits, especially in the Upper Keys discharge
uncontrolled stormwater that contain significant sediment loads. Since the FDOT
Stormwater system is the major (and in some study areas, the only) stormwater control
available, stormwater quality improvements will also result in improvements to nearshore
waters.
2.5 Stormwater Runoff Study Prepared for the City of Key West
The Stormwater Runoff Study prepared for the City of Key West identified goals, alternatives,
and recommendations for stormwater improvements for the City.
2.5.1 Goals of the Study
The stated purpose of the study is to identify and map the existing flooding locations and
ultimately develop a Drainage Improvement Development Plan by prioritizing the documented
flooding areas and analyzing alternative solutions for each area.
2.5.2 Alternatives Considered
The study considered six alternatives to address flooding:
• Roadside ditches
• Urban storm drain systems
• French drains
14-Feb-03 27 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
• Storage chambers
• Retention/detention ponds
• Gravity wells
Recommendation. Recommendations made for the program includes the following:
• Implement a City-wide maintenance program that would provide scheduled cleaning of
the existing and/or proposed storm drain systems
• Implement a street sweeping program to keep the streets clean of yard debris and trash
that would eventually block inlets and pipes.
• Install flap gates or similar devices on outfalls that discharge into the Atlantic Ocean or
the Gulf of Mexico. This would help prevent tidal waters from entering the storm drain
systems and flooding the roadways.
• The existing storm drain systems should be inventoried and mapped. This would include
documenting the type, size, location, elevation, and condition of all inlets, manholes,
pipes and outfalls. To accomplish this task, all structures that are filled with dirt and
debris would need to be cleaned. This could be completed on each flooding location as
they are chosen for improvements.
• Model the existing storm drain system associated with each flooding location and
determine which improvements are necessary to alleviate the flooding problems and
provide as much stormwater treatment as possible.
2.6 City of Key West Water Quality Improvement Program
The goal of this program was to facilitate the commitment by the City of Key West to "divert
stormwater runoff away from Outstanding Florida Waters," and commitment to reducing
infiltration, inflow and exfiltration in their sewer system.
Recommendation. Recommendations made for the program are listed here.
• Installation of five Pump -Assist Injection Well Systems built to BMP standards to
prevent flooding, divert stormwater flow from outfalls and Outstanding Florida Waters
and avoid nearshore water contamination.
• Elimination and/or retrofit of 63 outfalls to reduce or eliminate discharge of pollutants to
nearshore waters.
• Installation of 239 injection wells to prevent flooding and divert stop-nwater flow from
outfalls and sheet flow to Outstanding Florida Waters.
• Retrofit existing injection wells to provide additional treatment for oils and hydrocarbons.
2.7 City of Key West Long Range Stormwater Utility Plan
The stormwater utility plan for the City of Key West was directed at improving water quality and
alleviating flooding problcros.
14-Feb-03 28 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
2.7.1 Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of the plan was to review studies previously prepared by KCA and CH2MHi11 and
information regarding flooding problems after 1994, and make recommendations as to required
future projects and funding to alleviate flooding and improve water quality in and around the
City of Key West.
2.7.2 Alternatives Considered
Alternatives to address flooding due to storm surge, rain events, and standing water were
evaluated as part of the plan and are briefly outlined below.
• Flooding due to storm surge
o Increase the height of seawalls, beach berms and roadways around the perimeter of
the Island
o Place tide -valves on every outfall.
• Flooding due to intense rain events
o Install French drain systems in higher elevation areas
o Install outfalls and wells in lower elevation areas
• Flooding due to standing water
o Install French drains
o Regrade areas to drain onto existing drainage inlets or retention areas
o Install infrastructure to tie into existing drainage systems
Recommendation. The plan presents the list of recommended improvements for various
drainage areas within the City as wells as a recommended maintenance program. The
recommended projects are listed here.
• Limited road reconstruction.
• Numerous drainage wells.
• Outfall treatment structures.
• Additional infrastructure (inlets and piping) to convey stormwater to existing systems or
outfalls.
2.8 City of Key West Wastewater Enterprise Fund Capital Improvements Program
This wastewater improvements program addressed deep well injection, retrofitting and
rehabilitation, access improvements, and reuse improvements for the City of Key West. Based on
information provided by the City, this program included eight projects (listed below) planned for
completion in 2013.
• Deep injection well
• Miscellaneous sewer system repairs
• Installation of manhole liners
• Installation of manhole rain guards
• South Duval Street sewer rehabilitation
14-Feb-03 29 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
• Wastewater reuse WWTF improvements
• Wastewater reuse distribution system
• Truman Annex Sewer
2.9 City of Key Colony Beach Sewer System Evaluation
The City of Key Colony Beach has repeatedly expended funds over the last five years in efforts
to rehabilitate the existing wastewater collection system. The purpose of the sewer system
evaluation was to assist the City in identifying additional sources of inflow and infiltration in the
existing wastewater system for repair.
Recommendation. Based on the investigation, the recommended rehabilitation work included
sliplining, point repairs and grouting.
2.10 City of Marathon Reuse Component for Central Wastewater Request For Proposal
Three alternatives for public access reuse systems were evaluated for a design period of twenty
years, beginning in 2002 (listed below).
• A maximum reuse system where 100% of the average annual daily flow of domestic
wastewater is reused in the design year.
• A medium reuse system where 33% of the average annual daily flow of domestic
wastewater is reused in the design year.
• A minimum reuse system where 31 % of the average annual daily flow of domestic
wastewater is reused in the design year.
The maximum distribution of reuse water would require that nearly 1.6 mgd of treated effluent
be stored and pumped to existing and future reuse water users. Total suspended solids (TSS) and
chlorine residuals would be monitored to evaluate treatment. Unsuccessfully treated water would
be diverted to the head of the plant to be retreated. Regulatory criteria require that reject storage
and wet weather storage volumes equal one day flow and three days flow, respectively, at the
average daily design flow. The FDEP LANDAP98 computer model was used to measure the
quantity of wet weather storage needed. Approximately 0.52 mgd and 0.49 mgd of effluent,
respectively, would be stored and pumped to a portion of reuse water users in the case of
medium and minimum reuse systems.
The Marathon area and the Florida Keys in general currently practice water conservation, mainly
due to the high cost of potable water. Therefore, relatively few sites, including residences, have
irrigation systems. The report identified potential reuse sites which contained green areas that
could be irrigated. Prior to implementing a reuse program, a survey must be taken to determine
which sites would participate and then there must be a firm legally binding commitment to use
reuse water at a guaranteed demand from reuse customers. Present value analyses indicated that
minimum and medium reuse systems are possible choices. The maximum reuse system, due to
its high capital costs, was deemed economically unfeasible. The project is not anticipated to have
14-Feb-03 30 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
adverse impacts to the biological, physical, or socioeconomic environment, assuming that design
and specification requirements are met.
Recommendation. Minimum and medium reuse systems were recommended as a technically
feasible treatment option and the future WWTF site at Crawl Key was recommended as the site
location, while maximum reuse was not considered feasible. Recommendations relied on a
guaranteed reuse demand by users.
2.11 Design/Build/Operate Wastewater Management System (DBOWMS) for the Citv of
Marathon
The DBOWMS accompanied an RFP and is generally consistent with the Monroe County
Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan and Marathon Wastewater Facilities Plan. Recommendations
from the master plans appear to have been used to develop the RFP. As such, it does not appear
that alternatives to the DBOWMS were considered. The specifications were intended to
establish minimum technical requirements and level of quality for the treatment system to be
constructed and operated for the City
Recommendation. The recommendations made as part of this document are consistent with the
requirements of the RFP and are detailed below.
• Collect wastewater via a vacuum sewer system and transmit wastewater to a treatment
facility with a design capacity of 1.52 mgd Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF),
expandable to 2.0 mgd AADF.
• Provide an one treatment facility must produce effluent that meets AWT standards.
• Additional treatment processes required as part of the RFP include:
o Influent flow metering and screening,
o High-level disinfection,
o Effluent disposal,
o Sludge digestions, dewatering and storage, and
o Odor control.
• Provide effluent disposal through deep injection wells and a reclaimed water system.
2.12 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Draft Programmatic
Environmental Assessment
The Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by FEMA examined the likely
effects of implementing a range of wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal alternatives
proposed in the Keys. FEMA is considering the provision of funding assistance related to several
proposed alternatives designed to improve wastewater treatment, and ultimately water quality in
the Florida Keys. Alternatives presented in the EA parallel alternatives studied and approved for
consideration by Monroe County in its master plan. This plan served as the base document in the
description of wastewater treatment options. The EA addressed three alternatives:
Alternative 1. No Action Alternative: Under this alternative FEMA would not provide funds to
the project applicants for wastewater improvements. Communities currently utilizing onsite
14Feb-03 31 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
systems to manage wastes, such as cesspools and septic systems would have to construct either
community or regional WWTFS or onsite wastewater nutrient reduction systems, to effectiveiv
manage waste nutrient to levels that meet the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010.
Alternative 2. Centralized Wastewater Treatment Faciliry Alternative: project applicants with
FEMA grant funds would construct a new community or regional WWTF or perform facility
upgrades to existing systems at selected locations in the Florida Keys. New construction of
community and regional WWTFs would be targeted in densely populated areas, where the
installation of central sewers would eliminate a high number of declining and inadequate on -site
wastewater treatment methods such as septic tanks and cesspools.
Alternative 3. Onsite Treatment Upgrades: project applicants would use FEMA funds to convert
onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTSs), such as cesspools and septic tanks with
drainfields, to OWNRS to improve wastewater management in the Florida Keys. A biological
nitrogen removal system coupled with a physical/chemical phosphorus removal system,
disinfection (through chlorination or other means), and disposal through either subsurface drip
irrigation systems or shallow injection wells are proposed under this alternative. Under this
alternative, a "cluster system" would be designed such that multiple homes would use one
OWNRS system.
Recommendation. The FEMA EA supports implementation of the Monroe County master plan
and proposes that projects within the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Islamorada
Village of Islands be implemented to reduce wastewater nutrient loading at selected County hot
spots. FEMA monies through the Unmet Needs program would be used to establish their
wastewater treatment objectives.
3.0 COST ESTIMATES
The estimated cost to implement all projects listed in the master plan is $529,624,949. The costs
for each project were compiled from each respective plan and the accuracy of these cost
estimates has not been scrutinized during the preparation of this document. It is assumed that
these are "order -of -magnitude" estimates as defined by the American Association of Cost
Engineers. These estimates are subject to change based on market conditions. As the FKWQIP
moves forward, recent bid prices should be considered for refining estimated future costs.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
This Memorandum provides documentation of the analysis and recommendations presented in
stormwater and wastewater planning documents for municipalities in Monroe County, Florida.
The Memorandum will serve as the basis for the proposed action for the Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement being developed in response to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing
NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 to 1508), and Corps regulations for
NEPA compliance (44 CFR Part 10) that direct the Corps to understand and take into
consideration the environmental consequences of proposed Federal actions (projects) during
decision making processes.
14-Feb-03 32 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
This Memorandum will also support preparation of the Program Management Plan (PMP) a
document being prepared by the Corps to serve as a guide for program implementation.
Stormwater and wastewater treatment recommendations developed by the municipalities in
Monroe County and described in this document are integral to the success of the FKWQIP and
provide the basis for development of the Master Program Project List to address water quality
issues in the Keys. Municipalities will be requested to update the project list for inclusion in the
PMP.
14-Feb-03 33 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Stoker, Y.E., 1996, Effectiveness of a stormwater collection and detention system for reducing
constituent loads from bridge runoff in Pinellas County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open -
File Report 96-484, 38 p.
14-Feb-03 34 PLAN FORMULATION MEMORANDUM
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Appendix C
Readiness to Proceed Document Prepared by the Intergovernmental Task Force
Readiness to Proceed Criteria
Developed by the Monroe County Intergovernmental Task Force
Draft 6/22/O1
To qualify for grant award, the following conditions must be met: All planning
(including the selection of sites, wastwater/stormwater systems to be implemented,
reclaimed water evaluation, and financing must be complete; sites must be established as
available for the intended purposes, public participation must be documented, and a
(design/build/operate), (design/build) or a construction contract would have to be either
executed or authorized for execution by the project sponsor's goveming body.
SITES All Project sites shall be:
a) Identified. Legal descriptions of the properties, including boundary
surveys, shall be complete for all required project sites. When all work
will be in existing easements or rights of way or on property otherwise
owned by the project sponsor, only the identification of the sites (s) will be
necessary.
b) Determined environmentally and technically suitable. Environmental
Assessments complete. If determined necessary Environmental Impact
Statements completed. Initial geo-technical evaluations of sites, as
necessary to assure feasibility of construction shall be completed. When
all work will be in existing easements or rights of way or on property
otherwise owned by the project sponsor and properly zoned, the foregoing
determination will be unnecessary.
c) Available. Sufficient interest must be held, by the local government. in
the sites to enable uninterrupted construction. Sufficient interest means
ownership, easement, right-of-way, formal agreement enabling
construction, contract for purchase, formal option for purchase/lease with
willing seller, or initiation of condemnation process.
d) Sites shall have the appropriate legal zoning designations(s).
2.1 ENGINEERING FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.
a) Identification of treatment plant capacity, treatment level, and treatment
processes.
b) Identification of Collection and transmission system technology and
preliminary layout.
c) Physical overlay of treatment plant process units and disposal facilities on
plant site location survey.
C-1
Readiness to Proceed Criteria
Developed by the Monroe County Intergovernmental Task Force
Draft 6/22/O1
2.2 ENGINEERING FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.
a) Identification of treatment and disposal facilities or methods.
b) Identification of conveyance and storage capacities.
PLANNING DOCUMENTATION.
a) All wastewater/stormwater planning must be complete and the
recommendations, including those for reuse of reclaimed water, contained
in the planning documents must be adopted by the local government. The
recommendations are to be reflected in the procurement or contract
documents.
b) The financial plan identifying the rates, fees, and charges associated with
providing wastewater/stormwater management services. under the
different grant funding levels identified by the Intergovernmental Funding
Task Force. Information on customer base, location and level of services
shall be reflected in the procurement of contract documents for wastewater
management services. The plan shall address all capital costs (including
financing) operation and maintenance costs.
b.l) The financial plan shall identify the amount(s) and source(s) of the
non-federal share (State Revolving Loan Program, commercial
lending, bonds, dedicated local revenues, etc.) of the project costs.
associated with the different grant funding levels identified by the
Intergovernmental Funding Task Force.
b.2) The financial plan shall identify the nature and amount of all
estimated costs, both for the project sponsor's
wastewater/stormwater management system and for additional
work, if any, associated with the system for which individual
property owners will be directly responsible.
b.3) A commitment from a financing entity to make available the non-
federal share of the project costs must be documented.
C-2
Readiness to Proceed Criteria
Developed by the Monroe County Intergovernmental Task Force
Draft 6/22/01
4. LEGAL
a.) Connection ordinance for wastewater management systems. The connection
ordinance shall describe all existing wastewater conditions subject to
mandatory connection.
b.) Pretreatment ordinance for wastewater systems. The pre-treatment ordinances
shall describe the conditions under which wastes may be discharged to the
system.
c.) User charge or fee provisions for wastewater/stormwater management
systems. Draft ordinance/resolution provisions shall describe the structure of
rates, fees, and charges. It shall describe the conditions and process under
which the schedule of rates, fees, and charges will be changed.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Public participation shall be complete for the
following activities:
a) Selection of project sites to be acquired for the project.
b) Establishment of ordinances/resolutions.
c) Adoption of recommendations for wastewater/stormwater management
options and reuse.
d) Financial planning.
6. FUNDING LEVEL. The acceptance of any federal grant funds shall not be
contingent upon the receipt of additional federal/state funds in subsequent
appropriations.
7. DEADLINES FOR READINESS -TO -PROCEED
a) Quarterly Progress Assessment Meeting shall be held by the
intergovernmental Task Force.
b) The deadline for establishing Readiness -To -Proceed for fiscal year 2002
Grant Funds shall be June 30, 2002.
C-3
Appendix D
Revised Readiness to Proceed Document Prepared by the PDT
Revised Readiness to Proceed Criteria for the Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvement Program Wastewater and Stormwater Projects
2/23/03
This document was developed by the Program Delivery Team for the Florida Keys Water
Quality Improvement Program
To qualify for grant award, the following conditions must be met: All planning
(including the selection of sites, wastwater/stormwater systems to be implemented.
reclaimed water evaluation, and financial planning must be complete; sites must be
established as available for the intended purposes, public participation must be
documented; and a (design/build/operate), (design/build) or a construction contract bid or
proposal would have to be received and either executed or authorized for execution by
the project sponsor's governing body within six (6) months of availability of grant funds.
SITES All Project sites shall be:
a) Identified. Legal descriptions of the properties, including boundary
surveys, shall be complete for all required project sites. When all work
will be in existing easements or rights of way or on property otherwise
owned by the project sponsor, only the identification of the sites (s) will be
necessary.
b) Determined environmentally and technically suitable. Environmental
Assessments underway. Initial geo-technical evaluations of sites, as
necessary to assure feasibility of construction shall be completed. When
all work will be in existing easements or rights of way or on property
otherwise owned by the project sponsor and properly zoned, the foregoing
determination will be unnecessary.
c) Available. Sufficient interest must be held, by the local government, in
the sites to enable uninterrupted construction. Sufficient interest means
ownership, easement, right-of-way, formal agreement enabling
construction, contract for purchase, formal option for purchase/lease with
willing seller, or initiation of condemnation process.
d) Sites shall have the appropriate legal zoning designations(s).
2.1 ENGINEERING FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.
a) Identification of treatment plant capacity, and treatment level.
b) Identification of Collection and transmission system technology and
preliminary layout.
D-1
Revised Readiness to Proceed Criteria for the Florida Keys Water Qualit%
Improvement Program Wastewater and Stormwater Projects
2/23/03
c) Physical overlay of treatment plant process units and disposal facilities on
plant site location survey.
2.2 ENGINEERING FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.
a) Identification of treatment and disposal facilities or methods.
b) Identification of conveyance and storage capacities.
3. PLANNING DOCUMENTATION.
a) All wastewater/stormwater planning must be complete and the
recommendations, including those for reuse of reclaimed water, contained
in the planning documents must be adopted by the local government. The
recommendations are to be reflected in the procurement or contract
documents.
b) The financial plan identifying the method of collecting rates, fees, and
charges associated with providing wastewater/stormwater management
services. Information on customer base, location and level of services shall
be reflected in the procurement of contract documents for wastewater
management services. The plan shall address all capital costs (including
financing) operation and maintenance costs.
b.1) The financial plan shall identify the amount(s) and source(s) of the
non-federal share (State Revolving Loan Program, commercial
lending, bonds, dedicated local revenues, etc.) of the project costs.
b.2) The financial plan shall identify the nature and amount of all
estimated costs, both for the project sponsor's
wastewater/stormwater management system and for additional
work, if any, associated with the system for which individual
property owners will be directly responsible.
b.3) A commitment from a financing entity to make available the non-
federal share of the project costs must be documented.
4. LEGAL
a.) Connection ordinance for wastewater management systems. The connection
ordinance shall describe all existing wastewater conditions subject to
mandatory connection.
D-2
Revised Readiness to Proceed Criteria for the Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvement Program Wastewater and Stormwater Projects
2/23/03
b.) Pretreatment ordinance for wastewater systems. The pre-treatment ordinances
shall describe the conditions under which wastes may be discharged to the
system.
c.) User charge or fee provisions for wastewater/stormwater management
systems. Draft ordinance/resolution provisions shall describe the structure of
rates, fees, and charges. It shall describe the conditions and process under
which the schedule of rates, fees, and charges will be changed.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Public participation shall be complete for the
following activities:
a) Selection of project sites to be acquired for the project.
b) Establishment of ordinances/resolutions.
c) Adoption of recommendations for wastewater/stormwater management
options and reuse.
d) Financial planning.
6. FUNDING LEVEL. The acceptance of any federal grant funds shall not be
contingent upon the receipt of additional federallstate funds in subsequent
appropriations.
D-3
Appendix E
Funding Allocation Scheme Prepared by the Intergovernmental Task Force
11/41/LUUL 1ilU 11:44 rAA ZUQOQ40401 Val.asi%.1 Ur 104-1uULVW1ti+,
Distribution Formula Approved by the InteMovernmental Task Force and presented
for approval to i he various Municipal Governments of the Florida Keys:
On the issue o I the prioritization of projects for the V 00 mullion federal appropriation, the
Intergovernme ttal Task Force determined that the immediate priority should be Key West
stormwater an the three large municipal central wastewater treatment systems. It was
acknowledged hat Key West had stepped aside from a population -based claim on funds withithe
understanding .hat they would be a funding priority.
The IGTF recr inmended that all the priority projects should participate in any funding that occurs
u-itil such time as their promised amounts of funding were reached, as long as all such prioritized
p: of ects were (1-mmed "ready to proceed" within the fiscal year in which an appropriation wa ' made
(see "readines: to proceed" document). If, however, any of those wastewater facility projects (were
not ready; Key West would see additional funds (and/or a higher percentage of funds) of its total to
be received. B•: th Layton and Key Colony Beach would be a later year priority.
The following! cenarios were allowed and supported by the group:
Should the SY million appropriation be made, it would be divided as follows:
' :8.5 million Unincorporated Monroe 28.33%
':8.5 million Islamorada 28.33"%
':8.5 million Marathon 28.33%'
`-:4.5 million Key West 15%
Totals: :-30 million 100%
The percentage:. above would hold for all projects ready for funding within the fiscal year for -which
tht appropriatic a was made. If any of the wastewater projects proposed for funding should be ifound
to be "not read: • ," then the division would be as follows:
19.85 million Wastewater Project One 32.832%
1.9.85 million Wastewater Project Two 32.83%
1:10.3 million Key West 34 33%
Totals: 130 million 100%
If two of the at i nre mentioned wastewater projects were determined to be "not ready," the division
would be as fol lows: �
19.7 million Wastewater Project One 65.67%
;.10.3 million Key West 34 33%
Totals: ;:30 million 100%
'Note that these fi ures will not always add up to 100% because of the decimal places proceeding beyond where)
demonstrated with i the text of these minutes. Where decimals extend beyond that reflected here, 100% is a rough
equivalent of the f. cures noted in the minutes, but an actual equivalent of the full figure, were its full decimal equivalent
represented
2 See Footnote l at we.
2
11/—, —JUL 111L 11:JJ r:fA JUJOJJDJO! 11LL'llat Ur lAL.'1xur—r -n
Should the ap :,ropriation be less than $30 million, the division of funds would follow the
percentages o tuned above, not the numeric figures, for each of the scenarios detailed. For
example, if th : appropriation were to be S 15 million, and all parties were deemed to be `ready"
within the aX ► opriation fiscal year, the division would be as follows:
$4.25 million. Unincorporated Monroe 28.333%
S4.25 million Islamorada 28.33%
$4.25 million Marathon 28.33%
$2.25 million Kev West 15%
Totals: 315 million 100%
If any one of t .. a wastewater projects should not be ready to proceed, the division would be as
follows:
84.925 millionWastewater Project One 32.834%
.64.925 millionWastewater Project Two 32.83%
15.15 million Key West 34 33%
Totals: 115 million 100%
Once an appre 1 ,riation is made or scheduled to be made, the Intergovernmental Task force will sit
d6wn with its ::ate partners to review quarterly the readiness status of each and every prioritized
project. If an at iount of funding that is presumed too small to be divided, the IGTF fill immediately
schedule a me,: ing to propose funding for a project or project(s) for which substantial progreis can
be made SHOt. LD the IGTF determine that the funding formula proposed above is not workable
under that con. ' ition.
Tote that thi: enure funding scenario is based on the conviction of the
Intergovernr:-ental Task Force that we are stronger standing together, and supporting
one another ►t everyone's moving forward. This funding formula is based upon a
commitment �y every municipal government to make progress on water quality
issues, and to stand together until all such projects are funded.
Nwe also that, )ecause state funding may well be forthcoming BEFORE the federal funds are!in
place, those fui►is will need to be made available along the lines of the distribution formula
expressed aboi .s (for the federal funds) so that those priority projects may establish their "readiness
to proceed" as : uickly as possible).
' Sze Footnote l a
' See Footnote l a
ive.
Exhibit B
TABLE 3.3 INITIAL PROJECTS
v:
N
X^
c
a
oc
rn
c
ac h
vl
t..
-
—
e►t
N
er
�e
..
c
r
a
rk q
r
1r1pp
r_
r•
NV.
�
r
e+;
a
vi
aT
r
�
N
C�
C`
00
r.
`.
`
r
� h
eri
h
eh
N
e^,
—
O
00
in
O
—
M
O"
—
fn
P
N
N R
H
U!
H
40
H
M!
H
H
H
H
fA
H
H
H
H
f11
H
H
H
41/
H
H
H
6of
H
H 401
C
C co
COp
C
N
O
C
O
V
Q
O
p
—
OC
—
O
p
P
O
N
v�
�p
N
Q
W
oc
eT
ii
C
O
8
ONO
ONO
�-
.rr
N
pS
O
r
Q
r
Q
Q
Q
p
S
N
?
O
o0
V'1
N
-
n O
h
N
N
C�
r:
erg
M
O
O^
ery
r
W
00
N
�O
C
Q
a
V1
C
ry
lk
N
e1
N
r
N
Ch
—
cc
eb
N
oo
—
CD pCp
N O
C (j
H
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
1 H
H
H
H
H
H
H
fA
H
H
W. " H
C
V
V1
r
8
C
8
O
8
O
8
O
8
C
op
p
Np
O�
Q
N
qO
N
V�
o
O
f�
—
N
00
V
Q
n
;
0c
e+1
v-�
N
v1
T
OO
oo
OC
P1
—
V
v1
O
N V,
O
O
In
h
t�1
N
�•
g
9
en
V
b
O
00
CCC
v1
N
o0
of
N
P
p:
v�
O�
N
C�
h
g
�:
00
O
Qg
w
O
—
cl
Q
N
Q
h
00
en
m
a
o
r—
te
r
v�
$
t�
.h
oo
g
3�
r�
n
oo a
M
m
oe
fn
�'y
N
Vl
Vf
tN
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
V41
109
Vf
I
49
H
1 fH
I H
I H
1 H1
H1
H
"1
H
f H
4 f - M
N
N
N
—
N
N
—
N
N
N
N
N
—
.a
Q
N
Q
%n
O
O
N
N
—
—
—
—
-
LF3
y
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
V1
e
0
'
o
=
a
v
n
r
v
o:
v
Z
°
<
u
LU
n
E
LOi
h
H
N
n
3
6J
c
'c
Q
y
4
a
`o
ulut
r
Is
Y=
C
06
�u�
AFYQ
a
U
U
m
•u
Itl
_
Y
�C
Y
Y
N
X
U
Q
u
3
61
Y
Y
$
r
o
•=
o
•�
o
•=
0
00
0o
V
ti
s
4
E
o
r
r
t
9
C
C
C
C
—
J
p
C
e
'a
c
'a
o
n
y
—
—
—
N
en
Q
rn
Q
v�
O
}O
S
C
�
A
t
►
`
o
�
Y
;
o
�
a e
N
M