Item Q7BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date:
5/16/12
Division:
Public Works/Enineerin
Bulk Item: Yes
_ No X
Department:
Wastewater
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Elizabeth Wood/453-8795
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A Public Hearing for approval of Resolution adopting the Cudjoe
Regional Wastewater Treatment System Facilities Plan.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Section 62-503.700(2)(g) of the Florida Administrative Code pertaining to
Planning, Design, Constriction and Procurement Requirements for the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's State Revolving Fund Loan Program for Water Pollution Control funding,
specifies that the required public participation process include the project sponsor's public meeting held
before the project sponsor's acceptance of the planning recommendations.
The Facilities Plan is attached and includes the FKAA Lower Keys Wastewater Master Plan Update
presented at advertised public meetings held December 8 and 11, 2008. Also included in the Facilities
Plan are the Monroe County Engineering Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Funding presentation from
January 19, 2011 and the Cudj oe Regional Plan presentation from April 18, 2012.
Public notice of this Resolution was published in the Reporter (04/27/12), Key West Citizen
(04/27/12), and the Keynoter (04/28/12).
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On January 25, 2006 BOCC approval was provided to
apply for funding from Florida's State Revolving Loan Fund.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval as stated.
TOTAL COST:
INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes NA No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty
DOCUMENTATION: Included
OMB/Purchasing
X Not Required
Risk Management
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 7/09
RESOLUTION NO. - 2012
A RESOLUTION OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA ADOPTING THE CUDJOE REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM FACILITIES PLAN
WHEREAS, Florida's water pollution control revolving loan program is authorized
under Sec. 403.1835, Florida Statutes which establishes the Wastewater Treatment and
Stormwater Management Revolving Loan Trust Fund for projects and activities eligible for
funding under Section 603 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the
amended Clean Water Act); and
WHEREAS, Section 62-503.700, Florida Administrative Code, describes the
planning, design, construction and procurement requirements to obtain borrowed funding
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP's) State Revolving Loan
Program for Water Pollution Control (SRF); and
WHEREAS, Section 62-503.700 (2)(g), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the
planning documentation include a description of the public participation process used to explain
the project and the financial impacts to affected parties prior to the project sponsor's acceptance
of the planning recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted the
Sumerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Interlocal Agreement (ILA) on September 20, 2006
appropriating an initial $3 million for design; and
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreements are provided in the Facilities Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2008, the BOCC adopted the First Amendment to the
Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf ILA expanding the scope to include design for Big Pine
Key through Ramrod Key and Lower Sugarloaf and appropriated an additional $4.5 million for
expanded design; and
WHEREAS, based on the BOCC's concurrence of the recommendations in the Lower
Keys Wastewater Master Plan Update on November 19, 2008, the Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority held public meetings on December 8, 2008 and December 11, 2008 describing the
collection system alternatives analysis which resulted in the recommendation to expand the
central service area boundary to include those properties for which central service was more cost
effective than onsite system upgrades; and
WHEREAS, the presentation sited the AWT Plant on North Cudjoe Key at the existing
landfill site "centrally" located to treat effluent from north and south of the WWTP; and
WHEREAS, a substantial completion date during the second half of 2011 was projected
based on projects being ready to bid in the fall of 2009; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the public presentation from December 8 and 11, 2008 is
included in the Facilities Plan; and
1 of 3
WHEREAS, the BOCC approved the update to the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan on
January 19, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2009 the Initial Assessment Resolution (IAR) for the levy of
System Development Fees (SDFs) ranging from $4,500 to $6,500 for the Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater System failed during an advertised hearing due to incomplete project funding; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2009 the BOCC approved the Second Amendment for the
(Expanded) Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System further expanding the project to include Onsite
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems for which owners of properties not in the Master Plan
but located in the Cudjoe Regional area from No Name Key through Lower Sugarloaf Key, plus
Boca Chica parcels identified as RE ID # 122880-000000, 122890-000000, and 122870-000000,
contract with FKAA for operation and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2011 a scheduled agenda discussion occurred following the
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Funding presentation; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the public presentation from January 19, 2011 is included in the
Facilities Plan; and
WHEREAS, the BOCC's consensus was to develop the funding plan using System
Development Fee of $5,700 per EDU for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area; and
WHEREAS, the anticipated State of Florida FY13 General Appropriation Act in the
amount of $30 million requires construction contracts for Unincorporated Monroe County by
March 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2012, a summary presentation was made to BOCC depicting
the service area and WWTP location, confirming the reduced estimated cost to implement of
$156 million, and specifying a target date for bid opening of December 2012; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the public presentation from April 18, 2012 is included in the
Facilities Plan; and
WHEREAS, the BOCC intends to fund a portion of the Cudjoe Regional Central
Wastewater using future non -ad valorem revenue; and
WHEREAS, the future non -ad valorem revenue includes System Development Fees
collected as special assessments and sales tax revenue; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2012 the BOCC approved the Second Amendment to the
Interlocal Agreement establishing the System Development Fee to be paid by the property owners
for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Project to be no more than $5,700; and
WHEREAS, the anticipated construction schedule requires the BOCC to borrow a
portion of the funds to be collected as future non -ad valorem revenue; and
WHEREAS, the BOCC intends to borrow funds from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's State Revolving Fund Loan Program for Water Pollution Control if
financing costs prove favorable; and
2 of 3
WHEREAS, notice of the public meeting held by the BOCC on May 16, 2012 and the
notice of intention to consider approval of this Resolution on the date hereof was published, said
proof of publication(s) being attached hereto and made part of this Resolution as Attachment A;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 62-503.700(2)(a)-(g), Florida Administrative Code and
Sec. 403.1835(6)(b)(d)(h), (7)(a)-(h) and (11) Florida Statutes, a Facilities Plan was developed
and included in the Agenda Package for this resolution consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Summary is attached hereto and made part of this Resolution
as Attachment B, for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida; and,
WHEREAS, Section 62-503-700(2) 6), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the
planning documentation include an adopting resolution or other action establishing a commitment
to implement the planning recommendations in order to obtain borrowed funding from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State Revolving Fund Loan Program for
Water Pollution Control; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan, included in the
Agenda Package for this resolution consideration, is hereby adopted.
2. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this
Resolution to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State
Revolving Fund Loan Program for Water Pollution Control.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 16th day of May, 2012.
Mayor David Rice
Mayor Pro Tern Kim Wigington
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
ATTEST
DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor David Rice
3 of 3 s1 3 AS .F
�y
Attachment A — Notice for Facilities Plan Adoption Hearing
APPROYAL OF COUNTY RESOLUTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN that on May 16, 2012 at 3:00 p.m.,
or as soon thereafter as may be heard, at the Murray E. Nelson Government Center,102050
Overseas Highway, Mile Marker 102, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida, the Board of County
Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida intends to consider approval of the following County
resolution:.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA ADOPTINGTHE CUDJOE REGIONALWASTEWATERTREATMENT
SYSTEM FACILITIES PLAN.
The purpose of this meeting is to satisfy the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State
Revolving Loan Program requirement for public participation prior to the acceptance of the planning
recommendations by the project sponsor. An advanced wastewater treatment facility, with a hybrid
gravity and low pressure collection system is planned for construction in early 2013.
The figure below depicts the limits of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Service
Area to include developed parcels from Lower Sugarloaf north to Big Pine Key. The central service
boundary is as'delineated in the Master Plan Update approved bythe Board of County Commissioners
on January 28, 2009.
�n
r
WO"A
G�
All affected property owners have a right to appear and provide input at the hearing and may file written
objections with the County Administrator anytime prior to the public meeting. The Facilities Plan can
be viewed on the Monroe County website at bttp://fl-monroecount&civ4cplus.com/acendacdnter upon
publication of the May 16, 2012 BOCC agenda and no later than May 4, 2012,
ADA ASSISTANCE: N you are a person with a dlsabifity who needs special accommodations In order
to participate In this proceeding, please contact the County Administrator's Office, by phoning (305)
292-444 t, between the hours of 8.30 a.m. - 5:00 p.M., no later than five (5) calendar days prior to the
scheduled meeting, N you are hearing or voice Impaired, call "711 ".
Dated at Key West, Florida this 24th day of April, 2012,
r " DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk of the Circuit
Court and ex officio Clerk of the Board of County'
" Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida
Apol27, 2012 Key West Cifinn
3740M
�i67
KEY WEST � ) Oi H
TIRO Pb dd9 Xpro Ond PAW A%WMNWtK drit. ISM
Cooke Communications, LLC
Florida Keys
PO Box 1800
Key Vest F133041
Office .... 306-292-7777
Extension ........ x219
Fax ....... 306-296-8026
leaais@keysnews.coln
INTERNET PUBLISHING
keywest.com
keysnews.com
floridakeys.com
key-west.com
Web Design Services
NEWSPAPERS
The Citizen
Southernmost Flyer
Solares Hill
Big Pine Free Press
Marathon Free Press
Islamorada Free Press
Key Largo Free Press
MARKETING SERVICES
Commercial Printing
Citizen Locals Card
Direct Mail
FLORIDA KEYS OFFICES
Printing I Main Facility
3420 Northside Drive
Key West, FL
33040-1800
Tel 305-292-7777
Fax 305-294-0768
citizenfa)ke •west.com
Internet Division
33040-3328
Tel 305-292-1880
Fax 305-294-1699
sales@keywest.com
Upper Keys Office
91731 Overseas Hwy
Tavernier, FL 33070
Tel 305-853-7277
Fax 305-853-0556
freepressfloridakeys.com
STATE OF FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF MONROE
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Randy G. Erickson,
who on oath says that he is Vice -President of Operations of the Key West
Citizen, a daily newspaper published in Key West, in Monroe County,
Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a legal notice in the
matter of
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
N,
Affant further says that the Key West Citizen is a newspaper published in
Key West, in said Monroe County, Florida and that the said newspaper has
heretofore been continuously published in said Monroe County, Florida every
day, and has been entered as second-class mail matter at the post office in Key
West, in said Monroe County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding
the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further
says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any
discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
P
Signature of Affiant
Sworn and subscribed before me this? 77 day of , 2012
Notary Public:
DAWN KAWZINSK'Y
NOTARY PUBLIC
+STATE OF FLORIDA
Comm# EE1572:33
Expires 1 /4120 t 6
Expires: 1/4/16 Notary Seal
Personally Known x Produced Identification
Type of Identification Produced
K aka V P AS hi �+
��1., -� 3
r
#' a•,d t�,*+. ": , xCk • ,wa v . .. , ., ,-•.. ..^xr.,a y i�; �.d ,��,,,yy��Y.„ t
u$ •"
!r t1 pttblxc `A ; a#a°l eft ba
, torA am;
m
�sS t�'-j�i � �!� � � �,(,�: *� +�ee� flu J�i�� {��_ `��tdrt' ,�s;pr� •f�; `, ��
FIORIDA KEYS
Rip
Published Twice Weekly
Marathon, Monroe County, Florida
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MONROE
Before the undersigned authority person-
ally appeared WAYNE MARKHAM who on
oath, says that he is PUBLISHER of the
FLORIDA KEYS KEYNOTER, a twice
weekly newspaper published in Marathon,
in Monroe County, Florida: that the
attached copy of advertisement was
published in said newspaper In the Issues
of: (date(s) of publication)
Affiant further says that the said FLORIDA
KEYS KEYNOTER is a newspaper published
at Marathon, in said Monroe County,
Florida, and that the said newspaper has
heretofore been continuously published in
said Monroe County, Florida, twice each
week (on Wednesday and Saturday) and
has been entered as a second class mail
matter at the post office in Marathon, in
Monroe County, Florida, for a period of
one year next preceding the first
publication of the attached copy of
advertisement. The affiant further says
that he has neither paid nor promised any
person, firm, or corporation any discount,
rebate, commission or refund for the
purpose of securing this advertisement for
publication in the said newspaper(s) and
that The Florida Keys Keynoter is in full
compliance with Chapter SO of the Florida
State Statutes on Legal and Official
Advertisements.
1,4
Sworn to nd scribed before me
this ay of , 2012
(SEAL)
/ /
Notary 411
/,,., Amrrj��
E� u � 8EVERtYTR*W
:*3 E� � �OMN B DD 868748
r EXPIRES: April 18, 2014
P.O. Box 1197; Tavernier, F1 33 070
92655 Overseas Hwy, Tavernier F133070
Phone 305- 852-3216, Fax 305- 852-0199
www.keysnet.com
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MONROE
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
WAYNE MARKHAM who on oath, says that he is
PUBLISHER of the THE REPORTER, a weekly
newspaper published in Tavernier, in Monroe
County, Florida: that the attached copy - of
advertisement was published in said newspaper in the
issues of: (date(s) ofpublication)
y-a7-/-2-
Affiant further says that the said THE REPORTER is
a newspaper published at Tavernier, in said Monroe
County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has
heretofore been continuously published in said
Monroe County, Florida, each week (on Friday) and
has been entered as a second class mail matter at the
post office in Tavernier, in Monroe County, Florida,
for a period of one year next preceding the first
publication of the attached copy of advertisement.
The affiant further says that he has neither paid nor
promised any person, firm, or corporation any
discount, rebate, commission or refund for the
purpose of securing this advertisement for
publication in the said newspaper(s) and that The
THE REPORTER is in full compliance with Chapter
50 of the Florida State Statutes on Legal and Official
Advertisements.
Wayne Markh bli, i
Sworn to and subscribeg before me
a —this x4 7 Day of " 2012
(SEAL,)
Notary
,� fd DIE
BEVERLYTRAEW,ilw
MYCOMMISS100013969749
EXPIRES: April18,2014
. Banded 7tvu No►my PuHc Unda wkers
Attachment B — Facilities Plan Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A project specific ILA between Monroe County and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for the
Sum merland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System was executed on
September 20, 2006. Through a series of Amendments, the project was expanded to include
Lower Sugarloaf and Ramrod to Big Pine Key. The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater
Master Plan (CH2M, 2000) recommended 3 treatment plants for these areas. By evaluating
treatment system alternatives, the overall project cost estimate was reduced from $194 million
to $156 million. The total construction estimate of $156 million includes $18M for the
reclamation facility and $132M in transmission/collection system costs. The estimated cost for
onsite system upgrades in cold spots is $6M.
The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System consists of a wastewater reclamation plant
to be constructed at the Cudjoe Solid Waste Transfer Station, transmission mains and collection
systems to serve the hot spot areas in the Inner Islands located from Upper Sugarloaf to
Summerland and the Outer Islands which include Lower Sugarloaf Key and Ramrod to Big Pine
Key. The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Service Area and Reclamation Plant are depicted on
Figure 1 below.
Cudioe Reclamation F
Figure 1 — Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Service Area
The funding sources for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System include the FY12-
13 State of Florida Appropriation subject to line item 1592A, non -ad valorem revenue including
sales tax revenue and system development fees levied as special assessments and any other
available source of revenue identified by Monroe County.
Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2013 and will require 3-5 years to complete.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System
RAFT
Facilities Plan
Compiled By:
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
1100 Kennedy Drive
Key West, FL 33040
Monroe County Engineering Division
102050 Overseas Highway, Suite 2-223
Key Largo, FL 33037
May 2012
Kevin Wilson PE#
Monroe County, Director of Engineering
Tom Walker PE#
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Director of Engineering
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandated that a Sanitary
Wastewater Master Plan be prepared to determine acceptable levels of sanitary service
and treatment for all developed and undeveloped land in Monroe County. The intent of
the Comprehensive Plan was 1) To establish more stringent loads that can be tolerated
by the County's nutrient -sensitive waters and ecosystems without experiencing short- or
long- term adverse effects; 2) To prevent further degradation of groundwater, as well as
confined, nearshore, and offshore waters; and 3) To ensure improvement of these water
to levels that have been demonstrated to support healthy, diverse, and productive
populations of fish and other marine resources.
The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2M, March 2000) analysis of
wastewater management alternatives concluded that it is more cost effective and
environmentally sound to provide centralized wastewater collection and central
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) in most areas of the Keys than to upgrade or
replace all existing onsite systems and existing treatment plants.
PARTNERSHIP
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) entered into a "Master" Interlocal
Agreement (ILA) on September 6, 2005 with Monroe County setting forth the
commitments of the parties to work together to achieve the 2010 mandate to sewer the
Florida Keys. The ILA tasks Monroe County with funding and FKAA with design,
construction, operation and maintenance of unincorporated Monroe County wastewater
systems other than those in the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District and the Key
West Resort Utilities service area. The ILA was amended on September 19, 2007 to
include the State Revolving Fund Loan Program for Pollution Control as a funding
source and to increase the County's financial commitment. The Second Amendment
approved on April 18, 2012 set the System Development Fee (SDF) to no more than
$5,700.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
A project specific ILA for the Sum merland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional
Wastewater System was executed on September 20, 2006. The First Amendment to
the ILA was adopted on April 16, 2008 and expanded the service area to include Lower
Sugarloaf and Ramrod to Big Pine Key based on anticipated capital and
operation/maintenance cost savings. The ILA Second Amendment was adopted on
August 3, 2009 expanding the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System to include onsite
1
systems for property owners who contract with FKAA. The Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater Treatment System related ILAs are included in Appendix A.
SPONSORSHIP
Monroe County is the public sponsor for project funds to be borrowed using revenue
collected by Monroe County. FKAA is the project sponsor for funds to be borrowed
using revenue collected by FKAA.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
FKAA hosted two, advertised public meetings to inform affected property owners of the
recommendation to expand the central wastewater system collection. The meetings
were advertised and held on December 8 and 11t", 2008. The recommendation to
expand the central wastewater collection system was based on FKAAs review of
alternative collection system technologies. The review concluded that low pressure
collection systems could be used to connect some of the less densely populated areas
at a reduced overall cost.
At the time, the objective was to have the project shovel ready to utilize federal
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. The presentation included a schedule
that included preparation of bid packages for advertisement in Summer 2009 and a
substantial completion date of February 2009. The anticipated project costs presented
was $194 million. The public meeting advertisement and presentation are included in
Appendix B.
Monroe County held an advertised public meeting to collect the SDFs as non -ad
valorem special assessments on August 3, 2009 as a first step toward funding the
project. Discussion occurred to proceed with project based on collection of $4,500 to
$6,500 SDFs per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). The resolution failed due to
incomplete funding to complete construction. In April 2012, the BOCC approved the
Second Amendment to the general project ILA with FKAA setting the SDF at no more
than $5,700. Public meetings to necessary to collect the SDFs are scheduled for June
20, 2012 and July 18, 2012.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Florida Keys form an arcuate chain of small islands, composed primarily of
limestone, extending from Miami to Key West, a distance of 150 miles. The Keys are
bounded on the southeast by the Atlantic Ocean and the Straits of Florida, and on the
northwest by the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Bay. Geologically, the Keys are divided into
the Upper and Middle Keys - narrow, elongate islands parallel to the trend of the arc;
and the Lower Keys - land masses with an axis perpendicular to the arc. The Upper and
Middle Keys include the islands from Soldier Key in Biscayne Bay, located just north of
2
Key Largo, to Long Key, with the Lower Keys beginning at Big Pine Key, extending to
Key West.
The overall Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System Service Area is located in
the Lower Florida Keys, and extends from MM 17 to MM 33. Refer to Figure 1. The
Service Area is bordered on the north by Florida Bay and on the south by the Atlantic
Ocean. Additionally, most of the Service Area lies with the fragmented boundaries of
the Florida Keys Wildlife Refuges Complex, which includes the National Key Deer
Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area consists of two design areas.
The Inner Islands located from Upper Sugarloaf to Summerland and the Outer Islands
which include Lower Sugarloaf Key and Ramrod to Big Pine Key. The hot spot areas
are within the boundaries of the central collection systems.
The selected treatment process is a five -stage Bardenpho system capable of meeting
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Standards of 5 parts per million (ppm) Total
Suspended Solids, 5 ppm Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), 3 ppm Total Nitrogen
(TN) and 3 ppm Total Phosphorus (TP). The proposed design capacity of the
wastewater treatment plant is one MGD and the maximum anticipated flows will be 0.94
MGD, with a three-month average daily flow of 0.84 MGD. The wastewater treatment
system has been designed to provide high level disinfection such that reclaimed water
can be made available for non -potable water use. Four, 90-ft injection wells will also be
constructed at the WWTP site. Gravity sewers have been selected as the method of
wastewater collection in densely populated areas. Low-pressure systems will be used
to provide wastewater service to less densely populated areas.
PROJECT COST
The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Collection System is estimated to cost
$156 million and includes the treatment plant at $18 million, the Inner
Collection/Transmission system at $42 million, the Outer Collection/Transmission
system at $90 million, and the Onsite Wastewater Nutrient Reducing Systems at $6
million.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Master Plan recommended separate treatment plants for Lower Sugarloaf, Upper
Sugarloaf to Summerland, and Ramrod to Big Pine Key. An alternative identified was a
centrally located wastewater treatment plant at the Cudjoe Solid Waste Transfer facility.
3
The estimated capital cost for 3 treatment plants was $187 million and one plant was
$176 million. The present worth cost for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment
System with 3 treatment plants was $230 million and one plant was $204 million. The
single plant alternative was selected. The Wastewater Master Plan Treatment Plant
Alternatives' Review is included in Appendix C.
Collection System
A comparison of present worth cost to construct and operate low pressure, septic tank
effluent pump, vacuum, and gravity collection systems for study areas on Upper
Sugarloaf, Cudjoe and Summerland Keys was performed. The recommendation was a
hybrid system consisting of a combination of gravity sewers in more densely developed
areas and low pressure in less dense areas. A Wastewater Collection System Decision
Tree was developed based on the results of the comparison. The collection system
designs were finalized using the Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree. It was
determined that compliance for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System hot
and cold spots could be achieved at a lower overall cost by expanding the central
service area based on the decision tree. The Central Cudjoe Waster Collection System
Analysis of Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems is included in Appendix D.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System will be ready to bid in December
2012. A 3-5 year construction schedule is anticipated.
FUNDING SOURCES
The State of Florida FY12-13 Appropriation of $30 million, non -ad valorem revenue and
any other revenue sources identify by Monroe County or FKAA will be used to fund the
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System described in this Facilities Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Refer to Appendix E for the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority's Draft Environmental
Assessment for the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program (FKWQIP)
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System project. The Environmental Section of this
Facilities Plan was submitted in April 2011. The Notice of Availability for the Federal
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Draft Cudjoe Regional Facilities Plan was
published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 29, 2011.
:l
APPENDIX A
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
MONROE COUNTY
AND
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
FOR THE
SUMMERLAND/CUDJOE/UPPER SUGARLOAF REGIONAL WASTEWATER
SYSTEM
T�HS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (Agreement) is entered into thiscAO64 �ay of
2006, pursuant to Florida Statute Sec. 163.01, by and between Monroe County
( ounty), a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority (FKAA), an independent special district.
WHEREAS, the County is authorized by Florida Statute Sec. 125.01(1) to provide, assist
in providing, and fund centralized wastewater treatment systems; and
WHEREAS, Section 6, Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, and the County's
Comprehensive Plan require that certain wastewater treatment levels be achieved by the year
2010, which levels can best be achieved by central wastewater treatment systems; and
WHEREAS, the FKAA is authorized by Chap. 76-441, Laws of Florida, as amended, and
Chapter 98-519, Laws of Florida, to design, construct, and operate, wastewater treatment
systems; and
WHEREAS, the FKAA and the County have entered into previous interlocal agreements
establishing and confirming their ongoing partnership in providing wastewater facilities in the
Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, the County adopted Ordinance No. 38-2004, authorizing the levy of ad
valorem taxes in the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Municipal Service Taxing Unit, in
order to provide an initial source of funding for the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf
Regional Wastewater Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, FKAA has initiated planning, design and other services for the Project for
which it may be paid with taxing unit funds; and
WHEREAS, the County by Interlocal Agreement dated September 6, 2005, and by
Master Lease dated as of September 6, 2005, has committed to seek funding through federal and
state grants and loans and the issuance of revenue bonds backed by the pledge of infrastructure
sales tax; and will be providing additional funds to the FKAA for the administration, planning
and construction of future wastewater projects in unincorporated Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, the County may have other funding mechanisms, including but not limited
to infrastructure sales tax, grant and loan funding and ad valorem taxes, available to it for the
provision of sewers and wastewater treatment; and
WHEREAS, County and FKAA desire to put in place procedures for the allocation,
expenditure, and reimbursement of funds for the Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual consideration and promises set forth
below, the parties agree as follows:
1. COUNTY FUNDING. The County by resolution of its Board of County Commissioners,
shall appropriate from any lawfully available source, those funds which have been duly approved
for the estimated costs of administration, planning and construction of the Project, which shall
not exceed Forty -Five million Dollars ($45,000,000). Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf
Municipal Service Taxing Unit ad valorem tax proceeds collected by County shall be provided to
FKAA as part of the funding under this Agreement and shall be disbursed as described in
paragraph 3 below. Before such disbursement, County may deduct its costs of administration and
professional costs from the MSTU funds collected. As the Project progresses, and estimates are
altered to reflect a combination of actual costs incurred and changes in pricing due to contracts
resulting from bid processes, or other changed conditions, the FKAA shall provide such
information to the County. This Agreement shall be modified as necessary to reflect such
changes in the estimates in order to provide for adequate funding to be available for the timely
and efficient construction of the project. The amount of the funding may be changed by written
amendment to this Agreement approved by the parties.
2. PROJECT. The Project shall consist of a collection system, transmission main and
method of treatment to Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards sufficient to serve the needs
of the residents and businesses in the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Wastewater Service
District. Both FKAA and County shall perform their respective obligations and responsibilities
under the Interlocal Agreement dated September 6, 2005. Attached are a project area map and
project description (Exhibit A).
2. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS. The FKAA shall initially be funded in the amount of
Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) for the administration, planning, design and construction
of the Project. Thereafter, during the course of the Project, the FKAA may request
reimbursement for payments made by FKAA upon submission of documentation of previous
expenditures from the Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) until the total amount allocated by
the County is exhausted. The FKAA shall submit this documentation to the County Senior
Administrator (CSA) for Sewer Projects describing the services performed and stating for which
wastewater district/Project the funds were expended. The submission must be in a form
satisfactory to the CSA and Clerk of the Circuit Court (Clerk). If the CSA approves the
submission, she shall forward the same to the Clerk. If the CSA or the Clerk determine that the
submission is unacceptable, either of them shall return it to the FKAA in writing with a written
description of the deficiency(ies).
3. FISCAL CONTROLS AND QUARTERLY REPORTS. The FKAA shall establish fiscal
controls and fund accounting procedures that comply with generally accepted government
accounting principles, satisfactory to the Clerk, in order to assure that the funds provided to the
FKAA are spent for the purposes set forth in this Agreement. All FKAA financial records
pertaining to this Agreement must be made available, upon request, to the Clerk, an auditor
employed by the County or the State of Florida. The records must be retained by the FKAA for
five years following the receipt by the FKAA of its last payment pursuant to this Agreement.
Any funds transferred by the County to the FKAA under this Agreement that are determined by
the Clerk, or an auditor employed by the County or employed by the State to have been spent on
a purpose not contemplated by this Agreement must be paid back to the County with interest
calculated pursuant to Florida Statute Sec. 55.03(l), from the date the auditor determines the
funds were expended for a purpose not authorized by this Agreement. The FKAA agrees to
provide the Clerk with qu__ �erly status reports concerning the ex,-nditure of these funds in
sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this Agreement.
4. RECORDS — ACCESS AND AUDITS. FKAA shall maintain adequate and complete
records for a period of five years after termination of this Agreement. The State, the County,
their officers, employees, agents and contractors shall have access to FKAA's books, records,
and documents related to this Agreement upon request. The access to and inspection of such
books, records, and documents by the aforementioned government representatives shall occur at
any reasonable time.
5. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. FKAA is, and shall be an independent contractor and
not an agent or servant of the County. FKAA shall exercise control, direction, and supervision
over the means and manner that its personnel, contractors and volunteers perform the work for
the purpose of this Agreement. FKAA shall have no authority whatsoever to act on behalf of or
as agent of the County in any promise, Agreement or representation other than specifically
provided for in this Agreement. The County shall at no time be legally responsible for any
negligence on the part of FKAA, its employees, agents or volunteers resulting in either bodily or
personal injury or property damage to any individual, property or corporation.
6. TAXES. FKAA must pay all taxes and assessments, if any, including any sales or use
tax, levied by any government agency with respect to FKAA's operations related to this
Agreement.
7. INSURANCE.The parties to this Agreement stipulate that each is a state governmental
agency as defined by Florida Statutes and represents to the other that it has purchased suitable
Public Liability, Vehicle Liability, and Workers' Compensation insurance, or is self -insured, in
amounts adequate to respond to any and all claims under federal or state actions for civil rights
violations not limited by Florida Statutes Section 768.28 and Chapter 440, as well as any and all
claims within the limitations of Florida Statutes Section 768.28 and Chapter 440, arising out of
the activities governed by this Agreement.
To the extent allowed by law, each party shall be responsible for any acts of negligence on the
part of its employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors and shall defend, indemnify and
hold the other party harmless from all claims arising out of such actions.
FKAA agrees to keep in full force and effect the required insurance coverage during the term of
this Agreement. If the insurance policies originally purchased which meet the requirements of
this lease are canceled, terminated or reduced in coverage, then FKAA must immediately
substitute complying policies so that no gap in coverage occurs. Copies of current policy
certificates shall be filed with the County whenever acquired or amended.
8. HOLD HARMLESS. To the extent allowed by law, FKAA is liable for and must fully
defend, release, discharge, indemnify and hold harmless the County, the members of the County
Commission, County officers and employees, County agents and contractors, and the Sheriff's
Office, its officers and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of
action, losses, costs and expenses of whatever type - including investigation and witness costs
and expenses and attorneys' fees and costs - that arise out of or are attributable to FKAA's
operations in connection with this Agreement except for those claims, demands, damages,
liabilities, actions, causes of action, losses, costs and expenses that are the result of the sole
negligence of the County. FKAA's purchase of the insurance required under this Agreement
does not release or vitiate its obligations under this paragraph. FKAA does not waive any of its
sovereign immunity rights _ .tuding but not limited to those express_ , in Section 768.28, Florida
Statutes.
9. NON-DISCRIMINATION. FKAA and County agree that there will be no
discrimination against any person, and it is expressly understood that upon a determination by a
court of competent jurisdiction that discrimination has occurred, this Agreement automatically
terminates without any further action on the part of any party, effective the date of the court
order. FKAA and County agree to comply with all Federal and Florida statutes, and all local
ordinances, as applicable, relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: 1)
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis
of race, color or national origin; 2) Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, as amended
(20 USC ss. 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; 3)
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (20 USC s. 794), which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of handicaps; 4) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended
(42 USC ss. 6101- 6107) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; 5) The Drug
Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (PL 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination
on the basis of drug abuse; 6) The Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention,
Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (PL 91-616), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; 7) The Public Health Service Act
of 1912, ss. 523 and 527 (42 USC ss. 690dd-3 and 290ee-3), as amended, relating to
confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patent records; 8) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968 (42 USC s. et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or
financing of housing; 9) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC s. 1201 Note), as
maybe amended from time to time, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; 10)
Monroe County Code Ch. 13, Art. VI, prohibiting discrimination on the bases of race, color, sex,
religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression,
familial status or age; and 11) any other nondiscrimination provisions in any Federal or state
statutes which may apply to the parties to, or the subject matter of, this Agreement.
10. GOVERNING LAW, VENUE, INTERPRETATION COSTS AND FEES This
Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Florida applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely in the State. In the event that
any cause of action or administrative proceeding is instituted for the enforcement or
interpretation of this Agreement, the County and FKAA agree that venue shall lie in the
appropriate court or before the appropriate administrative body in Monroe County, Florida.
Neither this Agreement nor any of its terms is subject to arbitration. The County and FKAA
agree that, in the event of conflicting interpretations of the terms or a term of this Agreement by
or between any of them the issue shall be submitted to mediation prior to the institution of any
other administrative or legal proceeding. Mediation proceedings initiated and conducted pursuant
to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and usual and
customary procedures required by the circuit court of Monroe County.
11. SEVERABILITY. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement (or
the application thereof to any circumstance or person) shall be declared invalid or unenforceable
to any extent by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining terms, covenants, conditions
and provisions of this Agreement, shall not be affected thereby; and each remaining term,
covenant, condition and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and shall be enforceable to
the fullest extent permitted by law unless the enforcement of the remaining terms, covenants,
conditions and provisions of this Agreement would prevent the accomplishment of the original
intent of this Agreement. The County and FKAA agree to reform the Agreement to replace any
stricken provision with a valid provision that comes as close as possible to the intent of the
stricken provision.
12. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. The County and FKAA agree that in the event any
cause of action or administrative proceeding is initiated or defended by any party relative to the
enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, investigative, and out-of-pocket expenses, as an award
against the non -prevailing party, and shall include attorney's fees, courts costs, investigative, and
out-of-pocket expenses in appellate proceedings.
13. BINDING EFFECT. The terms, covenants, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement
shall bind and inure to the benefit of the County and FKAA and their respective legal
representatives, successors, and assigns.
15. AUTHORITY. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution,
delivery and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary County
and corporate action, as required by law.
16. CLAIMS FOR FEDERAL OR STATE AID. FKAA and County agree that each shall be,
and is, empowered to apply for, seek, and obtain federal and state funds to further the purpose of
this Agreement; provided that all applications, requests, grant proposals, and funding
solicitations shall be approved by each party prior to submission.
17. ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES OR DISAGREEMENTS. County and FKAA agree
that all disputes and disagreements shall be attempted to be resolved by meet and confer sessions
between representatives of each of the parties. If no resolution can be agreed upon within 30
days after the First meet and confer session, the issue or issues shall be discussed at a public
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. If the issue or issues are still not resolved to the
satisfaction of the parties, then any party shall have the right to seek such relief or remedy as
may be provided by this Agreement or by Florida law.
18. COOPERATION. In the event any administrative or legal proceeding is instituted
against either party relating to the formation, execution, performance, or breach of this
Agreement, County and FKAA agree to participate, to the extent required by the other party, in
all proceedings, hearings, processes, meetings, and other activities related to the substance of this
Agreement or provision of the services under this Agreement. County and FKAA specifically
agree that no party to this Agreement shall be required to enter into any arbitration proceedings
related to this Agreement.
19. COVENANT OF NO INTEREST. County and FKAA covenant that neither presently
has any interest, and shall not acquire any interest, which would conflict in any manner or degree
with its performance under this Agreement, and that only interest of each is to perform and
receive benefits as recited in this Agreement.
20. CODE OF ETHICS. County agrees that officers and employees of the County recognize
and will be required to comply with the standards of conduct for public officers and employees
as delineated in Section 112.313, Florida Statutes, regarding, but not limited to, solicitation or
acceptance of gifts; doing business with one's agency; unauthorized compensation; misuse of
public position, conflicting employment or contractual relationship; and disclosure or use of
certain information.
21. NO SOLICITATION/PAYMENT The County and FKAA warrant that, in respect to
itself, it has neither employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide
employee working solely for it, to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not paid or
agreed to pay any person, _ompany, corporation, individual, or iL_1, other than a bona fide
employee working solely for it, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For the breach or
violation of the provision, the FKAA agrees that the County shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement without liability and, at its discretion, to offset from monies owed, or otherwise
recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, gift, or consideration.
22. PUBLIC ACCESS. The County and FKAA shall allow and permit reasonable access to,
and inspection of, all documents, papers, letters or other materials in its possession or under its
control subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received by the
County and FKAA in conjunction with this Agreement; and the County shall have the right to
unilaterally cancel this Agreement upon violation of this provision by FKAA.
23. NON -WAIVER OF IMMUNITY. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 786.28,
Florida Statutes, the participation of the County and the FKAA in this Agreement and the
acquisition of any commercial liability insurance coverage, self-insurance coverage, or local
government liability insurance pool coverage shall not be deemed a waiver of immunity to the
extent of liability coverage, nor shall any contract entered into by the County or the FKAA be
required to contain any provision for waiver.
24. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES. All of the privileges and immunities from liability,
exemptions from laws, ordinances, and rules and pensions and relief, disability, workers'
compensation, and other benefits which apply to the activity of officers, agents, or employees of
any public agents or employees of the County or the FKAA, when performing their respective
functions under this Agreement within the territorial limits of the County shall apply to the same
degree and extent to the performance of such functions and duties of such officers, agents,
volunteers, or employees outside the territorial limits of the County.
25. LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Non -Delegation of Constitutional
or Statutory Duties. This Agreement is not intended to, nor shall it be construed as, relieving any
participating entity from any obligation or responsibility imposed upon the entity by law except
to the extent of actual and timely performance thereof by any participating entity, in which case
the performance may be offered in satisfaction of the obligation or responsibility. Further, this
Agreement is not intended to, nor shall it be construed as, authorizing the delegation of the
constitutional or statutory duties of the County, except to the extent permitted by the Florida
constitution, state statute, and case law.
26. NON -RELIANCE BY NON-PARTIES. No person or entity shall be entitled to rely
upon the terms, or any of them, of this Agreement to enforce or attempt to enforce any third -
party claim or entitlement to or benefit of any service or program contemplated hereunder, and
the County and the FKAA agree that neither the County nor the FKAA or any agent, officer, or
employee of either shall have the authority to inform, counsel, or otherwise indicate that any
particular individual or group of individuals, entity or entities, have entitlements or benefits
under this Agreement separate and apart, inferior to, or superior to the community in general or
for the purposes contemplated in this Agreement.
27. ATTESTATIONS. FKAA agrees to execute such documents as the County may
reasonably require, to include a Public Entity Crime Statement, an Ethics Statement, and a Drug -
Free Workplace Statement.
28. NO PERSONAL LIABILITY. No covenant or agreement contained herein shall be
deemed to be a covenant or agreement of any member, officer, agent or employee of Monroe
County or the FKAA in .s or her individual capacity, and no iiember, officer, agent or
employee of Monroe County or the FKAA shall be liable personally on this Agreement or be
subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the execution of this Agreement.
29. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number
of counterparts, each of which shall be regarded as an original, all of which taken together shall
constitute one and the same instrument and any of the parties hereto may execute this Agreement
by singing any such counterpart.
30. SECTION HEADINGS. Section headings have been inserted in this Agreement as a
matter of convenience of reference only, and it is agreed that such section headings are not a part
of this Agreement and will not be used in the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement.
31. TERMINATION. The County may treat FKAA in default and terminate this
Agreement immediately, without prior notice, upon failure of FKAA to comply with any
provision related to compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. This Agreement may be
terminated by County due to breaches of other provisions of this Agreement if, after written
notice of the breach is delivered to FKAA, FKAA does not cure the breach within 7 days
following delivery of notice of breach. The County may terminate this Agreement upon giving
sixty (60) days prior written notice to FKAA. Any waiver of any breach of covenants herein
contained shall not be deemed to be a continuing waiver and shall not operate to bar either party
from declaring a forfeiture for any succeeding breach either of the same conditions or covenants
or otherwise. Should the Agreement be terminated, County shall pay for reimbursable costs to
the effective date of termination. Termination of this Agreement for this project shall have no
effect on any other agreement between the County and the FKAA.
32. ASSIGNMENT. FKAA may not assign this Agreement or assign or subcontract any of
its obligations under this Agreement without the approval of the County's Board of County
Commissioners. All the obligations of this Agreement will extend to and bind the legal
representatives, successors and assigns of FKAA and the County.
33. SUBORDINATION. This Agreement is subordinate to the laws and regulations of the
United States, the State of Florida, and the County, whether in effect on commencement of this
Agreement or adopted after that date.
34. INCONSISTENCY. If any item, condition or obligation of this Agreement is in conflict
with other items in this Agreement, the inconsistencies shall be construed so as to give meaning
to those terms which limit the County's responsibility and liability.
35. GOVERNING LAWS/VENUE. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of
Florida and the United States. Venue for any dispute arising under this Agreement must be in
Monroe County, Florida. In the event of any litigation, the prevailing party is entitled to a
reasonable attorney's fee and costs.
36. ETHICS CLAUSE. FKAA warrants that it has not employed, retained or otherwise had
act on its behalf any former County officer or employee subject to the prohibition of Section 2 of
ordinance No. 010-1990 or any County officer or employee in violation of Section 3 of
Ordinance No. 010-1990. For breach or violation of this provision, the County may, in its
discretion, terminate this Agreement without liability and may also, in its discretion, deduct from
the Agreement or purchase price, or otherwise recover, the full amount of any fee, commission,
percentage, gift or consideration paid to the former County officer or employee.
37. CONSTRUCTION. his Agreement has been carefully revi,, ..ed by FKAA and County.
Therefore, this Agreement is not to be construed against any party on the basis of authorship.
38. NOTICES. Notices in this Agreement, unless otherwise specified, must be sent by
certified mail to the following:
COUNTY:
County Administrator
1100 Simonton Street
Key West, FL 33040
FKAA
Executive Director
1100 Kennedy Drive
Key West, FL 33040
39. FULL UNDERSTANDING. This Agreement is the parties' final mutual understanding.
It replaces any earlier agreements or understandings, whether written or oral. This Agreement
cannot be modified or replaced except by another written and signed agreement.
40. ANNUAL APPROPRIATION: Funding by County is subject to an annual appropriation
by the Board of County Commissioners.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and
year first above written.
(SEAL)
Danny-L. Kolhage, Clerk
f
By:
Deput5rClerk
BOARD OF COU Y
COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE CITY, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor/Chaff rson
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
ATTEST: /
By: By:
Clerk
FKAA Board Approved September 21, 2006
MONROE COUNTY ATTOWNE'(
AP VED AS TO F
U NN A. HUT ON
UNT
Date
EXHIBIT "A"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SUMMERLAND/CUDJOE/UPPER SUGARLOAF REGIONAL
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
Gravity wastewater collection and transmission system to serve Summerland
Key/Cudjoe Key/Upper Sugarloaf. New wastewater treatment plant at the
Cudjoe Key Transfer Station to treat flows to meet advanced wastewater
treatment standards.
See ATTACHED PROJECT AREA MAP
�41•t
6,
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT
FOR THE
SUMMERLAND/CUDJpEIiJppER SUGARLOAF REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM
TO BE EXPANDED TO COVER DESIGN FOR
BIG PINE KEY THROUGH RAMROD KEY AND LOWER SUGARLOAF
THIS AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is entered into pursuant to Sec.
163.01, FS, by and between Monroe County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (County),
and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Inc., an independent special district, (FKAA).
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2006, the parties entered into an inter -local agreement (ILA)
for the purpose of funding the costs associated with the administration, planning and development of
a regional wastewater project; and
WHEREAS, the timing, costs of construction and operation of the system, permitting and
land acquisition issues, and funding availability contemplated for this project and future projects to
be conducted by the parties pursuant to a September 6, 2005 ILA and September 2005 Master Lease
have been impacted by a variety of factors during the interim; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the acquisition of land and permitting for a treatment plant
on Big Pine Key may exacerbate delays in completing a project for that area; and
WHEREAS, combining three proposed regional systems into one is expected to produce
over $11,000,000 in savings for capital costs as well as produce more cost-effective operations after
the required connections are made thereto; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that obtaining a design to incorporate Big Pine, Ramrod and
Lower Sugarloaf with the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System will
provide sufficient cost savings information with which to make the final determination to build one
regional plant, which would be a subject of another amendment to this ILA; now, therefore
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual consideration and promises set forth below, the parties agree
as follows:
1. Paragraph 1, County Funding, of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, for the
Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System shall be amended by adding the
following sentences:
The County shall appropriate from any lawfully available source, a sum not to exceed
$4,500,000 for the design to add to the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional
Wastewater System necessary collection systems to accommodate from Big Pine Key to
Lower Sugarloaf, to be paid to the FKAA. These funds are additional to the dollars set forth
in the original inter -local agreement dated September 20, 2006. The amount of the funding
may be changed by written amendment to this Agreement approved by the parties.
2. Paragraph 2, Project, Paragraph 1, County Funding, of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, for
the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System shall be amended by adding
the following sentences:
The Project shall include design and cost estimates to expand the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper
Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System to encompass Big Pine Key through Lower
Sugarloaf, The Parties will amend the original ILA dated September 20, 2006, to include
planning and construction of those components of the expanded design to be incorporated
into the Final Project.
3. Paragraph 2, Expenditure of Funds, of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, shall be re-
numbered to Paragraph 3.
4. The numbers of all remaining paragraphs of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, shall be
amended to run consecutively from the paragraph above.
5. All other provisions of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, for the
Sumrnerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System, not inconsistent herewith shall
remain in full force and effect.
6. This Agreement will take effect on the 14Aday of 2008.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year
first above written.
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT ORITY
KEY WEST, FLO A
BY:
Jame . Rey , Executive Director
DATE
APPROVED AS TO FO
n n
BY: QL
Kirk C. Zu c
FKAA Ge al Counsel
Date:
FKAA Board Approved April 24, 2008
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONRO UNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Mayor CbArles "Sonny" McCoy
APR 1 6 2008
DATE 1.,
Y
g
ATTEST. �_ r., _:; s
D KO E, C1L'1
BY.
APR 1 6 2008 c
DATE r
J CD
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY:
A. utton
County At m e y
Date: if
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT
FOR THE
SUMMERL4,ND/CUDJOE/UPPER SUGARLOAF REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM
TO BE EXPANDED TO COVER DESIGN FOR
BIG PINE KEY THROUGH RAMROD KEY AND LOWER SUGARLOAF
THIS AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is entered into pursuant to Sec.
163.01, FS, by and between Monroe County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (County),
and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Inc., an independent special district, (FKAA).
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2006, the parties entered into an inter -local agreement (ILA)
for the purpose of funding the costs associated with the administration, planning and development of
a regional wastewater project; and
WHEREAS, the timing, costs of construction and operation of the system, permitting and
land acquisition issues, and funding availability contemplated for this project and future projects to
be conducted by the parties pursuant to a September 6, 2005 ILA and September 2005 Master Lease
have been impacted by a variety of factors during the interim; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the acquisition of land and permitting for a treatment plant
on Big Pine Key may exacerbate delays in completing a project for that area; and
WHEREAS, combining three proposed regional systems into one is expected to produce
over $11,000,000 in savings for capital costs as well as produce more cost-effective operations after
the required connections are made thereto; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that obtaining a design to incorporate Big Pine, Ramrod and
Lower Sugarloaf with the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System will
provide sufficient cost savings information with which to make the final determination to build one
regional plant, which would be a subject of another amendment to this ILA; now, therefore
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual consideration and promises set forth below, the parties agree
as follows:
1. Paragraph 1, County Funding, of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, for the
Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System shall be amended by adding the
following sentences:
The County shall appropriate from any lawfully available source, a sum not to exceed
$4,500,000 for the design to add to the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional
Wastewater System necessary collection systems to accommodate from Big Pine Key to
Lower Sugarloaf, to be paid to the FKAA. These funds are additional to the dollars set forth
in the original inter -local agreement dated September 20, 2006. The amount of the funding
may be changed by written amendment to this Agreement approved by the parties.
2. Paragraph 2, Project, Paragraph 1, County Funding, of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, for
the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System shall be amended by adding
the following sentences:
The Project shall include design and cost estimates to expand the Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper
Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System to encompass Big Pine Key through Lower
Sugarloaf. The Parties will amend the original ILA dated September 20, 2006, to include
planning and construction of those components of the expanded design to be incorporated
into the Final Project.
3. Paragraph 2, Expenditure of Funds, of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, shall be re-
numbered to Paragraph 3.
4. The numbers of all remaining paragraphs of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, shall be
amended to run consecutively from the paragraph above.
5. All other provisions of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, for the
Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System, not inconsistent herewith shall
remain in full force and effect.
6. This Agreement will take effect on the /1,A day of , 2008.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year
first above written.
RITY
DATE
i
APPROVED AS TO FO
BY:
Kirk C. Zu c
FKAA Ge al Counsel
Date;
FKAA Board Approved April 24, 2008
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONRO LINTY, FLORIDA
BY: ( 6
Mayor C les "Sonny" McCoy
APR 1 6 2008
DATE
N
T
C,
ATTEST:
=C
_
D iPY�? KO E, CLL
BY.
APR 1 6 2008 -,
DATE
,.l
rn
I
r
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY:
ne A. utton
County At)or y
Date: j r
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
SECOND AMENDMENT
FOR THE
(EXPANDED) CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM
INCLUDING
BIG PINE KEY, RAMROD KEY, SUMMERLAND KEY, CUDJOE KEY,
THE TORCH KEYS (LITTLE, MIDDLE AND BIG), AND
UPPER AND LOWER SUGARLOAF KEYS
THIS AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is entered into the 3`a day of
August, 2009, pursuant to Sec. 163.01, FS, by and between Monroe County, a political subdivision
of the State of Florida, (County), and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Inc., an independent
special district, (FKAA).
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2006, the parties entered into an interlocal agreement (11A)
for the purpose of funding the costs associated with the administration, planning and development of
a regional wastewater project; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2008 the County approved an amendment to the ILA to expand the
areas encompassed in the Cudjoe Regional wastewater System, which amendment was approved by
FKAA on April 24, 2008; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are a high proportion of properties in the area
of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System which are not slated for centralized sewer but which will
have to upgrade their onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS) at a similar per EDU
cost as the centralized system; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is equitable to include the OSTDS in the Cudjoe
Regional area in the overall project to enable the FKAA to enter into installation and maintenance
agreements and to allow the same degree of subsidization to those costly projects which are on a par
with centralized system EDU costs; now, therefore
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual consideration and promises set forth below, the parties agree
as follows:
1. Paragraph 2, Project, of the Inter -local Agreement (ILA) dated September 20, 2006, for the
Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System, as previously amended on April
16, 2008, shall be amended as follows:
The Project shall be called the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System and consist of
centralized collection systems, transmission mains and method of treatment to Advanced
Wastewater Treatment standards sufficient to serve the needs of the residents and businesses
included for centralized systems in the Master Wastewater Plan in the Wastewater Service
Districts from Big Pine Key through Lower Sugarloaf Key, and Onsite Sewage Treatment
And Disposal Systems for which owners of properties not in the Master Plan but located in
the Cudjoe Regional area from No Name Key through Lower Sugarloaf Key, plus Boca
Chica Key parcels identified as RE# 122880-000000,122890-000000, and 122870-000000 ,
contract with FKAA for installation and maintenance. The Project may be developed in
phases in accordance with availability of funding. Both FKAA and County shall perform
their respective obligations under the interlocal agreement dated September 6, 2005.
2. All other provisions of the ILA dated September 20, 2006, for the
Summerland/Cudjoe/Upper Sugarloaf Regional Wastewater System, as previously amended, not
inconsistent herewith shall remain in full force and effect.
3. This Agreement will take effect on the 3rd day of August, 2009.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year
first above written.
FLORIDA �fl
E AUTHORITY
KEY WEST
BY:
James 11
Executive Director
.3// V/(j
DATE
ATTEST:
BY: Cpj--'C� ---.?
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Mayor Sylvia J. Murphy
3 2009
DATE DATE
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY:
Kirk C. Z Ic
FKAA Ge Counsel
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY:
e A. Hutton
County Attorney
Date:
ME
APPENDIX B
I
IOU
PPP-.
00
i
I
4-a
W
LU
�x
LU
V)
I
"a
i
ca
t�
ca
t�
N
O N
C
O E
7
> i
cn
CLZ
'v O
E;
m 'vs
L =
20
o
c�
�o
CD
CD
�o
M
O
M O
c�
E
� v
E �
'm c�
E—
H O
III t�"'{ii�,f�l�iti�i�>tf�ftir rsft >'{ �
�� ����{�if�t����fir yfi yst tsts�c�ttt
buo
4-J • �..
r*4 �.
1tc {r 1 i ii tfi t � fin%
r*4
CL
ics�cys�ir;,�Uy iSiifi + y s� �
x CL
t' It U
.yam
I ��f�ft�V1��3, t ifs 4i� t f
�,{ct�li lt�{Jit4lfft it7t tt. � /`�1 J` � •�
—a '.—C (CL
�-
4
it�ifhiSt��tf iVs tyys li'if �{aj
—0 O
4-J
4-J O
v) CL 4-J
{�j����tilt yyAr(ttfl� {
buo
yes y iAcs i'i S rr `
ty�yt ��1�'i I{� %t f sr� t1 � • � • �
4-J 4—J [�
ax
i it1 f
bn �..
S{t�i�At�y)� i if u7yi; �i t
//��� � O
���ttkyif f�i II C \,/
s itl,'Q\f{�i���fl�}Is,i tiff
IS t t tt� t rst i
_________ _________ _________ _________
cc
�
~
�
-
�
!
-
.ww
«!«\e
\\\?
22\2\7!
k
0
k
0
_
m
IQ)
CL
w
Y,
a
o
0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
E
E
E
E
E
E
00
91t
0
r14
0
rl"It,
'i
zt
00
rn
r,4
IM
W-
ai
A
4
01
Dw
ml
C:
0
U
:3
0
4-J
4-J
®
o
U
4-J
-0
0
U
-0
0
bD
4-J
C)
E
a)
4-J
bD
M
E
to
C)
u
4-
0
u
4-J
4-J
4-J
0
*Z7;
LIn
D L
4-J
4-J
E
j I
E
E
u
4-J
4-J
u
J
m
Me
1`;
l
R:=
APPENDIX C
Florida Keys
-
Post Office Box 1239
1100 Kennedy Drive
Key West, Ronda 33041 -1239
Telephone (305) 296-2454
We4y. fkaa.com
Ohs
�.
March S, 2008
David S. Koppel, PE, County Engineer
1100 Simonton Street, Suite 2 -216
Key West, FL 33040
RE: Wastewater Master Plan Alternatives' Review
Dear Mr. Koppel:
J. Robert Dean
/J Chairman
s Key West
Mary L. Rice
Vice -Chairman
Elena Z. Herrera
Secretary/Treasurer
Rockland Key
Rose M. Dell
Big Pine Key
David C. Ritz
Key Largo
James C. Reynolds
Executive Director
FKAA received your letter dated February 6, 2008 requesting an evaluation of the possibility of
connecting all wastewater areas from Lower Sugarloaf Key through Big Pine Key to a central
WWTP located on Cudjoe Key.
Your letter also referenced wastewater service for the south end of Long Key, including Outdoor
Resorts (ODR), and potential cost savings associated with maintaining the ODR treatment
facility in operation.
Upon receiving your request for this evaluation, FKAA developed order -of -magnitude cost
estimates for these alternatives.
Lower Sugarloaf to Big Pine
Attachment A is a Technical Memorandum (by CH2M Hill) providing a cost comparison of the
expanded service area alternative versus the Master Plan provision of three separate systems. As
determined in this cost analysis, the expanded Lower Keys option is estimated to provide service
at lower capital and operating costs. However, when the entire collection and treatment system is
considered, the net differences in estimated costs are 6% capital and 13 % Present Worth (20-yr,
6% 1), as herein summarized:
Cost Item
Master Plan Option -3
Alternative Plan —Single
Total Capital Cost Ntem
$187 million $176 million
Present Worth 20-Yr $230 million $204 million
• Having existing County property adjacent to the Cudjoe landfill for the treatment plant;
assuming a minimum of 2 acres is still available for the expanded plant. Obtaining and
permitting two additional treatment plant sites would be time-consuming and possibly
contentious.
• Operating one AWT system for this service area instead of three. The added complexities
of operating AWT systems and the limited pool of operational staff available in the Keys
makes the one plant option a more reliable choice.
Long Key
Regarding the approach to serve the lower reaches of Long Key, FKAA has reviewed recent
studies provided by Outdoor Resorts (ODR) for possible upgrade of its existing treatment plant
to meet BAT standards. Questions were submitted by FKAA to ODR regarding their plans, yet
no responses have been provided for our review of feasibility.
In addition, FKAA has conducted a brief analysis of treating flows from lower Long Key at the
Layton WWTP; inclusive of ODR. Based on this analysis, capital costs in the range of $4 to 5
million are estimated to build a collection system, force main and treatment expansion to handle
this additional service area. This option is technically feasible and environmentally sound.
We remain open to further input from Monroe County and stakeholders. We look forward to
further discussing these issues with you, and should you need any further information please do
not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Walker, PE, BCEE
Director of Engineering
cc: Monroe County Commissioners
Debbie Fredericks, Acting County Administrator
Andrew Trivette, Division Director/Growth Management
Judy Clarke, Assistant County Engineer
Liz Wood, Senior Administrator. -Sewer Projects
Jim Reynolds, Kirk Zuelch, Donald Hubbs, Ray Shimokubo, FKAA
Attachment
APPENDIX D
u
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authorit
Central Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System
Analysis of Alternative Wastewater
Collection Systems (Task 3.2)
February 2009 MATHEWS
CONS]UTINGINC.
Civil and Environmental Engineers
Na ti-tacmatheNi-sconsnitinginc. com
SECTION
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems
3.0 Study Area — Upper Sugarloaf Key
4.0 Study Area — Cudjoe Key
5.0 Study Area — Summerland Key
6.0 Wastewater Collection System Decision Analysis
7.0 Conclusions
8.0 Works Cited
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Service Area
2-1
Gravity Collection System
2-2
STEP Collection System
2-3
Typical STEP Installation
2-4
Low Pressure Collection System
2-5
Vacuum Collection System
3-1 Upper Sugarloaf Key Preliminary LPS Collection System Layout
3-2 Upper Sugarloaf Key Preliminary STEP Collection System Layout
3-3 Upper Sugarloaf Key Preliminary Vacuum Collection System Layout
3-4 Upper Sugarloaf Key Preliminary Gravity Collection System Layout
4-1 Cudjoe Key Preliminary LPS Collection System Layout
4-2 Cudjoe Key Preliminary STEP Collection System Layout
4-3 Cudjoe Key Preliminary Vacuum Collection System Layout
4-4 Cudjoe Key Preliminary Gravity Collection System Layout
5-1 Summerland Key Preliminary LPS Collection System Layout
5-2 Summerland Key Preliminary STEP Collection System Layout
5-3 Summerland Key Preliminary Vacuum Collection System Layout
5-4 Summerland Key Preliminary Gravity Collection System Layout
6-1 Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree
7-1 Project Schedule
Mathews Consulting TOC - 1
•
APPENDIX
A "Development of On -Site Wastewater Nutrient Removal Systems
(OWNRS) Lifecycle Costs Using Best Available Technology (BAT)",
FKAA — January 2009
B "FDEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a) Wastewater Collection/Transmission
System Permit"
C DEP Rule Chapter 62-604, F.A.C. "Collection Systems and Transmission
Facilities"
D Monroe County/FDEP/FKAA Meeting Minutes for Sugar Pine Wastewater
Project (July 7, 2008)
Mathews Consulting TOC - 2
section
ntroduction
Recognizing that the economic health of Monroe County and its municipalities relies
largely on the environmental health of a unique marine ecosystem, the County's
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandated that nutrient loading levels be reduced in
the marine ecosystem of the Florida Keys. In June of 2000, the "Sanitary
Wastewater Master Plan" (Master Plan) was finalized with a firm objective of
eliminating approximately 23,000 private on -site septic systems by July 2010.
Through interlocal agreement, Monroe County has requested that the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) design, build, and operate County -owned infrastructure
on behalf of the citizens in the Master Plans prescribed service areas.
The Master Plan identified Cudjoe Key/Summerland Key as a target service area for
this effort. With the assistance of one of its wastewater consultants (CH2M HILL),
FKAA completed a Preliminary Design Report (PDR), entitled "Cudjoe Wastewater
Collection and Transmission System Project" in August 2008.
In early 2008, County staff requested that the FKAA consider a change in the Master
Plan to expand the service area to include the entire area between Sugarloaf Key
and Big Pine Key. This change represented a dramatic enlargement of the original
Cudjoe Key/Summerland Key service area. A PDR update completed on February
28, 2008 indicated a potential cost savings should the newly expanded service area
prove serviceable, and in May 2008, an interlocal agreement amendment allowed for
the procurement of professional engineering services necessary to implement the
goals of the Master Plan.
On behalf of Monroe County, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority will design, permit
and construct wastewater projects for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Service
Area, which encompasses the Lower Sugarloaf Key Community Service Area, the
Central Cudjoe Key Regional Service Area (Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key and
Summerland Key) and the Big Pine Regional Service Area (Ramrod Key, Little Torch
Key and Big Pine Key). The proposed plan is to provide a wastewater
collection/transmission system and a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to serve
these areas. The goal will be a permitted conveyance and treatment system that will
combine various wastewater collection system technologies in order to connect as
many private on -site septic systems as possible for the lowest overall lifecycle cost.
La wer Keys
Upper Big Torch KeyiMlddle
Sugarloaf Torch
cucfjoe:''
Lower Key f,.i#l.le Torch Key
Sugarloaf
Bay
Point
e'StQiC Ic.
n�
pl�i} - dUm nerland Key Island
Ramrod',
B g mine.
Key Key
Boca. Chica
Rockland
Big co ppltl
Geiger
Mathews Consulting 1 - 1
Mathews Consulting, Inc. has been retained by FKAA to provide engineering
services for the collection system for the Central Cudjoe Key Regional Service
Area (Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key & Summerland Key). Located in the lower
portion of the Florida Keys, these three islands consist of approximately 2,000 acres
of developed and undeveloped land and span approximately 6.5 miles along U.S.
Highway 1.
The objective of this Letter Report is to review general alternative wastewater
collection system technologies, select the best value technology or combination of
technologies tailored to serving the global "Hot Spot" areas that are located in Upper
Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key & Summerland Key, and develop a "Wastewater
Collection System Decision Tree" that can be used as a guideline in other sewer
service areas in the Florida Keys. "Hot Spots" are defined as those areas that will
receive a wastewater collection and treatment system. The wastewater collection
systems evaluated included:
■ Conventional Gravity Sewer Systems
■ Septic Tank Effluent Gravity (STEG) Systems
■ Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) Systems
■ Low Pressure/Grinder Pump Systems
■ Vacuum Sewer Systems
The final work product will be a permitted conveyance system that will combine
various wastewater collection system technologies in order to connect as many on -
site septic systems to the Regional System as possible for the lowest overall
lifecycle costs. The combined strategic utilization of proper planning and technology,
extending to the greatest number of sewer connections for the best value, is an
approach developed by FKAA through its many years of experience in the utility
business. For areas that will not be cost effective to be served by the Regional
System (e.g. outer areas that are located far from the reach of the collection system)
an On -Site Wastewater Nutrient Removal System (OWNRS) to meet the 2010 Best
Available Technology (BAT) Standard (10 mg/I BOD, 10 mg/I TSS, 10 mg/I total N
and 1 mg/I P) is recommended.
The FKAA staff prepared the document titled "Development of On -Site Wastewater
Nutrient Removal Systems (OWNRS) Lifecycle Costs Using Best Available
Technology (BAT)", January 2009, which is included in Appendix A of this Letter
Report.
Conceptual design layouts for each of these collection alternatives were prepared for
Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key and Summerland Key. Refer to Figure 1-1 for
location map of the study areas. Cost estimates prepared include capital,
operations, replacement and maintenance for a 20-year lifecycle period. The
advantages and disadvantages of each system are also presented in this Letter
Report. A wastewater collection system decision tree was also developed in order to
establish the type of wastewater collection system that would be most viable for a
particular neighborhood in the Florida Keys Service Area.
Mathews Consulting 1-2
1.0 Introduction
To facilitate review, the report has been divided into eight main sections. The
content of each section is briefly summarized below.
Section 1.0 Introduction: Presents a brief description of project history,
project area and the wastewater collection systems evaluated.
Section 2.0 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems: Presents
detailed discussion of the wastewater collection systems
(conventional gravity sewer systems, septic tank effluent pump
[STEP] systems, low pressure/grinder pump systems and
vacuum sewer systems. Advantages and disadvantages of
each of these systems are provided along with FDEP
permitting requirements.
Section 3.0 Study Area — Upper Sugarloaf Key: Provides a preliminary
design layout for each of the four wastewater collection
systems. A preliminary initial construction cost opinion and a
summary of present worth cost (including construction,
operation and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer
collection system is provided.
Section 4.0 Study Area — Cudjoe Key: Provides a preliminary design
layout for each of the four wastewater collection systems. A
preliminary initial construction cost opinion and a summary of
present worth cost (including construction, operation and
maintenance cost) for each type of sewer collection system is
provided.
Section 5.0 Study Area — Summerland Key: Provides a preliminary
design layout for each of the four wastewater collection
systems. A preliminary initial construction cost opinion and a
summary of present worth cost (including construction,
operation and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer
collection system is provided.
Section 6 Wastewater Collection System Decision Analysis:
Presents a Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree that
can be used to determine the type of wastewater collection
system best suited for neighborhoods or collection system
areas in the Florida Keys based on such factors as number of
connections, lot size, initial construction cost and present worth
(i.e. Lifecycle) costs.
Section 7 Conclusions: Recapitulates the recommended improvements
and presents a schedule for proceeding with detailed design,
permitting and bidding. A list of action items are also
presented.
Section 8 Works Cited: Provides list of information reviewed during the
preparation of this Letter Report.
Mathews Consulting 1-3
Section 2
Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems
This Section evaluates alternative wastewater collection and transmission
technologies that could be utilized in each of the Study Areas (Upper Sugarloaf
Key, Cudjoe Key and Summerland Key). Conventional gravity sewer system and
four (4) alternative wastewater conveyance systems (septic tank effluent gravity
[STEG] systems, septic tank effluent pump [STEP] systems, low pressure/grinder
pump systems, and vacuum collection systems) were reviewed and their
characteristics are described in this Section. Advantages and disadvantages of
these systems are listed in Table 2-1. Also, FDEP permitting requirements are
discussed at the end of this section.
Gravity Sewer Systems
Conventional gravity flow sewer systems are the most widely used method of
wastewater collection in residential and other developed areas. In a conventional
gravity sewer system, wastewater is transported by gravity from each service
connection (e.g. clean -out @ property) to a main gravity sewer. The main gravity
sewer is sloped to provide a flow velocity adequate to convey solids and
minimize settling, generally two (2) feet per second (fps). Manholes are placed
on the sewer lines at intervals of 300 to 400 feet and at all intersections and
changes of slopes.
Figure 2-1
Gravity Collection System
el® MANHOLE MINOR
PUMP STATION
S (Public)
,e
c
Mathews Consulting 2-1
Sai fitan, SeinerAlai ihole
Suiutan, SeinerAlai ihole
Fibei,ilass Lift Station
Manholes allow access for inspection, cleaning and repair of the gravity
collection piping. Because of the continuous slope, the depth of gravity sewers
increases with distance downstream until the depth becomes too great for
economical construction. Typically, for the Florida Keys this depth is 8 feet due
to the challenging subsurface conditions (e.g. limestone bedrock & high water
table). Once the maximum depth is reached, a lift station is required to pump the
wastewater to a shallower gravity -sewer system manhole, or through a force
main to another lift station (e.g. piggy -back system ), and then to a Master Lift
Station, which will ultimately pump through a force main system to the Regional
WWTP.
A cost-effective design of a gravity sewer system requires optimizing the
maximum gravity sewer depth with the number of lift stations utilized in the
system. Maximizing the depth of gravity sewer construction minimizes the
number of lift stations required, while maintaining minimum depth requires more
lift stations. Deep sewer construction and lift stations are both associated with
high costs, and the optimum balance between sewer depth and number of lift
stations used is highly dependent on site -specific conditions. Factors adversely
affecting deep sewer construction and use of gravity sewers in general include
difficult excavation conditions (e.g. rock), high water tables, existing high -density
development, and presence of extensive underground utilities in the area to be
serviced.
Mathews Consulting 2-2
Septic Tank Effluent Gravity Systems
Septic Tank Effluent Gravity (STEG) systems utilize septic tanks at the
wastewater source to remove solids and floating materials, such as oil and
grease. In addition to removing solids from the waste stream, septic tanks
anaerobically decompose the waste into liquid and solid byproducts (e.g.
producing a partially treated wastewater effluent). Effluent from the septic tanks
is then discharged to small diameter gravity sewer system. Since solids are
removed in the septic tanks, STEG lines do not need to be designed to transport
solids. This reduces the velocity and gradient required, which reduces the depth
of excavation. It also eliminates the need for manholes at all junctions, grade
changes, and alignment changes, resulting in potential cost savings. Because
the septic tanks provide for some attenuation of peak flow, STEG diameters can
be reduced in comparison to a conventional gravity sewer line serving the same
flow. The STEG lines can be constructed with some inflective gradient (i.e., dip
and rise in gravity line), provided adequate head and velocity is available at peak
daily flow to suspend solids and clean the line.
One disadvantage of STEG collection systems is that each connected unit must
have a septic tank. In order to avoid maintenance problems in the STEG lines,
the septic tanks must be properly maintained, including pumping of septage at
regular intervals. Costs of pumping, hauling, treating and disposing of septage
must be included in the overall system operation and maintenance costs. Though
STEG systems require less slope than conventional gravity sewer systems
(typically 25 to 50 percent of gravity sewer slopes), they require greater burial
depth than the minimum cover requirements for pressure sewers.
STEG systems are designed to discharge into a gravity sewer collection system
that is typically received and pumped by a lift station in order to convey the
effluent wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant. STEG systems are
advantageous in areas with a terrain that is sloped toward the wastewater
treatment plant or large regional lift station (e.g. mountain -type areas). In areas
that are flat, the gravity collections systems are sloped to each associated lift
station. Since STEG effluent sewer require a gravity sewer system to
receive its effluent, these systems are not economically feasible where the
terrain is flat, such as the Florida Keys. This is based on the cost of each
effluent septic tank added to the cost of a gravity sewer collection system.
Therefore, STEG systems were not analyzed as a viable collection system for
these study areas.
Mathews Consulting 2-3
Septic Tank Effluent Pump Systems
Similar to the STEG systems, Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) systems also
utilize septic tanks at the wastewater source for separation and decomposition of
settleable and floating solids. STEP systems utilize small septic tank effluent
pump stations and pressure sewers to convey partially decomposed wastewater.
Pumps used in these systems are typically fractional horsepower submersible
pumps with operating heads below 200 feet. The pumps are generally not
designed for solids transport because the impellers, which operate under higher
head conditions, have close tolerances and are not made to pass solids. Since
they are not required to be sloped and because of the high head conditions,
STEP pressure sewers can be installed with minimum cover (typically 30 to 36
inches) and can be easily routed over or under existing utilities to avoid conflicts
since the pressure sewers are small diameter piping.
Figure 2-3
Typical STEP Installation
Mathews Consulting 2-4
Like STEG systems, STEP systems have the disadvantage of utilizing numerous
septic tanks which must be regularly maintained to minimize problems in the
pressure sewer collection system. Pumping, hauling, treatment, and disposal of
septage must be included in the operation and maintenance costs for STEP
systems. Another disadvantage of STEP systems is the large number of pumps
in the system that must be maintained. Selection of standardized pumps for the
system should be based on initial costs plus operation and maintenance costs
over a 20-year period.
STET' Svstem Iizstallatioit
STET' Svstem Irzstallatioit
STET' Svstein Iizstallatioit
Coiarol Panel on Side of Horse
The characteristics of wastewater collected with a STEP system are nearly
identical to that of an STEG system. The wastewater quality is weak with respect
to suspended, settleable, and floating solids, but is readily biodegradable. It is
also anaerobic and may emit hydrogen sulfide upon contact with air, potentially
causing odor and corrosion problems. Wastewater collected with STEP systems
can be treated by conventional methods, such as extended aeration (activated
sludge process).
Low Pressure Systems
Low pressure/grinder pump systems utilize a small grinder pump station at each
wastewater source (residential and/or commercial property) and small -diameter,
low pressure force mains for transmission either to lift stations or directly to a
WWTP. The grinder pump station accepts the entire wastewater stream from the
residence or business and is not generally used in conjunction with a septic tank.
Stations serving single residential units typically utilize fiberglass or high density
Mathews Consulting 2-5
polyethylene (HDPE) wet -wells 24 to 30 inches in diameter. The grinder pumps
typically range from 1 to 3 horsepower, depending on the type of pump selected
and the number of units served by the pump station. All solids in the waste
stream are ground to a slurry and pumped through small diameter pressure
sewers similar in size to those utilized by STEP systems. Since these systems
do not rely on gravity, the sewers can be constructed with minimum cover (30 to
36 inches). Since there are no septic tanks utilized in low pressure/grinder pump
systems, installation costs and septage handling costs associated with the septic
tanks are avoided.
Figure 2-4
Low Pressure Collection System
Two common types of grinder pumps are in widespread use, submersible
centrifugal grinder pumps and submersible progressive -cavity grinder pumps.
Most manufacturers utilize submersible centrifugal grinder pumps. The
submersible centrifugal grinder pumps for single residence applications are
typically 1.0 to 2.0 horsepower and have shutoff heads between 90 and 105 feet.
Flow rates of individual pumps in the system vary from near 60 gpm at low
pressure to near zero gpm as pressure approaches the shutoff head. If pressures
in the grinder pump system force mains approach the shutoff head of the pumps,
pumps in those areas will discharge minimal volumes until other pumps in the
system shut off and pressure in the force main decreases. These high -head
conditions should only be reached under extreme conditions, most likely
following a power outage, and should not present any operational problems if the
force main system is properly sized.
Mathews Consulting 2-6
House Service Piping;
Lou, Pressure Pump
Station Installation
Lou, Pressure Pump Station Cover
Control Panel on
Side ofHouse
The other pump type used in grinder pump systems is the submersible
progressive cavity pump. This pump is a semi -positive displacement pump,
which means that it will produce small changes in flow for relatively large
changes in head. Typical operating characteristics for this pump are 15 gpm at
zero head and 9 gpm at 180 feet of head. The low pump discharge compared to
centrifugal pumps and the ability to operate at higher heads maintains steadier
flow conditions in the force mains and reduces the probability of pumps not being
able to pump against the head conditions. The ability to operate at higher heads
also minimizes the number of lift or repump stations necessary for a large grinder
pump collection system.
Disadvantages of grinder pump systems are primarily associated with
maintenance of the numerous grinder pump stations in the system. As with
STEP systems, pump selection should be based on initial costs plus 20 year
operation and maintenance costs. The use of high -quality grinder pumps is
generally cost-effective because of the potentially high maintenance costs
associated with the cutting/grinding mechanism.
Wastewater delivered to treatment plants by grinder pump systems differs from
that delivered by STEP or STEG systems because solids removal does not occur
Mathews Consulting 2-7
in the grinder pump system. In addition, the wastewater at the source will not
have the anaerobic characteristics of STEP and STEG system wastewater.
Grinder pump system wastewater is similar to wastewater delivered by
conventional gravity sewer systems, except that the solids are ground by the
pumps. Advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) processes are capable of
treating wastewater delivered by grinder pump stations.
Vacuum Sewer Systems
Vacuum sewer collection systems have been used for commercial applications
since 1959 and for residential applications since the early 1970's. A vacuum
sewer system consists of one or more vacuum stations, collection system piping,
and vacuum sewer services. Vacuum stations provide vacuum pumping to draw
wastewater to the station and discharge pumping to pump wastewater to a
WWTP through a pressure force main. Vacuum valves regulate the entry of
wastewater and air into the collection system piping. Each of these three
components is described in the following paragraphs.
A typical residential vacuum sewer service consists of a gravity line from one or
more structures to a 30-gallon holding tank equipped with a vacuum valve.
Opening of the valve is initiated by a pressure sensor in the holding tank. When
liquid in the tank reaches a preset level, the sensor activates, opening the valve
to discharge waste and air into the vacuum collection system. The time that the
vacuum valve is open is normally adjusted to twice the time required to discharge
wastewater from the holding tank. This allows air to enter the system behind the
wastewater. This air is necessary to drive wastewater in the line to the vacuum
station. As a benefit, this air provides some aeration of wastewater as it passes
through the vacuum collection system. Vacuum valve pits are typically located on
or near property lines so that they can serve two or more adjacent homes.
How
A tradI g—ity When 1d gal of
Waste atrr tr—ela at 15 to 16 fps
Waste.ater enters the collection Vacuum pumps cycle on and
line carries wastewater collects t e Sump, the
n the v 'u main hrch is
tank When the tankf€Its to t off as needed to m nt
�
Vacuum
y acu um
from the —to-enr.�a3:ve pin.. and differential
laid in a aawtoetn f-hiQ,. to
predetermined level, pumps, ccznsiant level of va4u u.-'m
Systemsto
a va€ve pre package press — re propels the contents
Insure adequate vacuum levels
tra—Nr tine cr ee is to the the entire collection system.
Into I lta vacuum main.
at the end of each lme.
treatment ph.nt ^:a a force main.
Work
1 2
�.�
3
_.hfacuum
Statiart. CoSleetfun Tank
% J1.k intakeV41- Pit
-
_ Pdcica8e
,St#^ '�t, r,
Fitts-e 2-5
T acwttn Collection .Svstetn Diug-t-atn
Mathews Consulting 2-8
Vacuum collection piping typically consists of 4-inch to 10-inch solvent weld or
push -on, rubber-gasketed PVC pipe laid on a minimum 0.2 percent slope in a
sawtooth profile. In order to minimize excavation depth in flat topography or to
provide wastewater transport up an incline, lifts are used in the lines. The lifts
consist of two 450 bends with the lift pipe section in between, resulting in a
sawtooth profile configuration. This section acts as an airlift and provides some
additional aeration as wastewater is forced through the lift by rising air. Valving
for vacuum collection lines is similar to that for pressure sewers, with plug or
resilient wedge gate valves on branches and at intervals on the mains to allow
isolation for repairs or troubleshooting.
Trencher hi Operation
Collectiolt Pipilig I11stallatiolt
l aC11111?7 .Statiolt
l aC11111?7 Pit I11'stallatiolt
Mathews Consulting 2-9
Vacuum stations in the Keys are usually constructed of concrete block buildings
on elevated concrete foundations with plan dimensions of approximately 25 feet
by 30 feet. Part of the structure is constructed below grade to accommodate
entry of the vacuum sewer. Two (2) alternating liquid ring or sliding vane vacuum
pumps withdraw air from a vacuum reservoir tank, which is connected in turn to a
fiberglass or steel collection tank. The reservoir tank serves two purposes. First,
it provides a vacuum reservoir to limit the number of vacuum pump starts much
like the pressure storage tank of a compressed air system. Second, it keeps the
vacuum pumps from contacting the air/sewage mix being collected into the
collection tank. This separation prevents droplets from damaging the vacuum
pumps. Vacuum switches on this reservoir tank control operation of the vacuum
pumps.
The collection tank receives the air and sewage transported by the collection
piping and serves the same purpose as a wet well in a conventional lift station.
Two (2) alternating, non -clog wastewater pumps remove wastewater from the
collection tank, and discharge it to the force main. These pumps are controlled by
level probes in the wastewater collection tank. Equipment for the vacuum
stations is typically skid -mounted for ease of installation. Non -submersible
components of the vacuum station (e.g., pump motors and control panels) are
located above the 100-year flood elevation.
The advantages and disadvantages of vacuum collection systems over pressure
collection systems (STEP or grinder systems) are summarized in Table 2-1. A
major advantage is that pump stations at the wastewater source are eliminated,
which greatly reduces the number of pumps in the collection system that must be
maintained. The vacuum valves at the service connection do not require any
power, which not only eliminates the cost of electrical service and use, but
facilitates using one vacuum valve pit to serve two or more residences and
allows for continuity of service during power outages. If multiple connections
were used with STEP or grinder system, one of the residences served would
have to pay for the power used and seek reimbursement from the other
residences. Another advantage of vacuum sewers is aeration of the wastewater
that is provided throughout the collection system, minimizing anaerobic
conditions and associated odor and corrosion problems. Vacuum collection
system piping has similar advantages over conventional gravity systems as do
STEP and grinder systems, i.e., smaller diameters and shallower cover
requirements.
Disadvantages of vacuum sewer systems include the need for relatively large
vacuum stations and the potential difficulties in locating these stations in an area
that is already developed. Vacuum collection system piping is somewhat more
costly than small -diameter pressure systems because of the need to maintain 0.2
percent slopes (which requires grade control and somewhat greater depth), the
need to install numerous lift sections, and the slightly larger pipe diameters
required to serve comparable flows.
Mathews Consulting 2 - 10
Hybrid or Mixed Systems
Combinations of the conventional and alternative wastewater collection systems
described in this section are possible and in some cases can help lower the costs
of the collection system. The primary concern in combining systems is that the
wastewater characteristics of an upstream system must be compatible with the
downstream system into which it is discharged. For example, a low
pressure/grinder pump system can be discharged to a conventional gravity
system. Also, a vacuum collection system can be discharged to a conventional
gravity system. A low pressure/grinder pump system that is only serving 8-10
houses could discharge into a vacuum collection system. A STEP system
discharging to a conventional gravity system may require additional precautions
for corrosion and odor control.
Advantages/Disadvantages of Each Collection System
A comparison of advantages and disadvantages of the four collection system
alternatives is presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Collection System Alternatives
Wastewater
Collection
Advantages
Disadvantages
Method
1
Well established technology, lowest
1
Higher initial construction costs in areas
O&M cost of all technologies.
of difficult excavation (rock), high water
tables and flat topography.
2
Collectors contained within the public
2
Disruption of community during
right-of-way.
construction entire ROW utilized).
3
Minimal facilities required at point of
3
Increased potential for infiltration and
service (gravity service connection).
inflow. Salinity can be high in coastal
areas.
U)
4
Entire waste stream conveyed from
4
Manholes required at all junctions, grade
property.
changes and alignment changes.
'a
Numerous small lift stations required.
0
5
No power required from individual
5
Placement of regional "Master" lift
c
residence.
stations within communities may require
o
changes in zoning and the acquisition of
valuable property.
6
Excess capacity is typically built in
6
Collection areas may be restricted by
�j
allowing easy expansion. The additional
canals and drainage structures.
storage also allows a few days of
continued operation during mechanical
or electrical failures.
7
The life of a conventional gravity system
7
Performance affected by low flows.
is typically 40 years before repairs, such
as slip lining or replacement is required.
Mathews Consulting 2 - 11
Table 2-1
Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Collection System Alternatives
Wastewater
Collection
Advantages
Disadvantages
Method
1
Collector mains may be laid at constant
1
Interceptor tank located on private
depth to conform to topography.
property with easement required. A
significant amount of owners property is
required. This will require excavation on
private property. This area will not be
available for pool, driveway, boat parking,
etc. Installation logistics may be difficult
E
on small lots.
2
Performance not affected by low flows.
2
Power required at each connection
supplied by homeowner.
a
3
Reduction in BOD and TSS in WWTP
3
Individual service lost with power outage.
w
influent.
4
Manholes & lift stations eliminated.
4
Historically, maintenance requirements
E
for STEP systems have been higher than
most alternatives. Also, numerous units
a
to handle.
5
Infiltration/inflow are minimized.
5
Settleable solids retained on private
property that require periodic removal.
w
6
Smaller pipe diameters than gravity
6
Septic, settled wastewater collected that
systems are utilized. Pressure sewers
requires odor control at receiving
can be constructed with minimum cover
manholes and lift stations.
C
30"-36"
ia)
7
Collector mains are usually installed in
7
May require additional WWTP chemical
RAN off of road pavement.
feed, significant private property
construction disruption potential.
8
Roadway restoration costs are
8
With older homes, there may be a need to
significantly reduced when compared
upgrade electrical service at the
with conventional gravity sewer
residence to allow for addition of the
installations.
pump unit.
9
Reduces peak flow pumping.
1
Collector mains may be laid at constant
1
Some installations may need to be on
CL
c' E
depth to conform to topography.
private property with the easement
n
required due to Ion lateral runs.
2
Performance not affected by low flows.
2
Power required at each connection
c
supplied by homeowner.
w
3
Manholes eliminated.
3
Long detention and travel times may
aEi
(
require odor control at air release valves.
co R
4
Infiltration eliminated.
4
Individual service lost with power outage.
CL (n
5
Most lift stations eliminated.
5
Somewhat greater operation and
amaintenance
costs than conventional
L
gravity systems with numerous units to
a
handle.
6
Smaller pipe diameters than gravity
6
With older homes, there may be a need to
systems are utilized. Pressure sewers
upgrade electrical service at the
can be constructed with minimum cover
residence to allow for addition of the
�
30"-36" .
um unit.
a7
Roadway restoration costs are
7
Pump station required at each service
o
significantly reduced when compared
connection.
n
with conventional gravity sewer and
vacuum installations.
Mathews Consulting 2 - 12
Table 2-1
Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Collection System Alternatives
Wastewater
Collection Advantages Disadvantages
Method
E
a�
co
E
U
N
8 Collector mains usually installed in R/W 8 To reduce costs, multiple connections
off road pavement. may be used where one pump unit serves
two or more homes; however, one
residence would have to pay for the
power used and be reimbursed.
9 Grinder pump station can be installed in
R/W and further savings could be
achieved with single duplex station/
multiple connection.
1
Entire waste stream conveyed from
1
Collector mains must be installed to grade
property.
in a sawtooth pattern; high installation
sensitivity.
2
Wastewater maintained in aerobic state.
2
Standby power required at central
vacuum station to prevent service loss
during power outages - no system
storage.
3
Performance not affected by low flows.
3
Limited number of manufacturers of
equipment — proprietary cost premium.
4
Smaller pipe diameters than gravity
4
Pipe Diameters are greater than those for
systems are generally utilized.
low pressure systems.
5
Manholes eliminated.
5
O&M costs are higher than other
alternative collections stems.
6
Collector mains and valves installed in
6
Relatively large (25'x30') building required
R/W off road pavement, minimal private
for vacuum/pump station.
operty disruption.
7
No power required at connection.
7
Potential difficulty and cost associated
with the purchase of land for the vacuum
station.
8
One vacuum valve can serve two or
8
There is no alarm for loss at vacuum or
more lots.
high level in pits. The first notification is
often due to a back-up in customers
home.
9
Performance of vacuum sewer system
depends on quality of construction. Pre -
qualification of contractors is
recommended.
FDEP Permitting Requirements
Each project area (Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key & Summerland Key) will
require an FDEP Wastewater Collection/Transmission System Permit. FDEP
requires a separate application and fee for each non-contiguous project (i.e.
projects that are not interconnected or are not located on adjacent streets or in
the same neighborhood). The required DEP Form 62-604.300 (8)(a) is included
in Appendix B of this Letter Report. The DEP Rule Chapter 62-604, F.A.C., for
Collection Systems and Transmission Facilities is included in Appendix C.
Mathews Consulting 2 - 13
It is important to note that FKAA & Monroe County met with FDEP (Fort
Myers/Marathon staff) on July 7, 2008 to discuss the Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater System. The minutes of that meeting are included at Attachment D.
Mathews Consulting 2 - 14
Section 3
Study Area - Upper Sugarloaf Key
Upper Sugarloaf Key is located at Mile Marker 18.6, between Lower Sugarloaf
Key and Cudjoe Key. Upper Sugarloaf Key has 12 commercial lots including a
public school, church, restaurant, and two campgrounds. Currently 247
residential lots are occupied with very low to medium density. At build -out 365
lots are expected to be occupied. Since Upper Sugarloaf Key has developed
only 68% of the build -out lots, opportunities exist to utilize alternative collection
systems to defer a significant portion of construction cost.
The sewer collection systems evaluated for this area are listed below in the order
they appear.
■ Low Pressure Sewer/Grinder Collection System (LPS) (refer to Figure 3-1)
■ STEP Effluent Collection System (refer to Figure 3-2)
■ Vacuum Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 3-3)
■ Gravity Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 3-4)
For each system, a preliminary design was developed on an aerial map. A
preliminary construction cost opinion was developed utilizing recent bid
information from the Keys and gathering information from system suppliers. A
present worth cost analysis was performed for each potential sewer collection
system using O&M data from EPA, published technical reports, engineering
reports, system operator interviews and manufacturer vendors' data.
Table 3-1 provides a summary of present worth cost (including construction,
operation, and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer collection system. A
twenty year present worth cost analysis (e.g. Lifecycle costs) was calculated
based on an interest rate of 6% and an inflation rate of 3%.
Mathews Consulting 3-1
Table 3-1
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Present Worth Summary for Each Type of Sewer Collection System
Type of Sewer
Collection System
LPS
STEP
Vacuum
Gravity
Initial Construction
Cost
$
5,772,081.42
$ 7,412,984.92
$ 8,632,913.90
$ 7,750,489.71
Future Construction
Cost
$
1,498,600.00
$ 2,098,040.00
$ 974,090.00
0
Present Worth of
Future Construction
$
1,132,408.12
$ 1,585,371.37
$ 736,065.28
0
Total Present Worth of
Construction Cost
$
6,904,489.54
$ 8,998,356.29
$ 9,368,979.18
$ 7,750,489.71
Present Worth of O&M
Cost
$
1,140,390.38
$ 1,926,265.61
$ 2,255,271.13
$ 833,738.18
Total Present Worth
$
8,044,879.92
$10,924,621.90
$ 11,624,250.31
$ 8,584,227.88
PW of Construction
COst/EDU @ Build -Out
$
13,808.98
$ 17,996.71
$ 18,737.96
$ 15,500.98
Total Present
Worth/EDU @ Build -
Out
$
16,089.76
$ 21,849.24
$ 23,248.50
$ 17,168.46
EDUs @ Build -Out = 500
Upper Sugarloaf Key
$14,000,000.00
Present Worth
$12,000,000.00
of O&M Cost
$10,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
®Total Present
$6,000,000.00
Worth of
Construction
$4, 000, 000.00
Cost
$2, 000, 000.00
$-
LPS STEP Vacuum Gravity
Type of Sewer Collection System
Mathews Consulting 3-2
An explanation for each row heading in Table 3-1 is provided below:
Initial Construction Cost: The construction cost required to provide the existing
developed lots with sewer service.
Future Construction Cost: The portion of the construction cost required to
serve future residents that can be deferred. Conventional gravity sewer systems
cannot be easily expanded to pick up additional users. The infrastructure
necessary to serve future residents is included in the Initial Construction Cost for
gravity sewer systems. That is why this column for gravity is $0.
Present Worth of Future Cost: Future construction was assumed to occur 5,
10, and 15 years after initial construction. The future construction expense was
discounted to present worth dollars.
Total Present Worth of Construction Cost: The sum of Initial Construction
Cost and Present Worth of Future Construction Cost.
Present Worth of O&M Cost: The cost of all forecasted operation and
maintenance cost over a 20 year period discounted to present worth dollars.
Total Present Worth: The sum of Total Present Worth of Construction Cost and
Present Worth of O&M Cost.
PW of Construction Cost/EDU @ Build -Out: The Total Present Worth of
Construction Cost divided by the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at
build -out.
Total Present Worth/EDU @ Build -Out: The Total Present Worth divided by
the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at build -out.
As shown on Table 3-1, the lowest initial construction cost and lowest present
worth cost to provide sewer service to Upper Sugarloaf Key is the Low Pressure
Sewer System. However, high density areas could be served by a conventional
gravity sewer system. As the system is further designed, the Wastewater
Collection System Decision Tree (see Section 6.0) should be used to determine
the most optimum hybrid system for a low pressure system/gravity collection
system for this service area.
Another important factor that will be considered in selecting a wastewater
collection system will be a "Policy Decision" by FKAA regarding the type of
system(s) that they plan to operate and maintain in their Service Areas.
Mathews Consulting 3-3
Upper Sugarloaf Key
LOW PRESSURE/GRINDER
PUMP SYSTEM
Table 3-2
LPS #1
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Low Pressure Sewer
Number of EDUs Current 382
Number of EDUs Build -Out 500
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
21582
LF
$
42.00
$
906,444.00
3" Force Main (1)
12313
LF
$
48.00
$
591,024.00
4" Force Main (1)
3274
LF
$
54.00
$
176,796.00
6" Force Main (1)
3324
LF
$
68.00
$
226,032.00
2" Valves
18
EA
$
500.00
$
9,000.00
3" Valves
15
EA
$
750.00
$
11,250.00
4" Valves
4
EA
$
1,100.00
$
4,400.00
6" Valves
3
EA
$
2,000.00
$
6,000.00
Simplex Low Pressure Station (2)
247
EA
$
10,000.00
$
2,470,000.00
Duplex Low Pressure Station (2)
12
EA
$
12,000.00
$
144,000.00
Subtotal
$
4,544,946.00
Other Project Cost
(3) 27%
$
1,227,135.42
Current Estimated Total =
$
5,772,081.42
Current Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
15,110.16
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
3" Force Main (1)
4" Force Main (1)
6" Force Main (1)
2" Valves
3" Valves
4" Valves
6" Valves
Simplex Low Pressure Station (2)
Duplex Low Pressure Station (2)
21582
LF
$
42.00
$
906,444.00
12313
LF
$
48.00
$
591,024.00
3274
LF
$
54.00
$
176,796.00
3324
LF
$
68.00
$
226,032.00
18
EA
$
500.00
$
9,000.00
15
EA
$
750.00
$
11,250.00
4
EA
$
1,100.00
$
4,400.00
3
EA
$
2,000.00
$
6,000.00
365
EA
$
10,000.00
$
3,650,000.00
12
EA
$
12,000.00
$
144,000.00
Subtotal
$
5,724,946.00
Other Project Cost (3) 27%
$
1,545,735.42
Build -Out Estimated Total =
$
7,270,681.42
Build -Out Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
14,541.36
Notes:
(1) Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration.
(2) Cost of LPS Station includes tank, equipment, installation, electrical connection and 1-1/4"
lateral with restoration.
(3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees.
Table 3-3
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Low Pressure Sewer
Current EDU = 382
Build Out EDU = 500
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Add 11 pumps in year 5, 12 pumps in year 10, and 12 pumps in year 15
Labor/hr =
$ 100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH =
$ 0.10
Electric =
$ 30.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. _
$ 30.00 /pump/yr
Public Education =
$ 2.00 /pump/yr
Emergency call out =
$ 390.00 /pump/12yr
Pump replacement =
$ 2,000.00 /pump/12yr
Initial Construction Cost= $ 5,772,081.42
Calculation of present worth of future construction
$1,498,600.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows:
In year 5, 10, & 15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3% inflation, then converted to present worth at 1
= 6%
$1,498,600.00/3=
$
499,533.33
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years =
1.1593
$499,533.33x1.1593=
$
579,108.99 Construction Cost at year 5
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years =
1.3439
$499,533.33x1.3439=
$
671,322.85 Construction Cost at year 10
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years =
1.5580
$499,533.33x1.5580=
$
778,272.93 Construction Cost at year 15
Converting the future construction cost to
Present Worth with I = 6%
gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years =
0.7473
$579,108.99x0.7473=
$
432,768.15
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years =
0.5584
$671,322.85x0.5584=
$
374,866.68
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years =
0.4173
$778,272.93x0.4173=
$
324,773.30
Present Worth of future construction = $ 1,132,408.12
Annualize cost of pump replacement and emergency call outs in 12 years and again in 24 years
Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3% inflation in 12 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 12 years = 1.4258 ($2,000+$390)x1.4258= $ 3,407.66 per pump
Converting the 12 year future pump replacementlemergency call out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 12 years = 0.4970 $3,407.66x0.4970= $ 1,693.61 per pump
Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3% inflation in 24 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 24 years = 2.0328 ($2,000+$390)x2.0328= $ 4,858.39 per pump
Converting the future pump replacementlemergency call out cost to an annualized cost over 12 years with I = 6% gives:
(A/F) at 6% for 12 years = 0.0593 $4,858.394.0593= $ 288.10 per pump/yr
By taking the annualized cost for 8 years, a future cost for year 12 can be calculated with I = 6% gives:
(P'/A) at 6% for 8 years = 8.3838 $288.10x8.3838= $ 2,415.39 in year 12
Converting the annualized cost of future pump replacementlemergency call out cost from year 13 to year 20 to Present Worth with I =
6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 12 years = 0.4970 $2,415.39x0.4970= $ 1,200.45
PW of future pump replacement and emergency call out per pump = $ 2,894.06 (12yr and 24yr combined)
Converting the present worth of two pump replacements to annualized dollars
(A/P) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0872 $2,894.060.0872= $ 252.36 per pump/yr
Table 3-3 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Low Pressure Sewer
Total annualized cost per pump per year:
Pump replacement =
$ 252.36 /pump/yr
Electric =
$ 30.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. _
$ 30.00 /pump/yr
Public Education =
$ 2.00 /pump/yr
Total =
$ 314.36 /pump/yr
Convert annualized costs to Present Worth
Assume pumps will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 271 pumps through year 5
Period It: 311 pumps from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 350 pumps from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 389 pumps from year 16 through year 20
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $314.36x271= $ 85,192.09 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $85,192.09x4.2124= $ 358,863.18 Present Worth for Period I
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II:
Period It: Annualized cost = $314.36x311= $ 97,766.57 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $97,766.57x4.2142= $ 411,831.91 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $411,831.91 x0.7473= $ 307,761.99 Present Worth for Period II
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $314.36x350= $110,026.69 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $110,026.69x4.2142= $ 463,476.43 in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $463,476.43x0.5584= $ 268,806.24 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $314.36x389= $122,286.81 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $122,286.81x4.2142= $ 515,120.95 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $515,120.95x0.4173= $ 214,959.97 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods = 1 $ 1,140,390.38
Total Present Worth = $ 8,044,879.92
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 21,059.90
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 16,089.76
Upper Sugarloaf Key
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP
(STEP) SYSTEM
Table 3-4
STEP #1
Upper Sugarloaf Key
STEP
Number of EDUs Current 382
Number of EDUs Build -Out 500
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
39060
LF
$
42.00
$
1,640,520.00
3" Force Main (1)
4996
LF
$
48.00
$
239,808.00
4" Force Main (1)
548
LF
$
54.00
$
29,592.00
6" Force Main (1)
3507
LF
$
68.00
$
238,476.00
2" Valves
48
EA
$
500.00
$
24,000.00
3" Valves
10
EA
$
750.00
$
7,500.00
4" Valves
1
EA
$
1,100.00
$
1,100.00
6" Valves
6
EA
$
2,000.00
$
12,000.00
Simplex STEP Station (2)
247
EA
$
14,000.00
$
3,458,000.00
Duplex STEP Station (2)
12
EA
$
15,500.00
$
186,000.00
Subtotal
$
5,836,996.00
Other Project
Cost (3) 27%
$
1,575,988.92
Current Estimated Total =
$
7,412,984.92
Current Estimated Cost(EDU =
$
19,405.72
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
39060
LF
$
42.00
$
1,640,520.00
3" Force Main (1)
4996
LF
$
48.00
$
239,808.00
4" Force Main (1)
548
LF
$
54.00
$
29,592.00
6" Force Main (1)
3507
LF
$
68.00
$
238,476.00
2" Valves
48
EA
$
500.00
$
24,000.00
3" Valves
10
EA
$
750.00
$
7,500.00
4" Valves
1
EA
$
1,100.00
$
1,100.00
6" Valves
6
EA
$
2,000.00
$
12,000.00
Simplex STEP Station (2)
365
EA
$
14,000.00
$
5,110,000.00
Duplex STEP Station (2)
12
EA
$
15,500.00
$
186,000.00
Subtotal
$
7,488,996.00
Other Project Cost (3) 27%
$
2,022,028.92
Build -Out Estimated Total =
$
9,511,024.92
Build -Out Estimated Cost(EDU =
$
19, 022.05
Notes:
(1) Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration.
(2) Cost of STEP Station includes tank, equipment, installation, electrical connection and 1-1i4"
lateral with restoration.
(3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees
Table 3-5
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Upper Sugarloaf Key
STEP Collection System
Current EDU = 382
Build Out EDU = 500
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Add 11 pumps
in year 5, 12 pumps in year 10, and 12 pumps in year 15
Labor/hr = $
100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH = $
0.10
Electric = $
20.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. _ $
271.30 /pump/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is derived from data from Charlotte County.
Public Education = $
2.00 /pump/yr Nine people work full time to maintain 6,900 STEP units.
Emergency call out = $
390.00 /pump/5yr
Tank pump out = $
400.00 /pump/5yr
Pump replacement = $
870.00 /pump/20yr
Initial Construction Cost = 1 $ 7,412,984.92
Calculation of present worth of future construction
$2,098,040.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows:
In year 5, 10, & 15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3% inflation, then converted to present
worth at I = 6%
$2,098,040.00/3=
$
699,346.67
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years =
1.1593
$699,346.67x1.1593=
$
810,752.59 Construction Cost at year 5
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years =
1.3439
$699,346.67x1.3439=
$
939,851.99 Construction Cost at year 10
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years =
1.5580
$699,346.67x1.5580=
$
1,089,582.11 Construction Cost at year 15
Converting the future
construction cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years =
0.7473
$810,752.59x0.7473=
$
605,875.41
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years =
0.5584
$939,851.99x0.5584=
$
524,813.35
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years =
0.4173
$1,089,582.114.4173=
$
454,682.61
Present Worth of future construction = $ 1,585,371.37
Annualize cost of pump replacement
Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years = 1.8061 $870.00x1.8061= $ 1,571.31 per pump
Converting the pump replacement cost to an annualized cost over 20 years with I = 6% gives:
(A/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0272 $1,571.314.0272= $ 42.74 per pump/yr
Annualize cost of emergency call outs and tank pump outs in 5, 10, 15, & 20 years
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 5 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years = 1.1593 $790x1.1593= $ 915.85 per pump
Converting the 5 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $915.85x0.7473= $ 684.41 per pump
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 10 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $790xl.3439= $ 1,061.68 per pump
Converting the 10 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $1,061.68x0.5584= $ 592.84 per pump
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 15 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years = 1.5580 $790x1.5580= $ 1,230.82 per pump
Table 3-5 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Upper Sugarloaf Key
STEP Collection System
Converting the 15 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $1,230.82x0.4173= $ 513.62 per pump
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years = 1.8061 $790x1.8061= $ 1,426.82 per pump
Converting the 20 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.3118 $1,426.82x0.3118= $ 444.88 per pump
PW of future emergency call out per pump = $ 2,235.76 (5, 10, 15, & 20yr combined)
Converting the present worth of emergency call out and tank pump out cost to annualized dollars
(A/P) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0872 $2,235.764.0872= $ 194.96 per pump/yr
Total annualized cost per pump per year:
Pump Replacement = $
42.74 /pump/yr
Emerg. Call Out & Pump Out = $
194.96 /pump/yr
Electric = $
20.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. = $
271.30 /pump/yr
Public Education = $
2.00 /pump/yr
Total = $
531.00 /pump/yr
Convert annualized costs to Present Worth
Assume pumps will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 271 pumps through year 5
Period II: 311 pumps from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 350 pumps from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 389 pumps from year 16 through year 20
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $531.00x271= $143,900.37 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $143,900.37x4.2124= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost= $531.00x311= $165,140.28 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $165,140.28x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $695,636.92x0.7473= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $531.00x350= $185,849.19 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $185,849.19x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $782,871.13x0.5584= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $531.00x389= $206,558.10 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $206,558.10x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $870,105.35x0.4173= $
606,165.94 Present Worth for Period I
695,636.92 in year 5 dollars
519,849.47 Present Worth for Period II
782,871.13 in year 10 dollars
437,155.24 Present Worth for Period III
870,105.35 in year 15 dollars
363,094.96 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods = $ 1,926,265.61
Total Present Worth = $ 10,924,621.90
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 28,598.49
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 21,849.24
Upper Sugarloaf Key
VACUUM SEWER SYSTEM
Table 3-6
VS #1
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Vacuum Sewer
Number of EDUs Current 382
Number of EDUs Build -Out 500
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
4" Vacuum Main (1)
36070
LF
$
66.00
$
2,380,620.00
6" Vacuum Main (1)
8100
LF
$
73.70
$
596,970.00
4" Division Valves
33
EA
$
1,210.00
$
39,930.00
6" Division Valves
9
EA
$
1,650.00
$
14,850.00
6" Force Main (1)
3400
LF
$
68.00
$
231,200.00
6" Valves
3
EA
$
2,000.00
$
6,000.00
Vacuum Valve Pits (2)
156
EA
$
13,000.00
$
2,028,000.00
Vacuum Station (3)
1
EA
$ 1,500,000.00
$
1,500,000.00
Subtotal $ 6,797,570.00
Other Project Cost (4) 27% $ 1,835,343.90
Current Estimated Total = $ 8,632,913.90
Current Estimated Cost/EDU = $ 22, 599.25
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
4" Vacuum Main (1)
36070
LF
$ 66.00
$
2,380,620.00
6" Vacuum Main (1)
8100
LF
$ 73.70
$
596,970.00
4" Division Valves
33
EA
$ 1,210.00
$
39,930.00
6" Division Valves
9
EA
$ 1,650.00
$
14,850.00
6" Force Main (1)
3400
LF
$ 68.00
$
231,200.00
6" Valves
3
EA
$ 2,000.00
$
6,000.00
Vacuum Valve Pits (2)
215
EA
$ 13,000.00
$
2,795,000.00
Vacuum Station (3)
1
EA
$ 1,500,000.00
$
1,500,000.00
Subtotal
$
7,564,570.00
Other Project Cost (4) 27%
$
2,042,433.90
Build -Out Estimated Total =
$
9,607,003.90
Build -Out Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
19,214.01
Notes:
(1) Cost of force mains and vacuum mains includes trench repair and road restoration.
(2) Valve pit cost includes: $ 3,500 for purchase of valve & pits
$ 5,000 for installation of valve & pits
$ 3,000 for laterals
$ 1,500 for cross-overs from pit to vacuum main
$ 13,000 Total
(3) Vacuum stations include: Vacuum station equipment
Odor control
Construction of concrete building with underground
construction and bathroom
Emergency back-up generator
Telemetry
Cost of Land
(Cost of legal/real estate fees, public notice and public
hearings have not been included.)
(4) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees.
Table 3-7
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Vacuum Sewer Collection System
Current EDU = 382
Build Out EDU = 500
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Add 1 vacuum pit in year 5, 1 vacuum pit in year 10, and 0 vacuum pits in year 15
Add 2 EDUs in year 5, 2 EDUs year 10, and 2 EDUs in year 15
Labor/hr = $
100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH = $
0.10
Power= $
2.92 /EDU/month
Station Maint. = $ 49,750.00 per year 497.5 hr/yr @ $100/hr
Prevnt. Maint. = $
452.00 /valve/yr
Public Education = $
1.50 /EDU/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is based on FKAA's experience at Little Venice. One
Vac. Valve Rebuild= $
35.25 /valve/10yrs full time person is required to maintian a vacuum station with 350 Valve Pits.
Initial Construction Cost= 1 $ 8,632,913.90
NOTE: The cost for land to accommodate the vacuum lift station is not included in this present worth cost analysis.
Calculation of present worth of future construction
$974,090.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows:
In year 5, 10. & 15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3% inflation, then converted to present worth at
I=6%
$974,090.00/3= $
324,696.67
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years =
1.1593 $324,696.67x1.1593= $
376,420.85 Construction Cost at year 5
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years =
1.3439 $324,696.67x1.3439= $
436,359.85 Construction Cost at year 10
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years =
1.5580 $324,696.67x1.5580= $
505,877.41 Construction Cost at year 15
Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years =
0.7473 $376,420.85x0.7473= $
281,299.30
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years =
0.5584 $436,359.85x0.5584= $
243,663.34
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years =
0.4173 $505,877.41 x0.4173= $
211,102.64
Present Worth of future construction = 1 $ 736,065.28
Annualize cost of all Vacuum Valve/Controller Maintenance per Vacuum Valve
Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3% inflation in 10 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $35.25x1.3439= $
47.37 per vacuum valve at year 10
Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years = 1.8061 $35.25x1.8061= $
63.67 per vacuum valve at year 20
Converting all the future maintenance cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $47.37x0.5584= $
26.45 per vacuum valve
(P/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.3118 $63.67x0.3118= $
19.85 per vacuum valve
Present Worth of future maintenance cost per vacuum valve = $
46.30
Calculating the annualized cost per valve over 20 years at I = 6% gives:
(A/P) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0872 $46.300.0872= $
4.04 per vacuum valve per year
Adding the annualize cost of preventive maintenance gives a total annualized cost per valve of:
$452.00+$4.04= $
466.04 per vacuum valve per year
Convert annualized Vacuum Valve Maintenance cost to Present Worth
Assume vacuum valves will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 156 vacuum valves through year 5
Period II: 176 vacuum valves from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 196 vacuum valves from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 215 vacuum valves from year 16 through year 20
Table 3-7 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Vacuum Sewer Collection System
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $456.04x156= $ 71,141.88 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $71,141.88x4.2124= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $456.04x176= $ 80,262.63 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $80,262.63x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $338,098.3OxO.7473= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $456.04x196= $ 89,383.38 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $89,383.38x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $376,518.56xO.5584= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $456.04x215= $ 98,048.10 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $98,048.1 Ox4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $413,017.81xO.4173= $
299,678.04 Present Worth for Period I
338,098.30 in year 5 dollars
252,660.86 Present Worth for Period II
376,518.56 in year 10 dollars
210,247.97 Present Worth for Period III
413,017.81 in year 15 dollars
172,352.33 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized valve maintenance cost for all periods = $ 934,939.20
Convert annualized Power Cost and Public Education cost to Present Worth
Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 382 EDUs through year 5
Period II: 422 EDUs from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 461 EDUs from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 500 EDUs from year 16 through year 20
Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.92/EDU/month)x(12 months/year)+$1.50/EDU/yr- $ 36.54
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $36.54x382= $ 13,958.28 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $13,958.28x4.2124= $
58,797.86 Present Worth for Period I
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $36.54x422= $ 15,419.88 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $15,419.88x4.2142= $
64,954.70 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $64,954.700.7473= $
48,540.65 Present Worth for Period II
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $36.54x461= $ 16,844.94 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $16,844.94x4.2142= $
70,957.63 in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $70,957.63xO.5584= $
39,622.74 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $36.54500= $ 18,270.00 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $18,270.00x4.2142= $
76,960.55 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $76,960.55xO.4173= $
32,115.64 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized power & education costs for all periods = $ 179,076.88
Convert annualized Vacuum Station Maintenance Cost to Present Worth
Annualized portion of vacuum station maintenance cost to be charged to service area is:
$49,750.00'2= $ 99,500.00 per year
(P/A) at 6% for 20 years = 11.4699 $99,500.00*11.4699= 1 $ 1,141,255.05 jPresent Worth of Vacuum Station Maint.
Total Present Worth = $ 11,624,250.31
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 30,429.97
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 23,248.50
Upper Sugarloaf Key
GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM
Table 3-8
Gravity #1 w/Mathews Consulting Updated Costs
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Gravity Sewer
Number of EDUs Current 382
Number of EDUs Build -Out 500
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
Manholes
86 LF $ 6,000.00
$
516,000.00
8" Gravity Sewers
22427 LF $ 118.00
$
2,646,386.00
6" Service Laterals
5375 LF $ 78.00
$
419,250.00
Force Mains
13374 LF $ 54.00
$
722,196.00
Concrete Lift Station
5 EA $ 131,000.00
$
655,000.00
Primary Lift Station S11
1 EA $ 350,000.00
$
350,000.00
Subtotal
$
5,308,832.00
Pavement
Restoration (30% of Gravity Sewer Cost)
$
793,915.80
Construction Cost
$
6,102,747.80
Other Project Costs (1) 27%
$
1,647,741.91
Estimated Total = $ 7,750,489.71
Estimated Cost/EDU Current = $ 20,289.24
Estimated Cost/EDU Build -Out = $ 15,500.98
(1) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees.
Table 3-9
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Gravity Sewer System
Current EDU = 275
Build Out EDU = 403
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Labor/hr = $
100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH = $
0.10
Power = $
2.72 /EDU/month
Prevnt. Maint. _ $
7,500.00 /station/yr
Pump replacement = $
20,000.00 /station/10 yr
Initial Construction Cost = 1 $ 7,750,489.71
75 hr/station @ $100/hr
Present worth of pump replacement in 10 years and again in 20 years
Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3% inflation in 10 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $20,OOOx1.3439= $ 26,878.00 per station
Converting the 10 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $26,878.004.5584= $ 15,008.68 per station
Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years = 1.8061 $20,OOOx1.8061= $ 36,122.00 per station
Converting the 20 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.3118 $36,122.00x0.3118= $ 11,262.84 per station
The Study Area will be charged for maintenance at 6 stations
Total Present worth of pump replacements ($15,008.68+$11,262.84)'6 = $ 157,629.09
Present worth of preventative maintenance for 6 lift stations:
Convert the annualized cost per station to present worth gives:
(P/A) at 6% for 20 years = 11.4699 $7,500'6'11.4699= 1 $ 616,146.50
Total annualized cost per EDU per year:
Power = $ 2.72 /EDU/month
Convert annualized costs per EDU to Present Worth
Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 275 EDUs through year 5
Period II: 318 EDUs from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 361 EDUs from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 403 EDUs from year 16 through year 20
Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.72/EDU/month)x(12 months/year)= $ 32.64
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $32.64x275= $ 8,976.00 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $8,976.00x4.2124= $ 37,810.60 Present Worth for Period I
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $32.64x318= $10,379.52 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $10,379.52x4.2142= $ 43,722.69 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $43,722.69x0.7473= $ 32,673.97 Present Worth for Period 11
Table 3-9 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Gravity Sewer System
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $32.64x361= $11,783.04 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $11,783.04x4.2142= $ 49,634.88 in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $49,634.88x0.5584= $ 27,716.12 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $32.64x403= $13,153.92 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $13,153.92x4.2142= $ 55,409.57 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $55,409.57x0.4173= $ 23,122.41 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized cost per EDU for all periods = $ 121,323.00
Total Present Worth = $ 8,545,587.29
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 31,074.86
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 21,204.93
section 4
Study Area - Cudjoe Key
Cudjoe Key is located between Mile Markers 20 and 23. Cudjoe Key lies
between Upper Sugarloaf Key and Summerland Key. Cudjoe Key has 42
developed commercial lots with room for 108 at build -out within the sewer service
area. Currently 998 residential lots are occupied with very low to high density.
At build -out 1,348 lots are expected to be occupied. Since Cudjoe Key has
developed only 73% of the build -out lots, opportunities exist to utilize alternative
collections systems to defer a significant portion of construction cost.
Most of the high density residential areas of Cudjoe Key are cut with narrow
canals. This restricts the size of a conventional gravity sewer collection system,
and increases the construction cost due to dewatering challenges.
The sewer collection systems evaluated for this area are listed below in the order
they appear.
■ Low Pressure Sewer/Grinder Collection System (LPS) (refer to Figure 4-1)
■ STEP Effluent Collection System (refer to Figure 4-2)
■ Vacuum Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 4-3)
■ Gravity Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 4-4)
For each system, a preliminary design was developed on an aerial map. A
construction cost opinion was developed utilizing recent bid information from the
Keys and gathering information from system suppliers. A present worth cost
analysis was performed for each potential sewer collection system using O&M
data from EPA, published technical reports, engineering reports, system operator
interviews and vendors' data.
Table 4-1 provides a summary of present worth cost (including construction,
operation, and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer collection system. A
twenty year present worth cost analysis (e.g. Lifecycle costs) was calculated
based on an interest rate of 6% and an inflation rate of 3%.
Mathews Consulting 4-1
Table 4-1
CUDJOE KEY
Present Worth Summary for Each Type of Sewer Collection System
Type of Sewer
Collection System
LPS
STEP
Vacuum
Gravity
Initial Construction Cost
$ 19,144,853.76
$
23,339,696.78
$ 22,470,333.52
$ 27,086,007.55
Future Construction
Cost
$ 5,577,840.00
$
7,700,010.00
$ 2,938,780.00
0
Present Worth of Future
Construction
$ 4,214,861.42
$
5,818,466.48
$ 2,220,671.52
0
Total Present Worth of
Construction Cost
$ 23,359,715.18
$
29,158,163.26
$ 24,691,005.04
$ 27,086,007.55
Present Worth of O&M
Cost
$ 4,542,174.95
$
7,672,316.06
$ 5,055,412.09
$ 2,961,410.45
Total Present Worth
$ 27,901,890.13
$
36,830,479.33
$ 29,746,417.13
$ 30,047,418.00
PW of Construction
Cost/EDU C@ Build -Out
$ 10,642.24
$
13,283.90
$ 11,248.75
$ 12,339.87
Total Present
Worth/EDU C@ Build -Out
$ 12,711.57
$
16,779.26
$ 13,551.90
$ 13,689.03
t_UUS (C) Liulld-Uut = 21 jb
Cudjoe Key
$40, 000, 000.00
Present Worth
$35,000,000.00
of O&M Cost
$30, 000, 000.00
$25, 000, 000.00
$20,000,000.00
®Total Present
Worth of
Construction
Cost
$10,000,000.00
$5, 000, 000.00
LPS STEP Vacuum Gravity
Type of Sewer Collection System
Mathews Consulting 4-2
An explanation for each row heading in Table 4-1 is provided below:
Initial Construction Cost: The construction cost required to provide the existing
developed lots with sewer service.
Future Construction Cost: The portion of the construction cost required to
serve future residents that can be deferred. Conventional gravity sewer systems
cannot be easily expanded to pick up additional users. The infrastructure
necessary to serve future residents is included in the Initial Construction Cost for
gravity sewer systems. That is why this column for gravity is $0.
Present Worth of Future Cost: Future construction was assumed to occur 5,
10, and 15 years after initial construction. The future construction expense was
discounted to present worth dollars.
Total Present Worth of Construction Cost: The sum of Initial Construction
Cost and Present Worth of Future Construction Cost.
Present Worth of O&M Cost: The cost of all forecasted operation and
maintenance cost over a 20 year period discounted to present worth dollars.
Total Present Worth: The sum of Total Present Worth of Construction Cost and
Present Worth of O&M Cost.
PW of Construction Cost/EDU @ Build -Out: The Total Present Worth of
Construction Cost divided by the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at
build -out.
Total Present Worth/EDU @ Build -Out: The Total Present Worth divided by
the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at build -out.
As shown on Table 4-1, the lowest initial construction cost and lowest present
worth cost to provide sewer service to Cudjoe Key is the Low Pressure Sewer
System. However, high density areas could be served by a conventional gravity
sewer system. As the system is further designed, the Wastewater Collection
System Decision Tree (see Section 6.0) should be used to determine the most
optimum hybrid system for a low pressure system/gravity collection system for
this service area.
Another important factor that will be considered in selecting a wastewater
collection system will be a "Policy Decision" by FKAA regarding the type of
system(s) that they plan to operate and maintain in their Service Areas.
Mathews Consulting 4-3
Cudjoe Key
LOW PRESSURE/GRINDER
PUMP SYSTEM
Table 4-2
LPS #2
Cudjoe Key
Low Pressure Sewer
Number of EDUs Current 1736
Number of EDUs Build -Out 2195
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
79526
LF
$
42.00
$
3,340,092.00
3" Force Main (1)
778
LF
$
48.00
$
37,344.00
4" Force Main (1)
15023
LF
$
54.00
$
811,242.00
6" Force Main (1)
1510
LF
$
68.00
$
102,680.00
8" Force Main (1)
3597
LF
$
90.00
$
323,730.00
2" Valves'
87
EA
$
500.00
$
43,500.00
3" Valves
0
EA
$
750.00
$
-
4" Valves
20
EA
$
1,100.00
$
22,000.00
6" Valves
1 EA $ 2,000.00
$
2,000.00
8" Valves
3 EA $ 2,700.00
$
8,100.00
Simplex Low Pressure Station (2)
988 EA $ 10,000.00
$
9,880,000.00
Duplex Low Pressure Station (2)
42 EA $ 12,000.00
$
504,000.00
Subtotal
$
16,074,688.00
Other Project Cost (3) 27%
$
4,070,165.76
Current Estimated Total =
$
19,144,853.76
Current Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
11, 028.14
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
79526
LF
$
42.00
$
3,340,092.00
3" Force Main (1)
778
LF
$
48.00
$
37,344.00
4" Force Main (1)
15023
LF
$
54.00
$
811,242.00
6" Force Main (1)
1510
LF
$
68.00
$
102,680.00
8" Force Main (1)
3597
LF
$
90.00
$
323,730.00
2" Valves
87
EA
$
500.00
$
43,500.00
3" Valves
0
EA
$
750.00
$
-
4" Valves
6" Valves
8" Valves
Simplex Low Pressure Station (2)
Duplex Low Pressure Station (2)
20 EA $ 1,100.00
$
22,000.00
1 EA $ 2,000.00
$
2,000.00
3 EA $ 2,700.00
$
8,100.00
1348 EA $ 10,000.00
$
13,480,000.00
108 EA $ 12,000.00
$
1,296,000.00
Subtotal
$
19,466,688.00
Other Project Cost (3) 27%
$
5,256,005.76
Build -Out Estimated Total =
$
24,722,693.76
Build -Out Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
11,263.19
Notes:
(1) Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration.
(2) Cost of LPS Station includes tank, equipment, installation, electrical connection and 1-1i4"
lateral with restoration.
(3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees.
Table 4-3
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Cudjoe Key
Low Pressure Sewer
Current EDU = 1736
Build Out EDU = 2195
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Add 11 pumps in year 5, 12 pumps in year 10, and 12 pumps in year 15
Labor/hr = $
100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH = $
0.10
Electric = $
30.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. _ $
30.00 /pump/yr
Public Education = $
2.00 /pump/yr
Emergency call out = $
390.00 /pump/12yr
Pump replacement = $2,000.00 /pump/12yr
Initial Construction Cost = $19,144,853.76
Calculation of present worth of future construction
$5,577,840.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows:
In year 5, 10, & 15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3% inflation, then converted to present
worth at I = 6%
$5,577,840.00/3=
$ 1,859,280.00
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years =
1.1593
$1,859,280.00x1.1593=
$ 2,155,463.30
Construction Cost at year 5
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years =
1.3439
$1,859,280.00x1.3439=
$ 2,498,686.39
Construction Cost at year 10
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years =
1.5580
$1,859,280.00x1.5580=
$ 2,896,758.24
Construction Cost at year 15
Converting the future
construction
cost to Present Worth with I
= 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years =
0.7473
$2,155,463.304.7473=
$ 1,610,777.73
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years =
0.5584
$2,498,686.39x0.5584=
$ 1,395,266.48
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years =
0.4173
$2,896,758.24x0.4173=
$ 1,208,817.21
Present Worth of future construction = $ 4,214,861.42
Annualize cost of pump replacement and emergency call outs in 12 years and again in 24 years
Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3% inflation in 12 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 12 years = 1.4258 ($2,000+$390)x1.4258= $ 3,407.66 per pump
Converting the 12 year future pump rep lacement/emergency call out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 12 years = 0.4970 $3,407.66x0.4970= $ 1,693.61 per pump
Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3% inflation in 24 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 24 years = 2.0328 ($2,000+$390)x2.0328= $ 4,858.39 per pump
Converting the future pump rep lacemenUemergency call out cost to an annualized cost over 12 years with I = 6% gives:
(A/F) at 6% for 12 years = 0.0593 $4,858.39x0.0593= $ 288.10 per pump/yr
By taking the annualized cost for 8 years, a future cost for year 12 can be calculated with I = 6% gives:
(P'/A) at 6% for 8 years = 8.3838 $288.10x8.3838= $ 2,415.39 in year 12
Converting the annualized cost of future pump replacement/emergency call out cost from year 13 to year 20 to Present Worth
with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 12 years = 0.4970 $2,415.39x0.4970= $ 1,200.45
PW of future pump replacement and emergency call out per pump = $ 2,894.06 (12yr and 24yr combined)
Converting the present worth of two pump replacements to annualized dollars
(A/P) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0872 $2,894.06x0.0872= $ 252.36 per pump/yr
Table 4-3 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Cudjoe Key
Low Pressure Sewer
Total annualized cost per pump per year:
Pump replacement = $ 252.36 /pump/yr
Electric = $ 30.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. _ $ 30.00 /pump/yr
Public Education = $ 2.00 /pump/yr
Total = $ 314.36 /pump/yr
Convert annualized costs to Present Worth
Assume pumps will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 1072 pumps through year 5
Period II: 1236 pumps from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 1400 pumps from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 1564 pumps from year 16 through year 20
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $314.36x1072= $336,996.03 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $336,996.03x4.2124= $ 1,419,562.09 Present Worth for Period I
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $314.36x1236= $388,551.40 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $388,551.40x4.2142= $ 1,636,733.91 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $1,636,733.91x0.7473= $ 1,223,131.25 Present Worth for Period II
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $314.36x1400= $440,106.76 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $440,106.76x4.2142= $ 1,853,905.72 in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $1,853,905.72x0.5584= $ 1,035,220.95 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $314.36x1564= $491,662.12 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $491,662.12x4.2142= $ 2,071,077.53 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $2,071,077.53x0.4173= $ 864,260.65 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods = $ 4,542,174.95
Total Present Worth = 1 $ 27,901,890.13
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 16,072.52
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 12,711.57
Cudjoe Key
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP
(STEP) SYSTEM
Table 4-4
STEP #2
Cudjoe Key
STEP
Number of EDUs Current 1736
Number of EDUs Build -Out 2195
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
66565
LF
$
42.00
$
2,795,730.00
3" Force Main (1)
9928
LF
$
48.00
$
476,544.00
4" Force Main (1)
3410
LF
$
54.00
$
184,140.00
6" Force Main (1)
3600
LF
$
68.00
$
244,800.00
2" Valves
140
EA
$
500.00
$
70,000.00
3" Valves
70
EA
$
750.00
$
52,500.00
4" Valves
30
EA
$
1,100.00
$
33,000.00
6" Valves
19
EA
$
2,000.00
$
38,000.00
Simplex STEP Station (2)
988
EA
$
14,000.00
$ 13,832,000.00
Duplex STEP Station (2)
42
EA
$
15,500.00
$
651,000.00
Subtotal
$ 18,377,714.00
Other Project Cost (3) 27%
$
4,961,982.78
Current Estimated Total =
$ 23,339,696.78
Current Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
13,444.53
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
66565
LF
$
42.00
$
2,795,730.00
3" Force Main (1)
9928
LF
$
48.00
$
476,544.00
4" Force Main (1)
3410
LF
$
54.00
$
184,140.00
6" Force Main (1)
3600
LF
$
68.00
$
244,800.00
2" Valves
140
EA
$
500.00
$
70,000.00
3" Valves
70
EA
$
750.00
$
52,500.00
4" Valves
30
EA
$
1,100.00
$
33,000.00
6" Valves
19
EA
$
2,000.00
$
38,000.00
Simplex STEP Station (2)
1348
EA
$
14,000.00
$ 18,872,000.00
Duplex STEP Station (2)
108
EA
$
15,500.00
$
1,674,000.00
Subtotal
$ 24,440,714.00
Other
Project Cost (3) 27%
$
6,598,992.78
Build -Out Estimated Total =
$ 31,039,706.78
Build -Out Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
14,141.10
Notes:
(1) Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration.
(2) Cost of STEP Station includes tank, equipment, installation, electrical connection and 1-1/4"
lateral with restoration.
(3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees.
Table 4-5
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Cudjoe Key
STEP Collection System
Current EDU = 1736
Build Out EDU = 2195
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Add 11 pumps
in year 5, 12 pumps in year 10, and 12 pumps in year 15
Labor/hr =
$ 100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH =
$ 0.10
Electric =
$ 20.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. _
$ 271.30 /pump/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is derived from data from Charlotte County. Nine
Public Education =
$ 2.00 /pump/yr people work full time to maintain 6,900 STEP units.
Emergency call out =
$ 390.00 /pump/5yr
Tank pump out =
$ 400.00 /pump/5yr
Pump replacement =
$ 870.00 /pump/20yr
Initial Construction Cost = 1 $ 23,339,696.78
Calculation of present worth of future construction
$7,700,010.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows:
In year 5, 10, & 15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3% inflation, then converted to present worth
atI=6%
$7,700,010.00/3= $
2,566,670.00
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years =
1.1593 $2,566,670.00x1.1593= $
2,975,540.53 Construction Cost at year 5
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years =
1.3439 $2,566,670.00x1.3439= $
3,449,347.81 Construction Cost at year 10
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years =
1.5580 $2,566,670.00x1.5580= $
3,998,871.86 Construction Cost at year 15
Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years =
0.7473 $2,975,540.53x0.7473= $
2,223,621.44
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years =
0.5584 $3,449,347.81x0.5584= $
1,926,115.82
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years =
0.4173 $3,998,871.86x0.4173= $
1,668,729.23
Present Worth of future construction = $
5,818,466 47
Annualize cost of pump replacement
Calculate future price of pump
replacement at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years =
1.8061 $870.00x1.8061= $
1,571.31 per pump
Converting the emergency call
out cost to an annualized cost over 20 years with I = 6% gives:
(A/F) at 6% for 20 years =
0.0272 $1,571.31x0.0272= $
42.74 per pump/yr
Annualize cost of emergency call outs and tank pump outs in 5, 10, 15, & 20 years
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 5 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years = 1.1593 $790x1.1593= $
915.85 per pump
Converting the 5 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $915.85x0.7473= $
684.41 per pump
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 10 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $790x1.3439= $
1,061.68 per pump
Converting the 10 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $1,061.68x0.5584= $
592.84 per pump
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 15 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years = 1.5580 $790x1.5580= $
1,230.82 per pump
Table 4-5 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Cudjoe Key
STEP Collection System
Converting the 15 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $1,230.82x0.4173= $ 513.62 per pump
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years = 1.8061 $790x1.8061= $ 1,426.82 per pump
Converting the 20 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.3118 $1,426.82x0.3118= $ 444.88 per pump
PW of future emergency call out per pump = $ 2,235.76 (5, 10, 15, & 20yr combined)
Converting the present worth of emergency call out and tank pump out cost to annualized dollars
(A/P) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0872 $2,235.76x0.0872= $ 194.96 per pump/yr
Total annualized cost per pump per year:
Pump Replacement = $
42.74 /pump/yr
Emerg. Call Out & Pump Out = $
194.96 /pump/yr
Electric = $
20.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. = $
271.30 /pump/yr
Public Education = $
2.00 /pump/yr
Total = $
531.00 /pump/yr
Convert annualized costs to Present Worth
Assume pumps will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 1072 pumps through year 5
Period II: 1236 pumps from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 1400 pumps from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 1564 pumps from year 16 through year 20
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $531.00x1072= $ 569,229.52 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $569,229.52x4.2124= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost= $531.00x1236= $656,313.15 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $656,313.15x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $2,764,653.49x0.7473= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $531.00x1400= $ 743,396.77 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $743,396.77x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $3,131,484.54x0.5584= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $531.00x1564= $ 830,480.39 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $830,480.39x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $3,498,315.58x0.4173= $
2,397,822.45 Present Worth for Period I
2,764,653.49 in year 5 dollars
2,066,025.55 Present Worth for Period II
3,131,484.54 in year 10 dollars
1,748,620.97 Present Worth for Period III
3,498,315.58 in year 15 dollars
1,459,847.09 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods = 1 $ 7,672,316.06
Total Present Worth = $ 36,830,479.33
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 21,215.71
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 16,779.26
Cudjoe Key
VACUUM SEWER SYSTEM
Table 4-6
VS #2
Cudjoe Key
Vacuum Sewer
Number of EDUs Current 1736
Number of EDUs Build -Out 2195
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
4" Vacuum Main (1)
85341
LF
$
66.00
$
5,632,506.00
6" Vacuum Main (1)
17400
LF
$
73.70
$
1,282,380.00
8" Vacuum Main (1)
9600
LF
$
80.00
$
768,000.00
4" Division Valves
89
EA
$
1,210.00
$
107,690.00
6" Division Valves
16
EA
$
1,650.00
$
26,400.00
8" Division Valves
6
EA
$
2,200.00
$
13,200.00
Force Main (1)
100
LF
$
68.00
$
6,800.00
8" Plulg Valves
2
EA
$
2,600.00
$
5,200.00
Vacuum Valve Pits (2)
527
EA
$
13,000.00
$
6,851,000.00
Vacuum Station (3)
2
EA
$ 1,500,000.00
$
3,000,000.00
Subtotal $17,693,176.00
Other Project Cost (4) 27% $ 4,777,157.52
Current Estimated Total = $ 22,470,333.52
Current Estimated Cost/EDU = $ 12,943. 74
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
4" Vacuum Main (1)
85341
LF
$
66.00
$
5,632,506.00
6" Vacuum Main (1)
17400
LF
$
73.70
$
1,282,380.00
8" Vacuum Main (1)
9600
LF
$
80.00
$
768,000.00
4" Division Valves
89
EA
$
1,210.00
$
107,690.00
6" Division Valves
16
EA
$
1,650.00
$
26,400.00
8" Division Valves
6
EA
$
2,200.00
$
13,200.00
Force Main (1)
100
LF
$
68.00
$
6,800.00
8" Plulg Valves
2
EA
$
2,600.00
$
5,200.00
Vacuum Valve Pits (2)
705
EA
$
13,000.00
$
9,165,000.00
Vacuum Station (3)
2
EA
$ 1,500,000.00
$
3,000,000.00
Subtotal $ 20,007,176.00
Other Project Cost (4) 27% $ 5,401,937.52
Build -Out Estimated Total = $ 25,409,113.52
Build -Out Estimated Cost/EDU = $ 11,575.91
Notes:
(1) Cost of force mains and vacuum mains includes trench repair and road restoration.
(2) Valve pit cost includes: $ 3,500 for purchase of valve & pits
$ 5,000 for installation of valve & pits
$ 3,000 for laterals
$ 1,500 for cross-overs from pit to vacuum main
$ 13,000 Total
(3) Vacuum stations include: Vacuum station equipment
Odor control
Construction of concrete building with underground
construction and bathroom
Emergency back-up generator
Telemetry
Cost of Land
(Cost of legal/real estate fees, public notice and public
hearings have not been included)
(4) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees.
Table 4-7
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Cudjoe Key
Vacuum Sewer Collection System
Current EDU = 1736
Build Out EDU = 2195
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Add 1 vacuum pit in year 5, 1 vacuum pit in year 10, and 0 vacuum pits in year 15
Add 2 EDUs in year 5, 2 EDUs year 10, and 2 EDUs in year 15
Labor/hr = $
100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH = $
0.10
Power = $
2.92 /EDU/month
Station Maint. _ $
49,750.00 per year 497.5 hr/yr @ $100/hr
Prevnt. Maint. _ $
452.00 /valve/yr
Public Education = $
1.50 /EDU/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is based on FKAA's experience at Little Venice. One
Vac. Valve Rebuild= $
35.25 /valve/10yrs full time person is required to maintian a vacuum station with 350 Valve Pits.
Initial Construction Cost= 1 $ 22,470,333.52
NOTE: The cost for land to accommodate the vacuum lift station is not included in this present worth cost analysis.
Calculation of present worth of future construction
$2,938,780.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows:
In year 5, 10, & 15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3% inflation, then converted to present worth at
I=6%
$2,938,780.00/3= $ 979,593.33
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years = 1.1593 $976,593.33x1.1593= $ 1,135,642.55 Construction Cost at year 5
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $976,593.33x1.3439= $ 1,316,475.48 Construction Cost at year 10
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years = 1.5580 $976,593.33x1.5580= $ 1,526,206.41 Construction Cost at year 15
Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $1,135,642.55x0.7473= $ 848,665.68
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $1,316,475.48x0.5584= $ 735,119.91
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $1,526,206.41x0.4173= $ 636,885.94
Present Worth of future construction = 1 $ 2,220,671.52
Annualize cost of all Vacuum Valve/Controller Maintenance per Vacuum Valve
Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3% inflation in 10 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $35.25x1.3439= $
47.37 per vacuum valve at year 10
Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years = 1.8061 $35.25x1.8061= $
63.67 per vacuum valve at year 20
Converting all the future maintenance cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $47.37x0.5584= $
26.45 per vacuum valve
(P/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.3118 $63.67x0.3118= $
19.85 per vacuum valve
Present Worth of future maintenance cost per vacuum valve = $
46.30
Calculating the annualized cost per valve over 20 years at I = 6% gives:
(A/P) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0872 $46.30x0.0872= $
4.04 per vacuum valve per year
Adding the annualize cost of preventive maintenance gives a total annualized cost per valve of:
$452.00+$4.04= $
456.04 per vacuum valve per year
Convert annualized Vacuum Valve Maintenance cost to Present Worth
Assume vacuum valves will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 527 vacuum valves through year 5
Period H: 587 vacuum valves from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 646 vacuum valves from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 705 vacuum valves from year 16 through year 20
Table 4-7 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Cudjoe Key
Vacuum Sewer Collection System
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period I
Period I: Annualized cost = $456.04x527= $ 240,331.85 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $240,331.85x4.2124= $
1,012,373.89 Present Worth for Period
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $456.04x587= $ 267,694.11 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $267,694.11x4.2142= $
1,127,634.68 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $1,127,634.68x0.7473= $
842,681.39 Present Worth for Period II
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $456.04x646= $ 294,600.33 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $294,600.33x4.2142= $
1,240,974.45 in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $1,240,974.45x0.5584= $
692,960.13 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $456.04x705= $ 321,506.56 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $321,506.56x4.2142= $
1,354,314.22 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $1,354,314.22x0.4173= $
565,155.32 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized valve maintenance cost for all periods = $ 3,113,170.74
Convert annualized Power Cost and Public Education cost to Present Worth
Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 1736 EDUs through year 5
Period ll: 1889 EDUs from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 2042 EDUs from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 2195 EDUs from year 16 through year 20
Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.92/EDU/month)x(12 months/year)+$1.50/EDU/yr- $ 36.54
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I:
Period l: Annualized cost = $36.54x1736= $ 63,433.44 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $63,433.44x4.2124= $
267,207.02 Present Worth for Period
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $36.54x1889= $ 69,024.06 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $69,024.06x4.2142= $
290,756.95 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $290,756.95x0.7473= $
217,282.67 Present Worth for Period 11
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $36.54x2042= $ 74,614.68 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $74,614.68x4.2142= $
314,306.88 . in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $314,306.88x0.5584= $
175,508.96 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $36.54x2195= $ 80,205.30 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $80,205.30x4.2142= $
337,856.81 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $337,856.81x0.4173= $
140,987.65 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized power & education costs for all periods = $ 800,986.30
Convert annualized Vacuum Station Maintenance Cost to Present Worth
Annualized portion of vacuum station maintenance cost to be charged to service area is:
$49,750.00'2= $ 99,500.00 per year
(P/A) at 6% for 20 years = 11.4699 $99,500.00*11.4699= $ 1,141,255.05 jPresent Worth of Vacuum Station Maint.
Total Present Worth = $ 29,746,417.13
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 17,135.03
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 13,551.90
Cudjoe Key
GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM
Table 4-8
Gravity #2 w/Mathews Consulting Updated Costs
Cudjoe Key
Gravity Sewer
Number of EDUs Current 1736
Number of EDUs Build -Out 2195
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
Manholes
293 LF $ 6,000.00
$
1,758,000.00
8" Gravity Sewers
76605 LF $ 118.00
$
9,039,390.00
6" Service Laterals
25275 LF $ 78.00
$
1,971,450.00
Force Mains
55702 LF $ 54.00
$
3,007,908.00
Concrete Lift Station
19 EA $ 131,000.00
$
2,489,000.00
Primary Lift Station S11
1 EA $ 350,000.00
$
350,000.00
Subtotal
$ 18,615,748.00
Pavement Restoration (30% of Gravity Sewer Cost)
$
2,711,817.00
Construction Cost
$ 21,327,565.00
Other Project Costs (1) 27%
$
5, 758, 442.55
Estimated Total = $ 27,086i007.55
Estimated Cost/EDU Present = $ 15,602.54
Estimated Cost/EDU Build -Out = $ 12,339.87
(1) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees.
Table 4-9
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Cudjoe Key
Gravity Sewer System
Current EDU = 1736
Build Out EDU = 2195
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Labor/hr =
$ 100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH =
$ 0.10
Power =
$ 2.72 /EDU/month
Prevnt. Maint. _
$ 7,500.00 /station/yr
Pump replacement =
$ 20,000.00 /station/10 yr
Initial Construction Cost = 1 $ 27,086,007.55
75 hr/station @ $100/hr
Present worth of pump replacement in 10 years and again in 20 years
Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3% inflation in 10 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $20,OOOx1.3439= $ 26,878.00 per station
Converting the 10 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $26,878.004.5584= $ 15,008.68 per station
Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years = 1.8061 $20,OOOx1.8061= $ 36,122.00 per station
Converting the 20 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.3118 $36,122.000.3118= $ 11,262.84 per station
The Study Area will be charged for maintenance at 1.32 stations
Total Present worth of pump replacements ($15,008.68+$11,262.84)•20 = $ 525,430.30
Present worth of preventative maintenance for 20 lift stations:
Convert the annualized cost per station to present worth gives:
(P/A) at 6% for 20 years = 11.4699 $15,000*20*11.4699= $ 1,720,485.00
Total annualized cost per EDU per year:
Power = $ 2.72 /EDU/month
Convert annualized costs per EDU to Present Worth
Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 1736 EDUs through year 5
Period II: 1889 EDUs from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 2042 EDUs from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 2195 EDUs from year 16 through year 20
Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.72/EDU/month)x(12 months/year)= $ 32.64
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $32.64x1736= $ 56,663.04 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $56,663.04x4.2124= $ 238,687.39 Present Worth for Period I
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $32.64x1889= $ 61,656.96 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $61,656.96x4.2142= $ 259,723.78 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $259,7236.78x0.7473= $ 194,091.58 Present Worth for Period 11
Table 4-9 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Cudjoe Key
Gravity Sewer System
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II I:
Period III: Annualized cost = $32.64x2042= $ 66,650.88 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $66,650.88x4.2142= $ 280,760.17 in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $280,760.17x0.5584= $ 156,776.48 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $32.64x2195= $ 71,644.80 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $71,644.80x4.2142= $ 301,796.56 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $301,796.56x0.4173= $ 125,939.70 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized cost per EDU for all periods = $ 715,495.15
Total Present Worth = $30,047,418.00
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 17,308.42
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 13,689.03
Section 5
Study Area - Summerland Key
Summerland Key is located between Mile Markers 23 and 25. Summerland Key
lies between Cudjoe Key and Ramrod Key. Summerland Key has 56 developed
commercial lots with room for 77 at build -out within the sewer service area.
Currently 715 residential lots are occupied with low to high density. At build -out
838 lots are expected to be occupied. Since Summerland Key has developed
85% of the build -out lots, opportunities exist to utilize alternative collections
systems to defer a portion of construction cost.
The sewer collection systems evaluated for this area are listed below in the order
they appear.
■ Low Pressure Sewer/Grinder Collection System (LPS) (refer to Figure 5-1)
■ STEP Effluent Collection System (refer to Figure 5-2)
■ Vacuum Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 5-3)
■ Gravity Sewer Collection System (refer to Figure 5-4)
For each system, a preliminary design was developed on an aerial map. A
construction cost opinion was developed utilizing recent bid information from the
Keys and gathering information from system suppliers. A present worth cost
analysis was performed for each potential sewer collection system using O&M
data from EPA, published technical reports, engineering reports, system operator
interviews and vendors' data.
Table 5-1 provides a summary of present worth cost (including construction,
operation, and maintenance cost) for each type of sewer collection system. A
twenty year present worth cost analysis (e.g. Lifecycle costs) was calculated
based on an interest rate of 6% and an inflation rate of 3%.
Mathews Consulting 5-1
Table 5-1
Summerland Key
Present Worth Summary for Each Type of Sewer Collection System
Type of Sewer
Collection System
LPS
STEP
Vacuum
Gravity
Initial Construction
Cost
$
13,813,091.50
$
17,473,919.84
$
13,055,612.70
$
17,700,172.37
Future Construction
Cost
$
1,882,140.00
$
2,600,325.00
$
1,320,800.00
0
Present Worth of
Future Construction
$
1,422,227.83
$
1,964,920.03
$
998,054.62
0
Total Present Worth of
Construction Cost
$
15,235,319.33
$
19,438,839.87
$
14,053,667.32
$
17,700,172.37
Present Worth of O&M
Cost
$
3,208,979.70
$
5,420,378.29
$
3,196,563.44
$
2,129,699.04
Total Present Worth
$
18,444,299.03
$
24,859,218.16
$
17,250,230.76
$
19,829,871.41
PW of Construction
Cost/EDU @ Build -Out
$
15,467.33
$
19,734.86
$
14,267.68
$
17,969.72
Total Present
Worth/EDU @ Build -
Out
$
18,725.18
$
25,237.78
$
17,512.92
$
20,131.85
EUUs L build-Uut = 96b
Summerland Key
$30,000,000.00
Present Worth
$25,000,000.00
of O&M Cost
$20,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
®Total Present
Worth of
$10,000,000.00
-'
RIM
Construction
-
Cost
$5,000,000.00
11
LPS STEP Vacuum Gravity
Type of Sewer Collection System
Mathews Consulting 5-2
An explanation for each row heading in Table 5-1 is provided below:
Initial Construction Cost: The construction cost required to provide the existing
developed lots with sewer service.
Future Construction Cost: The portion of the construction cost required to
serve future residents that can be differed. Conventional gravity sewer systems
cannot be easily expanded to pick up additional users. The infrastructure
necessary to serve future residents is included in the Initial Construction Cost for
gravity sewer systems. That is why this column for gravity is $0.
Present Worth of Future Cost: Future construction was assumed to occur 5,
10, and 15 years after initial construction. The future construction expense was
discounted to present worth dollars.
Total Present Worth of Construction Cost: The sum of Initial Construction
Cost and Present Worth of Future Construction Cost.
Present Worth of O&M Cost: The cost of all forecasted operation and
maintenance cost over a 20 year period discounted to present worth dollars.
Total Present Worth: The sum of Total Present Worth of Construction Cost and
Present Worth of O&M Cost.
PW of Construction Cost/EDU @ Build -Out: The Total Present Worth of
Construction Cost divided by the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at
build -out.
Total Present Worth/EDU @ Build -Out: The Total Present Worth divided by
the number of EDUs (Equivalent Dwelling Units) at build -out.
As shown on Table 5-1, the lowest initial construction cost and lowest present
worth cost to provide sewer service to Summerland Key is the Vacuum Collection
System. However, low density outer areas (with 8 to 10 houses) could be served
by a low pressure system. However, to be consistent with other collection
systems in this Central Cudjoe Region, a hybrid system utilizing gravity sewer in
high density areas and low pressure sewer in low to medium density areas is
probably better suited from an operational standpoint. As the system is further
designed, the Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree (see Section 6.0)
should be used to determine the most optimum hybrid system for either a
vacuum collection system/low pressure system or a low pressure system/gravity
collection system for this service area.
Another important factor that will be considered in selecting a wastewater
collection system will be a "Policy Decision" by FKAA regarding the type of
system(s) that they plan to operate and maintain in their Service Areas.
Mathews Consulting 5-3
Summerland Key
LOW PRESSURE/GRINDER
PUMP SYSTEM
Table 5-2
LPS #3
Summerland Key
Low Pressure Sewer
Number of EDUs Current 830
Number of EDUs Build -Out 985
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
29525
LF
$
42.00
$
1,240,050.00
3" Force Main (1)
1825
LF
$
48.00
$
87,600.00
4" Force Main (1)
23825
LF
$
54.00
$
1,286,550.00
6" Force Main (1)
5700
LF
$
68.00
$
387,600.00
2" Valves
36
EA
$
500.00
$
18,000.00
3" Valves
3
EA
$
750.00
$
2,250.00
4" Valves
24
EA
$
1,100.00
$
26,400.00
6" Valves
3
EA
$
2,000.00
$
6,000.00
Simplex Low Pressure Station (2)
715
EA
$
10,000.00
$
7,150,000.00
Duplex Low Pressure Station (2)
56
EA
$
12,000.00
$
672,000.00
Subtotal
$10,876,450.00
Other Project Cost (3) 27%
$
2,936,641.50
Current Estimated Total =
$ 13,813,091.50
Current Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
16, 642.28
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
29525
LF
$
42.00
$
1,240,050.00
3" Force Main (1)
1825
LF
$
48.00
$
87,600.00
4" Force Main (1)
23825
LF
$
54.00
$
1,286,550.00
6" Force Main (1)
5700
LF
$
68.00
$
387,600.00
2" Valves
36
EA
$
500.00
$
18,000.00
3" Valves
3
EA
$
750.00
$
2,250.00
4" Valves
24
EA
$
1,100.00
$
26,400.00
6" Valves
3
EA
$
2,000.00
$
6,000.00
Simplex Low Pressure Station (2)
838
EA
$
10,000.00
$
8,380,000.00
Duplex Low Pressure Station (2)
77
EA
$
12,000.00
$
924,000.00
Subtotal
$
12,358,450.00
Other Project Cost
(3) 27%
$
3,336,781.50
Build -Out Estimated Total =
$15,695,231.50
Build -Out Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
15, 934.25
Notes•
(1) Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration.
(2) Cost of LPS Station includes tank, equipment, installation, electrical connection and 1-1/4"
lateral with restoration.
(3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees.
Table 5-3
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Summerland Key
Low Pressure / Grinder System
Current EDU = 830
Build Out EDU = 985
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Add 11 pumps
in year 5, 12 pumps in year 10, and 12 pumps in year 15
Labor/hr =
$ 100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH =
$ 0.10
Electric =
$ 30.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. _
$ 30.00 /pump/yr
Public Education =
$ 2.00 /pump/yr
Emergency call out =
$ 390.00 /pump/12yr
Pump replacement =
$ 2,000.00 /pump/12yr
Initial Construction Cost = $ 13,813,091.50
Calculation of present worth of future construction
$1,882,140.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows:
In year 5, 10, & 15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3% inflation, then converted to present worth at 1
= 6%
$1,882,140.00/3=
$
627,380.00
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years =
1.1593
$627,380.00x1.1593=
$
727,321.63 Construction Cost at year 5
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years =
1.3439
$627,380.00x1.3439=
$
843,135.98 Construction Cost at year 10
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years =
1.5580
$627,380.00x1.5580=
$
977,458.04 Construction Cost at year 15
Converting the future construction cost to
Present Worth with I = 6%
gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years =
0.7473
$727,321.63x0.7473=
$
543,527.46
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years =
0.5584
$843,135.98x0.5584=
$
470,807.13
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years =
0.4173
$977,458.04x0.4173=
$
407,893.24
Present Worth of future construction = $ 1,422,227.83
Annualize cost of pump replacement and emergency call outs in 12 years and again in 24 years
Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3% inflation in 12 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 12 years = 1.4258 ($2,000+$390)x1.4258= $ 3,407.66 per pump
Converting the 12 year future pump replacemenUemergency call out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 12 years = 0.4970 $3,407.66x0.4970= $ 1,693.61 per pump
Calculate future price of pump replacement and emergency call out at 3% inflation in 24 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 24 years = 2.0328 ($2,000+$390)x2.0328= $ 4,858.39 per pump
Converting the future pump replacemenUemergency call out cost to an annualized cost over 12 years with I = 6% gives:
(A/F) at 6% for 12 years = 0.0593 $4,858.394.0593= $ 288.10 per pump/yr
By taking the annualized cost for 8 years, a future cost for year 12 can be calculated with I = 6% gives:
(P'/A) at 6% for 8 years = 8.3838 $288.10x8.3838= $ 2,415.39 in year 12
Converting the annualized cost of future pump replacement/emergency call out cost from year 13 to year 20 to Present Worth with I =
6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 12 years = 0.4970 $2,415.39x0.4970= $ 1,200.45
PW of future pump replacement and emergency call out per pump = $ 2,894.06 (12yr and 24yr combined)
Converting the present worth of two pump replacements to annualized dollars
(A/P) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0872 $2,894.06x0.0872= $ 252.36 per pump/yr
Table 5-3 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Summerland Key
Low Pressure / Grinder System
Total annualized cost per pump per year:
Pump replacement = $ 252.36 /pump/yr
Electric = $ 30.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. _ $ 30.00 /pump/yr
Public Education = $ 2.00 /pump/yr
Total = $ 314.36 /pump/yr
Convert annualized costs to Present Worth
Assume pumps will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 827 pumps through year 5
Period 11: 882 pumps from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 937 pumps from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 992 pumps from year 16 through year 20
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $314.36x827= $259,977.35 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $259,977.35x4.2124= $ 1,095,128.59 Present Worth for Period I
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $314.36x882= $277,267.26 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $277,267.26x4.2142= $ 1,167,960.60 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $1,167,960.604.7473= $ 872,816.96 Present Worth for Period II
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $314.36x937= $294,557.17 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $294,557.17x4.2142= $ 1,240,792.61 in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $1,240,792.61x0.5584= $ 692,858.59 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $314.36x992= $311,847.08 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $311,847.08x4.2142= $ 1,313,624.62 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0,4173 $1,313,624.62x0.4173= $ 548,175.56 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods = $ 3,208,979.70
Total Present Worth = $ 18,444,299.03
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 22,222.05
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 18,725.18
Summerland Key
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP
(STEP) SYSTEM
Table 5-4
STEP #3
Summerland Key
STEP
Number of EDUs Current 830
Number of EDUs Build -Out 985
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
37218
LF
$
42.00
$
1,563,156.00
3" Force Main (1)
5882
LF
$
48.00
$
282,336.00
4" Force Main (1)
4840
LF
$
54.00
$
261,360.00
6" Force Main (1)
10605
LF
$
68.00
$
721,140.00
2" Valves
46
EA
$
500.00
$
23,000.00
3" Valves
4
EA
$
750.00
$
3,000.00
4" Valves
10
EA
$
1,100.00
$
11,000.00
6" Valves
8
EA
$
2,000.00
$
16,000.00
Simplex STEP Station (2)
715
EA
$
14,000.00
$ 10,010,000.00
Duplex STEP Station (2)
56
EA
$
15,500.00
$
868,000.00
Subtotal
$ 13,758,992.00
Other Project Cost (3) 27%
$
3,714,927.84
Present Estimated Total =
$17,473,919.84
Present Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
21,052.92
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
2" Force Main (1)
37218
LF
$
42.00
$
1,563,156.00
3" Force Main (1)
5882
LF
$
48.00
$
282,336.00
4" Force Main (1)
4840
LF
$
54.00
$
261,360.00
6" Force Main (1)
10605
LF
$
68.00
$
721,140.00
2" Valves
46
EA
$
500.00
$
23,000.00
3" Valves
4
EA
$
750.00
$
3,000.00
4" Valves
10
EA
$
1,100.00
$
11,000.00
6" Valves
8
EA
$
2,000.00
$
16,000.00
Simplex STEP Station (2)
838
EA
$
14,000.00
$
11,732,000.00
Duplex STEP Station (2)
77
EA
$
15,500.00
$
1,193,500.00
Subtotal
$15,806,492.00
Other Project Cost (3) 27%
$
4,267,752.84
Build -Out Estimated Total =
$ 20,074,244.84
Build -Out Estimated Cost/EDU =
$
20,379.94
Notes:
(1) Cost of force mains includes trench repair and road restoration.
(2) Cost of STEP Station includes tank, equipment, installation, electrical connection and 1-1/4"
lateral with restoration.
(3) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees
Table 5-5
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Summerland Key
STEP Collection System
Current EDU = 830
Build Out EDU = 985
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Add 11 pumps
in year 5, 12 pumps in year 10, and 12 pumps in year 15
Labor/hr = $
100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH = $
0.10
Electric = $
20.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. _ $
271.30 /pump/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is derived from data from Charlotte County. Nine
Public Education = $
2.00 /pump/yr people work full time to maintain 6,900 STEP units.
Emergency call out = $
390.00 /pump/5yr
Tank pump out = $
400.00 /pump/5yr
Pump replacement = $
870.00 /pump/20yr
Initial Construction Cost= 1 $ 17,473,919.84
Calculation of present worth of future construction
$2,600,325.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows:
In year 5, 10, & 15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3% inflation, then converted to present
worth at I = 6%
$2,600,325.00/3= $ 866,775.00
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years = 1.1593 $866,755.00x1.1593= $ 1,004,852.26 Construction Cost at year 5
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $866,755.00x1.3439= $ 1,164,858.92 Construction Cost at year 10
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years = 1.5580 $866,755.00x1.5580= $ 1,350,435.45 Construction Cost at year 15
Converting the future construction cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $1,004,852.26x0.7473= $ 750,926.09
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $1,164,858.92x0.5584= $ 650,457.22
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $1,350,435.45x0.4173= $ 563,536.71
Present Worth of future construction = $ 1,964,920.03
Annualize cost of pump replacement
Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years = 1.8061 $870.00x1.8061= $ 1,571.31 per pump
Converting the emergency call out cost to an annualized cost over 20 years with I = 6% gives:
(A/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0272 $1,571.314.0272= $ 42.74 per pump/yr
Annualize cost of emergency call outs and tank pump outs in 5, 10, 15, & 20 years
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 5 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years = 1.1593 $790x1.1593= $ 915.85 per pump
Converting the 5 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $915.85x0.7473= $ 684.41 per pump
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 10 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $790x1.3439= $ 1,061.68 per pump
Converting the 10 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $1,061.68x0.5584= $ 592.84 per pump
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 15 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years = 1.5580 $790x1.5580= $ 1,230.82 per pump
Table 5-5 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Summerland Key
STEP Collection System
Converting the 15 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $1,230.82x0.4173= $ 513.62 per pump
Calculate future price of emergency call out and tank pump out at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3%for 20 years = 1.8061 $790x1.8061= $ 1,426.82 per pump
Converting the 20 year future emergency call out and tank pump out cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.3118 $1,426.82x0.3118= $ 444.88 per pump
PW of future emergency call out per pump = $ 2,235.76 (5, 10, 15, & 20yr combined)
Converting the present worth of emergency call out and tank pump out cost to annualized dollars
(A/P) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0872 $2,235.76x0.0872= $ 194.96 per pump/yr
Total annualized cost per pump per year:
Pump Replacement = $
42.74 /pump/yr
Emerg. Call Out & Pump Out = $
194.96 /pump/yr
Electric = $
20.00 /pump/yr
Prevnt. Maint. = $
271.30 /pump/yr
Public Education = $
2.00 /pump/yr
Total = $
531.00 /pump/yr
Convert annualized costs to Present Worth
Assume pumps will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 827 pumps through year 5
Period II: 882 pumps from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 937 pumps from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 992 pumps from year 16 through year 20
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $531.00x827= $ 439,135.09 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $439,135.09x4.2124= $
1,849,812.65 Present Worth for Period I
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $531.00x882= $ 468,339.96 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $468,339.96x4.2142= $
1,972,835.26 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $1,972,835.26x0.7473= $
1,474,299.79 Present Worth for Period II
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $531.00x937= $ 497,544.84 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $497,544.84x4.2142= $
2,095,857.87 in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $2,095,857.87x0.5584= $
1,170,327.03 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $531.00x992= $ 526,749.71 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $526,749.71x4.2142= $
2,218,880.47 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $2,218,880.47x0.4173= $
925,938.82 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized cost for all periods = $ 5,420,378.29
Total Present Worth = $ 24,859,218,16
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 29,950.87
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 25,237.78
Summerland Key
VACUUM SEWER SYSTEM
Table 5-6
VS #3
Summerland Key
Vacuum Sewer
Number of EDUs Current 830
Number of EDUs Build -Out 985
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
4" Vacuum Main (1)
33700
LF
$
66.00
$
2,224,200.00
6" Vacuum Main (1)
10200
LF
$
73.70
$
751,740.00
8" Vacuum Main (1)
5230
LF
$
80.00
$
418,400.00
10" Vacuum Main (1)
1080
LF
$
86.00
$
92,880.00
4" Division Valves
44
EA
$
1,210.00
$
53,240.00
6" Division Valves
15
EA
$
1,650.00
$
24,750.00
8" Division Valves
4
EA
$
2,200.00
$
8,800.00
Force Main (1)
50
LF
$
68.00
$
3,400.00
8" Plulg Valves
1
EA
$
2,600.00
$
2,600.00
Vacuum Valve Pits (2)
400
EA
$
13,000.00
$
5,200,000.00
Vacuum Station (3)
1
EA
$ 1,500,000.00
$
1,500,000.00
Subtotal $10,280,010.00
Other Project Cost (4) 27% $ 2,775,602.70
Current Estimated Total = $13,055,612.70
Current Estimated Cost/EDU = $ 15,729.65
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
4" Vacuum Main (1)
33700
LF
$
66.00
$
2,224,200.00
6" Vacuum Main (1)
10200
LF
$
73.70
$
751,740.00
8" Vacuum Main (1)
5230
LF
$
80.00
$
418,400.00
10" Vacuum Main (1)
1080
LF
$
86.00
$
92,880.00
4" Division Valves
44
EA
$
1,210.00
$
53,240.00
6" Division Valves
15
EA
$
1,650.00
$
24,750.00
8" Division Valves
4
EA
$
2,200.00
$
8,800.00
Force Main (1)
50
LF
$
68.00
$
3,400.00
8" Plulg Valves
1
EA
$
2,600.00
$
2,600.00
Vacuum Valve Pits (2)
480
EA
$
13,000.00
$
6,240,000.00
Vacuum Station (3)
1
EA
$ 1,500,000.00
$
1,500,000.00
Subtotal $11,320,010.00
Other Project Cost (4) 27% $ 3,056,402.70
Build -Out Estimated Total = $14,376,412.70
Build -Out Estimated Cost/EDU = $ 14,595.34
(1) Cost of force mains and vacuum mains includes trench repair and road restoration.
(2) Valve pit cost includes: $ 3,500 for purchase of valve & pits
$ 5,000 for installation of valve & pits
$ 3,000 for laterals
$ 1,500 for cross-overs from pit to vacuum main
$ 13,000 Total
(3) Vacuum stations include: Vacuum station equipment
Odor control
Construction of concrete building with underground
construction and bathroom
Emergency back-up generator
Telemetry
Cost of Land
(Cost of legal/real estate fees, public notice and public
hearings have not been included.)
(4) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees.
Table 5-7
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Summerland Key
Vacuum Sewer Collection System
Current EDU = 830
Build Out EDU = 985
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Add 1 vacuum pit in year 5, 1 vacuum pit in year 10, and 0 vacuum pits in year 15
Add 2 EDUs in year 5, 2 EDUs year 10, and 2 EDUs in year 15
Labor/hr = $
100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH = $
0.10
Power = $
2.92 /EDU/month
Station Maint. _ $ 49,750.00 per year 497.5 hr/yr @ $100/hr
Prevnt. Maint. _ $
452.00 /valve/yr
Public Education = $
1.50 /EDU/yr Preventive maintenance labor cost is based on FKAA's experience at Little Venice. One
Vac. Valve Rebuild= $
35.25 /valve/10yrs full time person is required to maintian a vacuum station with 350 Valve Pits.
Initial Construction Cost = 1 $ 13,055,612,70
NOTE: The cost for land to accommodate the vacuum lift station is not included in this present worth cost analysis.
Calculation of present worth of future construction
$1,320,800.00 of construction can be deferred as lots are developed in the future as follows:
In year 5, 10, & 15 a third of construction will be completed. Cost will be escalated at 3% inflation, then converted to present worth at
I=6%
$1,320,800.00/3= $
440,266.67
(F/P) at 3% for 5 years =
1.1593 $440,266.67x1.1593= $
510,401.15 Construction Cost at year 5
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years =
1.3439 $440,266.67x1.3439= $
591,674.37 Construction Cost at year 10
(F/P) at 3% for 15 years =
1.5580 $440,266.67x1.5580= $
685,935.47 Construction Cost at year 15
Converting the future
construction cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years =
0.7473 $510,401.15x0.7473= $
381,422.78
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years =
0.5584 $591,674.37x0.5584= $
330,390.97
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years =
0.4173 $685,935.47x0.4173= $
286,240.87
Present Worth of future construction = 1 $ 998,054.62
Annualize cost of all Vacuum Valve/Controller Maintenance per Vacuum Valve
Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3% inflation in 10 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $35.25x1.3439= $
47.37 per vacuum valve at year 10
Calculate future price of vacuum valve rebuild at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years = 1.8061 $35.25x1.8061= $
63.67 per vacuum valve at year 20
Converting all the future maintenance cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $47.37x0.5584= $
26.45 per vacuum valve
(P/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.3118 $63.67x0.3118= $
19.85 per vacuum valve
Present Worth of future maintenance cost per vacuum valve = $
46.30
Calculating the annualized cost per valve over 20 years at I = 6% gives:
(A/P) at 6% for 20 years = 0.0872 $46.304.0872= $
4.04 per vacuum valve per year
Adding the annualize cost of preventive maintenance gives a total annualized cost per valve of:
$452.00+$4.04= $ 456.04 per vacuum valve per year
Convert annualized Vacuum Valve Maintenance cost to Present Worth
Assume vacuum valves will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 400 vacuum valves through year 5
Period Il: 427 vacuum valves from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 454 vacuum valves from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 480 vacuum valves from year 16 through year 20
Table 5-7 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Summerland Key
Vacuum Sewer Collection System
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $456.04x400= $ 182,415.07 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $182,415.07x4.2124= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $456.04x427= $ 194,728.08 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $194,728.08x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $820,272.58x0.7473= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $456.04x454= $ 207,041.10 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $207,041.10x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $872,139.94x0.5584= $
Calculation of present worth of annualized valve maintenance cost for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $456.04x480= $ 218,898.08 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $218,898.08x4.2142= $
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $922,086.28x0.4173= $
768,405.23 Present Worth for Period I
820,272.58 in year 5 dollars
612,989.70 Present Worth for Period II
872,139.94 in year 10 dollars
487,002.94 Present Worth for Period III
922,086.28 in year 15 dollars
384,786.60 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized valve maintenance cost for all periods = 1 $ 2,253,184.48
Convert annualized Power Cost and Public Education cost to Present Worth
Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 830 EDUs through year 5
Period II: 882 EDUs from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 934 EDUs from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 985 EDUs from year 16 through year 20
Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.92/EDU/month)x(12 months/year)+$1.50/EDU/yr- $ 36.54
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $36.54x830= $ 30,328.20 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $30,328.20x4.2124= $
127,754.51 Present Worth for Period I
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $36.54x882= $ 32,228.28 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $32,228.28x4.2142= $
135,758.41 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $135,758.41x0.7473= $
101,452.26 Present Worth for Period II
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $36.54x934= $ 34,128.36 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $34,128.36x4.2142= $
143,762.30 in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $143,762.304.5584= $
80,276.87 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $36.54x985= $ 35,991.90 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $35,991.90x4.2142= $
151,612.28 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $151,612.28x0.4173= $
63,267.80 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized power & education costs for all periods = $ 372,751.44
Convert annualized Vacuum Station Maintenance Cost to Present Worth
Annualized portion of vacuum station maintenance cost to be charged to service area is:
$ 49,750.00 per year
(P/A) at 6% for 20 years = 11.4699 . $49,750.00-11.4699=1 $ 570,627.53 Present Worth of Vacuum Station Maint
Total Present Worth = $ 17,250,230.76
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 20,783.41
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 17,512.92
Summerland Key
GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM
:�
,i->,
Table 5-8
Gravity #3 w/Mathews Consulting Updated Costs
Summerland Key
Gravity Sewer
Number of EDUs Current 830
Number of EDUs Build -Out 985
COLLECTION SYSTEM - INSTALLED COST
BUILD -OUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM
QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
Manholes
184 LF
$ 6,000.00
$
1,104,000.00
8" Gravity Sewers
51584 LF
$ 118.00
$
6,086,912.00
6" Service Laterals
19275 LF
$ 78.00
$
1,503,450.00
Force Mains
20402 LF
$ 54.00
$
1,101,708.00
Concrete Lift Station
15 EA
$ 131,000.00
$
1,965,000.00
Primary Lift Station S11
1 EA
$ 350,000.00
$
350,000.00
Subtotal
$ 12,111,070.00
Pavement
Restoration (30% of
Gravity Sewer Cost)
$
1,826,073.60
Construction Cost
$13,937,143.60
Other Project Costs (1) 27%
$
3, 763, 028. 77
Estimated Total = $17,700,172.37
Estimated Cost/EDU Current = $ 21,325.51
Estimated Cost/EDU Build -Out = $ 17,969.72
(1) Other project costs include construction contingencies and engineering fees.
Table 5-9
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Summerland Key
Gravity Sewer System
Current EDU = 830
Build Out EDU = 985
Assumptions:
Inflation =
3%
Interest rate =
6%
Labor/hr = $
100.00 Including overhead
$/KWH = $
0.10
Power = $
2.72 /EDU/month
Prevnt. Maint. _ $
7,500.00 /station/yr
Pump replacement = $
20,000.00 /station/10 yr
Initial Construction Cost = $ 17,700,172.37
75 hr/station @ $100/hr
Present worth of pump replacement in 10 years and again in 20 years
Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3% inflation in 10 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 10 years = 1.3439 $20,OOOx1.3439= $ 26,878.00 per station
Converting the 10 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $26,878.004.5584= $ 15,008.68 per station
Calculate future price of pump replacement at 3% inflation in 20 yrs
(F/P) at 3% for 20 years = 1.8061 $20,OOOx1.8061= $ 36,122.00 per station
Converting the 20 year future pump replacement cost to Present Worth with I = 6% gives:
(P/F) at 6% for 20 years = 0.3118 $36,122.004.3118= $ 11,262.84 per station
The Study Area will be charged for maintenance at 16 stations
Total Present worth of pump replacements ($15,008.68+$11,262.84)*16 = $ 420,344.24
Present worth of preventative maintenance for 16 lift stations:
Convert the annualized cost per station to present worth gives:
(P/A) at 6% for 20 years = 11.4699 $7,500*16*11.4699= $ 1,376,388.00
Total annualized cost per EDU per year:
Power = $ 2.72 /EDU/month
Convert annualized costs per EDU to Present Worth
Assume EDUs will be phased in as follows:
Period I: 830 EDUs through year 5
Period ll: 882 EDUs from year 6 through year 10
Period III: 934 EDUs from year 11 through year 15
Period IV: 985 EDUs from year 16 through year 20
Annualize cost per EDU= ($2.72/EDU/month)x(12 months/year)= $ 32.64
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period I:
Period I: Annualized cost = $32.64x830= $ 27,091.20 /yr
(P/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $27,091.20x4.2124= $ 114,118.97 Present Worth for Period I
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period II:
Period II: Annualized cost = $32.64x882= $ 28,788.48 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $28,788.48x4.2142= $ 121,268.59 in year 5 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 5 years = 0.7473 $121,268.59x0.7473= $ 90,624.02 Present Worth for Period 11
Table 5-9 (Con't)
Present Worth Cost Analysis (20 year)
Summerland Key
Gravity Sewer System
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period III:
Period III: Annualized cost = $32.64x934= $ 30,485.76 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $30,485.76x4.2142= $ 128,418.22 in year 10 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 10 years = 0.5584 $128,418.22x0.5584= $ 71,708.73 Present Worth for Period III
Calculation of present worth of annualized cost per EDU for Period IV:
Period IV: Annualized cost = $32.64x985= $ 32,150.40 /yr
(P'/A) at 6% for 5 years = 4.2124 $32,150.40x4.2142= $ 135,430.34 in year 15 dollars
(P/F) at 6% for 15 years = 0.4173 $135,430.34x0.4173= $ 56,515.08 Present Worth for Period IV
Present Worth of all annualized cost per EDU for all periods = $ 332,966.80
Total Present Worth = $19,829,871.41
Present Worth / Current EDUs = $ 23,891.41
Present Worth / Build -Out EDUs = $ 20,131.85
Section 6
Wastewater Collection System
Decision Analysis
In order to provide an initial recommendation for the type of wastewater collection
system that should be considered, a Wastewater Collection System Decision
Tree was established (refer to Figure 6-1). Figure 6-1 shows guidelines, not hard
and fast rules, therefore good judgment must be exercised in using the decision
tree tool. Recommendations are based on both initial construction cost and a
present worth cost analysis including construction cost, operation and
maintenance costs, and system reliability.
In most cases, the initial construction cost accounts for 70% to 90% of the total
present worth cost. Conditions that have a significant effect on installed cost are
described for each system below:
Gravity Sewer:
• Total number of connections
o More cost effective as the number of connections increases
• Number of connections per lift station
o The more connections that can be served per lift station, the more
cost effective
o Obstructions such as canals and large drainage pipes can
significantly reduce the number of connections per lift station
• Average linear feet of gravity sewer per developed lot
o More cost effective when lot lines are short and both side of the
street are developed
• Reliability
o When construction cost are similar to alternative collection systems,
gravity sewer systems are preferred
Vacuum Sewer:
• Total number of connections
o More cost effective for large service areas (750+
connections/vacuum station) with medium to high density
o Obstructions such as canals and large drainage pipes will have little
effect on the number of connections per vacuum station
• Average linear feet of vacuum sewer main per developed lot
o More cost effective when lot lines are less than 100 feet, or both
sides of the street are developed
Low Pressure Sewer:
• Total number of connections
o Low pressure sewer has a significant cost advantage for small
collection systems. As the number of connections increases, the
cost advantage is reduced.
• Average linear feet of force main per developed lot.
o Low pressure sewer has a significant cost advantage for lower
density residential areas
Mathews Consulting 6-1
o Low pressure sewer can serve outlying areas cost effectively when
the average linear feet of force main per developed lot is less than
500 feet
Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System:
• Not economically viable unless combined with a small neighborhood
cluster treatment system
o The construction cost for a STEP Collection System pumping to a
centralized treatment plant is higher than the construction cost of a
Low Pressure Sewer System
o Based on actual information from Charlotte County, there is no
significant O&M savings when using a STEP Collection System
On -Site Wastewater Nutrient Reduction Systems (OWNRS):
• More cost effective in sparsely populated areas beyond the reach of a Low
Pressure Sewer System based on a life cycle cost of $36,000 per
treatment system. Refer to Appendix A for information detailing the
Lifecycle Cost Analysis for OWNRS.
Mathews Consulting 6-2
i
H
a,
k
Wil
PC
0)
0
U
a�
ca
Section 7
Conclusions
Based upon the information presented in this Letter Report, Mathews Consulting
recommends that the FKAA proceed with the final design, permitting and bidding
of the Wastewater Collection System project(s) for Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe
Key and Summerland Key. A project schedule to complete the project(s) from
final design through the bidding phase is shown in Figure 7-1. The conclusions
and recommendations are as follows:
■ A hybrid system should be implemented consisting of a combination of (1)
conventional gravity sewer systems to serve the densely populated areas;
and (2) low pressure sewers to serve the less dense and outer reach
areas. Using the Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree in Section
6 of this Letter Report, any houses not served by this wastewater
collection system combination will be provided with an On -Site
Wastewater Nutrient Removal System (OWNRS). The extent of each
collection system technology utilized will be finalized during the design
phase using the Wastewater Collection System Decision Tree in Section 6
of this Letter Report as a guideline.
■ In most cases, the initial construction cost accounts for 70% to 90% of the
total present worth cost. Future construction and operation and
maintenance costs are not major factors in the decision making process
for these areas.
■ Pre-Tac Meeting(s) should be held with FDEP (Monroe County/Ft. Myers
Divisions) to update the permit review staff on the Wastewater Collection
System technologies that will be implemented in the service areas (i.e.
combination of conventional gravity sewer system and low pressure
systems). This will ensure "no permitting obstacles" during design of
project(s).
Mathews Consulting 7-1
I
E
N
0
M
CD
Section O
Works Cited
CH2M HILL . 1998 . Wastewater Facilities Plan with Phased implementation for
the Marathon Area of the Florida Keys . Prepared for Monroe County
CH2M HILL . 2000 . Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
Prepared for Monroe County
CH2M HILL . 2007 . Draft Preliminary Design Report Cudjoe Wastewater
Collection and Transmission System Project . Prepared for Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority
CH2M HILL . 2008 . Final Preliminary Design Report Cudjoe Wastewater
Collection and Transmission System Project . Prepared for Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority
EPA . 2000 . Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet — "Small Diameter
Gravity Sewers"
EPA . 1998 . Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet — "Low Pressure
Pipe Systems"
EPA. 2000. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet — "Sewers, Force Main"
EPA. 2000 . Collection Systems Technology Fact Sheet — "Sewers, Lift Station"
EPA. 2000. Collection Systems Technology Fact Sheet — "Sewers,
Conventional Gravity"
EPA. 2000. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet — "Sewers, Pressure"
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1981 . Wastewater Engineering: Collection and Pumping of
Wastewater
Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Manufacturer Data
1. Environment One Corporation — Low Pressure Systems
2. Airvac — Vacuum Collection Systems
3. Orenco System, Inc. — Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System
Mathews Consulting 8-1
Appendix A
"Development of On -Site
Wastewater Nutrient Removal
Systems (OWNRS)
Lifecycle Costs Using
Best Available
Technology (BAT),"
FKAA - January 2009
DEVELOPMENT OF ON -SITE
WASTEWATER NUTRIENT
LIFECYCLE COSTS USING BEST
IEM.. �11 -
Deliverable to Task 3 — Analysis of
Alternative Conveyance Systems
Recognizing that the economic
health of Monroe County and its
municipalities relies largely on the
environmental health of a unique
marine ecosystem, the County's
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
mandated that nutrient loading
levels be reduced in the Florida
Keys. In June of 2000, the
"Sanitary Wastewater Master
Plan" (Master Plan) was finalized
with a firm objective of eliminating
approximately 23,000 private on -
site septic systems by July 2010.
Through interlocal agreement,
Monroe County has requested that
the Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority (FKAA) design, build,
and operate County -owned
infrastructure on behalf of the
citizens in the Master-Pla
prescribed service areas.
The Master Plan identified Cudjoe
Key/Summerland Key as just such
a service area and, with the
assistance of one of its
wastewater consultants, FKAA
completed a Draft Preliminary
Design Report (PDR), entitled
"Cudjoe Wastewater Collection
and Transmission System Project"
in December 2007.
In early 2008, County staff
requested that the FKAA consider
a change in the Master Plan to
expand the service area to include
the entire area between Sugarloaf
Key and Big Pine Key. This
change represented a dramatic
enlargement of the original Cudjoe
Key/Summerland Key service
area. A PDR update, completed
on February 28, 2008 indicated a
potential cost savings should the
newly expanded area prove
serviceable, and in May 2008, an
interlocal agreement amendment
allowed for the procurement of
professional engineering services
necessary to implement the
revised goals of the Master Plan.
Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs Page 1
An engineering task order to
Mathews Consulting, Inc.
(CONSULTANT) for final planning,
design and permitting services to
cover the central service area of
the regional system was executed
on June 26, 2008. Task order
initial work efforts include the
finalization of mapping services
and base sheet preparation,
preconstruction data collection,
and the finalization of pre -design
activities. The latter of these work
efforts will research the various
collection system technologies
and through the use of a "decision
tree", select the best value
technology tailored to the specific
conditions of a particular
neighborhood. The final Work
product will be a permitted
conveyance system that will
combine various wastewater
collection system technologies in
order to connect as many on -site
septic systems to the regional
system as possible for the lowest
overall lifecycle cost (LCC). The
combined strategic utilization of
proper planning and technology,
extending to the greatest number
of connections for the best value,
is an approach developed by the
FKAA through its years of
Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs
experience in the utility business.
What follows is an analysis, not
included in the CONSULTANT
task order, to identify a
representative LCC for conversion
to an On -Site Wastewater Nutrient
Removal System ("OWNRS") to
meet the 2010 BAT standard (10
*More system installation photographs available inappendix.
FKAA staff familiar with domestic
wastewater treatment methods
and technologies recognized
some time ago that an in-house
"knowledge gap" existed regarding
OWNRS systems. To close that
gap, staff members met with the
Monroe County Health
Department to become more
Appendix #1 contains a synopsis
of this al research. More can
be seen at the State Department
of Health website at
www.doh.state.fl.us/environment������/�ostds
FKAA has monthly coordination
meetings with Monroe County
officials regarding the progress
being made in meeting the 2010
connection deadline. One such
meeting was held in July 2008.*
County officials requested that
FKAA, in addition to applying best
value design methods to collection
system design, also research and
establish capital and lifecycle
costs expected for the average
single-family household to convert
to BAT using OWNRS technology
that is most likely to achieve the
10-10-10-1 standard. Because of
lack of funding and the short
timeframe involved, this in-house
project drew upon existing studies
and the expertise of local vendors
with many years of experience in
OWNRS technology. Four readily
available, diverse sources were
utilized and checked against each
other for acceptable consistency.
Source #1 was the "Monroe
County Sanitary Waste Water
Master Plan, March 2000, Vol #4-
Supporting Documents,
"Technology Assessment of On -
Site Wastewater Treatment
Systems", by AYRES Associates,
Tampa, Florida, June 1998.
Source #2 was obtained from
Thirdon Plumbing
Pinewood Plumbing, and George's
Plumbing each of whom provided
data regarding Capital and O.
costs that, in their experience,
typified present it domestic
conversion installations. The data
mem o- is summarized as Appendix
.6.12, and it's attachment.
Source #3 was the previously
mentioned PDR which had a
section devoted to present worth
analysis of on -site systems, (see
Appendix #3).
Source #4 is a recently published
study entitled "Florida Passive
Nitrogen Removal Study"
(FPKIRRI n"NiQN-ri I"np- 9nnA
1 3
It has been suggested that a "pollution factor" be applied to was consulted and is referenced
OW NRS to normalize with advanced treatment technologies.
FIDEP is currently developing a value for noncompliant herein for LCC comparison
package systems that could be applied to OWNIRS. purposes only, since the study did
Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs Page 3
not include phosphorous removal
technologies.
Source #1
in the above referenced
technology assessment dated
1998. The anticipated capital
installed cost data for all systems
analyzed, ranged from $11,412 to
$17,414 depending on the
technology choice. LCC
assumptions are contained within
the Master Plan document, and
include a 20% contingency for
restoration, permitting, etc.
Taking the average of all systems*
referenced in the Master Plan, an
anticipated capital installed cost
average of $13,474 in 1998 dollars
was used.
Annual operating costs ranged
from $1172-$1631 for all systems
analyzed and an average annual
operating cost of $1360.45 in 1998
dollars was used.
*8 OWNRS systems were evacuated in the Master Plan, but
only three are currently approved by DOH. Of those, only
one achieved consistent nutrient removal.
Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs
Source #2 Plumbing Data- local
vendors supplied estimated
installation costs which averaged
$18,600 to install a FAST BAT unit
as illustrated in Appendix 2*.
Another $500 dollars was added
for electrical installation bringing
the total estimated installation cost
to $19,100 in 2008 dollars.
*FAST was the sole OWNRS that came close to consistently
achieving BAT in the "Big Pine Key OWNRS demonstration
project" of 1998 (Andersen et al.) Others have achieved
DOH approval using different methods.
Two of three suppliers also
supplied annual operating costs as
follouls:*
Operating contract renewe,9
every two years at an
average cost of $387.50 in
20084ollQrs.
z LECA 2 ml phosphorom
removal media replaced
every four years at $2001,
each replacement cycle in
01 �11 .0 11114 no IF, M
Electrical and periodic sludge removal costs are
emitted from this analysis for convenience but
should be included in any in-depth analysis. All
renewal and replacement costs are assumed to be
included in the operating contract price. The
existing drain field was assumed to be in good
usable condition,
n._Report_(PDR),Qecember
2007
Section
4.3.1
of the
Page 4
aformentioned PDR indicated that
installation costs are expected to
be on the order of $20425,000,
with operating costs expected to
be on the order of $3,50044,000.
Very little source information was
provided in the PDR but upon
further inquiry, Appendix #4
elaborates on the source(s) of the
data.
For this analysis, averages were
taken with a capital cost of
$22,500 and an annual operating
cost of $3750.
Source #4 — FPNRS
Appendix #5 indicates the LCC
analysis details. Remember tha'j
this study considered nitrogen
removal only and did not includ-
facilities for phosphorous removal.
COMPARISON
All costs were adjusted to present
day using an average interest rate
of 6.0% simple interest
compounded over the adjustment
period. Inflation was assumed to
be 3%.
For Source #1, Master Plan data
was brought forward 10 years
using the average numbers as
Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs
indicated above with the followin
results: i
OTM
For Source #2, Capital data was
represented in present-day costs
as: $19,100.
Annual operating costs included
contractual and phosphorus media
renewal obligations only,, with five
media replacements and ten
contract renewals during the 20
year term. This translated into an
annual operating cost of $1492.
For Source #3, Averages were
taken with a capital cost o'i
$22,500 and an annual operating
cost of $3,750.
For Source #4, Table 30 from the
report depicts LLC of 12 systems
with a PW30 of approximately
$43,000. Phosphorus removal was
not included in the FPNRS and the
LCC values are for comparison
only.
Page 5
3 WOM =_ 10
e Source #3:
INIM
The 20-year LCCA of an OWNRS
conversion given the above set of
assumptions is somewhere in the
neighborhood of a PW20 Cost Of
Annual operating costs averaged
$2392 or about $200 a month,
remaining unrealistically high for
most households.
It remains important to remember
that BAT and AWT are not
environmental equivalents. In fact
the average household meeting
minimum BAT, will discharge over
the course of a year, 4.6 pounds
of excess BOD and TSS and 6.4
pounds of nitrogen into the
environment, than the same
connection tied to a regional
system meeting AWT standards.
Should the regional facility recycle
reclaimed water, then the pollution
differential is even greater.
Source #4 $43,000* Note that a number of variables
exist that will significantly skew
*PWaG and no P removal LCC in either direction, particularly
(See Appendix #5 for a summary of all data those that apply to site variability
sources). and operating costs. More in-
depth study would better reveal
variable cost -sensitivity and
narrow the expected total.
Development of OWNRS Lifecycle Costs Page 6
I.A1:j:j4►111K9.i1
Meeting with Monroe County Health Department
April 23,2008
Re: Interim 0 nsite Treatment and Disposal Systems and Performance -Based On -Site Treatment and
Disposal Systems J0STDS I
Julie Cheon, Jolynn Reynolds and Don Hubbs met with Mr. Bill Brookman, Environmental Supervisor with
the Monroe County Health Department. The purpose of the meeting was twofold; to better prepare the
FKAA to accurately respond to questions posed by the Public about the decisions they must make
regarding their interim OSTDS if they are in an area that will be centrally sewered or Performance -Based
OSTDS to meet the 2010 standard if they should be in a designated "cold spot" that will not be centrally
severed, to educate ourselves regarding on -site system conversions in preparation for potentially
assuming a significantly greater role in this area. In addition, we are performing a number of
conversions at FKAA-owned sites and may wish to standardize/economize this effort, and perhaps use
one or more sites as demonstration projects.
The Department of Health (DOH) conducted an evaluation of various systems known as the Big Pine Key
Study. This evaluation revealed only 3;systems,,that Could reasonably meet I on. average the, -Performancei r Comment [WRID Actually only the FASTsystem
based standards of 10 mg per liter BOD, 10 mg per liter TSS, 10 mg per liter total nitrogen and I mg per I came out of this study. The others received i from crfferent methods. The UIECA and Bricapproval
k Chips as
liter total phosphorus, the so-called 10-10-10-1 standard. The three approved systems were as follows: le phosphorus reducing media came outof this study.
Comment [WB21: As of April 29, 2006 (It is a
• FAST System and its derivatives by Bio-Microbics dynamic process with several other manufacturers
intensely pursuing IFIDCH approval)
• HOOT System by Hoot Aerobic Systems
• SINGULAIR system by Norweco Inc.
Any of these systems can be preceded by a septic tank or other pretreatment process and followed by a
disposal method which may include subsurface on -site irrigation, a drain field meeting current
standards, or a shallow injection well.
There is a process by which new technology may apply for use in the Florida Keys. An "Application for
Innovative Permit Status" may be sent to the Bureau of On -Site Sewage in Tallahassee for special
permittirg dispensation, but for purposes of this paper, only the above systems are currently being
considered. Chapter 64E — 6 of the Florida Administrative Code governs on -site sewage treatment and
disposal systems and contains additional provisions that must be adhered to.
Regardless of whether a system is approved or "innovative", each system must be individually
engineered based on individual site conditions and loadings. The underground tanks are all preapproved
and form the component parts of the system. These component parts must be State Health Office
approved and are listed on the DOH web. All systems are aerobic requiring continuous airflow/mixing,
preceded by a pretreatment chamber and followed by a solids chamber. Recirculation significantly
enhances nitrogen removal. Phosphorus is generally removed by filter media, either brick chips or Light
Expanded Clay Aggregate or " LECA". The media has a limited life which is governed by loading rate and
must be periodically replaced. Also, depending on the type of media used, the hydraulics differ— a
downflow over the media with brickchips and an upflow through the media with LECA.
PERMITTING (Interim OSTDS — until central sewer is available and Performance -based OSTDS less than
10,000 gallons per day)
The process (simplified) is basically as follows:
1. A "Request for Approval of On -Site Treatment System" form must be filled out. It has a number
of attachments including survey, site plan, floor plans, and percolation test.
2. A statement from the engineer of record must be attached.
3. An "Application of Construction for On -Site Systems" must be attached.
4. A "Site Evaluation of System Specifications" must be attached.
5. A schematic of the chosen treatment process along with loading calculations, maintenance
manual, O&M manuals, sampling protocol and continuing services agreement must be attached.
6. A Department of Health certificate is issued at the end of the process for a set period of time
and constitutes the operations permit.
DESIGN files of Thumb)
Many rules of thumb are used in evaluation of these applications; among them the following:
Single-family dwellings are sized based on the number of bedrooms the residence has (typical residential
— 3 bedroom/2 bath). Comment [WB3]: Flows are calculated from
tables in the Florida Administrative Code 64E-6.
Tanks must be an the State Health Office -approved list.
(www.doh.state-fl.us/environment/OSTDS/index.htmi)
A maximum of 2500 gallons of wastewater per acre can be disposed of, in an interim OSTDS, otherwise,
the OSTDS must meet Performance -Based criteria ; DOH permits no more than 2000 gallons per day
using an on -site injection well; over 2,000 gallons per day will need to be permitted by FDEP.
An injection well inlet must be 18 inches above the seasonal high water table.
If a drain field is used, its base must be 3 feet above mean sea level, 24 inches above seasonal high
water level, and have a soil cap of 6 inches thick.
For phosphorous removal, it is recommended that loading rates of no greater than 5.5 gallons per Comment [W84]: required
square foot per day be used with brick filter media 24 inches thick.
For LECA, loading rates of 3 to 6 mg phosphorus per kilogram LECA is used; more information on LECA
can be found at www.filtralite.com/26264.
IfJtEC is used in a performance based drainfield, then the loading rate should neat exceed 1.1 to 2
_ then -
comment[Wiss]: we see mere Brack �nlp
gallons per square foot per day.
drainrelds. I have not personally seen a LECA
drainfield, although I suppose its possible,
MISCELLANEOUS
Carmody Data Systems maintains the Department of Health database. A "septic search" accessible to
everyone tells you which site currently has a permitted septic system and which does not..
If a resident has installed an approved.,s stem,then they are considered 2010 compliant.
Comment Ewe61. io-10-10-1 perlcrmance-
based treatment system
A DEP website, "CABINS" can be useful regarding mean sea level data for design of OSTDS.
The focal utility (FKAA) may perform the steps of system abandonment without a permit.
For a typical residential home, the average cost of the Performance -Based OSTDS is $25,000.
There are approximately 958 residential homes that are located in "cold spots" that will require a
Performance -Based OSTDS by 2010 ( lower keys — 806; middle keys — 2; upper keys -150).
FROM: Julie Cheon, Environmental Specialist, in collaboration with
Don Hubbs, Assistant Director of Engineering
DATE: July 22, 20CE
Background
The July 2010 deadline for conversion of on -site sysharne to central sewer or Best Available
Technology (BAT) is 'o«t around the corner. Questions have been raised regarding the
affordability ofcentralized sewer as compared to alternatives such an BAT. In addition, FKAA
may play a larger role in the future regarding private property BAT conversions in |ovv+]enoih/
enaaa. In order to be better informed, FKAA has collected some basic information which may
play role infuture decioion-makjng.
Data Basis
Third Generation Plumbing (TGP)was contacted and asked to provide cost information for the
conversion of an existing typical single tanlik/ nsBidemC8 on$ito system to o BAT 2810 system
based on their local field experience. Although o request was made for written documentation
showing alternative systems for a representative cross-section of single-family residences, TGP
responded verbally. Below isnsummary ofthe information they provided tome.
TGPconsiders a typical single family residence |Dbethree bedrooms mless, producing 300ood
ofwastewater flow, which would require a 500 gallon hank. This is consistent with information
provided by the Department ofHealth and the Florida Administrative Cod* 64E-0.008. Table 1.
"Estimated Sewage Flows".
TGP explained that there are three approved systems, FAST, Non^naoo. and HO{JT, and o fourth
system, Deko, which is in the pnomaaa of being reinstated to the DOH approved list. The HOOT
system is the most expensive and works best in a drip irrigation application; the process in which
it was certified. The FAST system requires that the unit be placed in a tank. Although the FAST
system is less expensive than the HOOT the requirement of the extra tank makes the FAST
system more expensive than the aforementioned Nnmveoo.
Components and Costs
A test of several BAT systems was conducted on Big Pine Key by the DOH. The FAST system
was determined tumeet BAT standards with the most consistency. Aesuch, the FAST unit was
used in determining the cost basis.
TGP provided a price of$1d.5OO for the conversion of single family residence to a BAT 2010
The price includes a FAST unit in a tank, a 500 god filter media tank with 2 cubic meters of
LECA hb8r media and a 2 year maintenance eQ,ennnenL Also included are the system
engineering & permitting, basic septic abandonment and final plumbing including connection to
the house. Final electric in not included but in expected to include installation of an electric
receptacle and wiring of the blower and control panel. This was estimated by Third Generation to
cosf$50O. Additional information was provided bvBone Key Electric (BKE). BNEindicated they
vvVu|d ohmq]e a flat naba of $325 for all of the connections. When pressed for a mxomd came
scenario BKE stated that $500 would be the worst case for an extremely difficult connection, an
older concrete home for example.
Also included in the price is the removal ofany fill, ifnecessary and planting ofthe required
groundouvurover the dnainfie|d per DOH specifications. Installation of m borehole in lieu of e
drainfield would require an additional $1,000 in upfront costs and an additional $100 charge per
maintenance contract (gee be|nvv). The contractor will rake and remove softball size or |orQar
rocks and hand grade. Also included is simple replanting of any shrubs or small vegetation that
had 0oberemoved during the course ofconstruction. Survivability Ofthe transplanted material ie
not guaranteed. Small sheds and obstructions that can be readily moved will be moved, however
the contractor ienot responsible for damage bnthe property. Acontingency will probably need to
bgincluded for these items.
Although, compared to brick chips, the LECAnedia itself was more expensive Uwas
chosen because itreduces both upfront and long term costs. LECAmedia reduces upfront costs
by allowing gravity flow negating the need for |nato||abmn of a pump. In addition, LECA can be
removed via o pump truck while brick chip removal requires o bachhoe. This pump bouk
nernove| method is much |oso labor intensive and more CoS1 effective, LECA replacement is
driven by the mmedia^s ability to remove phosphorous. Two cubic meters will last years based
on wastewater flow of 300gpd. the amount of flow estimated to be produced by o 3 bedroom
house per DOH regulations.
Costs provided are in 2008 dollars unless otherwise stated.
Table
System Components Included Coats
Permitting & Engineering
Septic Abandonment (basic)*
FAST unit with Tank
5O0gallon filter media tank
2cubic meters LECAFilter Media
Final plumbing $18,500
2year rnaintenanceagreement
FAST ~- ' Droinfie|dvegetadun & planting
Hand grading
Simple transplantation (not guaranteed)
Removal offill
Components Not Included
Final Electric $S9O**
*Basic abandonment is considered abandonment of tank in open area. Tanks under homes or in areas not accessible by
heavy equipment incur extra costs, typically not more than $600
**Final Electric Price was estimated by BIKE.
***Add $1,000 if borehole is used in place of drain flel& Subtract $2,000 if a Norweco system is used in lieu of a
FAST system
H=
Operating,Costs
Frequency/yrs 20 Year
Component Cost Cost"
Filter Media Replacement $2,000 4 $10,000
Operating Agreement $425 2 $4,250
Tot'011$ $14,250*
* Add $100 if borehole. Maintenance contract for borehole included is
$525/2yrs
* * Not adjusted for PW
Donald Hubbs
From:
Ju|ieCheon
Sent:
Thursday, October U9.20O81:22pM
To:
DnneNHuhbs
Subject:
FW: FAST Price
Not quite apples to apples, but I think it is the best we are going to get at this time.
Julie
From: Diann Merriman [nnailtmzjienn
Sent: Thursday, October O9, 20081:09PM
To: Julie [heon
Subject: RE. FAST Price
Julie,
Sorry for have found ƒru looking would charge
"and $25,000 for a performance based treatment system. The lesser price would be for systems that
only req u rr—e--a-d ra infield, the higher price for systems that require and injection well. Also, these are just "ballpark
figures" they could be less or more depending on the individual job site, and the engineered requirements.
We include permitting, engineering, excavation and fill removal, the labor and materials for installing the system (either
Cherokee red brick chips orLECA filter media; whichever the engineer designs for), backfill with approved material, a 2
year maintenance contract, and clean mpofthe job site.
if we abandon the existing system at the same time we are installing the new, a discounted price of $1000 would be
charged.
We do not handle the connection of the plumbing to the system, you would probably want to contact a plumber for
those prices.
I'm not sure what totell you, asfar astransplantation. |donot have any pricing togofrom onthis. | imagine the price
would not be outrageous, but I don't know where to begin with pricing. (D
Any other questions?
Diann Merriman
Office Administrator
Pinewood Wastewater Services, Inc.
po.Box 4n2o10
Big Pine Key, FL 33043
(305)872-2033
(305)8171�-21977 tax
From: Julie Chenn @fkaazoml
Sent: Monday, October O6,2DO811:O7AM
To: diaon@pinewvoodservices.cunn
Subject: FAST Price
Hi Dianne,
I appreciate your assistance on this.
Weare looking tofor aprice onatypical installation ofa FAST unit atanexisting residence and abandonment or
removal ofany parts ofthe existing system that bnot likely tobeutilized when upgrading toaFAST unit. |undmrstand
that prices vary with the anomalies nfeach installation. VVeare just looking for aball park price that wecan use inour
onoitefeasibility study.
Please include in price: (or Knot included inprice, please note aasuch)
Permitting and Engineering
Septic Abandonment (basic-tankinopen area)
FAST unit with Tank
2cubic meters BCAfilter media
Final Plumbing
2Year maintenance agreement
Dnainfie|dand Vegetation planting
Hand grading
Simple transplantation, ifnecessary (not guaranteed)
Removal offill.
Thanks Again,
Your help is greatly appreciated.
JulieOheon
Environmental Specialist
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked hyAVG.
Novirus found inthis outgoing message.
Checked 6yAVG.
Version: 7.5.526/Virus Database: 270.7.6/1715 Release Date: 108/2008 7:19PM
Donald Hubbs
From'.
Julie heon
Sent:
Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:04 AM
To:
Donald Hubbs
Subject:
OSTDS Price Update
9W,
So far I have extracted a verbal price from George's Plumbing of $15,000 and about $350. Based on my discussion and
having only verbal communication I believe the margin of error may be more than we would like.
I have followed up with Pinewood 3x both verbally and in writing, so if they do respond I expect to obtain a number with
a better level of accuracy, but I am still waiting.
I also have a call into another plumber as well.
It seems that the plumbers are not real interested in giving quotes. I am not sure if it is because they do not want to
take the time, or if they do not want their numbers out there. I'm still working on it.
CWT
i=Ia:j4L Iolff,
The gravity sewer system layouts shown in Appendix F were developed to minimize the
number of lift stations and to provide the most cost-effective gravity sewer systems by
extending sewers the full 1,700 feet from lift stations, wherever possible. The biggest
constraint to maximizing lift station service area size is the multiple interior canals within
the project area.
As a result, only one location (LS-SG7 on Lipper Sugarloaf) was identified where two lift
station service areas can be combined into one lift station service area, provided FK AA can
obtain sewer line easements along property lines to connect the sewers in two adjacent
parallel streets. The gravity sewer system layout in Appendix G already shows these two lift
station service areas as combined into one at LS-SG7. If FKAA cannot obtain easements, the
area can revert to two lift station service areas. Two lift station service areas are still cost-
effective for this overall area. The longest sewer length for the combined lift station scenario
from last lot to be served to lift station is approximately 1,750 feet. The longest sewer length
for the two individual lift station scenarios from last lot to be served to lift station was
approximately 1,500 feet.
r';.
.3 Sewer System Alternatives where Gravity Sewers are nol
In the very sparsely developed areas where there are developed lots only infrequently, such
as the area along North Niles road. on Surrunerland Key, Onsite Wastewater Nutrient
Reduction Systems (GWNRSs) will have to be installed and maintained by the property
owner. Individual OWNRSs are expensive to install and to operate and maintain.
Installation costs are expected to be on the order of $20,000 to $25,000, and annual
operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are expected to be on the order of $3,500 to $4,000
(CH2M HILL, 2003).1 The present worth of an individual OWNRS is expected to be
approximately $66,000.
!' R
Marginally developed service areas, where development is more developed than in the
sparsely developed areas but not dense enough to where gravity sewers are economical,
present the greatest challenge of providing the most cost-effective wastewater collection and
treatment service that will comply with the FDEP regulations for Monroe County that
become effective in July 2010. An example of marginally developed areas is some of th
areas in the western part of Lipper Sugarloaf Key.
These marginally developed areas are not dense enough to justify gravity sewers but are
developed enough that a less expensive alternative to the expensive OWNRS for each of the
developed lots should be investigated. The Low Pressure Sewer System is an alternative that
t Capital and O&M costs in this reference have been adjusted to September 2007 costs (Estimated ENR at 7,900).
GNV310133531452 DOC!073470013 4.4
WB1 1 2007003DFB COPYRIGHT 2007 BY CH2.M HILL. INC. - COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
From:
Ken.Williams@ch2m.com
Sent:
Monday, August 04, 2008 2:19 PM
To:
Donald Hubbs
Cc:
Tom Walker; Andrew.Smyth@ch2m.com
Subject:
RE: on -site BAT conversion
sm
I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I just got back from vacation mid last week when when we got a direct hit
from lightening. Not only did it blow two power company transformers but we lost our high speed internet connection and
a solar heater panel control board. Comcast was out on Saturday (yes, they work on Saturdays up here) and replaced our
router and got us back in business with high speed internet.
In Section 4.3.1 of the draft Cudjoe report, footnote 1 indicates that capital and O&M costs were from the CH2M HILL
2003 reference and were adjusted to September 2007 costs (Estimated ENR at 7900). The CH2M HILL 2003,reference is
entitled "Monroe County Onsite Decentralized Wastewater System Demonstration Project Feasibility Study", and is noted
in Section 6, Works Cited. There should be a copy of this cited report in our Key West office and Monroe County should
have a copy of this report.
When we did our work for the 2003 report, we obtained from DOH recently permitted and installed OWNRS facilities and
then obtained the costs from contractors installing these systems. Our analysis showed that the costs of the recently
installed systems (September 2002 costs) were consistent with those costs estimated in the master plan ( September
1998 costs), adjusted for cost escalation (110.5% in the 4 years). This is described in Section 3 of the 2003 report.
The point that was intended to be made in Section 4.3.1 of our draft Cudjoe report is that OWNRS systems are very
expensive to install and to operate and maintain. Hence, just escalating costs from 2003, where we had verified actual
costs, to 2007 (20% increase) and giving a range of costs we felt was adequate to make our point. Even if the costs for
OWNRS had not increased at all from 2003, the present worth of an OWNRS would be approximately $56,000, equivalent
to a monthly cost of approximately $400 - still very expensive.
It is good to see that someone is investigating the current costs to install (and also operate and maintain) a private
residential OWNRS, or BAT system. I concur that it is needed. The last verification that I am aware of is what we did in
2003, but I'm sure the cost on onsite systems have increased. You note that you have contacted a supplier of such
systems and they have given you "verbal unqualified opinions regarding their field experience ; however a better source of
information is needed". I don't know what information they gave you, but it sounds like you have reason to doubt the
information you were given. My only suggestion is to do what we did in 2003. Get from DOH facilities that were recently
permitted and installed and then obtain the installed costs and the costs to operate and maintain the systems from the
respective contractors and property owners. There certainly are at least several systems that are approved by DOH. I
know from experience that this is a lengthy and time consuming task, but I know of no other way.
Feel free to call me (904-491-3171) to discuss this further if you wish.
Ken
From: Donald Hubbs [mailto:dhubbs@fkaa.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:08 AM
To: Williams, Ken/KWF
Cc: Tom Walker; Smyth, Andrew/KWF
Subject: on -site BAT conversion
Importance: High
PovNiVi., 11,w,,,;va1 urfs ho,il RcPori 0 ',,) 2o,)\
Table 30 U riliform Ati n tial Cost atid Present Worth of Afterriatives
PASSIVE NITROGEN
REMOVAL COMPONENT
TOTAL SYSTEM
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
LIFE CYCLE COST
LIFE CYCLE COST
30 yearj=4%,ENR=3,7%
30 yearj=4%,ENR=3,7%
w
U)
U)
Media
Plan
Media
Replace
Uniform
Present
Uniform
Present
Area
Vdume
Annual Cost
Warth
Annual Cost
Worth
Type
ft2
ft 3
Years
2008(S)
2008(S)
2008(S)
2008($)
1
Clino
100
100
15
F-1015
17.556
2,463
42,614
2
Clino
100
50
5
1.217
21,061
2,666
46,119
3
Clino,
100
11
1
1,279
22,131
2,728
47,189
4
Clay
100
100
15
840
14,526
2288
39,584
5
Clay
100
50
5
1.042
18,031
2,491
43,089
6
Clay
100
11
1
1.104
19,101
2,552
44,159
7
Clino
75
100
15
945
16,343
2.393
41.401
8
Clino
75
50
5
1,147
19.849
2,596
44,907
9
Clino
75
11
1 1
1,209
20,919
2,657
45.977
10
Clay
75
100
15
813
14,071
2,262
39,129
11
Clay
75
50
5
1,016
17,576
2.464
42,634
12
Clay
75
11
1
1,078
18,646
2.526
43,704
Notes: Stage I Media: Clino: Ciinoptilolite AMZ Clay. Livlle Expanded Clay
Stage 2 Media. 3:1 Elemental Sulfur & Oyster Shell
Total System Costs includes base septic tank and drainfied installation
o's
Kok
PrA
•
.�
r
s1
1 TAfiyMilt.malIJIIVA 11TIF-AlkyfitelZQ0&1I aiT/ llIXTIlle1IIIIMOI Lin i 1nIsgil ►►�Ci �}
SOURCE
INSTALLATION
ANNUAL OPERATING
PRESENT WORTH @ 6%
MASTER
PLAN
$24,130
$1,828
$44,786
CLIDJOE
DESIGN
REPORT
$22,500
$3,750
$64,875
F=PN RS
$18,101
$2,508
$46,441
LOCAL
VENDOR
$19,100
$1,492
$35,956
AVERAGES
$20,958
$2,394
$48,015
Appendix B
FDEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a)
"Wastewater Collection/
Transmission
System Permit"
rFLORIDIA
- 1
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Twin Towers 011ice Bldg., 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
NOTIFICATION/APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTING A DOMESTIC
WASTEWATER COLLECTION/TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
PART[ -GENERAL
Subpart A: Permit Application Type
Permit Application 'Type (mark one only)
EDUs
Application Fee*
"S"
Served
Are you applying for an individual permit for a domestic wastewater collection/transmission
> 10
$500
❑
system? Note: an EDU is equal to 3.5 persons. Criteria for an individual permit arc contained in
Rule 62-604.600(7), F.A.C.
< 10
$300
❑
Is this a Notice of Intent to use the general permit for wastewater collection/transmission
systems? Criteria for qualifying for a general permit are contained in Rule 62-604.600(6), F.A.C.
N/A
$250
❑
Projects not meeting the criteria in Rule 62-604.600(6), F.A.C., must apply for an individual
perm it.
*Note: Each non-contiguous project (i.e., projects that are not interconnected or are not located on adjacent streets or in the same neighborhood)
requires a separate application and fee.
Subpart B: Instructions
(1) This form shall be completed for all domestic wastewater collection/transmission system construction projects as follows:
• If this is a Notice of Intent to use the general permit, this notification shall be submitted to the Department at least 30 days prior to
initiating construction.
If this is an application for an individual permit, the permit must be obtained prior to initiating construction.
(2) One copy of the completed form shall be submitted to the appropriate DEP district office or delegated local program along with the
appropriate fee, and one copy of the following supporting documents. Checks should be made payable to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, or the name of the appropriate delegated local program.
If this is a Notice of Intent to use the general permit, attach a site plan or sketch showing the size and approximate location of new or
altered gravity sewers, pump stations and force mains; showing the approximate location of manholes and isolation valves; and showing
how the proposed project ties into the existing or proposed wastewater facilities. The site plan or sketch shall be signed and sealed by a
professional engineer registered in Florida.
If this is an application for an individual permit, one set of plans and specifications shall be submitted with this application, or
alternatively, an engineering report shall be submitted. Plans and specifications and engineering reports shall be prepared in accordance
with the applicable provisions of Chapters 10 and 20 of Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities. The plans and
specifications or engineering report shall be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in Florida.
(3) All information shall be typed or printed in ink. Where attached sheets (or other technical documentation) are utilized in lieu of the blank
spaces provided, indicate appropriate cross-references on the form. For Items (I) through (4) of Part II of this application form, if an item
is not applicable to your project, indicate "NA" in the appropriate space provided.
CEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a)
Page 1 of 11
Effective November 6. 2003
Nonliwest District
Nonhcasl District
Central District
Southwest District
160 Governmental Center
7825 Baymeadows Way
3319 Maguire Blvd
3904 Coconut Palm Drive
Suite 21111E
Suitc 232
Pensacola. Florida 32502-5794
Jacksonville. Florida 32256-7590
Odando. Florida 32803-3
767- Tampa. Florida 33619-8318
850-595-8300
904-807.3300
407-894-7555
813-744-6100
South District Southeast District
2295 Victoria Act 400 Nonh Congress Ace
Suite 364 Suite 200
Fort Mvers. Florida 33902-2549 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401
239-332-6975 561-681-6600
PART II — PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
(1) Collection/Transmission System Pennittee
Name
Company Name
Address
City
Telephone
(2) General Project Information
Title
State
Fax Email
Zip
Project Name
Location: County City Section Township Range
Project Description and Purpose (including pipe length, range of pipe diameter, total number of manholes, and total number
of pump stations)
Estimated date for: Start of construction Completion of construction
Connections to existing system or treatment plant
(3) Project Capacity
A = Type of Unit
B = Number of
Units
C =
Population Per
Unit
D = Total
Population
(Columns B x C)
E = Per
Capita Flow
F = Total Average
Daily Flow
(Columns D x E)
G = Peak
hour Ilow
Single -Family Home
Mobile Home
Apartment
Commercial, Institutional,
or Industrial Facility*
Total71
* Description of commercial, institutional, and industrial facilities and explanation of method used to estimate per capita flow for these
facilities:
(4) Pump Station Data (attached additional sheets as necessary)
Fctimntert Flnvv to the Qt.,tinn MPM
Location
Type
Maximum
Average
Minimum
Operating Conditions
[GPM n FT (TDH)I
(5) Collection/Transmission System Des�n Information
A. This information must be completed for all projects by the applicant's professional engineer, and if applicable, those professional
engineers in other disciplines who assisted with the design of the project.
If this project has been designed to comply with the standards and criteria listed below, the engineer shall initial in ink before the
standards or criteria. If any of the standards or criteria do not apply to this project or if this project has not been designed to comply
with the standards or criteria, mark "X" before the appropriate standard or criteria and provide an explanation, including any
applicable rule references, in (5)B. below.
DEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a) Page 2 of 11
Effective November 6, 2003
Note, if the project has not been designed in accordance xvith the standards and criteria set forth in Rules 62-604.400(1) and (2),
F.A.C., an application for an individual permit shall be submitted. Ilowever, if Rules 62-604.400(1) and (2), F.A.C., specifically allow
fbr another alternative that will result in an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection, the project can be constructed
using the general pennit.
General Requirements
1. The project is designed based on an average daily flow of 100 gallons per capita plus wastewater flow from industrial
plants and major institutional and commercial facilities unless water use data or other justification is used to better
estimate the flow. The design includes an appropriate peaking factor, which covers 1/1 contributions and non -wastewater
connections to those service lines. [RSWF 11.2431
2. Procedures are specified for operation of the collection/transmission system during construction. [RSWF 20.151
3. The project is designed to be located on public right-of-ways, land owned by the permittee, or easements and to be
located no closer than 100 feet from a public drinking water supply well and no closer than 75 feet from a private drinking
water supply well; or documentation is provided in Part ll.(5)B., showing that another alternative will result in an
equivalent level of reliability and public health protection. [62-604.400(I)(b) and (c), F.A.C.]
4. The project is designed with no physical connections between a public or private potable water supply system and a
sewer or force main and with no water pipes passing through or corning into contact with any part of a sewer manhole.
[RSFW 38.1 and48.51
5. The project is designed to preclude the deliberate introduction of storm water, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff,
subsurface drainage, swimming pool drainage, air conditioning system condensate water, non -contact cooling water
except as provided by Rule 62-610.668(1), F.A.C., and sources of uncontaminated wastewater, except to augment the
supply of reclaimed water in accordance with Rule 62-610.472(3)(c), F.A.C. [62-604.400(I)(d), F.A.C.]
6. The project is designed so that all new or relocated, buried sewers and force mains, are located in accordance with the
separation requirements from water mains and reclaimed water lines of Rules 62-604.400(2)(g)(h) and (i) and (3), F.A.C.
Note, if the criteria of Rules 62-604.400(2)(g) 4. or (2)(i) 3., F.A.C., are used, describe in Part I I.C. alternative construction
features that will be provided to afford a similar level of reliability and public health protection. [62-604.400(2)(g), (h), and
(i) and (3),. F.A.C.]
Gravity Sewers
7. The project is designed with no public gravity sewer conveying raw wastewater less than 8 inches in diameter. [RSWF
33.1]
8. The design considers buoyancy of sewers, and appropriate construction techniques are specified to prevent flotation of
the pipe where high groundwater conditions are anticipated. [RSWF 33.31
9. All sewers are designed with slopes to give mean velocities, when flowing full, of not less than 2.0 feet per second, based
on Manning's formula using an "n" value of 0.013; or if it is not practicable to maintain these minimum slopes and the
depth of flow will be 0.3 of the diameter or greater for design average flow, the owner of the system has been notified that
additional sewer maintenance will be required. The pipe diameter and slope are selected to obtain the greatest practical
velocities to minimize solids deposition problems. Oversized sewers are not specified to justify flatter slopes. [RSWF
33.41, 33.42, and 33.431
10. Sewers are designed with uniform slope between manholes. [RWSF 33.44]
11. Where velocities greater than 15 fps are designed, provisions to protect against displacement by erosion and impact are
specified. [RSWF 33.451
12. Sewers on 20% slopes or greater are designed to be anchored securely with concrete, or equal, anchors spaced as
follows: not over 36 feet center to center on grades 20% and up to 35%; not over 24 feet center to center on grades 35%
and up to 50%; and not over 16 feet center to center on grades 50% and over. [RSWF 33.461
DEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a) Page 3 of
Effective November 6, 2003
13. Sewers 24 inches or less are designed with straight alignment between manholes. Where curvilinear sewers are proposed
for sewers greater than 24 inches, the design specifies compression joints; ASTh1 or specific pipe manufacturer's
maximum allowable pipe joint deflection limits are not exceeded; and curvilinear sewers are limited to simple curves which
start and end at manholes. [RSWF 33.5]
14. Suitable couplings complying with ASTM specifications are required for joining dissimilar materials. [RSWF 33.7]
15. Sewers are designed to prevent damage from superimposed loads. [RSWF 33.7]
16. Appropriate specifications for the pipe and methods of bedding and backfilling are provided so as not to damage the pipe
or its joints, impede cleaning operations and future tapping, nor create excessive side fill pressures and ovalation of the
pipe, nor seriously impair flow capacity. [RSWF 33.81]
IT Appropriate deflection tests are specified for all flexible pipe. Testing is required after the final backfill has been in place
at least 30 days to permit stabilization of the soil -pipe system. Testing requirements specify: I) no pipe shall exceed a
deflection of 5%; 2) using a rigid ball or mandrel for the deflection test with a diameter not less than 95% of the base
inside diameter or average inside diameter of the pipe, depending on which is specified in the ASTN1 specification,
including the appendix, to which the pipe is manufactured; and 3) performing the test without mechanical pulling devices.
[RSWF 33.85]
18. Leakage tests are specified requiring that: 1) the leakage exfiltration or infiltration does not exceed 200 gallons per inch of
pipe diameter per mile per day for any section of the system; 2) exfiltration or infiltration tests be performed with a
minimum positive head of 2 feet; and 3) air tests, as a minimum, conform to the test procedure described in ASTM C-828
for clay pipe, ASTM C 924 for concrete pipe, ASTM F-1417 for plastic pipe, and for other materials appropriate test
procedures. [RSWF 33.93, 33.94, and 33.95]
19. If an inverted siphon is proposed, documentation of its need is provided in Part I I.C. Inverted siphons are designed with:
1) at least two barrels; 2) a minimum pipe size of 6 inches; 3) necessary appurtenances for maintenance, convenient
flushing, and cleaning equipment; and 4) inlet and discharge structures having adequate clearances for cleaning
equipment, inspection, and flushing. Design provides sufficient head and appropriate pipe sizes to secure velocities of at
least 3.0 fps for design average flows. The inlet and outlet are designed so that the design average flow may be diverted
to one barrel, and that either barrel may be cut out of service for cleaning. [RSWF 35]
Manholes
20. The project is designed with manholes at the end of each line; at all changes in grade, size, or alignment; at all
intersections; and at distances not greater than 400 feet for sewers 15 inches or less and 500 feet for sewers 18 inches to
30 inches, except in the case where adequate modern cleaning equipment is available at distances not greater than 600
feet. [RSWF34.1]
21. Design requires drop pipes to be provided for sewers entering manholes at elevations of 24 inches or more above the
manhole invert. Where the difference in elevation between the incoming sewer and the manhole invert is less than 24
inches, the invert is designed with a fillet to prevent solids deposition. Inside drop connections (when necessary) are
designed to be secured to the interior wall of the manhole and provide access for cleaning. Design requires the entire
outside drop connection be encased in concrete. [RSWF 34.2]
22. Manholes are designed with a minimum diameter of 48 inches and a minimum access diameter of 22 inches. [RSWF 34.3]
23. Design requires that a bench be provided on each side of any manhole channel when the pipe diameter(s) are less than
the manhole diameter and that no lateral sewer, service connection, or drop manhole pipe discharges onto the surface of
the bench. [RSWF 34.51
24. Design requires: 1) manhole lift holes and grade adjustment rings be sealed with non -shrinking mortar or other
appropriate material; 2) inlet and outlet pipes be joined to the manhole with a gasketed flexible watertight connection or
another watertight, connection arrangement that allows differential settlement of the pipe and manhole wall; and 3)
watertight manhole covers be used wherever the manhole tops may be flooded by street runoff or high water. [RSWF
34.6]
25. Manhole inspection and testing for watertightness or damage prior to placing into service are specified. Air testing, if
specified for concrete sewer manholes, conforms to the test procedures described in ASTM C-1244. [RSWF 34.7]
26. Electrical equipment specified for use in manholes is consistent with Item 46 of this checklist. [RSWF 34.91
DEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a) Page 4 of I 1
Effective November 6, 2003
Stream Crossints
27. Sewers and force mains entering or crossing streamsare designed to be constructed of ductile iron pipe with mechanical
joints or so they will remain watertight and free from changes in alignment or grade. Appropriate materials which will not
readily erode, cause siltation, damage pipe during placement, or corrode the pipe are specified to backfill the trench.
[RSWF 36.21 and 48.51
28. Stream crossings are designed to incorporate valves or other flow regulating devices (which may include pump stations)
on the shoreline or at such distances form the shoreline to prevent discharge in the event the line is damaged. [62-
604.400(2)(k)5., F.A.C.]
29. Sewers and force mains entering or crossing streams are designed at a sufficient depth below the natural bottom of the
stream bed to protect the line. At a minimum, the project is designed with subaqueous lines to be buried at least three
feet below the design or actual bottom, whichever is deeper, of a canal and other dredged waterway or the natural bottom
of streams, rivers, estuaries, bays, and other natural water bodies; or if it is not practicable to design the project with less
than three-foot minimum cover, alternative construction features (e.g. a concrete cap, sleeve, or some other properly
engineered device to insure adequate protection of the line) are described in Part II.C. [62-604.400(2)(k)1., F.A.C., and
RSWF 36.111
30. Specifications require permanent warning signs be placed on the banks of canals, streams, and rivers clearly identifying
the nature and location (including deptlis below design or natural bottom) of subaqueous crossings and suitably fixed
signs be placed at the shore, for subaqueous crossings of lakes, bays, and other large bodies of water, and in any area
where anchoring is normally expected. [62-604.400(2)(k)2., F.A.C.]
31. Provisions for testing the integrity of subaqueous lines are specified. [62-604.400(2)(k)4., F.A.C.]
32. Supports are designed for all joints in pipes utilized for aerial crossings and to prevent overturning and settlement.
Expansion jointing is specified between above ground and below ground sewers and force mains. The design considers
the impact of floodwaters and debris. [RSWF 37 and 48.5]
33. Aerial crossings are designed to maintain existing or required navigational capabilities within the waterway and to reserve
riparian rights of adjacent property owners. [62-604.400(2)(k)3., F.A.C.]
Pump Stations
34. In areas with high water tables, pump stations are designed to withstand flotation forces when empty. When siting the
pump station, the design considers the potential for damage or interruption of operation because of flooding. Pump
station structures and electrical and mechanical equipment are designed to be protected from physical damage by the
100-year flood. Pump stations are designed to remain fully operational and accessible during the 25-year flood unless
lesser flood levels are appropriate based on local considerations, but not less than the 10-year flood. [62-604.400(2)(e),
F.A.C.]
35. Pump stations are designed to be readily accessible by maintenance vehicles during all weather conditions. [RSWF 41.2]
36. Wet well and pump station piping is designed to avoid operational problems from the accumulation of grit. [RSWF 41.31
37. Dry wells, including their superstructure, are designed to be completely separated from the wet well. Common walls are
designed to be gas tight. [RSWF 42.211
38. The design includes provisions to facilitate removing pumps, motors, and other mechanical and electrical equipment.
[RSWF 42.221
DEP Form 62-604.300(g)(a) Page 5 of
Effective November 6, 2003
39. The design includes provisions for: 1) suitable and safe means of access for persons wearing self-contained breathing
apparatus are provided to dry wells, and to wet wells; 2) stairway access to wet wells more than 4 feet deep containing
either bar screens or mechanical equipment requiring inspection or maintenance; 3) for built -in -place pump stations, a
stairway to the dry well with rest landings at vertical intervals not to exceed 12 feet; 4) for factory -built pump stations
over 15 feet deep, a rigidly fixed landing at vertical intervals not to exceed 10 feet unless a manlift or elevator is provided;
and 5) where a landing is used, a suitable and rigidly fixed barrier to prevent an individual from falling past the
intermediate landing to a lower level. If a manlift or elevator is provided, emergency access is included in the design.
[RSWF 42.231
40. Specified construction materials are appropriate under conditions of exposure to hydrogen sulfide and other
corrosive gases, greases, oils, and other constituents frequently present in wastewater. [RSWF 42.251
41. Except for low-pressure grinder or STEP systems, multiple pumps are specified, and each pump has an individual intake.
Where only two units are specified, they are of the same size. Specified units have capacity such that, with any unit out
of service, the remaining units will have capacity to handle the design peak hourly flow. [RSWF 42.31 and 42.36]
42. Bar racks are specified for pumps handling wastewater from 30 inch or larger diameter sewers. Where a bar rack is
specified, a mechanical hoist is also provided. The design includes provisions for appropriate protection from clogging
for small pump stations. [RSWF 42.3221
43. Pumps handling raw wastewater are designed to pass spheres of at least 3 inches in diameter. Pump suction and
discharge openings are designed to be at least 4 inches in diameter. [RSWF 42.33] (Note, this provision is not applicable
to grinder pumps.)
44. The design requires pumps be placed such that under normal operating conditions they will operate under a positive
suction head, unless pumps are suction -lift pumps. [RSWF 42.341
45. The design requires: 1) pump stations be protected from lightning and transient voltage surges; and 2) pump stations be
equipped with lighting arrestors, surge capacitors, or other similar protection devices and phase protection. Note, pump
stations serving a single building are not required to provide surge protection devices if not necessary to protect the
pump station. [62-604.400(2)(b), F.A.C.]
46. The design requires 1) electrical systems and components (e.g., motors, lights, cables, conduits, switch boxes, control
circuits, etc.) in raw wastewater wet wells, or in enclosed or partially enclosed spaces where hazardous concentrations of
flammable gases or vapors may be present, comply with the National Electrical Code requirements for Class I Group D,
Division I locations; 2) electrical equipment located in wet wells be suitable for use under corrosive conditions; 3) each
flexible cable be provided with a watertight seal and separate strain relief; 4) a fused disconnect switch located above
ground be provided for the main power feed for all pump stations; 5) electrical equipment exposed to weather to meet the
requirements of weatherproof equipment NEMA 311 or 4; 6) a 110 volt power receptacle to facilitate maintenance be
provided inside the control panel for pump stations that have control panels outdoors; and 7) ground fault interruption
protection be provided for all outdoor outlets. [RSWF 42.35]
47. The design requires a sump pump equipped with dual check valves be provided in dry wells to remove leakage or
drainage with discharge above the maximum high water level of the wet well. [RSWF 42.371
48. Pump station design capacities are based on the peak hourly flow and are adequate to maintain a minimum velocity. of 2
feet per second in the force main. [RSWF 42.381
49. The design includes provisions to automatically alternate the pumps in use. [RSWF 42.41
50. The design requires: 1) suitable shutoff valves be placed on the suction line of dry pit pumps; 2) suitable shutoff and
check valves be placed on the discharge line of each pump (except on screw pumps); 3) a check valve be located between
the shutoff valve and the pump; 4) check valves be suitable for the material being handled; 5) check valves be placed on
the horizontal portion of discharge piping (except for ball checks, which may be placed in the vertical run); 6) all valves be
capable of withstanding normal pressure and water hammer; and 7) all shutoff and check valves be operable from the
floor level and accessible for maintenance. [RSWF 42.51
51. The effective volume of wet wells is based on design average flows and a filling time not to exceed 30 minutes unless the
facility is designed to provide flow equalization. The pump manufacturer's duty cycle recommendations were utilized in
selecting the minimum cycle time. [RSWF 42.62]
52. The design requires wet well floors have a minimum slope of I to I to the hopper bottom and the horizontal area of
hopper bottoms be no greater than necessary for proper installation and function of the inlet. [RSWF 42.63]
DEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a) Page 6 of I 1
Effective November 6, 2003
_ 53. For covered wet wells, the design provides for air displacement to the atmosphere, such as an inverted "j" tube or other
means. [RSWF 42.641
_ 54. The design provides for adequate ventilation all pump stations; mechanical ventilation where the dry well is below the
ground surface; permanently installed ventilation if screens or mechanical equipment requiring maintenance or inspection
are located in the wet well. Pump stations are designed with no interconnection between the wet well and dry well
ventilation systems. [RSWF 42.711
_ 55. The design requires all intermittently operated ventilation equipment to be interconnected with the respective pit
lighting system and the manual lighting/ventilation switch to override the automatic controls. [RSWF 42.731
_ 56. The design requires the fan wheels of ventilation systems be fabricated from non -sparking material and automatic heating
and dehumidification equipment be provided in all dry wells. [RSWF 42.74]
_ 57. If wet well ventilation is continuous, design provides for at least 12 complete 100% fresh air changes per hour; if wet well
ventilation is intermittent, design provides for at least 30 complete 100% fresh air changes per hour; and design requires
air to be forced into wet wells by mechanical means rather than solely exhausted from the wet well. [RSWF 42.751
_ 58. If dry well ventilation is continuous, design provides at least 6 complete 100% fresh air changes per hour; and dry well
ventilation is intermittent, design provides for at least 30 complete 100% fresh air changes per hour, unless a system of
two speed ventilation with an initial ventilation rate of 30 changes per hour for 10 minutes and automatic switch over to 6
changes per hour is used to conserve heat. [RSWF 42.761
_ 59. Pump stations are designed and located on the site to minimize adverse effects from odors, noise, and lighting. [62-
604.400(2)(c), F.A.C.]
_ 60. The design requires pump stations be enclosed with a fence or otherwise designed with appropriate features to
discourage the entry of animals and unauthorized persons. Posting of an unobstructed sign made of durable weather
resistant material at a location visible to the public with a telephone number for a point of eontact in case of emergency is
specified. [62-604.400(2)(d), F.A.C.]
_ 61. The design requires suitable devices for measuring wastewater flow at all pump stations. Indicating, totalizing, and
recording flow measurement are specified for pump stations with a 1200 gpm or greater design peak flow. [RSWF 42.81
_ 62. The project is designed with no physical connections between any potable water supplies and pump stations. If
a potable water supply is brought to a station, reduced -pressure principle back flow -prevention assemblies are
specified. [RSWF 42.9 and 62-555.30(4), F.A.C.]
Additional Items to be Completed for Suction -Lift Pump Stations
63. The design requires all suction -lift pumps to be either self -priming or vaeuum-priming and the combined total of dynamic
suction -lift at the "pump off' elevation and required net positive suction head at design operating conditions not to
exceed 22 feet. For self -priming pumps, the design requires: 1) pumps be capable of rapid priming and repriming at the
"lead pump on" elevation with self -priming and repriming accomplished automatically under design operating conditions;
2) suction piping not to exceed the size of the pump suction or 25 feet in total length; and 3) priming lift at the "lead pump
on" elevation to include a safety factor of at least 4 feet from the maximum allowable priming lift for the specific equipment
at design operating conditions. For vacuum -priming pump stations, the design requires dual vacuum pumps capable of
automatically and completely removing air from the suction -lift pumps and the vacuum pumps be adequately protected
from damage due to wastewater. [RSWF 43.1]
64. The design requires: 1) suction -lift pump equipment compartments to be above grade or offset and to be effectively
isolated from the wet well to prevent a hazardous and corrosive sewer atmosphere from entering the equipment
compartment; 2) wet well access not to be through the equipment compartment and to be at least 24 inches in diameter; 3)
gasketed replacement plates be provided to cover the opening to the wet well for pump units to be remove for service;
and 4) no valving be located in the wet well. [RSWF 43.21
oEP Form 62-604.300(6)(a) - Page 7 of l l
Effective November 6, 2003
Additional Items to be Completed for Submersible Pump Stations
65. Submersible pumps and motors are designed specifically for raw wastewater use, including totally submerged operation
during a portion of each pump cycle and to meet the requirements of the National Electrical Code for such units.
Provisions for detecting shaft seal failure or potential seal failure are included in the design. [RSWF 44.1 ]
66. The design requires submersible pumps be readily removable and replaceable without dewatering the wet well or
disconnecting any piping in the wet well. [RSWF 44.2]
67. In submersible. pump stations, electrical supply, control, and alarm circuits are designed to provide strain relief-, to allow
disconnection from outside the wet well; and to protect terminals and connectors from corrosion by location outside the
wet well or through use of watertight seals. [RSWF 44.31 ]
68. In submersible pump stations, the design requires the motor control center to be located outside the wet well, readily
accessible, and protected by a conduit seal or other appropriate measures meeting the requirements of the National
Electrical Code, to prevent the atmosphere of the wet well from gaining access to the control center. If a seal is specified,
the motor can be removed and electrically disconnected without disturbing the seal. The design requires control
equipment exposed to weather to meet the requirements of weatherproof equipment NEMA 311 or 4. [RSWF 44.32]
69. In submersible pump stations, the design requires: 1) pump motor power cords be flexible and serviceable under
conditions of extra hard usage and to meet the requirements of the National Electrical Code standards for flexible cords in
wastewater pump stations; 2) ground fault interruption protection be used to de -energize the circuit in the event of any
failure in the electrical integrity of the cable; and 3) power cord terminal fittings be corrosion -resistant and constructed in
a manner to prevent the entry of moisture into the cable, provided with strain relief appurtenances, and designed to
facilitate field connecting. [RSWF 44.331
70. In submersible pump stations, the design requires all shut-off and check valves be located in a separate valve
pit. Provisions to remove or drain accumulated water from the valve pit are included in the design. [RSWF 44.4]
Emergency Operations for Pump Stations
71. Pump stations are designed with an alarm system which activates in cases of power failure, sump pump failure, pump
failure, unauthorized entry, or any cause of pump station malfunction. Pump station alarms are designed to be
telemetered to a facility that is manned 24 hours a day. If such a facility is not available and a 24-hour holding capacity is
not provided, the alarm is designed to be telemetered to utility offices during normal working hours and to the home of
the responsible person(s) in charge of the lift station during off -duty hours. Note, if an audio-visual alarm system with a
self-contained power supply is provided in lieu of a telemetered system, documentation is provided in Part II.C. showing
an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection. [RSWF 451
72. The design requires emergency pumping capability be provided for all pump stations. For pump stations that receive
flow from one or more pump stations through a force main or pump stations discharging through pipes 12 inches or
larger, the design requires uninterrupted pumping capability be provided, including an in -place emergency generator.
Where portable pumping and/or generating equipment or manual transfer is used, the design includes sufficient storage
capacity with an alarm system to allow time for detection of pump station failure and transportation and connection of
emergency equipment. [62-604.400(2)(a)l. and 2., F.A.C., and RSWF 46.423 and 46.4331
73. The design requires: 1) emergency standby systems to have sufficient capacity to start up and maintain the total rated
running capacity of the station, including lighting, ventilation, and other auxiliary equipment necessary for safety and
proper operation; 2) special sequencing controls be provided to start pump motors unless the generating equipment has
capacity to start all pumps simultaneously with auxiliary equipment operating; 3) a riser from the force main with rapid
connection capabilities and appropriate valving be provided for all pump stations to hook up portable pumps; and 4) all
pump station reliability design features be compatible with the available temporary service power generating and
pumping equipment of the authority responsible for operation and maintenance of the collection/transmission system.
[62-604.400(2)(a)3., F.A.C., and RSWF 46.431]
74. The design -provides for emergency equipment to be protected from operation conditions that would result in damage to
the equipment and from damage at the restoration of regular electrical power. [RSWF 46.411, 46.417, and 46.4321
UEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a) Page 8 of 11
Efrective November 6, 2003 -
75. For permanently -installed internal combustion engines, underground fuel storage and piping facilities are designed in
accordance with applicable state and federal regulations; and the design requires engines to be located above grade with
adequate ventilation of fuel vapors and exhaust gases. [RSWF 46.414 and 46.4151
76. For permanently -installed or portable engine -driven pumps are used, the design includes provisions for manual start-up.
[RSWF 46.422]
77. Where independent substations are used for emergency power, each separate substation and its associated transmission
lines is designed to be capable of starting and operating the pump station at its rated capacity. [RSWF 46.441
Force Mains
78. Force mains are designed to maintain, at design pumping rates, a cleansing velocity of at least 2 feet per second. The
minimum force main diameter specified for raw wastewater is not less than 4 inches. [RSWF 48.1]
79. The design requires: 1) branches of intersecting force mains be provided with appropriate valves such that one branch
may be shut down for maintenance and repair without interrupting the flow of other branches; and 2) stubouts on force
mains, placed in anticipation of future connections, be equipped with a valve to allow such connection without
interruption of service. [62-604.400(2)(0, F.A.C.]
80. The design requires air relief valves be placed at high points in the force main to prevent air locking. [RSWF 48.2]
81. Specified force main pipe and joints are equal to water main strength materials suitable for design conditions. The force
main, reaction blocking, and station piping are designed to withstand water hammer pressures and stresses associated
with the cycling of wastewater pump stations. [RSWF 48.41
82. When the Hazen and Williams formula is used to calculate friction losses through force mains, the value for "C" is 100 for
unlined iron or steel pipe for design. For other smooth pipe materials, such as PVC, polyethylene, lined ductile iron, the
value for C does not exceed 120 for design. [RSWF 48.611
83. Where force mains are constructed of material, which might cause the force main to be confused with potable water
mains, specifications require the force main to be clearly identified. [RSWF 48.71
84. Leakage tests for force mains are specified including testing methods and leakage limits. [RSWF 48.81
*RSWF = Recommended Standardsfor 11Vasteuyater Facilities (1997) as adopted by rule 62-604.300(5)(c), F.A.C.
B. Explanation for Requirements or Standards Marked "X" in I1(5)A. Above (Attach additional sheets if necessary):
PART III - CERTIFICATIONS
(1) Collection/Transmission System Permittee
1, the undersigned owner or authorized representative* of
am fully aware that the statements made in this application for a construction permit are true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge
and belief. I agree to retain the design engineer or another professional engineer registered in Florida, to conduct on -site observation of
construction, to prepare a certification of completion of construction, and to review record drawings for adequacy. Further, I agree to provide an
appropriate operation and maintenance manual for the facilities pursuant to Rule 62=604.500(4), F.A.C., and to retain a professional engineer
registered in Florida to examine (or to prepare if desired) the manual. I am fully aware that Department approval must be obtained before this
project is placed into service for any purpose other than testing for leaks and testing equipment operation.
Signed Date
Name Title
*Attach a letter of authorization.
DEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a) Page 9 of 11
Effective November 6, 2003
(2) Owner of Collection/Transmission System
1, the undersigned owner or authorized representative* of certify that %ve will be the
Owner of this project after it is placed into service. 1 agree that we will operate and maintain this project in a manner that will comply with
applicable Department rules. Also 1 agree that we will promptly notify the Department if we sell or legally transfer ownership of this
project.
Signed
Name
Company Name
Address
City
Telephone
*Attach a letter of authori_ation.
Fax
(3) Wastewater Facility Serving Collection/Transmission System**
If this is a Notice of intent to use a general permit, check here:
Date
Title
State
Email
Zip
❑ The undersigned owner or authorized representative* of the wastewatcr facility
hereby certifies that the above referenced facility has the capacity to receive the wastewater generated by the proposed collection
system; is in compliance with the capacity analysis report requirements of Rule 62-600.405, F.A.C.; is not under a Department order
associated with effluent violations or the ability to treat wastewater adequately; and will provide the necessary treatment and disposal as
required by Chapter 403, F.S., and applicable Department rules.
If this is an application for an individual permit, check one:
❑ The undersigned owner or authorized representative* of the wastewater facility
hereby certifies that the above referenced facility has and will have adequate reserve capacity to accept the flow from this project and
will provide the necessary treatment and disposal as required by Chapter 403, F.S., and applicable Department rules.
❑ The undersigned owner or authorized representative* of the wastewater facility
hereby certifies that the above referenced facility currently does not have, but will have prior to placing the proposed project into
operation, adequate reserve capacity to accept the flow from this project and will provide the necessary treatment and disposal as
required by Chapter 403, F.S., and applicable Department rules.
Name of Treatment Plant Serving Project
County City
DEP permit number FL Expiration Date
Maximum monthly average daily flow over the last 12 month period MGD Month(s) used
Maximum three-month average daily flow over the last 12 month period MGD Month(s) used
Current permitted capacity MGD ❑AADF ❑MADF❑TMADF
Current outstanding flow commitments (including this project) against treatment plant capacity:
Signed Date
Name Title
Address
City State Zip
Telephone Fax Email
* Attach a letter ojauthorization.
** if there is an intermediate collection system, a letter shall be attached certifying that the intermediate downstream collection system has
adequate reserve capacity to accept the flow from this project.
DEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a) Page 10 of
Effective November 6, 2003
(4) Professional Engineer Registered in Florida
1, the undersigned professional engineer registered in Florida, certify that I am in responsible charge of the preparation and production of
engineering documents for this project; that plans and specifications for this project have been completed; that I have expertise in the design of
wastewater collection/transmission systems; and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the engineering design for this project complies
with the requirements of Chapter 62-604, F.A.C.
Name
Company Name
Address
City
Telephone Fax
Portion of Project for Which Responsible
Name
Company Name
Address
City
Telephone Fax
Portion of Project for Which Responsible
Name
Company Name
Address
City
Telephone Fax
Portion of Project for Which Responsible
Florida Registration No.
State _
Email
Florida Registration No.
Signed
Date
Zip
Signed
Date
State Zip
Email
Florida Registration No.
State _
Email
Signed
Date
Zip
DEP Form 62-604.300(8)(a)
Effective November 6, 2003
Page I I of I I
Appendix C
DEP Rule Chapter 62-604, F.A.C.
"Collection Systems and
Transmission Facilities"
CHAPTER 62-604 COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND TRANSNUSSION FACILITIES
62-604.100
Scope, Intent, Purpose, and Applicability.
62-604.110
Applicability. (Repealed)
62-604.120
Variations from Requirements.
62-604.130
Prohibitions.
62-604.200
Definitions.
62-604.300
General Technical Guidance, Related Rules, and Forms.
62-604.400
Design/Performance Considerations.
62-604.410
Low Pressure Sewer Systems. (Repealed)
62-604.420
Reuse Distribution Systems. (Repealed)
62-604.500
Operation and Maintenance.
62-604.550
Abnormal Events.
62-604.600
Procedure to Obtain Construction Permits.
62-604.700
Placing Collection/Transmission Systems into Operation.
62-604.900
Forms and Instructions. (Repealed)
62-604.100 Scope, Intent, Purpose, and Applicability.
(1) Section 403.021(2), Florida Statutes, as amended, the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act, established that no
wastes are to be discharged to any waters of the state without first being given the degree of the treatment necessary to protect the
beneficial uses of such water. Section 403.051(2)(a), Florida Statutes, mandates that any Department planning, design,
construction, modification or operating standards, criteria, and requirements for wastewater collection/transmission be developed
as a rule or regulation. This rule is promulgated to implement the provisions and requirements of Sections 403.051, 403.085,
403.086, 403.087, 403.088, Florida Statutes, concerning wastewater collection/transmission systems.
(2) It is the policy of the Department to encourage an applicant, prior to submittal of a permit application, to study and evaluate
alternative techniques and to discuss alternatives with the Department.
(a) The Department encourages inclusion of relevant public health, economic, scientific, energy, engineering and
environmental considerations in such evaluations.
(b) The Department encourages environmentally acceptable alternatives which provide the most economic and energy efficient
methods of complying with the requirements of this rule.
(3) The Commission, recognizing the complexity of water quality management and the necessity to temper regulatory actions
with the realities of technological progress and social and economic well-being, nevertheless, intends to prohibit any discharge of
pollution that constitutes a hazard to human health.
(4) These rules shall be liberally construed to assure that all waters of the state shall be free from components of wastewater
discharges which, alone or in combination with other substances, are acutely toxic; are present in concentrations which are
carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to humans, animals, or aquatic species; or otherwise pose a serious threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare.
(5) The requirements of this rule represent the specific requirements of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and of Local Pollution Control Programs approved and established pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes, where such
authority has been delegated to those programs. It may be necessary for wastewater facilities to conform with requirements of other
agencies, established via interagency agreements (e.g., for mosquito control); the absence of reference to such arrangements in this
chapter does not negate the need for compliance with those requirements.
(6) Pursuant to Section 403.1815, Florida Statutes, the Department may authorize a county or municipality to independently
regulate the construction of gravity sewage collection systems of 12 inches or less in diameter, sewage force mains of 12 inches or
less in diameter, and pump stations appurtenant to such force mains, provided the treatment plant is owned by the county or
municipality making the request for approval or, pursuant to local agreement, plant capacity is provided from a plant owned by
another county or municipality. Such authorization does not negate the necessity for complying with the applicable design
standards contained in this rule.
(7) The purpose of Chapter 62-604, F.A.C., is to provide minimum design and operation and maintenance standards for
domestic wastewater collection/transmission systems. Systems shall be designed in accordance with sound engineering practice.
Supported by moderating provisions, it is intended that Chapter 62-604, F.A.C., establish a framework whereby design flexibility
and sound engineering practice can be used in developing systems with which to collect and transport domestic wastewater in an
environmentally sound manner.
(8) As appropriate, Chapter 62-604, F.A.C., shall be used in conjunction with other Department rules relating to the design and
operation and maintenance of domestic wastewater collection/transmission systems.
(9) Requirements in this rule shall apply to both public and private domestic wastewater collection/transmission systems.
(10) Requirements for design and construction of reclaimed water distribution systems are included in Chapter 62-610, F.A.C.
- 441
(11) This rule provides for exemptions, allowances and variations from requirements. Unless specifically provided otherwise,
requirements in this rule shall be applicable only to new domestic wastewater collection/transmission facilities for which
construction permit applications are approved by the Department after November 6, 2003. This rule also shall apply to all facilities
existing prior to November 6, 2003, when such facilities are to be modified, but such applicability shall apply only to the
modification thereof.
(12) Specific activities required to obtain a permit are outlined in Rule 62-604.600, F.A.C.
(13) Individual service connections from single family residences are not required to be permitted by the Department.
Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Laia, Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.062, 403.085, 403.086, 403.087, 403.088 FS. 11irloij�New
11-27-89, Amended 6-4-92, Formerly 17-604.100, Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03.
62-604.120 Variations from Requirements.
Additional relief from the criteria established by this rule may be provided through an exemption, pursuant to Rule 62-4.243,
F.A.C., or a variance, pursuant to Rule 62-110.104, F.A.C.
Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.062, 403.085, 403.086, 403.087, 403.088 FS. History —New
11-27-89, Formerly 17-604.120, Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03.
62-604.130 Prohibitions.
The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited.
(1) The release or disposal of excreta, sewage, or other wastewaters or residuals without providing proper treatment approved
by the Department; construction or operation of a wastewater collection system not in compliance with this rule; or any act
otherwise violating provisions of this rule or of any other rules of the Department.
(2) Violations of the odor prohibition in subsection 62-296.320(2), F.A.C.
(3) Cross -connection, as defined in Rule 62-550.200, F.A.C.
(4) Except to augment the supply of reclaimed water when all conditions of paragraph 62-610.472(3)(c), F.A.C., are met, the
deliberate introduction of stormwater in any amount into collection/transmission systems designed solely for the introduction (and
conveyance) of domestic/industrial wastewater and/or the deliberate introduction of stormwater into collection/transmission
systems designed for the introduction or conveyance of combinations of storm and domestic/industrial wastewater in amounts
which may reduce the efficiency of pollutant removal by the treatment plant.
(5) The acceptance, by the operating authority of a collection/transmission system or by the permittee of a treatment plant, of
connections of wastewater discharges which have not received necessary pretreatment or which contain materials or pollutants
(other than domestic wastewater constituents):
(a) Which may cause fire or explosion hazards; or
(b) Which may cause excessive corrosion or other deterioration of wastewater facilities due to chemical action or pH levels; or
(c) Which are solid or viscous and obstruct flow or otherwise interfere with wastewater facility operations or treatment; or
(d) Which result in the wastewater temperature at the introduction of the treatment plant exceeding 40°C or otherwise
inhibiting treatment; or
(e) Which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes that may cause worker health and safety problems.
(6) The failure to maintain equipment in a condition which will enable the intended function.
(7) The submission, by the owner, manager, or operator of a collection/transmission system, or agent or employee thereof, of
misleading, false, or inaccurate information to the Department, either knowingly or through neglect.
Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.062, 403.085, 403.086, 403.087, 403.088, 403.121, 403.131,
403.161 FS. Hislory—New 11-27-89, Formerly 17-604.130, Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03.
62-604.200 Definitions.
Terms used in this rule shall have the meaning specified below. The meaning of any term not defined below may be taken from
definitions in other rules of the Department, unless such meaning would defeat the purposes or intent of Chapter 62-604, F.A.C.
(1) "Alternative collection/transmission systems" means those systems referenced in paragraphs 62-604.3D0(5)(b), (c), and (j),
F.A.C., or other collection/transmission systems not comprised of strictly conventional gravity sewers, pump stations, and force
mains.
(2) "Collection/transmission systems" means sewers, pipelines, conduits, pumping stations, force mains, and all other facilities
used for collection and transmission of wastewater from individual service connections to facilities intended for the purpose of
providing treatment prior to release to the environment.
(3) "Commission" means the Environmental Regulation Commission.
(4) "Delegated local program" means any county, municipality, or combination thereof that has established and administers a
pollution control program approved by the Department in compliance with Section 403.182, F.S., as amended.
(5) "Department" means the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or delegated local program, where
applicable.
(6) "District office" means the regional district offices of the Department.
- 442
(7) "Domestic wastewater" means wastewater derived principally from dwellings, business buildings, institutions, and the like,
commonly referred to as sanitary wastewater or sewage. When industrial wastewater is combined with domestic wastewater for
treatment, determination of whether the treatment plant is designated as domestic shall be in accordance with the definition of
domestic wastewater provided in Rule 62-600.200, F.A.C.
(8) "Individual service connection" means the sewer which connects the point(s) at which wastewater leaves a building which
is its source and the point at which it enters a collection system.
(9) "Modification" means any alteration, expansion, upgrade, extension, replacement of, or addition to an existing wastewater
facility or activity.
(10) "Permittee" means the owner, operator or other entity to which a permit for a wastewater facility or activity is issued by
the Department. The term "permittee" shall be functionally synonymous with the terms "owner", "contractor", or "licensee", but
shall not include licensed individuals, such as State certified operators, unless they are the persons to whom a facility permit is
issued by the Department. The term shall extend to a permit "applicant" for purposes of this chapter.
(11) "Pollution" is as defined in Section 403.031, F.S.
(12) "Pretreatment" means the reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the
nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to, or in lieu of, introducing such pollutants into the treatment facility. This
reduction or alteration can be obtained by physical, chemical, or biological processes; by process changes; or by other means,
except by diluting the concentration of the pollutants unless allowed by an applicable pretreatment standard.
(13) "Private drinking water supply well" means a well serving a private or multifamily water system as defined in Rule
62-532.200, F.A.C.
(14)"Public drinking water supply well" means a well serving a public water system as defined in Rule 62-550.200, F.A.C.
(15) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection.
(16) "Treatment" means any method, technique, or process which changes the physical, chemical, or biological character or
composition of wastewater and thereby reduces its potential for polluting waters of the state.
(17) "Treatment plant" means any plant or other works used for the purpose of treating, stabilizing, or holding wastes.
(18) "Wastes" means sewage, industrial wastes, and all other liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive, or other substances which may
pollute or tend to pollute any waters of the State.
(19) "Wastewater" means the combination of liquid and water -carried pollutants from residences, commercial buildings,
industrial plants, and institutions together with any groundwater, surface runoff or leachate that may be present.
(20) "Wastewater facility" or "facility" means any facility which discharges wastes into waters of the State or which can
reasonably be expected to be a source of water pollution and includes any or all of the following: the collection and transmission
system, the wastewater treatment works, the reuse or disposal system, and the residuals management facility.
(21) "Waters" shall be as defined in Section 403.031, Florida Statutes.
Specific Awhority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Iniplemenled 403.021, 403.061, 403.062, 403.085, 403.086, 403.087, 403.088 FS. Hisro,y-New
11-27-89, Amended 6-4-92, Formerly 17-604.200, Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03.
62-604.300 General Technical Guidance, Related Rules, and Forms.
(1) The technical standards and criteria contained in the following standard manuals and technical publications listed in
subsection (5) below and those referenced throughout this rule are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be applied, if
applicable, in determining whether permits allowing construction or modification of collection/transmission systems shall be issued
or denied.
(2) Deviations from the standards and criteria contained in the publications listed in subsection (5) below shall be approved by
the Department provided that:
(a) The engineer's report provides reasonable assurance that the proposed design will provide collection/transmission meeting
the requirements of this rule; and either
(b) Conforming with these standards cannot be done except at unreasonably higher costs; or
(c) It is not technically feasible to conform to these standards because of site conditions or incompatibility with a proposed
facility design employing new and innovative techniques which assure compliance with the remainder of this rule.
(3) In cases where the standards and criteria contained in the publications listed in subsection (5) below conflict with this rule
or other rules of the Department, Department standards and rules shall control.
(4) In cases where the standards and criteria contained in the publications listed in subsection (5) below conflict, the standards
and criteria contained in the publication listed in paragraph (5)(g) shall be used.
(5) Standard Manuals and Publications.
(a) Odor and Corrosion Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems and Treatment Plants (1985). EPA/625/1-85/018.
NTIS# PB881-84031. National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. www.ntis.gov.
(b) Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems (1991). EPA/625/1-91/024. NTIS# PB93-1162591N2. National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. www.ntis.gov.
(c) Manual of Practice No. FD-12. Alternative Sewer Systems (1986). Water Environment Federation, 601 Wythe Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314. www.wef.org.
- 443
(d) Manual of Practice No. FD-4. Design of Wastewater and Stormwater Pumping Stations (1993). Water Environment
ederation, 601 Wythe Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. www.wef.org.
(e) Manual of Practice No. FD-5. Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction (1982). Water Environment Federation,
601 Wythe Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. www.wef.org.
(f) Manual of Practice No. 7. Wastewater Collection Systems Management (1999). Water Environment Federation, 601 Wythe
Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. www.wef.org.
(g) Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (1997). health Education Service, Inc., P. O. Box 7126, Albany, New
York 12224. www.hes.org.
(h) Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability — MCD-05 (1974).
EPA-430-99-74-001, Department of Environmental Protection, 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3540, Tallahassee, FL 32399.
www.dep. state. fl. us/water.
(i) Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Collection Systems Volume I (1999) and Volume lI (1998). California State
University, Department of Civil Engineering, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, California 95819. www.owp.xux.edu.
0) Design and Specification Guidelines for Low Pressure Sewer Systems (1981). Department of Environmental Protection,
2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3540, Tallahassee, FL 32399. www.dep.state.fl.us/water.
(6) Members of the public may request and obtain copies of the publications listed in subsection (5) above by contacting the
appropriate publisher at the address indicated. Copies of the above publications are on file with the Florida Secretary of State.
Copies are also on file and available for review in the Department's Tallahassee offices (including the Information Center) and in
the Department's district offices where they may be reviewed during normal business hours.
(7) Related rules. Permitting requirements and fees related to permitting are listed in Chapter 62-4, F.A.C.
(8) Forms. The fonns and instructions used by the Department are listed in this rule. The rule numbers are the form numbers.
.The forms are hereby incorporated by reference in this rule. Copies of these forms and instructions may be obtained by writing to
the Bureau of Water Facilities Regulation, Mail Station 3535, Department of Environmental Protection, Twin Towers Office
Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400. In addition, these forms are available at the Department's
district offices and on the Department's website.
(a) Notification/Application for Constructing a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System, effective November 6,
2003.
(b) Request for Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collect ion/Transmission System into Operation effective November
6, 2003.
'oecific Authority 403.061(7) FS Laiv Implemented 403.061, 403.085, 403.086, 403.087, 403.088 FS. llisbiy—Neiv 11-27-89, Amended 6-4-92,
5-31-93, Formerly 17-604.300, Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03.
62-604.400 Design/Performance Considerations.
(1) All new collection/transmission systems and modifications of existing systems for which construction permits are required
by the Department shall be designed:
(a) In accordance with the provisions of Rule 62-604.300, F.A.C.;
(b) To be located on public right-of-ways, land owned by the permittee, or easements;
(c) Except as provided in subsection 62-604.400(3), F.A.C., to be located no closer than 100 feet from a public drinking water
supply well and no closer than 75 feet from a private drinking water supply well unless the applicant provides documentation
accompanying the permit application showing that another alternative will result in an equivalent level of reliability and public
health protection; and
(d) To preclude the deliberate introduction of storm water, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage,
swimming pool drainage, air conditioning system condensate water, non -contact cooling water except as provided by subsection
62-610.668(1), F.A.C., and sources of uncontaminated wastewater. However, collection/transmission systems may be designed to
augment the supply of reclaimed water when all conditions of paragraph 62-610.472(3)(c), F.A.C., are met.
(2) In addition to subsection (1), above, the following requirements shall be met where applicable:
(a) Emergency pumping capability shall be provided for all pump stations. Pumping capability shall be provided as follows:
1. Pump stations that receive flow from one or more pump stations through a force main or pump stations discharging through
pipes 12 inches or larger shall provide for uninterrupted pumping capabilities, including an in -place emergency generator.
2. For pump stations not addressed in subparagraph (2)(a)1. above, emergency pumping capability may be accomplished by
connection of the station to at least two independent utility substations, by providing a connection for portable or in -place
engine -driven generating equipment, or by providing portable pumping equipment.
3. Such emergency standby systems shall have sufficient capacity to start up and maintain the total rated running capacity of
the station. Regardless of the type of emergency standby system provided, a riser from the force main with rapid connection
capabilities and appropriate valving shall be provided for all pump stations to hook-up portable pumps. All pump station reliability
design features shall be compatible with the available temporary service power generating and pumping equipment of the authority
responsible for operation and maintenance of the collection/transmission system.
- 444
(b) Pumping stations shall be protected from lightning and transient voltage surges. As a minimum, stations shall be equipped
pith lightning arrestors, surge capacitors or other similar protection devices, and phase protection. Small pumping stations serving
a single building will not be required to provide surge protection devices when they are not necessary to protect the pump station.
Complex or critical pumping stations shall be designed to incorporate standby pumping capability, power generation, and other
appropriate features pursuant to paragraph 62-604.300(5)(11), F.A.C.
(c) New pumping stations shall be designed and located on the site so as to minimize adverse effects resulting from odors,
noise, and lighting. The permittee shall give reasonable assurance that the facility shall not cause odor, noise or lighting in such
amounts or at such levels that they adversely affect neighboring residents, in commercial or residential areas, so as to be potentially
harmful or injurious to human health or welfare or unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property, including outdoor
recreation. Reasonable assurance may be based on such means as aeration, landscaping, treatment of vented gases, buffer zones
owned or under the control of the permittee, chemical additions, precItlorination, ozonation, innovative structural design or other
similar techniques and methods, as may be required.
(d) New pumping stations shall be enclosed with a fence or otherwise designed with appropriate features that discourage the
entry of animals and unauthorized persons. An unobstructed sign made of durable weather resistant material shall be posted at a
location visible to the public with a telephone number for a point of contact in case of emergency.
(e) In areas with high water tables, the pump station shall be designed to include measures to withstand flotation forces when
empty. The potential for damage or interruption of operation because of flooding shall be considered by the permittee when siting
new pumping stations. The electrical and mechanical equipment shall be protected from physical damage by the 100-year flood.
The pumping station shall be designed to remain fully operational and accessible during the 25-year flood; lesser flood levels may
be designed for, dependent on local conditions, but in no case shall less than a 10-year flood be used. Design considerations (water
surface elevation, forces arising from water movement, etc.) shall be based upon available information; where site -specific
information is unavailable, sound engineering practices shall be used in siting and design of pump station facilities.
(f) Branches of intersecting force mains shall be provided with appropriate valves such that one branch may be shut down for
maintenance and repair without interrupting the flow of other branches. Stubouts on a force main, placed in anticipation of future
connections, shall be equipped with a valve to allow such connections without interruption of service.
(g) Except as provided in subsection 62-604.400(3), F.A.C., sewers and force mains shall be laid at least ten feet (outside to
outside) horizontally from water mains. Provided the applicant demonstrates there is no reasonable alternative, the Department
shall approve smaller horizontal separation distances for sewers if one of the following conditions is met:
I. The top of the sewer is installed at least 18 inches below the bottom of the potable water line.
2. The sewer is encased in watertight carrier pipe or concrete.
3. Both the sewer and the water main are constructed of slip-on or mechanical joint pipe complying with public water supply
design standards and pressure tested to 150 psi to assure watertightness.
4. The applicant provides documentation accompanying the permit application showing that another alternative will result in
an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection.
(h) Except as provided in subsection 62-604.400(3), F.A.C., sewers and force mains shall be laid at least three feet (outside to
outside) horizontally from any existing or proposed reclaimed water line permitted under Part III of Chapter 62-610, F.A.C.
Smaller horizontal distances shall be approved in accordance with subsection 62-610.469(7), F.A.C.
(i) Except as provided in subsection 62-604.400(3), F.A.C., sewer pipes and force mains shall cross under water mains, unless
there is no alternative. Sewers and force mains crossing water mains or reclaimed water lines permitted under Part III of Chapter
62-610, F.A.C., shall be laid to provide a minimum vertical distance of 18 inches between the invert of the upper pipe and the
crown of the lower pipe. The minimum vertical separation shall be maintained whether the water main is above or below the sewer.
For sewer crossings, the crossing shall be arranged so that the sewer pipe joints are equidistant and as far as possible from the water
main joints. Adequate structural support shall be provided for the sewer or force main to maintain line and grade. For sewers,
provided the applicant demonstrates there is no reasonable alternative, the Department shall approve smaller vertical separation
distances if one of the following conditions is met:
I. The sewer is encased in a watertight carrier pipe or concrete. _
2. The sewer is designed and constructed equal to water pipe and pressure tested to 150 psi to assure watertightness.
3. The applicant provides documentation accompanying the permit application showing that another alternative will result in
an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection.
0) The provisions of paragraphs 62-604.400(2)(g)-(i), F.A.C.,. above are applicable to in -ground crossings. No vertical or
horizontal separation distances are required for above -ground crossings.
(k) Special protection shall be furnished for sewer lines crossing canals or other waterways subject to maintenance dredging or
where damage may occur from water craft anchorage so as to minimize the potential for unintentional discharge of wastewater into
surface waters.
1. Subaqueous lines shall be buried at least three feet below the design or actual bottom, whichever is deeper, of a canal and
other dredged waterway or the natural bottom of streams, rivers, estuaries, bays, and other natural water bodies. Designs with less
than the three-foot minimum cover shall be protected by a concrete cap, sleeve, or some other properly engineered device to insure
- 445
-idequate protection of the line; subaqueous crossings shall be designed to lie on the bottom of waterways only when the
:ngineering report provides reasonable assurance that, because of the depth of the water or other circumstances, the pipeline shall
be adequately protected from damage from natural occurrences or mankind's activities.
2. Subaqueous crossings shall be clearly marked by pernianent warning signs placed on the banks of canals, streams, and rivers
clearly identifying the nature and location (including depths below design or natural bottom) of the crossings. Crossings of lakes,
bays and other large bodies of water shall be similarly identified at the shore and, with suitably fixed signs, in any area where
anchoring may normally be expected. Signs shall have characteristics compatible with surrounding land use, while serving the
intended purpose.
3. Aerial crossings, whether hung from existing structures, self-supporting, or supported by utility bridges or structures, shall
be designed to maintain existing or required navigational capabilities within the waterway and to reserve the riparian rights of
adjacent property owners.
4. Provisions for testing the integrity of underwater lines shall be made, and special pipe material suitable for underwater
construction shall be used.
5. Lines shall be designed to incorporate valves or other flow regulating devices (which may include pump stations) on the
shoreline or at such distances from the shoreline as may be approved by the Department to prevent discharge in the event the line is
damaged.
(3) If there are conflicts in the separation requirements between collection systems and drinking water facilities established in
(I) and (2) above and those established in Chapter 62-532 or 62-555, F.A.C., then the requirements in Chapter 62-532 or 62-555,
F.A.C., shall apply.
(4) The manuals referenced in paragraphs 62-604.300(5)(b), (c), and 0), F.A.C., shall be used in evaluation of the design and
construction of alternative collection/transmission systems in Florida. A central management entity, be it public or private, shall be
responsible for operation and maintenance of the on -lot facilities associated with alternative collection/transmission systems.
Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law hnplemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.062, 403.085, 403.086, 403.087, 403.088 FS. History —New
11-27-89, Amended 6-4-92, Formerly 17-604.400, Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03.
62-604.500 Operation and Maintenance.
(1) Even though operation permits are not issued for collection systems, the operation and maintenance provisions of Rule
62-604.500, F.A.C., are applicable to both new and existing domestic wastewater collection/transmission facilities.
(2) All collection/transmission systems shall be operated and maintained so as to provide uninterrupted service as required by
%is rule.
(3) All equipment necessary for the collection/transmission of domestic wastewater, including equipment provided pursuant to
subsection 62-604.400(2), F.A.C., shall be maintained so as to function as intended. In the event odor, noise or lighting adversely
affect neighboring developed areas at levels prohibited by paragraph 62-604.400(2)(c), F.A.C., corrective action (which may
include modifications of the collection/transmission system) shall be taken by the permtttee. Other corrective action may be
required to ensure compliance with rules of the Department.
(4) Copies of record drawings and the operation and maintenance manual shall be available at a site within the boundaries of
the district office or delegated local program permitting the collection/transmission system, for use by operation and maintenance
personnel and for inspection by Department personnel.
(a) The operation and maintenance manual shall provide for reliable and efficient operation and maintenance of the collection/
transmission system.
(b) The detail of the operation and maintenance manual shall be consistent with the complexity of the system. The manual shall
be developed in accordance with the technical guidance document contained in paragraph 62-604.300(4)(i), F.A.C., and the unique
requirements of the individual wastewater facility and shall provide the operator with adequate information and description
regarding the design, operation, and maintenance features of the facility involved, including an emergency response plan.
(c) The operation and maintenance manual shall be revised periodically to reflect any alterations performed or to reflect
experience resulting from operation.
(d) A new operation and maintenance manual is not required to be developed for each project if there is already an existing
manual that is applicable to the facilities being constructed.
Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.087, 403.088 FS. Nisrouy—New 11-27-89, Amended 6-4-92,
Formerly 17-604.500, Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03.
62-604.550 Abnormal Events.
(1) The provisions of Rule 62-604.550, F.A.C., are applicable to both new and existing domestic wastewater collection/
transmission systems.
(2) The owner/operator of the collection/transmission system shall report to the Department all unauthorized releases or spills
of wastewater to surface or ground waters from its collection/transmission system or any other abnormal events as described below:
- 446
(a) Unauthorized releases or spills in excess of 1,000 gallons per incident, or other abnormal events where information
ndicates that public health or the environment will be endangered, shall be reported orally to the STATE WARNING POiNT
TOLL FREE NUMBER (800) 320-05I9 as soon as practical, but no later than 24 hours from the time that the owner/operator
becomes aware of the circumstances. The owner/operator, to the extent known, shall provide the following information to the State
Warning Point:
I. Name, address, and telephone number of person reporting;
2. Name, address, and telephone number of owner/operator of the collection/transmission system or responsible person for the
discharge;
3. Date and time of the discharge and status of discharge (ongoing or ceased);
4. Characteristics of the wastewater spilled or released (untreated or treated, industrial or domestic wastewater);
5. Estimated amount of the discharge;
6. Location or address of the discharge;
7. Source and cause of the discharge;
8. Whether the discharge was contained on -site, and cleanup actions taken to date;
9. Description of area affected by the discharge, including name of water body affected, if any; and
1 O.Other persons or agencies contacted.
(b) Unauthorized releases or spills of 1000 gallons per incident or less shall be reported orally to the Department within 24
hours from the time that the owner/operator of the collection/transmission system becomes aware of the circumstances.
(c) The oral notification shall be followed by a written submission, which shall be provided within five days of the time that the
owner/operator becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain: a description of the spill, release or
abnormal event and its cause; the duration including exact dates and time, and if it has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is
expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence. The Department shall waive the
written report if the oral report has been received within 24 hours from the time that the owner/operator of the collection/
transmission system becomes aware of the circumstances, and the release, spill or abnormal event has been corrected and did not
endanger health or the environment.
Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Luiv Implemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.062, 403.087, 403.088, 403.182 FS. Flislon—New 11-27-89,
Amended 6-4-92, 5-31-93, Formerly 17-604.550, Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03.
62-604.600 Procedure to Obtain Construction Permits.
(1) Except as noted in subsection (2) below, either a general or individual construction permit is required for the construction
or modification of any collection/transmission system in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) below.
(2) The following activities do not require a collection system permit.
(a) Replacement of any facilities with new facilities of the same capacity at the same location as the facilities being replaced;
(b) Construction of any single gravity or non -gravity individual service connection from a single building to a gravity
collection system; however, construction of a non -gravity connection from other than a single family residence to an existing force
main system requires a permit;
(c) Construction of a low pressure (grinder pump or STEP) or vacuum sewer individual service connection where the system
serving the area has been previously permitted by the Department;
(d) Installation of odor control facilities;
(e) Modifications associated with routine maintenance; or
(0 Modifications associated with ancillary and electrical equipment and structures.
(3) Each non-contiguous project shall require a separate application and fee pursuant to paragraph 62-4.050(4)(t), F.A.C.
(4) Collection/transmission systems can either be constructed under the general permit procedures and criteria specified in Part
III, Chapter 62-4, F.A.C., and subsection 62-604.600(6), F.A.C., or by individual permit specified in subsection 62-604.600(7),
F.A.C. Permittees shall comply with applicable design/performance criteria contained in this chapter as part of the permitting
standards under Chapter 62-4, F.A.C.
(5) Collection/transmission system permits shall be issued for a period no longer than five years, unless specifically authorized
by the Florida Statutes.
(6) General Permits.
(a) Except for alternative collection/transmission systems, a general permit is hereby granted to any person for the construction
of a wastewater collection/transmission system that has been designed in accordance with the standards and criteria set forth in
subsections 62-604.400(1) and (2), F.A.C., provided that:
1. Notice to the Department under subsection 62-4.530(l), F.A.C., is submitted on Form 62-604.300(8)(a) at least 30 days
prior to initiating construction; and
2. The wastewater facility to which the system will be connected:
a. Has the capacity to receive the wastewater generated by the proposed collection system;
b. Is in compliance with the capacity analysis requirements of Rule 62-600.405, F.A.C.;
c. Is not under a Department Order associated with effluent violations or the ability to treat wastewater adequately; and
- 447
d. Will provide the necessary treatment and disposal as required by Chapter 403, F.S., and applicable Department rules.
(b) This general permit is subject to the general conditions of Rule 62-4.540, F.A.C., and the following specific conditions:
1. This general permit does not relieve the pennittee of the responsibility for obtaining a dredge and fill permit where it is
required.
2. This general permit can not be revised, except to transfer the permit.
(7) Individual Permits.
(a) Collection/transmission systems not meeting the general pemlit criteria in subsection (6) above shall submit an application
for an individual permit on Form 62-604.300(8)(a), Notification/Application for Constructing a Domestic Wastewater Collection/
Transmission System, effective November 6, 2003. Copies of this form and instructions may be obtained by writing to the Bureau
of Water Facilities Regulation, Mail Station 3535, Department of Environmental Protection, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600
Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400. In addition, these forms are available at the Department's district offices and
on the Department's website.
(b) A Department permit shall be obtained prior to construction.
(8) Permit revisions for collection/transmission systems permitted under this rule shall only be made in accordance with
paragraph 62-4.050(4)(s), F.A.C. Request for revisions shall be made to the Department in writing and shall include the appropriate
fee. Revisions not covered under paragraph 62-4.050(4)(s), F.A.C., shall require a new pen -nit.
(9) If, after review of Form 62-604.300(8)(a) and any supporting documentation, the Department detennines that the applicant
has not provided reasonable assurance that the construction, modification, expansion, or operation of the installation will be in
accordance with applicable laws or rules, including rules of delegated local programs, the Department shall deny the permit or
notify the applicant that the general permit cannot be used, as appropriate.
Specific Authority 403.061, 403.087 FS. Laiv hnplemented 403.021, 403.061, 403.062, 403.085, 403.086, 403,087. 403.088 FS. Nislorl—Neiv
11-27-89, Amended 6-4-92, Formerly 17-604.600, Amended 11-6-03.
62-604.700 Placing Collection/Transmission Systems into Operation.
(1) The following requirements apply to collection/transmission systems permitted under the general permit and to collection/
transmission systems permitted under the individual permit.
(2) Upon completion of construction of the collection/transmission system, and before placing the facilities into operation for
any purpose other than testing for leaks or testing equipment operation, the permittee shall submit to the appropriate district office,
Form 62-604.300(8)(b), Request for Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System into Operation,
,ffective November 6, 2003. Copies of this form and instructions may be obtained by writing to the Bureau of Water Facilities
Regulation, Mail Station 3535, Department of Environmental Protection, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400. In addition, these forms are available at the Department's district offices and on the Department's
website.
(3) New or modified collection/transmission facilities shall not be placed into service until the Department clears the project
for use. The Department shall approve or deny the clearance within 10 business days after Department receipt of Form
62-604.300(8)(b) for a general permit, or within 30 business days for an individual permit.
Specific Authority 403.814(1) FS Law hnpleniented 403.061, 403.087, 403.088, 403.814 FS Nisloi} New 11-27-89, Amended 6-4-92, Formerly
17-604.700, Amended 12-26-96, 11-6-03.
- 448
Appendix D
Monroe County/FDEP/FKAA
Meeting Minutes for
Sugar Pine Wastewater Project
(July 7, 2008)
-4v �0 u�r- q:�
MINUTES
OF
MEETING FOR SUGAR PINE WASTEWATER PROJECT
MONROE COUNTY/ DEP /FKAA
July 7, 2008
Fort Myers/Marathon
Introductions made. See attached attendance list. Attendees from FDEP-
South District, Monroe County and FKAA were present.
Service Area of project presented by FKAA and discussion of the change
from initial Master Plan (three treatment plants) to revised plan with
one treatment plant on Cudjoe Key to handle the entire service area.
Project Schedule discussed. Design is underway and to be completed
within about 1 year. Permitting is to be completed within similar
timeframe, so,construction can begin on critical project elements by
middle of 2009. Construction will be phased for workload and financing
this large project.
Collection Systems
• System permit application can be submitted as dry line request,
as no plant is currently available. Can be 1 or more
applications, depending upon phasing, contiguous areas or
engineering break-out.
• FDEP input on system types
o Gravity preferred wherever possible for reliability
o E1 low pressure grinder pumping system/force mains okay
where gravity not available
• Need agreement with users for operations, easement,
and electrical supply
o Vacuum systems show failure, not preferred
o STEP not preferred. Problems with tanks and,maintenance
o STEG - none in District; question system capabilities
Page 1
• ERP permitting needs to cover any and all wetland areas being
crossed by the pipeline systems.
Channel Crossings
• Numerous waterway crossings are required for collecting and
transmitted the wastewater from the islands in the service area
to the new WRF on Cudjoe Key. Pipes will be attached to County
and FDOT bridges to the maximum extent possible and feasible. The
pipe alignment and details for these bridge crossings will be
presented in the collection system permit application documents.
• The Niles Channel crossing may be most feasible by attaching the
pipeline to the older bridge, currently under FDEP Heritage Park
jurisdiction. If this alignment proves the most feasible and
beneficial, a few hundred feet of open channel along this route
would require a submerged pipeline (since a portion of the old
bridge has been removed for navigation at the center of the
channel). Discussion over the different techniques:
o Open cut would be first choice. Construction means and
methods and pipe details would need to show minimization of
environmental impacts during and after construction.
o Easement and submerged land approval would be required.
o Directional drilling would be challenging in the fragmented
rock, per FDEP, as drilling mud could escape and could
cause both construction problems and environmental impacts.
• ERP permitting will need to cover the submerged pipeline
crossing, if selected as most feasible.
Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)
• •Project site located on unused cells of Cudjoe landfill
o County needs to apply for land use change as owner
o Agreement with FKAA for land use or ownership
o Current stormwater permit to under SFWMD jurisdiction;, but
new WRF will be FDEP jurisdiction
• Project phasing
o May apply for 2 phase permit. Phase 1 for under 1 MGD, and
Phase 2 to about 1.5 MGD
o Will allow sequencing to match collection system tie-in and
flow increase, and will allow disposal options to be better
pursued and financed
• Deep well requirements
o One or two wells required when plant flow approaches 1 MGD
Page 2
■ Will look at overall disposal options during WRF
preliminary design. A combination of reuse, shallow
wells, and single deep well may provide best long-term
operation.
• Reuse Feasibility Study is required per FDEP rule. FKAA and
Monroe County interested in reuse option for portion of service
area which looks cost competitive.
• Existing site will need evaluation for:
o Potential migration of landfill leachate resulting from
construction and/or operation of new WRF
o Potential location for deep well(s), as the preliminary
layout for WRF will be tight for 1.5 MGD AWT system
Summary of Activity Anticipated
1. Permitting
a. Dry -line Collection Systems - 2 applications:.
i. Central Islands (Mathews)
ii. Outer Islands (Chen)
b. Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) - 3 applications:
i. Pipeline routes and pump station locations, if needed
ii. WRF Site
iii. Niles Channel crossing.
C. WRF Permit Application for 2 phased flow approach
d. Injection well(s) - 2 phased approach
i. Shallow wells for initial plant flow
ii. Deep well(s) for second phase
e. Permittee
i. FDEP recommended joint application as permittee -
Monroe County/FKAA. Need further discussion and
clarification for various permits and areas of
responsibilities. Yet, FDEP would like similarity of
all applications of project.
Page 3
APPENDIX E
November 2010
Draft Environmental Assessment
Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvements Program
(FKWQIP)
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Monroe County, Florida
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District
Executive Summary
The United States (U.S.) Congress has directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
assist local municipalities and public utility companies in Monroe County, Florida, in the
planning and constriction of wastewater and stormwater improvements designed to accomplish
the following goals listed below:
• Reduce nutrient loading to the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary (Sanctuary);
• Improve water quality throughout the waters of the Sanctuary; and
• Comply with relevant federal and state regulatory standards.
A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was previously prepared by the Corps
for the proposed Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program (FKWQIP) in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 1500-1508).
These laws and regulations require the Corps to consider and address environmental issues when
funding a major federal action.
This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) tiers from the PEIS for the FKWQIP and hereby
incorporates the PEIS by reference, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. The Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority's (FKAA) proposed Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System will
address 12 of the 45 water quality hot spots in the Florida Keys identified in the Monroe County
Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (MCSWMP, Monroe County 2000) as requiring water quality
improvements.
The overall Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area (Service Area) is located in
the Lower Florida Keys, and extends from Mile Marker (MM) 17 to MM 33, and includes ten
islands (Figure ES-1):
• No Name
• Big Pine Key
• Little Torch Key
• Middle Torch Key
• Big Torch Key
• Ramrod Key
• Summerland Key
• Cudj oe Key
• Upper Sugarloaf Key
• Lower Sugarloaf Key
The FKAA and Monroe County have partnered through interlocal agreements to provide
wastewater conveyance and treatment strategies that will comply with the Monroe County
Master Plan and the standards mandated by the Florida Legislature. The cost-effectiveness of
various strategies has been evaluated and centralized sewer will be provided to a majority of the
residences and commercial businesses within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. These
centralized areas are referred to as "Hot Spot" areas and those decentralized areas where
centralized sewer is not deemed cost-effective are termed "Cold Spot" areas (Figure ES-2).
Draft Environmental Assessment i November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Ed
E
�
� \.\� j� ~�� �� �
\ �` / / . � �
4m
FA
E
Executive Summa
The proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) will use a five -stage Bardenpho system
capable of meeting Monroe County effluent standards. The proposed design capacity of the
WWTF is one MGD and the maximum anticipated flows will be 0.94 MGD, with a three-month
average daily flow of 0.84 MGD. The WWTF will use shallow well injection for effluent
disposal.
The proposed decentralized wastewater system will be centrally managed by the FKAA, as an
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Model 5 management entity. The proposal, as
described by USEPA Grant ID 83310702-0, is for the FKAA to replace onsite systems in areas
not scheduled to be provided with central sewer, with new Florida Department of Health
(FDOH) approved Best Available Technology (BAT) systems and provide complete
management of those systems. Cold Spot areas outside of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area
may undergo additional review not included in this Draft EA.
Purpose and Need
In recognition of the importance of improving water quality in the Sanctuary, the purpose of the
Proposed Action is to provide financial assistance to the FKAA for the planning and
implementation of a central wastewater system that will support the goals and objectives of the
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act (FKWQIA) and the FKWQIP. The Proposed
Action is needed to reduce nutrient and bacteria loading to the Sanctuary, improve water quality
in the Sanctuary, and comply with relevant federal and state regulatory standards.
The Sanctuary includes unique and nationally significant marine environments such as seagrass
meadows, mangrove islands, and the only living coral barrier reef in North America. Similar to
other Florida ecosystems, human activities during the past 100 years have affected water quality
in the Sanctuary. Bacteria and nutrients from human wastes, and chemicals such as pesticides
and mercury, that may reach this delicate ecosystem as a result of little or no treatment can
adversely impact water quality and pose a public health risk.
Water quality is critical to maintaining the marine ecosystem of the Sanctuary and influences the
coral reef and the organisms dependent on the reef. Numerous scientific studies have
documented the contribution of failing septic tanks and cesspools to the deterioration of canal
and nearshore water quality in the Florida Keys. In addition, research has suggested that
increased nutrient loadings from wastewater into canals and nearshore waters are one of the
major contributors to the decline of water quality within the Sanctuary.
Decision to be Made
Due to the capital costs of implementing the proposed water quality improvement projects,
municipal governments and public utility companies in the Florida Keys have requested
assistance from the Federal government to develop and implement wastewater treatment and
stormwater management actions that will reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality in
the Sanctuary. Based on the potential benefits of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System and
the adverse affects on the natural and manmade environment if water quality improvements are
not made, the Corps must decide whether to provide financial assistance to the FKAA in
Draft Environmental Assessment iv November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Executive Summa
developing and implementing wastewater improvements for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area.
Once the proposed system is completed Lower Keys residents and visitors can expect improved
water quality in the surrounding Sanctuary and nearshore waters.
Description of Alternatives
Wastewater project alternatives for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area provide the basis for
decision -making, thereby making up the core of this Draft EA. The three alternatives evaluated
as part of this Draft EA are described briefly below.
• Alternative 1: No Action. No federal agency would provide funding to the FKAA for
implementation of wastewater treatment improvement projects that would address state
mandates to meet wastewater treatment standards. Public entities would not constrict or
operate WWTFs. Lower Florida Keys residents, communities, and businesses would be
responsible for addressing state mandates aimed at improving water quality in the
Sanctuary.
• Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Provide federal financial assistance from the Corps, as
part of the FKWQIP, to develop and implement a centralized regional wastewater
collection and treatment system for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area that would address
mandatory state wastewater treatment standards.
• Alternative 3: Pursue Other Sources of Funding for Project Implementation. In the
absence of federal funding, provided by the Corps, alternative funding sources would be
pursued to implement projects for the FKAA that would address state mandates and
improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Sources of monies may include other state and
federal funding mechanisms (other than Corps) and/or additional costs levied against
Florida Keys residents.
While other funding sources are currently being evaluated to assist in implementing wastewater
improvement projects in the Lower Florida Keys, the proposed federal funding would expedite
constriction of the regional WWTF and associated infrastructure.
Scoping Issues
Public meetings for various stakeholders, interested parties, and Lower Keys residents were held
on December 8, 2008 and December 11, 2008. The scoping issues identified, which have guided
the preparation of this document, are listed below.
• Issue 1: Water Quality. A number of recent scientific studies have documented the
contribution of failing septic tanks and cesspools to the deterioration of the canal and
nearshore marine water quality in the Florida Keys. The studies attribute increased algal
blooms, seagrass die -off, and the decline in coral reef ecosystems health to inadequate
wastewater treatment. Scientists concur that one of the principal sources of water quality
degradation in the Sanctuary is the elevated level of nutrients in surrounding canals and
nearshore waters. The USEPA has concluded that the magnitude and extent of estimated
nutrient loadings from wastewater sources are regionally substantial (USEPA 1993).
Based on calculations prepared for similar central wastewater districts within the Florida
Draft Environmental Assessment v November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Executive Summa
Keys (Marathon, Islamorada and Key Largo), reductions in TN, TP and TSS loadings of
85-88, 79-81, and 77-91 percent, respectively, are anticipated for the Cudjoe Regional
Service Area as a result of implementing the proposed wastewater improvements.
• Issue 2: Facility Location. Vacant lands suitable for placement of a WWTF are scarce
in the Florida Keys. As a result, potential sites for a WWTF may include sensitive or
critical habitat for protected species (see issue 3, below). The proposed WWTF will be
constricted on approximately 3 acres of a larger 10.2 acre parcel that is located on
Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe County. Constriction of
sewer collection systems may cross naturally or culturally sensitive lands.
• Issue 3: Protected Species. The Florida Keys are a relatively small landmass in a
subtropical to tropical island setting and provide habitat for many rare and protected
plants and animals. Because remaining natural areas are scarce, any action by the FKAA
that results in the loss of natural areas has the potential to impact protected species.
Protected species that occur or may occur in the Service Area, associated habitats and
regulatory framework affecting these species, are addressed in this Draft EA.
Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be continual.
• Issue 4: Effluent Disposal. Residents within the Service Area currently rely on septic
tanks, cesspools, and package treatment facilities. Shallow injection wells may be used
for WWTFs with capacities less than one MGD. The Cudjoe Regional WWTF treated
effluent would be disposed of through 4 shallow injection wells once the centralized
WWTF is constricted. Shallow injection wells are governed by Chapter 62-528 Florida
Administrative Code (FAC). Shallow injection wells would be designed and constricted
to meet both Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Class V reliability
standards and FDEP Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V well constriction and
monitoring requirements.
• Issue 5: Tourism. The quality of life for tourists in the Florida Keys relies on a healthy
marine ecosystem and can be negatively impacted by water quality degradation. Over
two million individuals per year visit the Florida Keys to enjoy its unique natural
features. Water related activities, including snorkeling, diving, fishing, and other
activities support 70 percent of tourism in the Florida Keys, which generates over $1.3
billion per year and supports over 21,000 jobs. Poorly treated wastewater presents a
public health risk to nearshore water of the Florida Keys, which in turn can result in
beach advisories, decreases in tourism, and fewer individuals participating in recreational
activities in the Sanctuary.
• Issue 6: Environmental Justice. Nearly 25 percent of population within the Service
Area is made up of individuals regarded as either low income or over 65 years of age.
Approximately 7.7 percent of the population was living below the poverty level in 2008,
and the portion of residents over the age of 65 is estimated to be approximately the same
as that of the county and state (14.7 percent and 17.6 percent, respectively). This
segment of the population often lives on fixed incomes and, while their income may not
be below the poverty level, they are affected by cost of living changes. These factors
suggest that while the majority of the residents within the Service Area are above poverty
levels, there are considerable impacts to residents associated with the costs of the Cudjoe
Regional Wastewater System, raising potential environmental justice concerns.
Draft Environmental Assessment vi November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Executive Summa
Comparison of Alternatives
The alternatives examined as part of this Draft EA were premised on the need to implement
water quality improvement projects that will reduce nutrient loading and result in commensurate
water quality improvements in the Sanctuary. The environmental consequences are summarized
in Table ES-1.
ES-1
ComparisonTable
Resulting from the Alternative Actions
Alternative 3
Scoping Issue
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative Funding
No Action ProposedAction
,Sources
Adverse impacts due to
Benefits of centralized
Continued degradation
continued untreated
wastewater treatment
of water quality is
,,vaste,,vater runoff and
include water quality
anticipated until
associated nutrients, toxins,
improvements due to
funding is obtained to
bacteria, and viruses to canals
decreased nutrient and other
construct all the
and nearshore waters in the
contaminants into canals
regional WWTF.
1. Water
Sanctuarn-. State and federal
and nearshore waters of the
Piece -meal construction
Quality
mandates to improve ,vater
Sanctuary. Reductions in
may delay full
quality in the Sanctuary may
TN, TP and TSS loadings
achievement of project
not be addressed.
between 85-88, 79-81 and
and program objectives.
77-91 percent, respectively,
are anticipated. These
improvements will address
state and federal legislation.
No impacts are anticipated.
Net environmental benefits
Impacts similar to those
No lands be required for
due to improved ,vater
described under the
the location and construction
quality. The facility is
Proposed Action area
2. Facility
of ,vaste,,vater facilities.
located at a
expected.
Location
Therefore, ,with the exception
decommissioned landfill,
of the other Scoping issues,
contain little to no
existing residences, fish and
ecological value.
,,wildlife habitats, and land
Therefore, no adverse
uses not be disrupted.
impacts are anticipated.
Adverse impacts to protected
Section 7 USFWS/ National
Impacts similar to those
species anticipated as a result
Marine Fisheries Service
described under the
of continued runoff of
(NMFS) consultation and
Proposed Action are
untreated ,vaste,,vater into
Florida Fish and Wildlife
expected, ,with delays in
�. Protected
canals and nearshore ,waters
Conservation Commission
benefits, in addition to
Species
and subsequent ,water quality
(FFWCC) for protected
potentially greater
degradation. Because no neNV
species -will occur as
impacts due to larger
facilities would be required,
needed. No critical habitat
number of smaller
no impacts to habitat for
-will be impacted.
facilities being
protected species are
constructed.
anticipated.
Adverse impacts anticipated
Construction of centralized
Construction of sewers
4. Effluent
as a result of unchanged
sewers -will expedite the
-will be less effective
Disposal
effluent disposal practices.
removal of cesspools, septic
due to fragmented
Runoff from cesspools and
tanks and associated
approach. Delays in
Draft Environmental Assessment vii November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Executive Summa
septic tanks -will continue to
enter canals and nearshore
waters in the Sanctuarv.
pollutants in the Cudjoe
Regional hot spots.
construction are also
anticipated.
Increasing impacts anticipated
Improved ,vater quality
Improved water quality
related to Nvater quality
would decrease the
would decrease the
degradation. Continued beach
incidence of beach
incidence of beach
health advisories would
advisories and closings,
advisories and closings,
adversely affect immediate
thereby increasing the
thereby increasing the
5. Tourism
recreational and tourist
opportunity for saltwater-
opportunity for
opportunities, and long-term
based recreation.
saltwater -based
impacts could be detrimental
Temporary adverse impacts
recreation albeit at a
to tourism and the local
would include
slower pace than the
economy.
transportation delays due to
Proposed Action.
construction activities.
Adverse impacts to lo-,N--
Without special
Without special
income households who will
consideration and financial
consideration and
have difficulties affording the
assistance, low-income and
financial assistance,
6. Environmental
cost of meeting 2015
fixed -income households
low-income and fixed -
Justice
mandates for wastewater
may have difficulty paying
income households may
treatment are expected.
for wastewater hook-up and
have difficulty paying
service fees.
for wastewater hook-up
and service fees.
Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative is Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, the
Corps would provide financial assistance to the FKAA for planning and implementation of a
wastewater improvement project that would reduce nutrient loads and pollutants to nearshore
waters in the Sanctuary.
Areas of Controversy
Controversial issues associated with FKWQIP include the cost of program implementation, the
means of recovering initial capital investment, and the means of generating revenues to support
maintenance and operational activities.
The disposal of wastewater effluent into the groundwater through injection wells and the
potential for groundwater contamination is of concern to the public. Most wastewater in the
Service Area remains untreated or inadequately treated. Disinfecting and treating the effluent to
AWT standards and disposing of it via injection wells is an acceptable alternative. The proposed
wastewater improvements for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System would use shallow well
injection.
Draft Environmental Assessment viii November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................... i
Tableof Contents...................................................................................................... ix
Listof Tables......................................................................................................xiii
Listof Figures.....................................................................................................xiv
Listof Acronyms....................................................................................................... xv
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action.......................................................................1
1.1 Authorization................................................................................................2
1.2 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area ............................... 2
1.3 Purpose and Need....................................................................................... 5
1.4 Decision to be Made....................................................................................8
1.5 Scoping Issues............................................................................................ 8
1.6 Related Environmental Documents............................................................. 9
1.7 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements......................................10
1.8 Summary of Prior Regulatory Action.........................................................10
1.9 Document Organization.............................................................................10
2.0 Description of Alternatives.............................................................................12
2.1 Delineation of Alternatives.........................................................................12
2.2 Description of Alternatives.........................................................................13
2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action): No Implementation of Wastewater
Treatment Improvement Projects for the Cudjoe Regional Service
Area....................................................................................................13
2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Provide Federal Financial
Assistance to Develop and Implement Wastewater Improvement
Projects for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area...................................13
2.2.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources): Pursue Other Sources
of Funding for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area...............................19
2.3 Comparison of Alternatives.......................................................................19
2.4 Preferred Alternative.................................................................................. 21
2.5 Summary of Mitigation Requirements for Florida City RO Plant................21
3.0 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 23
3.1 Climate...................................................................................................... 24
Draft Environmental Assessment ix November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Table of Contents
3.2 Geology, Topography and Soils................................................................24
3.3 Water Resources.......................................................................................26
3.3.1 Ground Water.....................................................................................
26
3.3.2 Surface Waters and Stormwater Runoff .............................................
26
3.3.3 Nearshore and Offshore Waters.........................................................
27
3.4 Water Quality.............................................................................................28
3.4.1 Ground Water Quality.........................................................................
28
3.4.2 Surface Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff ...................................
29
3.4.3 Nearshore and Offshore Water Quality...............................................29
3.5 Ecological Habitats....................................................................................
30
3.5.1 Upland Habitats..................................................................................
32
3.5.2 Non -Native and Invasive Species.......................................................
32
3.5.3 Estuarine and Freshwater Wetland Habitats .......................................
33
3.5.4 Marine and Benthic Habitats...............................................................34
3.6 Protected Species.....................................................................................34
3.6.1 Regulatory Framework........................................................................
36
3.6.2 Federally and State Protected Species in the Service Area ................
36
3.6.3 Protected Species Occurrences.........................................................
37
3.6.4 Existing and Potential Habitat Areas for Protected Species................41
3.7 Essential Fish Habitat................................................................................42
3.8 Air Quality and Noise.................................................................................42
3.9 Cultural Resources....................................................................................
44
3.10 Demographics and Socioeconomics.........................................................47
3.10.1 Demographics....................................................................................48
3.10.2 Socioeconomics.................................................................................50
3.11 Recreation.................................................................................................
51
3.12 Environmental Justice...............................................................................52
3.13 Land Use and Planning.............................................................................
53
3.13.1 Land Use...........................................................................................
53
3.13.2 Conservation Areas...........................................................................
55
3.13.3 Future Land Use................................................................................
55
3.13.4 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)............................................
58
Draft Environmental Assessment X November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Table of Contents
3.13.5 Floodplain Management.................................................................... 58
3.14 Infrastructure.............................................................................................60
3.14.1 Transportation....................................................................................60
3.14.2 Utilities and Services..........................................................................61
3.15 Hazardous Materials and Domestic Waste ................................................ 62
4.0 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................63
4.1 Climate......................................................................................................
67
4.2 Geology, Topography and Soils................................................................67
4.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)....................................................................
67
4.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).........................................................
68
4.2.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) .......................................
68
4.3 Water Resources.......................................................................................68
4.4 Water Quality.............................................................................................69
4.4.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)....................................................................
69
4.4.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).........................................................
69
4.4.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources).......................................71
4.5 Ecological Habitats....................................................................................
71
4.5.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)....................................................................
71
4.5.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).........................................................
73
4.5.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources).......................................75
4.6 Protected Species.....................................................................................76
4.6.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)....................................................................
76
4.6.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).........................................................
76
4.6.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources).......................................77
4.7 Essential Fish Habitat................................................................................77
4.7.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)....................................................................
78
4.7.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).........................................................
78
4.7.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources).......................................78
4.8 Air Quality and Noise.................................................................................
78
4.8.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)....................................................................
78
4.8.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).........................................................
78
4.8.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) .......................................
79
Draft Environmental Assessment xi
November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Table of Contents
4.9 Cultural Resources.................................................................................... 79
4.9.1 Alternative 1 (No Action).................................................................... 79
4.9.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)......................................................... 79
4.9.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) ....................................... 80
4.10 Demographics and Socioeconomics......................................................... 80
4.11 Recreation................................................................................................. 80
4.11.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................... 80
4.11.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)........................................................ 80
4.11.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) ...................................... 81
4.12 Open Space and Aesthetic Resources......................................................81
4.12.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................... 81
4.12.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)........................................................ 81
4.12.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) ...................................... 81
4.13 Environmental Justice...............................................................................82
4.13.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................... 82
4.13.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)........................................................ 82
4.13.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) ...................................... 84
4.14 Land Use and Planning............................................................................. 84
4.14.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................... 84
4.14.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)........................................................ 85
4.14.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) ...................................... 85
4.15 Infrastructure............................................................................................. 85
4.15.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................... 85
4.15.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)........................................................ 86
4.15.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) ...................................... 86
4.16 Hazardous and Toxic Materials................................................................. 86
4.16.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)...................................................................86
4.16.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)........................................................ 87
4.16.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources) ...................................... 87
4.17 Predicted Attainment of the Program Objectives.......................................87
4.18 Predicted Cumulative Impacts...................................................................87
4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts...........................................92
Draft Environmental Assessment Xii November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Table of Contents
4.20 Indirect Affects........................................................................................... 92
4.21 Compatibility with Federal, State and Local Objectives .............................93
4.22 Conflicts and Controversy......................................................................... 93
4.23 Uncertain, Unique or Unknown Risks ........................................................ 94
4.24 Energy Commitments and Conservation Potential....................................94
4.25 Relationship between Short -Term Uses and Long -Term Productivity ....... 94
4.26 Environmental Commitments.....................................................................94
4.27 Compliance with Environmental Requirements ......................................... 95
5.0 Public Involvement........................................................................................ 98
5.1 Public Involvement for Master Plans......................................................... 98
5.2 Public Involvement for PEIS...................................................................... 99
5.3 Scoping and Public Involvement for Cudjoe Regional EA ......................... 99
6.0 Conclusion...................................................................................................100
7.0 Bibliography.................................................................................................102
8.0 Glossary......................................................................................................127
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table ES-1
Comparison of Environmental Consequences Resulting from the
Alternative Actions..............................................................................
vii
Table 2-1
Design Wastewater Influent and Effluent Characteristics ...................17
Table 2-2
Comparison of Environmental Consequences Resulting from the
Alternative Actions..............................................................................19
Table 3-1
Relationship between Scoping Issues and Environmental
Resources...........................................................................................
24
Table 3-2
USDA Soil Map Units in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area ...............
25
Table 3-3
Area and Percent Cover of Water and Wetlands in the Cudjoe
Regional Service Area........................................................................
27
Table 3-4
Habitat Types in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area ...........................
32
Table 3-5
Benthic Habitat Types within 500-Meter Buffer of the Cudjoe
Regional Service Area........................................................................
34
Draft Environmental Assessment iii November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Table of Contents
Table 3-6
Summary of Protected Species Occurrences in the Cudjoe
Regional Service Area.......................................................................
36
Table 3-7
Protected Species Occurrences Records ...........................................
37
Table 3-8
Documented Archaeological and Historic Sites in the Cudjoe
Regional Service Area........................................................................
45
Table 3-9
Demographic Characteristics for Year 2000, Cudjoe Regional
ServiceArea.......................................................................................
48
Table 3-10
Recreation Days in Monroe County: 12-Month Period 1995 - 1996....
52
Table 4-1
Comparison of Environmental Consequences Resulting from the
Alternative Actions..............................................................................
65
Table 4-2
Potential Cumulative Impacts as a Result of the Proposed
Wastewater Improvement Project.......................................................89
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure ES-1 Cudjoe Regional Service Area ........................................................
Figure ES-2 Hot Spot and Cold Spot Areas within the Cudjoe Regional Service
Area.....................................................................................................
iii
Figure 1-1
Cudjoe Regional Service Area..............................................................3
Figure 1-2
Hot Spot and Cold Spot Areas within the Cudjoe Regional Service
Area......................................................................................................
6
Figure 2-1
Conceptual Site Plan for the Proposed Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility...........................................................16
Figure 3-1
Habitat Types within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area .....................
31
Figure 3-2
Marine and Benthic Habitats within a 500-Meter Buffer Zone around
the Cudjoe Regional Service Area......................................................35
Figure 3-3
Biodiversity Hot Spots within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area........
43
Figure 3-4
Existing Land Use Classes within the Cudjoe Regional Service
Area....................................................................................................
54
Figure 3-5
Conservation Lands within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area ...........
56
Figure 3-6
Future Land Use Classes within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area ..
57
Figure 3-7
Coastal Barrier Resource System within the Cudjoe Regional
ServiceArea.......................................................................................
59
Draft Environmental Assessment Xiv November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
List of Acronyms
AFVP
Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants
AIRFA
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
ARPA
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
ASTM
American Society of Testing and Materials
ATU
Aerobic Treatment Units
AWT
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
BAT
Best Available Technology
BFE
Base Flood Elevation
BLS
Below Land Surface
BMPs
Best management practices
BNR
Biological Nutrient Removal
BOCC
Board of County Commissioners
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
CBIA
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act
CBRA
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
CBRS
Coastal Barrier Resource System
CDBGs
Community Development Block Grants
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
CERP
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
Corps
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CWA
Clean Water Act
CZMA
Coastal Zone Management Act
dBA
Decibel
DIN
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
DOI
Department of Interior
EA
Environmental Assessment
EDU
Equivalent Dwelling Unit
EFH
Essential Fish Habitat
EO
Executive Order
ERP
Environmental Resource Permit
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FAC
Florida Administrative Code
FCMP
Florida Coastal Management Program
FDCA
Florida Department of Community Affairs
FDEP
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDER
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
FDOH
Florida Department of Health
FDOT
Florida Department of Transportation
FFWCC
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Draft Environmental Assessment xv November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
List of Acro
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIU
Florida Atlantic University
FKAA
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
FKCCS
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study
FKEC
Florida Keys Electric Cooperative
FKWQIA
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act
FKWQIP
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program
FLUM
Future Land Use Maps
FNAI
Florida Natural Areas Inventory
FPL
Florida Power and Light
GIS
Geographical Information System
GPD
Gallons per day
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
KEYS Keys Energy Services
LOS Level of Service
MCSWMP Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
MGD
Million gallons per day
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
MHI
Median Household Income
MM
Mile Marker
MSA
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
NAGPRA
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NHPA
National Historical Preservation Act
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI
Notice of Intent
NPDES
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
O&M
Operations and Maintenance
OFW
Outstanding Florida Waters
OSTDS
On -site sewage treatment and disposal system
OWNRS
On -site wastewater nutrient reduction systems
OWTS
On -site wastewater treatment systems
PCBs
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PEIS
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
ppm
Parts per million
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Draft Environmental Assessment ,vi November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
List of Acro
ROGO Rate of Growth Ordinance
ROWS Rights of Way
Sanctuary Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
SCUBA Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus
SERC Southeast Environmental Research Center
Service Area Cudjoe Regional Service Area
SFA
Sustainable Fisheries Act
SFWMD
South Florida Water Management District
SHCA
Strategic Habitat Conservation Area
SHPO
State Bureau of Historic Preservation Office
TN
Total nitrogen
TOC
Total organic carbon
TP
Total phosphorus
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
UIC
Underground Injection Control
USDW
Underground Source of Drinking Water
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WQPP Water Quality Protection Program
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
ZCTA Zip Code Tabulation Area
Draft Environmental Assessment Xwii November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action
The United States (U.S.) Congress has directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
assist local municipalities and public utility companies in Monroe County, Florida, in the
planning and constriction of wastewater and stormwater improvements designed to accomplish
the following goals listed below:
• Reduce nutrient loading to the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary (Sanctuary);
• Improve water quality throughout the waters of the Sanctuary; and
• Comply with relevant federal and state regulatory standards.
A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was previously prepared by the Corps
for the proposed Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program (FKWQIP) in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 1500-1508).
These laws and regulations require the Corps to consider and address environmental issues when
funding a major federal action.
The PEIS prepared by the Corps provides a framework to address potential environmental
impacts associated with design and implementation of eligible wastewater treatment projects for
the FKWQIP. This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) tiers from the PEIS for the FKWQIP
and hereby incorporates the PEIS by reference, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. The
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority's (FKAA) Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment System
will address 12 of the 45 water quality hot spots in the Florida Keys identified in the Monroe
County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (MCSWMP, Monroe County 2000) as requiring water
quality improvements.
The overall Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area (Service Area) is located in
the Lower Florida Keys, and extends from Mile Marker (MM) 17 to MM 33, and includes ten
islands (from north to south):
• No Name Key
• Big Pine Key
• Little Torch Key
• Middle Torch Key
• Big Torch Key
• Ramrod Key
• Summerland Key
• Cudj oe Key
• Upper Sugarloaf Key
• Lower Sugarloaf Key
The scope of the project is the constriction of a centralized wastewater treatment system to
service residents and commercial businesses located in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. The
proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) would use a five -stage Bardenpho system
capable of meeting Monroe County effluent standards. This technology is considered
appropriate for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area because it is a very stable and consistent
Draft Environmental Assessment 1 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action
method of meeting the stringent nutrient removal standards. The anticipated plant flows are less
than one Million Gallons per Day (MGD), so the WWTF will use shallow well injection for
effluent disposal. The proposed design capacity of the WWTF is one MGD.
This section of the Draft EA explains the purpose and need for the federal action and the
decision to be made by the Federal government. Authorizing legislation for the FKWQIP is
described and the Cudjoe Regional Service Area delineated. Relevant issues and related
environmental documentation addressed during the scoping process are discussed. Finally, the
organization of the Draft EA is outlined.
1.1 Authorization
Under authority of Section 109 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act (Public Law106-554 (114
Stat. 2763A-222) dated December 21, 2000 (Appendix A of the PEIS), the Corps is authorized to
provide technical and financial assistance to carry out projects for the planning, design, and
constriction of treatment works to improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Typically, large
programs of this nature are not in accordance with Administration Program priorities of the
Corps (i.e. navigation, flood control, or environmental restoration). However, non-traditional
projects are routinely undertaken by the Corps as "work for others."
The Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act (FKWQIA) authorizes Congress to
appropriate up to $100 million for FKWQIP projects for the planning and constriction of
wastewater and stormwater improvements in the Florida Keys. The total cost of the proposed
project is an estimated $174 million.
1.2 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area
The overall Cudjoe Regional Service Area is located in the Lower Florida Keys, and extends
from MM 17 to MM 33 (see Figure 1-1). The Service Area is bordered on the north by Florida
Bay and on the south by the Atlantic Ocean. Additionally, most of the Service Area lies with the
fragmented boundaries of the Florida Keys Wildlife Refuges Complex, which includes the
National Key Deer Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge. The following
islands are located within the Service Area.
No Name Kev
No Name Key is located east of Big Pine Key, and is approximately 3 miles north of U.S.
Highway 1. The island covers approximately 998 acres, and is sparsely settled. No Name Key
lies within the heart of the National Key Deer Refuge, and is positions just south of the Great
White Heron National Wildlife Refuge.
Big Pine KeV
Big Pine Key is located between MM 29.5 and MM 33. The island covers approximately 6330
acres, making it the largest island within the Service Area. With the exception of several
moderately -populated subdivisions the island is sparsely settled. In general, businesses are
located along the U.S. Highway 1 corridor. Additionally, a shopping center is located just north
of the highway, between Wilder Road and Key Deer Boulevard. Big Pine Key lies within the
Draft Environmental Assessment 2 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Ed
M
Phi
E
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action
heart of the National Key Deer Refuge and is bordered on the north by the Great White Heron
National Wild Refuge.
Little Torch Kev
Little Torch Key is located between MM 28 and MM 29, and is immediately preceded to the
northeast by Big Pine Key. The island covers approximately 790 acres, and has a population
mostly confined to several moderately -populated subdivisions. Business activities are limited to
a few resort -style marinas and one restaurant. Little Torch Key is positioned just south of the
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. Portions of Little Torch Key lie within the
fragmented boundaries of the National Key Deer Refuge.
Middle Torch Kev
Middle Torch Key is located west of Little Torch Key. The island covers approximately 833
acres, and is sparsely settled. Middle Torch Key lies within the heart of the National Key Deer
Refuge and is positions just south of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge.
Big Torch Kev
Big Torch Key is located northwest of Big Torch Key. The island covers approximately 1562
acres, and is sparsely settled. Big Torch Key is accessed from Middle Torch Key and does not
have direct access to U.S. Highway 1. Big Torch Key lies within the heart of the National Key
Deer Refuge and is bordered on the north by the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge.
Ramrod Kev
Ramrod Key is located between MM 26 and MM 27.5, just to the southwest of Little Torch Key.
The island covers approximately 1030 acres, and has a similar population density to most of the
islands in the Lower Keys. Ramrod Key is positioned just south of the Great White Heron
National Wildlife Refuge. Portions of Ramrod Key lie within the fragmented boundaries of the
National Key Deer Refuge.
,S'unnverland Kev
Summerland Key is located between MM 24 and MM 25.5, directly west of Ramrod Key. The
portion of island lying south of U.S. Highway 1 is moderately populated and includes a private
residential airstrip, while the portion north of the highway is sparsely settled. Similar to other
islands in the Lower Keys, businesses are located along the U.S. Highway 1 corridor.
Summerland Key is positioned just south of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge.
Portions of Summerland Key lie within the fragmented boundaries of the National Key Deer
Refuge.
Cudjoe Kev
Cudjoe Key is located between MM 20.5 and MM 23, directly west of Summerland Key, and
covers approximately 3580 acres. Similar to Summerland Key the majority of development is
located on the south side of U. S. Highway 1. A solid waste transfer station is located
Draft Environmental Assessment 4 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action
approximately one mile north of the highway and a half mile west of Blimp Road. The proposed
wastewater facility, which will serve the Cudjoe Regional Service Area, will be located adjacent
to the west side of a county transfer station. Cudjoe Key is bordered on the northwest side by the
Great White Heron National Wild Refuge. Portions of Cudjoe Key lie within the fragmented
boundaries of the National Key Deer Refuge.
Upper Sugarloaf Key
Upper Sugarloaf Key is located between MM 19 and MM 20.5, directly southwest of Cudjoe
Key. The island covers approximately 2300 acres, and is sparsely settled. Business activities are
limited and there is a school on the corner of U.S. Highway 1 and Crane Boulevard, which serves
pre-K thru Grade 8. Upper Sugarloaf Key is bordered on the north side by the Great White
Heron National Wild Refuge. Portions of Upper Sugarloaf Key lie just within the fragmented
boundaries of the National Key Deer Refuge
Lolrer ,Sugarloaf Key
Lower Sugarloaf Key is located between MM 16.5 and MM 17.5, directly southwest of Upper
Sugarloaf Key. The island covers approximately 710 acres. The portion of island lying to the
south of U.S. Highway 1 is moderately populated. North of the highway is a resort -style lodge,
which includes a private airstrip, restaurant, marina, several small businesses and volunteer fire
station. Lower Sugarloaf Key lies just south of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge.
The FKAA and Monroe County have partnered through Interlocal Agreements to provide
wastewater conveyance and treatment strategies that will comply with the Monroe County
Master Plan and the standards mandated by the Florida Legislature. The cost-effectiveness of
various strategies has been evaluated and centralized sewer will be provided to a majority of the
population within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area where cost-effective. These centralized
areas are referred to as "Hot Spot' areas and those decentralized areas where centralized sewer is
not deemed cost-effective are termed "Cold Spot' areas (Figure 1-2).
The proposed decentralized wastewater system will be centrally managed by the FKAA, as an
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Model 5 management entity. The proposal, as
described by USEPA Grant ID 83310702-0, is for the FKAA to replace onsite systems in areas
not scheduled to be provided with central sewer, with new Florida Department of Health
(FDOH) approved Best Available Technology (BAT) systems and provide complete
management of those systems. Cold Spot areas outside of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area
may undergo additional review not included in this Draft EA.
1.3 Purpose and Need
In recognition of the importance of improving water quality in the Sanctuary, the purpose of the
Proposed Action is to provide financial assist to the FKAA for the planning and implementation
of a central wastewater system that will support the goals and objectives of the FKWQIA and
FKWQIP. The Proposed Action is needed to reduce nutrient and bacteria loading to the
Sanctuary, improve water quality in the Sanctuary, and comply with relevant federal and state
regulatory standards.
Draft Environmental Assessment 5 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
P6�
To
O
O
vs
LL
J2
0
TZ
Qz
r -o
LiO
Ed
11C
E
CZ
U
cz
O
ti)
U
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action
The Sanctuary includes unique and nationally significant marine environments such as seagrass
meadows, mangrove islands, and the only living coral barrier reef in North America. Similar to
other Florida ecosystems, human activities during the past 100 years have affected water quality
in the Sanctuary. Bacteria and nutrients from human wastes, and chemicals such as pesticides
and mercury, that may reach this delicate ecosystem as a result of little or no treatment, can
adversely impact water quality and pose a public health risk.
Water quality is critical to maintaining the marine ecosystem of the Sanctuary and influences the
coral reef and the organisms dependent on the reef. Numerous scientific studies have
documented the contribution of failing septic tanks and cesspools to the deterioration of canal
and nearshore water quality in the Florida Keys. In addition, research has suggested that
increased nutrient loadings from wastewater into canals and nearshore waters are one of the
major contributors to the decline of water quality within the Sanctuary.
Most communities in the Florida Keys, with the exception of those within newly constricted
central wastewater districts, rely on septic tanks, cesspools, and package treatment facilities and
shallow injection wells for sewage disposal. These systems, if not properly operated, allow
bacteria and nutrients to leach into nearshore waters. In some nearshore areas where water
quality is monitored, beaches have been posted for health advisories due to fecal coliform
bacteria contamination of surface waters after moderate rainfall events.
Within the Service Area there are approximately 7000 potable water customers. In the absence
of a centralized wastewater system it is estimated that there are a similar number of onsite
systems presently being used in the Service Area.
Average estimated reductions in wastewater loading to nearshore waters in the Florida Keys due
to implementation of the FKWQIP are on the order of 69 and 73 percent in Total Nitrogen (TN)
and Total Phosphorus (TP) loadings, respectively, using Advance Water Treatment (AWT)
standards. Based on calculations prepared for similar central wastewater districts (Marathon,
Islamorada and Key Largo) within the Florida Keys, reductions in TN, TP, and Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) loadings between 85-88, 79-81, and 77-91 percent, respectively, are anticipated for
the Cudjoe Regional Service Area as a result of implementing the proposed wastewater
improvements.
The FKWQIP was created in response to regulatory requirements and in the interest of protecting
public health and water quality. At the federal level, the Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990
directed the USEPA and the State of Florida to develop a water quality protection plan for the
Sanctuary. Locally, the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandates nutrient loading
reductions in the marine ecosystem by the year 2010 and that wastewater systems meet more
stringent Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. It is important to note that the Monroe County
2010 Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated to reflect the state's newly -extended 2015
deadline for advanced wastewater treatment.
Draft Environmental Assessment 7 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action
1.4 Decision to be Made
Due to the high capital costs of implementing the proposed water quality improvement projects,
municipal governments and public utility companies in the Florida Keys have requested
assistance from the Federal government to develop and implement wastewater treatment and
stormwater management actions that will reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality in
the Sanctuary. Based on the potential benefits of the Cudjoe Central Wastewater System and the
adverse affects on the natural and manmade environment if water quality improvements are not
made, the Corps must decide whether to provide financial assistance to the FKAA in developing
and implementing wastewater improvements for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. Once the
proposed system is completed, Lower Keys residents and visitors can expect improved water
quality in the surrounding Sanctuary and nearshore waters.
1.5 Scoping Issues
Under the NEPA, federal agencies are required to determine the scope of issues to be addressed
for a project and identify the significant issues related to the Proposed Action. This process is
called "scoping".
Public meetings for various stakeholders, interested parties, and Lower Keys residents were held
on December 8, 2008 and December 11, 2008. The Scoping issues identified, which have guided
the preparation of this document, are listed below.
• Issue 1: Water Quality. A number of recent scientific studies have documented the
contribution of failing septic tanks and cesspools to the deterioration of the canal and
nearshore marine water quality in the Florida Keys. The studies attribute increased algal
blooms, seagrass die -off, and the decline in coral reef ecosystems health to inadequate
wastewater treatment. Scientists concur that one of the principal sources of water quality
degradation in the Sanctuary is the elevated level of nutrients in surrounding canals and
nearshore waters. The USEPA has concluded that the magnitude and extent of estimated
nutrient loadings from wastewater sources are regionally substantial (USEPA 1993).
Based on calculations prepared for similar central wastewater districts within the Florida
Keys (Marathon, Islamorada and Key Largo), reductions in TN, TP and TSS loadings of
85-88, 79-81, and 77-91 percent, respectively, are anticipated for the Cudjoe Regional
Service Area as a result of implementing the proposed wastewater improvements.
• Issue 2: Facility Location. Vacant lands suitable for placement of a WWTF are scarce
in the Florida Keys. As a result, potential sites for a WWTF may include sensitive or
critical habitat for protected species (see issue 3, below). The proposed WWTF will be
constricted on approximately 3 acres of a larger 10.2 acre parcel that is located on
Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe County. Constriction of
sewer collection systems may cross naturally or culturally sensitive lands.
• Issue 3: Protected Species. The Florida Keys are a relatively small landmass in a
subtropical to tropical island setting and provide habitat for many rare and protected
plants and animals. Because remaining natural areas are scarce, any action by the FKAA
Draft Environmental Assessment 8 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action
that results in the loss of natural areas has the potential to impact protected species.
Protected species that occur or may occur in the Service Area, associated habitats, and
regulatory framework affecting these species, are addressed in this Draft EA.
Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be continual.
• Issue 4: Effluent Disposal. Residents within the Service Area currently rely on septic
tanks, cesspools, and package treatment facilities. Shallow injection wells may be used
for WWTFs with capacities less than two MGD. The Cudjoe Regional WWTF treated
effluent would be disposed of through 4 shallow injection wells once a centralized
WWTF is constricted. Shallow injection wells are governed by Chapter 62-528 Florida
Administrative Code (FAC). Shallow injection wells would be designed and constricted
to meet both Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Class V reliability
standards and FDEP Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V well constriction and
monitoring requirements.
• Issue 5: Tourism. The quality of life for tourists in the Florida Keys relies on a healthy
marine ecosystem and can be negatively impacted by water quality degradation. Over
two million individuals per year visit the Florida Keys to enjoy its unique natural
features. Water related activities, including snorkeling, diving, fishing, and other
activities support 70 percent of tourism in the Florida Keys, which generates over $1.3
billion per year and supports over 21,000 jobs. Poorly treated wastewater presents a
public health risk to nearshore water of the Florida Keys, which in turn can result in
beach advisories, decreases in tourism, and fewer individuals participating in recreational
activities in the Sanctuary.
• Issue 6: Environmental Justice. Nearly 25 percent of population within the Service
Area is made up of individuals regarded as either low income or over 65 years of age.
Approximately 7.7 percent of the population was living below the poverty level in 2008,
and the portion of residents over the age of 65 is estimated to be approximately the same
as that of the county and state (14.7 percent and 17.6 percent, respectively). This
segment of the population often lives on fixed incomes and, while their income may not
be below the poverty level, they are affected by cost of living changes. These factors
suggest that while the majority of the residents within the Service Area are above poverty
levels, there are considerable impacts to residents associated with the costs of the Cudjoe
Regional Wastewater System, raising potential environmental justice concerns.
1.6 Related Environmental Documents
Documents related to the Cudjoe Regional WWTF and water quality improvements in the
Service Area that may influence the scope of this Draft EA include the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Wastewater
Improvements in the Florida Keys (2002) and the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study
(FKCCS) (Corps 2002). These and other relevant documents are discussed in the PEIS.
Draft Environmental Assessment 9 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action
1.7 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements
Under the NEPA of 1969 and the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 to
1508), the Corps must consider the environmental consequences of proposed federal actions
(Proposed Action). Accordingly, the Corps has prepared this document to evaluate the
environmental consequences of constricting the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System. These
project -specific improvements include wastewater collection, treatment and disposal options.
This Draft EA tiers from the PEIS for the FKWQIP as described previously.
1.8 Summary of Prior Regulatory Action
A historical chronology of regulations applicable to the constriction of wastewater treatment
improvements and stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Florida Keys was
provided in the previously prepared PEIS to inform the reader of the more stringent Florida
statutory treatment standards that will confront residents and commercial entities of Monroe
County in the coming years. The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (1997)
mandated reductions in nutrient loadings to the marine ecosystem by the year 2010. Currently,
the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is being updated to reflect the state's newly -
extended 2015 deadline for advanced wastewater treatment. In 1998, the Florida Governor
issued Executive Order (EO) 98-309, directing local and state agencies to coordinate with
Monroe County in the implementation of their Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to eliminate
cesspools, failing septic systems, and other substandard On -Site Wastewater Treatment Systems
(OWTS).
1.9 Document Organization
The basic elements of a Draft EA, as well as all applicable sub -elements, are presented in this
document. Subsequent individual sections of the Draft EA are listed and briefly described
below.
• Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives. Presents a description of alternatives,
including the Proposed Action, considered in the planning of the Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater System, thereby providing the basis for decision -making.
• Chapter 3. Affected Environment. A description of existing conditions within the
Cudjoe Regional Service Area. Provides a context in which to evaluate the alternatives.
• Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences. This chapter provides an analysis of the
potential environmental consequences anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action
considered as part of this Draft EA.
• Chapter 5. Public Involvement. Water quality and the need to reduce nutrient loading
in the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys, including the Cudjoe Regional Service Area,
are of interest to regulatory agencies and citizens alike. Consequently, public
participation has been an important component throughout the preparation of this Draft
EA to ensure compliance with the intent of NEPA and other applicable statutes.
Draft Environmental Assessment 10 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action
• Chapter 6. Conclusion. In this chapter, conclusions regarding potential environmental
impacts of the three alternative actions proposed for the Cudj oe Regional Wastewater
System to the physical, biological and human environment within the Cudjoe Regional
Service Area are presented.
• Chapter 7. Bibliography. The bibliography documents the literature cited throughout
the Draft EA as well as documents used during the preparation of the Draft EA that were
not specifically cited.
• Chapter 8. Glossary of Terms.
SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Environmental Assessment 11 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
2.0 Description of Alternatives
Wastewater project alternatives for the FKAA's Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Service
Area are described and evaluated in this section, providing the basis for decision making and
thereby making up the core of this Draft EA. While this chapter relies on supporting information
presented in Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment and Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences, it
is in this chapter that the environmental consequences are clearly and concisely differentiated for
each of the alternatives. The three alternatives evaluated as part of this Draft EA are listed below
and discussed in the sections that follow.
• Alternative 1: No Action. No federal agency would provide funding to the FKAA for
implementation of wastewater treatment improvement projects that would address state
mandates to meet wastewater treatment standards. Public entities would not constrict or
operate WWTFs. Lower Florida Keys residents, communities, and businesses would be
responsible for addressing state mandates aimed at improving water quality in the
Sanctuary.
• Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Provide federal financial assistance from the Corps, as
part of the FKWQIP, to develop and implement a regional wastewater collection and
treatment system for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area that would address mandatory
state wastewater treatment standards.
• Alternative 3: Pursue Other Sources of Funding for Project Implementation. In the
absence of federal funding, provided by the Corps, alternative funding sources would be
pursued to implement projects for the FKAA that would address state mandates and
improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Sources of monies may include other state and
federal funding mechanisms (other than Corps) and/or additional costs levied against
Florida Keys residents.
While other funding sources are currently being evaluated to assist in implementing wastewater
improvement projects in the Lower Florida Keys, the proposed federal funding would expedite
constriction of the regional WWTF and associated infrastructure.
2.1 Delineation of Alternatives
The enabling legislation for the Act directs the Corps to coordinate with local and state agencies
as part of the planning process identifying the developing water quality improvement projects
designed to decrease nutrient loading and improve the water quality of the Sanctuary. At the
programmatic level, the alternatives analysis examined the potential environmental effects of
alternative proposed water quality improvement projects to identify those with the greatest
potential for improving water quality throughout the Sanctuary.
Planning at the county level has also addressed water quality improvements in the Florida Keys,
primarily in response to the mandated Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. In addition, local
municipalities in Monroe County have prepared sanitary wastewater treatment master plans
during the past eight years. Consequently, the water quality improvements projects proposed for
the FKAA have undergone a rigorous analysis of alternatives, including facility siting and
treatment technology applications. Therefore, additional plan formulation was not undertaken
for this project -specific activity. It should be noted that MCSWMP recommendations included
Draft Environmental Assessment 12 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
2.0 Description of Alternatives
the constriction of wastewater treatment systems to serve the highest ranked "hot spot areas" for
the Lower Florida Keys.
2.2 Description of Alternatives
Three alternatives have been proposed for improved wastewater treatment for the Cudjoe
Regional Service Area, and are described in the following sections.
2.2.1 Alternative I (No Action): No Implementation of Wastewater Treatment
Improvement Projects for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area
Under the No Action alternative, no federal funding would be provided to the FKAA, as part of
the FKWQIP, for needed improvements or upgrades to wastewater collection and treatment
systems that would address state mandates to improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Residents
and commercial businesses in the Service Area would continue using on -site systems, such as
cesspools and septic tanks, to treat wastewater.
Reliance on individual and privately owned cluster or package treatment facilities would
continue under the No Action alternative. Individual property owners and commercial businesses
would be responsible for meeting the defined Level of Service (LOS) standards prescribed by
county ordinance or state regulation. Public entities would not own or operate any of the
proposed WWTF. Under the No Action alternative, the residents within the Service Area would
not benefit from financial assistance, which would otherwise be provided by the Federal
government.
2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Provide Federal Financial and Technical
Assistance to Develop and Implement Wastewater Improvement Projects for the
Cudjoe Regional Service Area.
The Proposed Action includes financial assistance for the FKAA to constrict a WWTF and
associated infrastructure to serve the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. The Proposed Action
would accomplish the goals listed below:
• Meet objectives of the Act;
• Address local and regional water quality issues;
• Achieve nutrient loading reductions and commensurate improvements in water quality in
nearshore waters of the Service Area and subsequently, the Sanctuary; and
• Comply with federal and state mandated regulatory water quality treatment standards in a
timely manner.
The Proposed Action would include new service to residents with OWTSs in the Service Area.
All single-family residences and almost all small commercial entities currently use some type of
OWTS, either permitted/unpermitted septic tank systems, or illegal cesspools. Once the
proposed facility is completed, residents would be connected to the new collection system over
an anticipated two to three year period of time.
Draft Environmental Assessment 13 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
2.0 Description of Alternatives
The concept of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) has been employed in the planning process to
compare the costs of various wastewater alternatives. EDUs are also utilized in the
apportionment of the costs of wastewater management implementation. As defined by the
FKAA, a single dwelling unit is considered one EDU and non-residential EDUs are based on a
minimum of one EDU per parcel, equivalent to an average day water use of 167 Gallons Per Day
(GPD). Non-residential EDUs are calculated by dividing the average day water used of the
three highest consecutive months during a consecutive 24-month period by 167 gallons. Water
use records are used to estimate wastewater discharge. Growth projections for projected
wastewater flows were completed for 2008 and 2018. The estimated increase in total wastewater
flow in all of the Florida Keys for the entire 20-year planning period (1998 to 2018) is 1.0 MGD,
or about 14 percent (MCSWMP).
At the owner's expense, existing residential septic systems and cesspools would be removed
from residences and businesses in the Service Area. Similarly, service recipients would be
responsible for the installation of conveyance pipes from their residence or business to the
wastewater collection system service lateral to the street. Removal of existing systems would be
phased in accordance with constriction of the collection system, and pursuant to FDOH
requirements.
2.2.2.1 Alternative Site Selection
The decommissioned -landfill site located on Cudjoe Key is one of 13 sites originally evaluated
for the proposed WWTF as part of the Wastewater Facilities Plan (Monroe County 1998) that
was developed as part of the Comprehensive Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan for Monroe
County. Potential sites throughout the Cudjoe Regional Service Area were evaluated with
respect to location, existing and future land use, adjacent land uses, general environmental and
habitat considerations, present ownership, development constraints, and cost. The
decommissioned -landfill site is preferred primarily because of its centralize location within the
Service Area and existing land use. Additionally, the site has already been improved and cleared
of vegetation.
2.2.2.2 Wastewater Collection and Transmission System
Several wastewater collection options are available throughout the Florida Keys, as described in
the PEIS (Section 2.2.2.1). Conventional gravity and low pressure sewer systems are the
preferred wastewater collection technology for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. An analysis
of alternative wastewater collection systems concluded a hybrid system should be implemented
consisting of a combination of (1) conventional gravity sewer systems to serve the densely
populated areas; and (2) low pressure sewers to serve the less dense and outer reaching areas.
Collection System. Wastewater would be conveyed from houses and businesses via
transmission lines to lift stations located in or near the Rights of Way (ROWS) in the Service
Area. Service laterals necessary for residential connections to the collection system would be
provided up to the ROW. Connection to the collection system would be the responsibility of the
property owner. Soil would be excavated for the installation of gravity sewer mains, lift stations,
and gravity service laterals.
Draft Environmental Assessment 14 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
2.0 Description of Alternatives
Conventional Gravity. Conventional gravity flow sewer systems are the most widely used
method of wastewater collection in residential and other developed areas. In a conventional
gravity sewer system wastewater is transported by gravity from each service connection to a
main gravity sewer. The main gravity sewer is sloped to provide a flow velocity adequate to
convey solids and minimize settling. Manholes area placed on the sewer lines at intervals of 300
to 400 feet and at all intersections and changes of slopes. Manholes allow access for inspection,
cleaning and repair. Because of the continuous slope, the depth of gravity sewers increases with
distance downstream until the depth becomes too great for economical constriction. Typically,
for the Florida Keys this depth is 8 feet due to the subsurface conditions. Once the maximum
depth is reached, a lift station is required to pump the wastewater to a shallower gravity -sewer
system manhole, through a force main to another lift station, which will ultimately pump through
a force main system to the regional WWTF. The Cudjoe Regional Service Area will rely on
numerous lift stations, of which five will be master pump stations that pump directly to the
WWTF.
Low Pressure. Low pressure systems utilize a small grinder pump station at each wastewater
source and small -diameter, low pressure force mains for transmission either to lift stations or
directly to a WWTF. The grinder pump station accepts the entire wastewater stream from the
residence or business and is not used in conjunction with a septic tank. Stations serving single
residential units typically utilize fiberglass or HDPE wet -wells 24 to 30 inches in diameter. The
grinder pumps typically range from 1 to 3 horsepower, depending on the type of pump selected
and the number of units served by the pump station. All solids in the waste stream are ground to
a slurry and pumped through small diameter pressure sewers. Since these systems do not rely on
gravity, the sewers can be constricted with minimum cover. Since there are no septic tanks
utilized in low pressure pump systems, installation costs and seepage handling costs associated
with the septic tanks are avoided.
Transmission System Components. Wastewater would be conveyed from the lift stations to
the wastewater collection tank at the WWTF through 6- to 14-inch force mains. There will be
one transmission main constricted in the ROW of U.S. Highway 1, before it diverts toward the
WWTF along Blimp Road.
2.2.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Facility
Site Description. The proposed WWTF will be constricted on approximately 3 acres of a larger
10.2 acre parcel and is located on Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe
County (Figure 2-1). The site is cleared and contains existing stormwater retention swales.
The WWTF site is in close proximity to a tropical hardwood hammock. However, the limits of
the constriction footprint are located solely within previously developed land associated with the
former Monroe County landfill. No native upland or wetland habitats are located on the
proposed WWTF site.
Draft Environmental Assessment 15 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Alil
ER
ICI
,rrJ
z
+
I
Ed
11C
E
cz
2.0 Description of Alternatives
2.2.2.4 Construction Activities
Proposed constriction includes building the WWTFs and associated infrastructure, installing
treatment tanks, underground and aboveground transmission lines, pumping stations, and sand or
fabric filtration facilities. Removal of septic systems and pipeline trenching activities would
occur throughout the Service Area at the residents' expense.
Excavation activities for the collection system and WWTF site development, transmission lines,
and septic tank and cesspool removals would require heavy constriction equipment, such as
trenching equipment, excavators, bulldozers, front-end loaders, and dump tricks to transport
material, equipment, and constriction debris. Existing utilities within the ROWS on either side
of U.S. Highway 1 may require the constriction of portions of the wastewater collection mains,
force mains, and transmission mains under one or more paved lanes of U.S. Highway 1, resulting
in temporary traffic delays in proximity to the constriction. All constriction will meet Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) requirements to minimize traffic impacts, and conform to
FDOT standards for restoration of roadways. Depending on the time required for constriction
on U.S. Highway 1, constriction may take place during evening hours.
All constriction activities would be conducted pursuant to applicable facility planning regulation
at the state level.
2.2.2.5 Operation and Maintenance
The new WWTF would be operated and maintained by the FKAA.
Wastewater Treatment Components. Design of the new WWTF include the facility, storage for
maintenance, treatment, effluent disposal and operations materials, parking, paved access roads,
and emergency power. The WWTF design includes influent flow measurement and pretreatment
screening, Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) reactors, chlorine contact basins, sludge holding
facilities, odor control equipment as required, four shallow injection wells, and ancillary
equipment such as pumps and blowers to support each unit process.
Wastewater Treatment System Operation. The WWTF will generally include a field -erected
treatment facility, an emergency power generator, four shallow inject wells, headworks, odor
treatment, an operations building, facility pump station, and a blower/electrical building. Roads
and stormwater retention will also be included. Influent and effluent concentrations for which
the facilities will be designed are as noted in Table 2-1 below.
1Influent
Parameter
Table
and Effluent Characteristics
Influent Concentration
Effluent Concentration
BOD 5
172 parts per million ( m)
5 ppm
TSS
216 ppm
5 ppm
TN
54 ppm
3 ppm
TP
8 ppm
1 ppm
Draft Environmental Assessment 17 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
2.0 Description of Alternatives
WWTF would provide biological treatment, solids removal, nitrogen and phosphorus removal,
filtration, effluent disinfection and disposal to injection wells. A flow meter would measure and
record the wastewater flow into the WWTF.
Bardenpho-Process technology is proposed for the WWTF. The overall Bardenpho Process is
similar to a conventional activated sludge flowsheet. Raw or settled sewage enters the biological
reactor and is mixed with return settled sludge. Mixed liquor from the reactor flows to a clarifier
where biological solids are removed from the treated wastewater and are recycled to a reactor
basin. A portion of the sludge is wasted, removing excess cell material generated during
processing. Sludge wasting also removes phosphorus from the system.
The Bardenpho system is an advance modification of the activated sludge process consisting of a
multi -stage biological reactor. High levels of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), suspended
solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus removal are consistently achieved without the use of chemicals.
Influent is mixed with activated sludge, returned from the final clarifier, in the fermentation
stage. After contact, liquid is transported to an anoxic zone where it is mixed with nitrates from
the nitrification zone. Oxygen, which is added in the nitrification zone, converts BOD to carbon
dioxide, and ammonia to nitrate. In the second anoxic zone, nitrate is reduced to nitrogen gas.
The final stage of the Bardenpho Process is a reaeration zone where the dissolved oxygen
concentration is the mixed liquor is increased to prevent phosphorus from being released in the
final clarifier.
The Cudjoe Regional WWTF design is a five -stage Bardenpho-Process domestic wastewater
treatment plant. The permitted (FLA671932-001) capacity for the facility's three-month average
daily flow is 0.84 MGD. The major unit operation units of the headworks are two fine screens,
two bar racks and two 140,000-gallon equalization tanks. The WWTF will have two clarifiers
with 60-foot diameters. There are two filter units, which each having four disk filters. The
surface area of each disk is 53.8 square feet. The disinfection system consists of two 7,600-
gallon chlorine contact chambers and a gaseous chlorine feed system. The solids processing
facilities consist of two rotary drum thickeners, a thickening polymer feed system, two 50,000-
gallon aerated sludge holding tanks, a dewatering polymer feed system and one centrifuge.
Effluent and Sludge Disposal. By-products of the wastewater treatment process include liquid
effluent and a solids residual or sludge.
EffJnent Disposal. Effluent disposal for the proposed WWTF would be through shallow well
injection. Shallow injection wells are considered Class V wells by the EPA, and the required
effluent quality is dependent in the capacity of the WWTF. The effluent quality for the proposed
WWTF is as stated in Table 2-1.
These wells will extend 110 feet below ground with an 80-foot casing in the upper portion of the
well. The effluent gravity flows through the upper cased portion of the well and out through the
lower 30-foot portion of the well into a porous limestone formation. Chlorine would be added to
effluent to reduce risk form bacterial and viral organisms.
Draft Environmental Assessment 18 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
2.0 Descrintion of Alternatives
,Sludge Disposal. Current plans for managing sludge at the proposed site include temporary
storage followed by off -site processing and disposal.
2.2.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources): Pursue Other Sources of Funding for
the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Improvement Projects
Under Alternative 3, Alternative Funding Sources, including state and federal funding
alternatives (other than Corps funds), would be pursued to implement the Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater Improvement Project. This alternative is not within the jurisdiction of the Corps and
no monies would be obtained from the Corps. Consequently, the project would be implemented
as funding became available, potentially delaying full implementation. The overall potential
impacts of implementing Alternative Funding ,Sources are briefly summarized below:
• Fail to meet objectives of the Act until alternate funding is identified and obtained;
• Delay addressing local and regional water quality issues;
• Delay nutrient loading reductions and commensurate improvements in water quality in
nearshore waters of the Service Area and subsequently, the Sanctuary; and
• Delay compliance with federal and state regulatory water quality standards until all
funding is made available.
2.3 Comparison of Alternatives
The alternatives examined as part of this Draft EA were premised on the need to implement
water quality improvement projects that will reduce nutrient loading and result in commensurate
water quality improvements in the Sanctuary. The environmental consequences are summarized
in Table 2-2 and a more detailed analysis is presented in Chapter 4.0 Environmental
Consequences.
31'
t.itimpaimitin ici' 1 1 1 lences
Resulting from the Alternative Actions
Alternative 3
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Scoping Issue
Alternative Funding
No Action Proposed Action
,Sources
Adverse impacts due to
Benefits of centralized
Continued degradation
continued untreated
,vaste,,vater treatment
of water quality is
,,vaste,,vater runoff and
include water quality
anticipated until
associated nutrients, toxins,
improvements due to
funding is obtained to
bacteria, and viruses to canals
decreased nutrient and other
construct all the
and nearshore waters in the
contaminants into canals
regional WWTF.
3. Water
Sanctuary. State and federal
and nearshore waters of the
Piece -meal construction
Quality
mandates to improve ,vater
Sanctuary. Reductions in
may delay full
quality in the Sanctuary may
TN, TP and TSS loadings
achievement of project
not be addressed.
between 85-88, 79-81 and
and program objectives.
77-91 percent, respectively,
are anticipated. These
improvements will address
state and federal legislation.
Draft Environmental Assessment 19 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
2.0 Descrintion of Alternatives
No impacts are anticipated.
Net environmental benefits
Impacts similar to those
No lands -will be required for
due to improved water
described under the
the location and construction
quality. The facility is
Proposed Action area
4. Facility
of wastewater facilities.
located at a
expected.
Location
Therefore, -with the exception
decommissioned landfill,
of the other scoping issues,
contain little to no
existing residences, fish and
ecological value.
wildlife habitats, and land
Therefore, no adverse
uses -will not be disrupted.
impacts are anticipated.
Adverse impacts to protected
Section 7 USFWS/ National
Impacts similar to those
species anticipated as a result
Marine Fisheries Service
described under the
of continued runoff of
(NMFS) consultation and
Proposed Action are
untreated ,vaste,,vater into
Florida Fish and Wildlife
expected, with delays in
�. Protected
canals and nearshore waters
Conservation Commission
benefits, in addition to
Species
and subsequent water quality
(FFWCC) for protected
potentially greater
degradation. Because no new
species will occur as
impacts due to larger
facilities would be required,
needed. No critical habitat
number of smaller
no impacts to habitat for
will be impacted.
facilities being
protected species are
constructed.
anticipated.
Adverse impacts anticipated
Construction of centralized
Construction of sewers
as a result of unchanged
sewers will expedite the
will be less effective
4. Effluent
effluent disposal practices.
removal of cesspools, septic
due to fragmented
Disposal
Runoff from cesspools and
tanks and associated
approach. Delays in
septic tanks continue to
pollutants in the Cudjoe
construction are also
enter canals and nearshore
Regional hot spots.
anticipated.
,,eaters in the Sanctuarv.
Increasing impacts anticipated
Improved ,vater quality
Improved ,vater quality
related to ,vater quality
,vould decrease the
,vould decrease the
degradation. Continued beach
incidence of beach
incidence of beach
health advisories ,vould
advisories and closings,
advisories and closings,
adversely affect immediate
thereby increasing the
thereby increasing the
5. Tourism
recreational and tourist
opportunity for salt,,vater-
opportunity for
opportunities, and long-term
based recreation.
salt,,vater-based
impacts could be detrimental
Temporary adverse impacts
recreation albeit at a
to tourism and the local
,vould include
slo,,ver pace than the
economy.
transportation delays due to
Proposed Action.
construction activities.
Adverse impacts to lo,,N--
Without special
Without special
income households who
consideration and financial
consideration and
have difficulties affording the
assistance, lo,,N--income and
financial assistance,
6. Environmental
cost of meeting 2015
fixed -income households
lo,,N--income and fixed -
Justice
mandates for ,vaste,,vater
may have difficulty paying
income households may
treatment are expected.
for,,vaste,,vater hook-up and
have difficulty paying
service fees.
for,,vaste,,vater hook-up
and service fees.
Draft Environmental Assessment 20 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
2.0 Description of Alternatives
2.4 Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative is Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, the
Corps would provide financial assistance to the FKAA for implementation of a wastewater
improvement project that would reduce nutrient loads and pollutants to nearshore waters in the
Sanctuary.
2.5 Summary of Mitigation Requirements
Some unavoidable impacts may occur as a result of the Proposed Action and would require
mitigation. Proposed mitigation measures are described below.
Biological Resources. Minimal to no adverse impacts to biological resources are anticipated as
a result of the proposed project. The collection system will be constricted in previously
disturbed ROW. However, minimal avoidable impacts to mangrove habitat may occur as a result
of installing portions of the transmission main along U.S. Highway 1. The WWTF will be
constricted on a former solid waste site, containing no vegetation. Additionally, no wetlands
occur within the proposed WWTF constriction foot print. If unanticipated adverse impacts to
biological resources occur during constriction, appropriate mitigation will be required.
Cultural Resources. The results of a Florida Master Site files review indicated a total of 39
archaeological sites and 49 historic strictures throughout the Service Area. However, no known
archaeological or historic sites are located on, or in direct proximity to, the proposed WWTF site.
Additionally, the proposed wastewater infrastructure will be constricted within previously
distributed ROW. Consequently, no affect on historic, archaeological, or cultural resources is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Should any historic or archeological item be
discovered during project work, all activities would be terminated and the FKAA would consult
with the Corps, State Bureau of Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other appropriate
agencies for further guidance.
Environmental Justice. EO 12898 directs federal agencies to provide for participation by
minorities and low income populations in the federal decision -making process and further directs
agencies to fully disclose any adverse effects of plans and proposals on minority and low-income
populations. As described in the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program (FKWQIP)
PEIS, over 25 percent of the Florida Keys population is made up of individuals regarded as
either low income or over 65 years of age. The segment of population over the age of 65 often
lives on fixed incomes and while their income may not be below the poverty level, they are
affected by cost of living changes. These factors suggest that while the majority of the residents
within the Service Area are above poverty levels, there are considerable impacts to residents
associated with the costs of the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System, raising potential
environmental justice concerns. Four potential approaches that the FKAA may elect to address
for this issue are presented below, as previously outlined in the PEIS.
Draft Environmental Assessment 21 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
2.0 Description of Alternatives
• Subsidize Connection Fees. Subsidize the cost of connection for residents. The
principal issue associated with providing subsidies for this group of residents is the
source of funding, which could be provided by the water treatment utility or local
government property tax revenues. In each case, the potential for funding would have to
be evaluated.
• Subsidize the Recurring Cost of Sewer Service. Again, the principle issue would be the
source of funding. A major difference between funding requirements for subsidizing
connection charges and recurring charges is the continuing nature of the recurring
charges.
• Implement a Modified Rate Structure Based on Water Volume Use. Apply different
service fees based on the volume of water actually used. Such a rate stricture would
include a very low base charge for the first 3,000 gallons of water use per month, with a
sharply increasing charge for greater volumes of water use.
• Subsidize Abandonment of Existing Onsite Treatment Facilities. Subsidize the cost of
abandoning onsite treatment (i.e., septic tank and drainage field) for low income of fixed
income residents. As stated above, the principle issue would be the source of funding.
SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Environmental Assessment 22 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
A PEIS was previously prepared by the Corps for the proposed FKWQIP. The PEIS was
prepared in accordance with the NEPA, the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR
1500-1508), and FEMA regulations (44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations). These
laws and regulations require the Corps to consider and address issues when funding any federal
action.
The PEIS was published in the Federal Register in September 2004 and provides a framework to
address potential environmental impacts associated with design and implementation of the
FKWQIP. This Draft EA tiers off from the PEIS for the FKWQIP and thereby incorporates the
PEIS by reference, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. The Proposed Action is the
constriction of a centralized wastewater treatment system to service residents and commercial
businesses located in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. The proposed design capacity of the
WWTF is one MGD.
The affected environment addressed by this Draft EA lies within the Cudjoe Regional Service
Area, which extends from MM 17 to MM 33, and includes ten islands (from north to south):
• No Name Key
• Big Pine Key
• Little Torch Key
• Middle Torch Key
• Big Torch Key
• Ramrod Key
• Summerland Key
• Cudj oe Key
• Upper Sugarloaf
• Lower Sugarloaf
The environmental components addressed in the Draft EA are summarized in Table 3-1. While
global or regional conditions such as climate will not be affected by the alternatives under
consideration, habitat, protected species, environmental justice, and water quality are issues of
concern and are therefore evaluated in appropriate detail. This chapter provides a current
baseline against which comparisons of alternatives discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental
Consequences, can be made.
SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Environmental Assessment 23 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Table 3-1
Relationship Between Scoping Issues and Environmental Resources
Scoping Issues
Affected Environment po
W
W
3.1
Climate & Rainfall
3.2
Geology, Topography & Soils
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.3
Water Resources
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.4
Water Qualit
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.5
Ecological Habitats
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.6
Protected Species
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.7
Essential Fish Habitat
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.8
Air Quality & Noise
✓
3.9
Cultural Resources
✓
3.10
Demographics & Socioeconomics
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.11
Recreation
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.12
Open Space & Aesthetic Resources
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.13
Environmental Justice
✓
✓
✓
3.14
Land Use & Plannin
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
3.15
Infrastructure
✓
3.16
Hazardous Materials & Domestic Waste
✓
3.1 Climate
Climate
The climate in the Lower Keys is the same as that described for the Florida Keys in the PEIS
(Section 3.1). The Florida Keys are marked by a wet summer season (June to October)
characterized by numerous thunderstorms, while winters (November to May) are dry with
infrequent, fast-moving cold fronts (30-40 each year). Precipitation in the Florida Keys is low
compared with other portions of Florida. Rainfall averages 40 inches per year and peaks in June
and late September and accounts for most of the precipitation in the Florida Keys.
3.2 Geology, Topography & Soils
The geology, topography and soils in the Florida Keys are described in the PEIS (Section 3.2).
The Florida Keys make up a low-lying archipelago extending from Key Largo to Key West for
approximately 110 miles and covering 66,000 acres. The islands are located at the southernmost
Draft Environmental Assessment 24 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
tip of the Florida Platform. Coral reefs roughly define the southern boundary of the Florida
Platform. Just east of the Platform, the depth increases to 2,640 feet or more into the Straits of
Florida and to nearly 10,000 feet deep farther west in the Gulf (Randazzo and Halley 1997).
The Lower Keys geologic portion, extending from Lower Matecumbe Key to Key West, is
comprised of rock of oolitic (limestone made up of small spherical grains) origin, referred to as
the Miami Limestone Oolite (Randazzo and Halley 1997). These oolitic islands are thought to
have formed as a sub -tidal marine ooid-shoal, during a sea level high during the Pleistocene
Epoch. The oolitic rock of the Lower Keys contains an abundance of marine fossils while quartz
makes up a relatively small portion of the rock. The Miami Oolite in the Lower Keys is oriented
perpendicular to the continental shelf and has the configuration of a tidal bar with low flooded
areas between the bars (Evans 1987).
Service Area. Soil maps of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area (U.S. Department of Agriculture
[USDA] Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 1990) indicate nine soil map units in
the Service Area. Cudjoe tidal complex is the dominate soil type, covering approximately 33.7
percent of the Service Area. Key Vaca gravelly loam is the second most dominant cover type,
comprising approximately 12.3 percent of the Service Area. Udorthents (11.5%) and
Matecumbe muck (9.3%) comprise the third and fourth dominant soil types within the Service
Area. The remaining six soil types make up approximately 25.6 percent of the Service Area, and
are Saddlebunch marl, Matecumbe muck, Lignumvitae marl, Key Largo muck and Islamorada
muck (Table 3-2).
Table 3-2
USDA Soil Map Units in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area
Soil Map Unit Area acres of Interest Percent
Cudjoe tidal complex
6791.2
33.7 %
Key Vaca gravelly loam
2479.6
12.3 %
Udorthents
2320.3
11.5 %
Matecumbe muck
1870.2
9.3 %
Cudjoe marl
1859.0
7.3 %
Saddlebunch marl
1416.7
7.0 %
Li numvitae marl
892.0
4.4 %
Islamorada muck
526.0
2.6 %
Key Largo muck
484.9
2.4 %
The Cudjoe tidal complex consists of shallow, poorly drained, moderately to moderately rapid
permeable soils in tidal and other flooded areas of the Florida Keys. They formed in calcareous
marl over rippable coral or oolitic limestone. Depth to bedrock ranges from 3 to 20 inches.
Reaction ranges from neutral to moderate alkaline throughout. Most areas of Cudjoe soils are
used as wildlife habitat. The dominant native vegetation is black mangrove, red mangrove and
white mangrove, along with saltwort, glasswort and poisonwood (USDA-NRCS 2003).
Draft Environmental Assessment 25 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
The Udorthents soils complex is composed of crushed oolitic limestone or coral bedrock spread
over original soil material and consequently does not support vegetation growth. These soils are
moderately well drained and have a water table at two to four feet Below Land Surface (BLS)
during the wet season. Houses and other urban strictures occur on approximately 40 percent of
the Udorthents in the Florida Keys (USDA 1990).
Nearly 77 percent of the soils in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are poorly drained soils with
high runoff potential, while the remaining soils have more moderate infiltration and runoff
characters (USDA 1990). There are no prime farmlands in Monroe County that fall under the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
WWTF Location. The Cudjoe Regional WWTF location was once made up entirely of Key
Vaca gravelly loam (USDA 1990). However, in conjunction with the original landfill, a primary
liner was installed covered by a total of two feet of sand.
3.3 Water Resources
Ground water, surface waters, nearshore and marine waters in the Florida Keys are the
environmental resources targeted by the FKWQIP and the project for the Lower Keys, as
described in the PEIS (Section 3.3). The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System will address 12 of
the 45 water quality hot spots in the Florida Keys (Monroe County 2000).
3.3.1 Ground Water
Service Area. Water in the Biscayne Aquifer provides a potable water source only on the
mainland of Florida, although the geologic stricture extends as far as the Florida Keys. The
aquifer ranges from brackish to saline throughout the Florida Keys and is not used as a potable
water source (that is, it is not a designated underground source of drinking water, or USDW)
except as input for desalination systems. The FKAA is the sole provider of potable water for all
residents of the Florida Keys and no new domestic water supply wells have been permitted in the
Florida Keys since 1986 (FEMA 2002). However, a freshwater lens on Big Pine Key has been
the subject of published water -resources studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
WWTF Location. Geotechnical borings revealed ground water at depths of about 3 feet below
the existing ground surface. Those depths are at elevations just above mean sea level which is
typical for a coastal site. The water table at the site should be expected to fluctuate several feet
in response to the bay tides (Jammal & Associates, Inc. 1987).
3.3.2 Surface Waters and Stormwater Runoff
Service Area. Surface waters make up approximately 59.4 percent of the Cudjoe Regional
Service Area and include artificial ponds, canals and boat basins, in addition to mangroves,
Draft Environmental Assessment 26 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
estuaries and freshwater marshes (Table 3-3). Inland canals and access channels in the Florida
Keys are often 10 to 20 feet in depth and discharge directly to the ocean, as described in the PEIS
(Section 3.3). In a 1985 study, the FDEP (formerly Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation [FDER]) concluded that the majority of the Florida Keys met the criteria for
designation as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs), except canals and other specific areas.
Many of the canal systems tested exhibited low values of dissolved oxygen, high nutrient values,
and violations of the fecal coliform standard (Knuczynski, W. 1999).
Area and Percent Cover of Water and
Wetland Habitat Type
Table 3-3
Wetlands in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area
Area acres of Interest Percent
Freshwater Marsh
967.43
4.8 %
Salt Marsh
1302.21
6.5 %
Mangrove Swamp
2582.13
12.8 %
Scrub Mangrove
4237.59
21.0 %
Buttonwood
1669.41
8.3 %
Open Water
1217.92
6.0 %
Total
20176.64
59.4 %
Subsequent recommendations made by EPA and the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) through an interagency workshop for the Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP)
(1996) for the poorly designed canal systems included installation of BAT wastewater treatment
of stormwater runoff, and improvements to canal circulation.
WWTF Location. There are no surface waters in the proposed WWTF location. Stormwater
runoff is contained onsite by existing berms and stormwater retention areas.
3.3.3 Nearshore and Offshore Waters
Service Area. The Cudjoe Regional Service Area includes nearshore waters of the Gulf of
Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, which are home to the largest living coral reef system in the U.S.
The reef system provides habitat for 80 percent of fish species in the U.S., and most
commercially valuable fish species depend on nearshore waters at some point during their
development, as described in the PEIS (Section 3.3.3). In addition to valuable fish and wildlife
habitat, nearshore and marine waters provide numerous recreational opportunities, such as
boating, diving, swimming, snorkeling and fishing. In general, nutrient pollutants from the
Florida Keys have greater nearshore affects than offshore affects due to dilution by tides and
currents (Kruczynski 1999, Szmant and Forrester 1996).
WWTF Location. The propose WWTF does not occur on or directly adjacent to nearshore or
offshore waters.
Draft Environmental Assessment 27 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
3.4 Water Quality
The purpose of the proposed WWTF for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area is to decrease the
discharge of nutrients and other pollutants and consequently improve water quality in the
Sanctuary, consistent with the mission of state and federal entities. The proposed project is
designed to protect the biodiversity, natural beauty and recreational opportunities of the Florida
Keys that are important to Florida's tourism industry which make up a significant part of the
nation's collective natural resources.
The water quality of the nearshore environment of the Florida Keys is affected by nutrient
loading from approximately 23,000 private onsite systems and 246 small wastewater treatment
plants. Onsite systems are comprised of approximately 15,200 permitted septic systems, 640
Aerobic Treatment Units (ATUs) and 7,200 unknown systems. About 2,800 of the 7,200
unknown systems are suspected to be illegal cesspools (MCSWMP, 2000). Average estimated
reductions in wastewater loading to nearshore waters in the Florida Keys due to implementation
of FKWQIP are approximately 69 and 73 percent in TN and TP loadings, respectively, using
AWT standards. Based on calculations prepared for similar central wastewater districts
(Marathon, Islamorada and Key Largo) within the Florida Keys, reductions in TN, TP, and TSS
loadings between 85-88, 79-81, and 77-91 percent, respectively, are anticipated for the Cudjoe
Regional Service Area as a result of implementing the proposed wastewater improvements. The
proposed WWTF would meet AWT standards and includes disinfection.
3.4.1 Ground Water Quality
The Cudjoe Regional Service Area is considered a pollutant source to nearshore coastal waters.
Numerous cesspools and septic systems, which provide little to no treatment due to high
groundwater levels, release effluent into canals and the nearshore environment. As of 2000,
there were 20 FDEP permitted package plants in the Service Area, with a total permitted capacity
of 0.29 MGD and an average daily flow of 0.15 MGD (MCSWMP).
WWTFs are required to treat effluent to AWT or BAT standards. For facilities that treat over
100,000 GPD, the AWT standards are five milligrams per liter (mg/L) BOD, five mg/L TSS,
three mg/L TN, one mg/L (5:5:3:1); and for facilities treating less than 100,000 GPD the BAT
standards are ten mg/L, ten mg/L, ten mg/L and one mg/L (10:10:10:1) respectively. Generally,
WWTFs in the Florida Keys dispose of their treated effluent into shallow injection wells (cased
zero to 60 feet with open hoes from 60-90 feet) and into the highly permeable Upper Water -
Bearing Zone limestone of the Biscayne Aquifer. This disposal system is categorized as a Class
V well by the State of Florida and is designated for treatment facilities with capacities greater
than 100,000 GPD. Chlorine would be added to effluent to reduce risk of potential harmful
bacteria and viral organisms.
Draft Environmental Assessment 28 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
3.4.2 Surface Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff
The pollutant loads in stormwater runoff, and subsequently surface and nearshore waters, are
largely a function of rainfall quantity, pervious nature of soils and land use. As described
previously in this Draft EA (Section 3.2), the amount of soil in the Florida Keys and the Cudjoe
Regional Service Area is minimal, moderately impervious and has a high runoff potential.
Swales along U.S. Highway 1 are the primary drainage system in the Florida Keys and convey
stormwater along the highway into the ocean, although much of U.S. Highway 1 has no drainage
system (Monroe County 1997b). Stormwater discharge is regulated at the federal level through
the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit programs.
3.4.3 Nearshore and Offshore Water Quality
The relationship between fecal contamination and nutrient enrichment of nearshore waters and
septic tanks has been reviewed in many studies, including Lapointe and Clark (1992) and Paul et
al. (1995 and 1997). These studies generally concluded that septic tank use increases the
nutrient contamination of ground water and consequently, shallow nearshore waters, and that
transport of contaminant from septic tanks can occur in hours or days (ten hours for Key Largo
and 53 hours for the middle Keys). Several authors (Lapointe and Clark 1992, Lapointe and
Matzie 1996 and Lapointe and Matzie 1997) have concluded that nutrient enrichment at offshore
reefs is possible following heavy rains and/or high wind events, but have also noted that nutrient
concentrations in sediments decreased rapidly from the shore.
The Southeast Environmental Research Center (SERC) at Florida International University (FIU)
has collected water quality data from the National Marine Sanctuary WQPP since 1995.
Nearshore water quality stations revealed elevated levels of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN),
which was not found in the nearshore environment of Dry Tortugas, pointing to a land use source
of elevated DIN. Data from 154 monitoring stations in the Florida Keys were used to
characterize the status and trends in water quality. Thirteen monitoring stations along the Lower
Keys off the ocean side of U.S. Highway 1 (SERC 2007) characterize the status and trends in
water quality. Inshore water quality stations along Key Largo showed similar water quality
conditions, including a gradient of elevated DIN, TP, total organic carbon (TOC) and turbidity
from inshore to offshore (Boyer and Jones 2003).
Fecal contamination of nearshore waters due to untreated or poorly treated wastewater has also
been examined in the Service Area. Six canal sites between Lower Sugarloaf Key and Big Pine
Key were sampled for viral pathogens and microbial indicators. Six indictors of fecal pollution
were assessed in canals at the sites (Griffin et al. 1999). Contamination results varied greatly
within the Service Area. The sample sites located in the Port Pine Heights and Eden Pine
subdivisions on Big Pine Key had high levels of contamination and ranked 16th and 1-1 (19
Draft Environmental Assessment 29 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
being the most contaminated) respectively, overall of 19 sites for presence of these indicators.
Two additional sites on Big Pine Key ranked 9th and loth, while the sample sites on Lower
Sugarloaf Key and Cudjoe Key ranked 2"d and 3rd respectively. This study did not address
seasonal variability.
Water Quality Hot Spots. The Cudjoe Regional WWTF will address 12 of the 45 water quality
hot spots in the Florida Keys (MCSWMP 2000). Hot spot locations correspond with higher -
density urban areas and higher ranks represent neighborhoods and subdivisions with the poorest
sewage treatment and strongest need for central sewage facilities.
Health Advisories. Clean public beaches and nearshore water quality are leading health
concerns in Monroe County. Of the 17 Monroe County beaches monitored in 2010, only one
was found to have elevated bacterial levels that resulted in a water quality advisory. This beach
advisory was not located within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area (FDOH 2O10).
3.5 Ecological Habitats
Unique and nationally significant resources, most notably the only living barrier coral reef in
North America, emphasize the importance of the Florida Keys and Sanctuary as part of a
complex ecosystem that includes numerous public conservation areas and habitat for protected
species. The Cudjoe Regional Service Area and associated nearshore waters are a component of
this complex ecosystem, which supports over 6,000 species of plants, fishes and invertebrates
and is dominated by the third largest coral reef system in the world. These habitats can be
altered by anthropogenic influences, including increased urban development, water quality
degradation, altered groundwater flows, and expansion of non-native and invasive species.
Wetlands comprise approximately 59.4 percent of the habitat within the 20,177-acre Service
Area. Wetlands include mangroves, buttonwood, salt marsh, tidal flats and freshwater marsh.
Uplands make up approximately 40.6 percent of the Service Area and include pinelands, tropical
hardwood hammocks and developed lands (Figure 3-1 and Table 3-4). An additional 21,509
acres of benthic habitat comprised of hardbottom, seagrass and barren substrate are discussed in
this section. Since developed land does not provide significant or essential ecological habitat for
wildlife or native plants, it is not discussed in this section.
The ten habitat types identified in the Service Area, listed according to frequency of occurrence,
are: scrub mangrove (21%), tropical hardwood hammock (14.7%), developed land (13.5%),
mangrove swamp (12.8 %), buttonwood (8.3%), pineland (8.2%), salt marsh (6.5%), open water
(6.0%), freshwater marsh (4.8%), undeveloped land (2.2%), impervious surface (1.5%) and
exotic vegetation (0.5%) (Table 3-4).
Draft Environmental Assessment 30 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
r � Q
�y
W
_
� � f
d
c3
C
V
U
CIS
R
C
J
_
C
0
0
V)
O
OC
s a'
m iL
WC3
>
} c
Q
E
�Y
4 _
m
CD
C
t
�•
G
O r
O
2
t6
41 �r
v
U 61
C
S]
2
•
•C3
C
CL
2 [Y1
tl 0
w 2
in
_
co
ii
4+ G'
cti
�1F
CJ
@�
U
t.J
4.;
w
n
ii
M
E
3.0 Affected Environment
Habitat Types
Class
Table 3-4
in the Cudioe Regional Service
Area acres of Interest
Area
Percent
Scrub Mangrove
4237.59
21.0 %
Hammock
2957.56
14.7 %
Developed Land
2722.60
13.5 %
Mangrove Swamp
2582.13
12.8 %
Buttonwood
1669.41
8.3 %
Pineland
1660.17
8.2 %
Salt Marsh
1302.21
6.5 %
Open Water
1217.92
6.0 %
Freshwater Marsh
967.43
4.8 %
Undeveloped Land
448.55
2.2 %
Impervious Surface
294.31
1.5 %
Exotic Vegetation
91.76
0.5 %
3.5.1 Upland Habitats
Service Area. Of the thirteen land cover classes identified within the Service area, two (tropical
hardwood hammocks and pineland) are classified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC) as upland habitats. The PEIS (Section 3.5.1) describes the general
characteristics of the tropical hardwood hammocks, pinelands and beach berms of the Florida
Keys.
Tropical Hardwood Hammocks. Tropical hardwood hammocks account for 14.7 percent of
habitat cover within the Service Area (Table 3-4). These hammocks are mostly distributed
evenly throughout the Service Area. However, Lower Sugarloaf Key contains only small
patches, while No Name Key is dominated by tropical hardwood hammocks.
Pinelands. Pinelands (pine rocldands) account for 8.2 percent of the habitat cover within the
Service Area (Table 3-4), with a majority located on Big Pine Key. Pine rocldands can also be
found in moderately sized stands on Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key and No Name Key.
WWTF Site. The proposed WWTF located on Cudjoe Key is in close proximity to a tropical
hardwood hammock. However, the limits of the constriction footprint are located solely within
previously developed land associated with the former Monroe County landfill. No upland
habitats are located on the proposed WWTF site.
3.5.2 Non -Native and Invasive Species
Service Area. Data obtained from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) (2010) indicates
invasive vegetation is concentrated mostly in developed areas throughout the Service Area.
Draft Environmental Assessment 32 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC) Class I invasive species located in the Service Area
include Brazilian pepper (&hims terevinthifohas), Australian pine (('asuarina Equisetifolia) and
seaside mahoe (Thespesia populnea).
WWTF Site. The proposed WWTF located on Cudjoe Key is bordered by a fringe of invasive
plant species, mostly identified as Brazilian pepper. However, vegetation within the proposed
WWTF constriction footprint is limited to lawn grass associated with the former Monroe County
landfill.
3.5.3 Estuarine and Freshwater Wetland Habitats
Service Area. Wetlands include areas where water is present either at or near the surface of the
soil for all or part of the year, resulting in characteristic soils, water regimes and plant species.
FFWCC Habitat and Land Cover data (FFWCC 2004) indicates the presence of estuarine and
freshwater wetlands in the Service Area. Freshwater wetlands make up less than one percent of
the Service Area.
Mangrove and ,Scrub Mangrove. Mangrove and scrub mangrove habitat types comprise
approximately 12.8 percent and 21.0 percent of the Service Area, respectively (Table 3-4). The
three species of mangrove found in the Florida Keys are the red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle),
black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa)
(Tomlinson 1986). Based on FFWCC data, mangrove habitats are distributed throughout the
Service Area. Although, concentrations of mangroves are typically uniform throughout the
Service Area, Cudjoe Key and Upper Sugarloaf exhibit larger quantities.
Buttomvood. Button habitat comprises approximately 8.3 percent of the Service Area (Table 3-
4). Buttonwood is distributed evenly throughout the Service Area and it typically adjacent to
Scrub Mangrove Habitat.
,Salt Marsh. Based on FFWCC data, salt marsh comprises approximately 6.5 percent of the
Service Area (Table 3-4), and are distributed throughout. Additionally, a large area of salt
marsh is located on the northern end of Upper Sugarloaf.
Freslnvater Marsh. Small isolated freshwater wetlands makeup 4.8 percent of habitat types
found in the Service Area and are limited to Upper Sugarloaf Key, Ramrod Key and Big Pine
Key.
WWTF Site. The proposed WWTF located on Cudjoe Key is in close proximity to estuarine
wetlands. However, the limits of the constriction footprint are located solely within previously
developed land associated with the former Monroe County landfill. No estuarine or freshwater
wetland habitats occur on the proposed WWTF site.
Draft Environmental Assessment 33 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
3.5.4 Marine and Benthic Habitats
Marine habitats are characterized by high productivity and biodiversity and are essential to many
commercially and recreationally important fisheries (Livingston 1990), as well as recreational
activities such as Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) diving, snorkeling,
and boating, all of which are in turn important to the local and regional economy. Marine
habitats, particularly seagrasses and coral reefs, are susceptible to water quality degradation. The
affects of water quality degradation in these habitats are described in the PEIS (Section 3.4).
Service Area. Acreages and percentages of each marine habitat type were calculated based on
the FFWCC South Florida Benthic Habitats data (FWRI 2001). A 500-meter buffer zone was
used to calculate the nearshore benthic habitats surrounding the Service Area (Figure 3-2 and
Table 3-5). The buffer zone includes approximately 21,509 acres of benthic habitat. Florida
Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) data indicate the presence of benthic habitats such as
seagrass beds; hard -bottom communities with seagrass; continuous and patchy seagrass; and bare
substrate in the buffer zone. The general ecology and characteristics of these communities in the
Florida Keys, such as typical vegetation and wildlife occurring within the communities, were
described in greater detail in the PEIS (Section 3.5.4).
Table 3-5
Benthic Habitat Types within 500-Meter Buffer of the Cudjoe
Benthic Habitat Type Area acres of Interest
Regional Service Area
Percent
Hardbottom with Seagrass
10869
50.5 %
Continuous Seagrass
8300
38.6 %
Patch (Discontinuous) Seagrass
2079
9.7 %
Bare Substrate
252
1.2 %
Hardbottom
9
<1 %
Total
21509
100 %
Patchy and continuous seagrasses together comprise approximately 48.3 percent of the benthic
habitat in the Service Area (Table 3-5) and occur within tidally -influenced areas. Hardbottom
habitat with seagrass and bare substrate comprise approximately 50.5 percent and 1.2 percent of
the Service Area's benthic habitats, respectively. These habitat types are mapped in Figure 3-2.
WWTF Site. None of these benthic habitat types occur on the proposed WWTF site.
3.6 Protected Species
The Florida Keys provide habitat for many rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals.
In addition, the limited remaining undeveloped natural habitat in the Florida Keys makes these
areas and associated species vulnerable to development. Any project that results in the loss of
Draft Environmental Assessment 34 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
iE
e"19
1 Xi
ri
OP:
W
uj
U)
pd
LU 0
<
Z
Ul
z
LU
F-
Cr)
0
0
<
0
o
F-
F-
o
F-
F-
iD
T
0
ca
0
m
co
co
(D
0 L)
0
w
0
cn
4W
PO
cz
RIA
E
cz
C)
t-J)
U
3.0 Affected Environment
natural areas has the potential to impact protected species. Protected species refers to both
federally and state listed species considered endangered, candidate, proposed, threatened and
species of special concern.
3.6.1 Regulatory Framework
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 was created to protect those species at risk of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range and to conserve the ecosystems on
which those species depend. Section 7 of the ESA prohibits activities that would jeopardize a
protected species or destroy or modify its critical habitat.
The USFWS is responsible for listing and conserving federally protected terrestrial and
freshwater animals and plants, while the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is
responsible for most marine and anadromous species. If the proposed wastewater project has the
potential to adversely affect or lead to incidental taking of a federally protected species, a formal
Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS, and/or NMFS would be required.
Similarly, state lists of animals are maintained by the FFWCC and designated as endangered,
threatened, and of special concern, per Rules 39-27.003, 39-27.004 and 39-27.005, respectively,
FAC. Any actions that may adversely impact a state -listed animal require individual
consultations with the FFWCC. Plants also may be designated endangered, threatened, or
commercially exploited, and are listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (FDAC) (Chapter 513-40, FAC).
3.6.2 Federally and State Protected Species in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area
Protected species data for Monroe County were obtained from the FNAI database, FDAC, and
Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants (AFVP). Protected species potentially occurring in Monroe
County include 82 animal and 91 plant species, although fewer have a documented presence
(FFWCC and FNAI). Several state protected species, such as the white -crowned pigeon and the
red rat snake, are not federally protected and consultation is limited to the state level if adverse
impacts to these species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Documented
occurrences of protected species in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are summarized in Table
3-6.
Draft Environmental Assessment 36 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Mammals
4
0
4
Plants
8
28
36
Reptiles
3
6
9
Amphibians
0
0
1 0
Total
17
47
1 64
*Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak is federally listed only.
3.6.3 Protected Species Occurrences
The FNAI database was reviewed to identify species occurrences in the Service Area recorded
since 1985. This database provides listings within FNAI Biodiversity Matrix Units: 46444,
48916, 4817, 49248, 49250, 49580, 49581, 49908 and 49909.
Service Area. The FNAI database records for the Service Area include 64 rare and protected
species. Of the 64 species, 16 are protected by the State and Federal government (Table 3-7).
The Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak is federally listed only.
Table 3-7
Protected Species Occurrence
Common Name/Scientific Name Fed State Status Observed Habitat
Status
Birds
Estuarine and Terrestrial: bare
Roseate Tern
N
LT
No
limestone, sand -shell mixes,
Sterruz doiWallii
rock -marl fill, broken coral,
dredge -material islands
White Ibis
Estuarine and Terrestrial:
Eudocimus albus
N
LS
Yes
various freshwater, brackish and
saline environments
Brown Pelican
N
LS
Yes
Estuarine: islands for nesting,
Pelecalius occideritalis
open water. Marine: open water
Estuarine: marsh edges, tidal
swamp, open water. Lacustrine:
Bald Eagle
swamp lakes, edges. Palustrine:
Halialieetus leucocepluzlus
LT
ST
No
swamp, floodplain. Riverine:
shoreline, open water.
Terrestrial: pine and hardwood
forests, clearings
Estuarine: marshes, shorelines,
Great Egret
tidal swamp. Lacustrine: lake
Ardea alba
N
N
Yes
edges. Palustrine: swamp,
floodplain, rrrderal. Riverine:
shoreline
Estuarine: marshes, shorelines,
Snowy Egret
tidal swamp. Lacustrine: lake
Egrettcz tlzulcz
N
LS
Yes
edges. Palustrine: swamp,
floodplain, rrrderal. Riverine:
shoreline
Draft Enviromnental Assessment 37 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Estuarine: marshes, tidal
Tricolored Heron
swamps, shoreline. Lacustrine:
Egretta tricolor
N
LS
Yes
lake edges. Palustrine: swamps,
floodplain, ruderal. Riverine:
shoreline
Least Teen
Estuarine: various. Lacustrine:
Sterlra aritillarum
N
LT
No
various. Riverine: various.
Terrestrial: beach dune, ruderal
Osprey
Riverine and Palustrine: swamp
Parton lzaliaetus
N
LS
Yes
forest, riparian woodlands, belts
of cypress bees
Reddish Egret
Terrestrial: coastal islands
Egretta rufesceris
N
LS
Yes
(nesting), sand and mud flats
(feeding)
White -crowned Pigeon
Terrestrial: mangrove covered
Patagioerias leucoceplzala
N
LT
Yes
islands (nesting), tropical
hardwood forest (feeding)
Florida Burrowning Owl
N
LS
No
Terrestrial: uplands
Atherie curiicidaria florklaria
Mangrove Cuckoo
N
N
Yes
Mangrove swamps
Coccyzus minor
Fish
Key Silverside
Marine: salt to brackish water,
lleriidia coriclzorum
C
LT
No
coarline pools surrounded by
mangroves and organic debris
Mangrove Rivulus
Marine: salt to brackish water,
Rividus marmoratus
C
LS
Yes
coarline pools surrounded by
mangroves and organic debris
Invertebrates
Florida Tree Snail
N
LS
No
Terrestrial: rockland hammock
Ligguus fasciatus
Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak
C
N
Yes
Terrestrial: pine rockland and
Strymori acis bartrami
rockland hammocks
Big Pine Key Ataen ius Dung Beetle
N
N
Yes
Terrestrial: rockland hammocks
Ataeriius superfrcialis
Howden's Copris Beetle
N
N
Yes
Terrestrial: rockland hammocks
Copris howderIi
Antillean Spreadiving
N
N
Yes
Terrestrial: pine rockland and
Lestes spumarius
rockland hammocks
Mammals
Estuarine and Marine: open
Manatee
water, submerged vegetation.
Triclzechus mariatus
LE
LE
No
Riverine: alluvial stream,
blackwater stream, spring -run
stream
Terrestrial: salt marsh or
Lower Kevs Rabbit
LE
LE
Yes
freshwater marsh, mangrove
Sj)lvdagus palustris lzeJlreri
communities, shrubby edges to
wetlands
Draft Environmental Assessment 38 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Terrestrial: salt marsh or
Key Deer
LE
LE
Yes
freshwater marsh mangrove
Odocoileus virginianus clavium
communities, shrubby edges to
wetlands
Terrestrial: salt marsh or
Key West Raccoon
N
N
Yes
freshwater marsh mangrove
Procyon lotor incautus
communities, shrubby edges to
wetlands
Terrestrial: salt marsh or
Lower Keys Cotton Rat
N
N
Yes
freshwater marsh mangrove
Sigmodon lzispidus exsputus
communities, shrubby edges to
wetlands
Terrestrial: salt marsh or
Key Rice Rat
LE
LE
Yes
freshwater marsh mangrove
Oryzornysys palustris pop. 3
communities, shrubby edges to
wetlands
Plants
Sandv soils over limestone in
Garber's Spurge
pine rockland, hammock edges,
Clzamaesyce garberi
LT
LE
Yes
coastal rock barrens, grass
prairies, salt flats, beach ridges
and swales
Brittle Thatch Palm
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: rockland hammock,
Thrinax morrisii
pine rockland
Florida Thatch Palm
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial maritime hammock,
Thrinax radiata
upland hammock, coastal scrub
Sea Lavender
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: beach dune, coastal
Argusia gnaplzalodes
strand
Joewood
Terrestrial: coastal salt flat,
Jacquinia keyensis
N
LT
Yes
coastal scrub, maritime
hammock, pine rockland
Pride -of -big -pine
Terrestrial: coastal strand, upper
Strumpfra maritzma
N
LE
Yes
dunes, pine rockland, coastal
rock barren
Big Pine Partridge Pea
Terrestrial: edges of pine
Clzamaecrista lineata var. keyensis
C
LE
Yes
rockland, rockland hammock
and coastal berm
Golden Leather Fern
N
LT
Yes
Terrestrial: mangrove swamp,
Acrosticlzum aureum
saltmarsh hti-dric hammock
Sand Flax
C
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: pine rockland and
Linum arenicola
marl prairie
Silver Palm
Terrestrial: pine rockland
Coccothrinax wyentata
N
LT
Yes
hammock, pine rockland, coastal
scrub
Devil's Smooth -claw
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: pine rockland and
Pisonmia rotulata
rockland hammocks
Porter's Broad-leaved Spurge
Terrestrial: pine rockland,
Clzamaesyce porteriana
N
LE
Yes
rockland hammock, coastal rock
barrens and marl prairie
Christmas Berry
N
LT
Yes
Terrestrial rockland hammock,
Crossopetalurri dicifolium
pine rockland, coastal scrub
Draft Environmental Assessment 39 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Rhamcoma
N
LT
Yes
Terrestrial: rockland hammock,
Crossopetalum rhacoma
pine rockland, coastal scrub
West Indies Mahogany
N
ST
Yes
Terrestrial: rockland hammock,
Sivieteriia malzagorii
maritime hammock
Milkbark
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: tropical hammock
Drypetes diversyblia
Tree Cactus
Terrestrial: tropical hardwood
Pilosocereus robiriii
LE
LE
Yes
hammock, cactus hammock,
thorn scrub
Wild Dilly
N
LT
Yes
Terrestrial: upland hammock
Hanikara jaimiqui
Sandv soils over limestone in
Wedge Spurge
pine rockland, hammock edges,
Clzamaesyce deltoidea ssp. Serpyllum
C
LE
Yes
coastal rock barrens, grass
prairies, salt flats, beach ridges
and swales
Bahama Sachsia
C
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: tropical hammock
Sachsia Polyceplzala
Locustbem-
N
LT
Yes
Terrestrial: pine rockland and
Byrsoriima luckla
coastal hammocks
Blodteit's Wild -mercury
Terrestrial:
Terrestrial: coastal rock barren,
Arg��thamriia blodgettii
LE
Yes
uplands, pine rockland and
rockland hammock
Florida Five -petaled Leaf -flower
Terrestrial: uplands, marl
Nyllarrthus peritaphyllus var.
N
N
Yes
prairies and pine rockland
flori lalms
Small -flowered Lily Thorn
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: coastal berm, coastal
Catesbaea parviflora
strand and pine rockland
Rockland Painted -leaf
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: pine rockland
EulAorbia pirietorum
Terrestrial: coastal berm, coastal
Florida Pinewood Privet
N
N
Yes
strand, maritime hammock,
Forestiera segregata var. pirietorum
mesic hammock, pine rockland
and shell mounds
SkOlue Clustervine
Terrestrial: bayhead, coastal
Jacc�uemorrtia perrtarrtlzos
N
LE
Yes
rock barren, marl prairie, pine
rockland and rockland hammock
Bahama Brake
Terrestrial: marl prairie, pine
Pteris balzamerisis
N
LT
Yes
rockland, rockland hammock
sinkholes
Pineland Noseburn
N
LT
Yes
Terrestrial: uplands and pine
Tragia saxicola
rockland
Worm -vine Orchid
Epiphytic: coastal berm, marl
T aliilla barbellata
N
LE
Yes
prairie, rockland hammock, tidal
marsh and tidal swamp
Bahama Maidenbush
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial rockland hammocks
Savia bahamerisis
Few -flower Caesalpinia
N
LE
Yes
Casealpiriia paucijlora
Manchineel
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: coastal berm and
Hippomarie mariciriella
rockland hammocks
Draft Environmental Assessment 40 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Small -fruited Varnishedleaf
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: pine rockland and
Dodoriaea elaeagriokles
rockland hammocks
Pineland Pencil Flower
N
LE
Yes
Terrestrial: Uplands, marl
S01losarrthes calcicola
prairie and pine rockland
Cupania
Cupariia glabra
SAT
LS
Yes
Terrestrial: rockland hammocks
Mangrove Bern-
Terrestrial: upland, marl prairie,
Psklium lorWipes
N
LT
Yes
pine rockland and rockland
hammocks.
Banded Wild -pine
N
LT
Yes
Epiphytic: numerous
TillamIsia flexuoscz
Reptiles
Palustrine: freshwater to
American Alligator
SAT
LS
Yes
brackish wetlands and ponds.
Alligator mississippierisis
Estuarine and Marine: Open
eater, canals, bays (seasonal)
Key Mud Turtle
Palustrine: freshwater to slightly
Kir�osterr�or� baurii pop. 1
N
LE
Yes
brackish ponds. Terrestrial:
elevated hardwood hammocks
Key Ringneck Snake
Terrestrial: pine rockland,
Diadoplzis purrctatus acricus
N
LT
Yes
tropical hardwood hammocks,
near sources of fresh water
Red Rat Snake, FL Lower Keys Pop
Terrestrial: pine woods,
ElalAe guttata pop. I
N
LS
Yes
mangrove forest, edificarian
situations
Loggerhead
LT
LT
No
Terrestrial: sandy beaches,
( aretta caretta
nesting
Florida Keys Mole Skink
N
LS
Yes
Terrestrial: san& shorelines
Eumeces egregius egregius
Eastern Indigo Snake
LT
LT
Yes
Upland and wetland habitats
Dr)lmarchori couperi
Lower Keys Brown Snake
N
LT
Yes
Upland and wetland habitats
Storeria dekayi pop. I
Lower Keys Ribbon Snake
N
LT
Yes
Upland and wetland habitats
ThalimolAis sauritus pop. I
C: Candidate N: Not Currently Listed SAT: Treated as Threatened
LE: Listed Endangered LT: Listed Threatened LS: Species of Special Concern
3.6.4 Existing and Potential Habitat Areas for Protected Species
Identification of habitats of particular interest or importance allows these habitats to be avoided
during implementation of this and other FKWQIP projects. Existing and potential wildlife
habitats in the Florida Keys have been identified by the FMRI, based on habitat and numbers of
key species, many of which are protected. Importantly, biodiversity hot spots and Strategic
Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCAs) have been developed by Cox et al. (1994) to identify
conservation targets considered necessary to meet conservation goals in Florida.
Draft Environmental Assessment 41 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
The FFWCC biodiversity hot spots data (FFWCC 2002b), reviewed for the Service Area,
represent areas of overlap among potential habitats of 64 rare or focal species of wildlife and
several important natural communities, including pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammocks
and mangrove swamps. Overlap among greater numbers of species indicates higher biodiversity.
Numerous biodiversity hot spots, consisting of seven or more focal species, have been identified
throughout the entire Service Area (Figure 3-3).
Biodiversity hot spots were analyzed in relation to the proposed WWTF (Figure 3-3). The
proposed WWTF is in close proximity to hot spots, however, the proposed site is located on
previously developed land. No adverse impacts to SHCA are anticipated. Individual species
data are not available for this data set.
3.7 Essential Fish Habitat
Coral reefs and other benthic habitats identified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) must be
considered as part of any federal action. Federal agencies must also comply with the Magnuson -
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) that
requires implementation of measures to conserve and enhance this habitat per the Sustainable
Fisheries Act (SFA) Public Law 104-297. EFH in the Service Area and the Florida Keys is
described in the PEIS (Section 3.7).
The MSA requires federal agency consultation on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The
NMFS, a service of the U.S. Department of Commerce -National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is responsible for implementing this mandate. Informal
consultation with NMFS was initiated as part of the preparation for the PEIS. Species and
associated habitats identified as relevant to the proposed project include panaeid shrimp (e.g.
pink and brown shrimp) and rock shrimp, red drum, snapper, the grouper unit, golden crab and
spiny lobster.
3.8 Air Quality & Noise
The Cudjoe Regional Service Area currently meets or exceeds all federal air quality standards.
Noise levels are typical of urban areas dominated by commercial and recreational activities.
Air Quality. The affected environmental for air quality is similar to that described in the PEIS
(Section 3.8.1). Air pollution within the Service Area has not been extensively documented,
however the FDEP has designated Monroe County as an air quality attainment area, which
means that air quality standards set by both FDEP and the USEPA are maintained countywide
(Monroe County 1995). FAC 62-604.400 and 62-296.320 require reasonable assurance from the
applicant that the facility will not cause objectionable odors, such as those resulting from WWTF
hydrogen sulfide discharges, at levels that would adversely affect neighboring residents or
commercial uses.
Draft Environmental Assessment 42 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
�
o
J
Z
3
4
1
//
M
3.0 Affected Environment
Air quality in the Florida Keys is generally excellent, and data from two FDEP ambient air
monitoring stations in Key West and Marathon indicated that particulate matter concentration
remain well below Florida standards. Motor vehicles are generally the main source of emissions.
Noise. Noise in the Florida Keys is typical of areas with urban activities such as traffic,
constriction, aircraft (near airports), and boats, as described in the PEIS (Section 3.8.2). Since
1982, responsibility for noise abatement and control has been delegated to State and local
governments, but noise levels and exposure recommendations developed by the USEPA under
the Noise Control Act (NCA) are still relevant. The State of Florida addresses noise control in
Title XXIX, Chapter 403 (Public Health, Environmental Control) of Florida Statues (FS).
Chapter 62-600 of the FAC addresses riles for siting and operation of WWTFs and requires that
new facilities are located to minimize noise from the facility that may impact sensitive noise
receptors such as residence, schools, hospitals, churches and parks.
Noise levels over a 24-hour period should be less than 70 decibel (dBA) to prevent any
measurable hearing loss over a lifetime. Likewise, maximum levels of 55 dBA outdoors and 45
dBA indoors are identified as preventing activity interference and annoyance. Monroe County
has adopted an ordinance that prohibits noise equal to or exceeding 60 dBA (typical of a
residential area) beyond the property line of the sound source and may collect fines up to $500
per day from violators.
3.9 Cultural Resources
The protection of cultural, archaeological and historical resources in the Florida Keys is
described in the PEIS (Section 3.9). Major federal laws protecting cultural resources include the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA),
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and American Indian
Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to
consider the affects of the Proposed Action on identified and potentially present cultural
resources. In addition, the SHPO, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and the Advisory
Council of Historic Preservation (ACHP), could review and comment on a Proposed Action.
The results of a Florida Master Site files review indicated a total of 39 archaeological sites and
49 historic strictures throughout the Service Area (Table 3-8). However, no known
archaeological or historic sites are located on, or in direct proximity to, the proposed WWTF site.
Additionally, the proposed wastewater infrastructure will be constricted within previously
distributed ROW. Consequently, no affect on historic, archaeological, or cultural resources is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Should any historic or archeological item be
discovered during project work, all activities would be terminated and the FKAA would consult
with the Corps, SHPO and other appropriate agencies for further guidance.
Draft Environmental Assessment 44 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Table 3-8
Documented Archaeological and Historic Sites in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area
Site Name Site ID Cultural Resource Type
Archaeolo ical
Sugarloaf Key 1
MO00004
Unknown
Cudjoe Key 1
MO00005
Prehistoric midden(s)
Ramrod Key 6
MO00006
Prehistoric
Watson's Hammock
MO00007
Glades Ila
No Name Key 1
MO01278
Prehistoric shell scatter
No Name Key 2
MO01279
Artifact scatter -low density ( < 2 per sq
meter)
No Name Key 3
MO01280
Twentieth century American, 1900-present
Big Pine Key 2
MO00008
Prehistoric
Niles Channel
MO00129
American, 1821-present
Bow
MO01253
Unknown
Railroad Section Camp 1
MO01254
Historic refuse / Dump
Railroad Section Camp 2
MO01255
Historic refuse / Dump
Big Pine Key 9
MOO1262
Twentieth century American, 1900-present
Big Pine Key 10
MOO1263
Unknown
Big Pine Key 11
MOO1264
Twentieth century American, 1900-present
Big Pine 13
MOO1266
Variable density scatter of artifacts
Cudjoe Key 4
MOO1269
Historic well
No Name Key 4
MO01281
Artifact scatter -low density ( < 2 per sq
meter)
No Name Key 5
MO01282
Twentieth century American, 1900-present
No Name 7
MO01284
Twentieth century American, 1900-present
No Name Key 8
MO01285
Historic well
Ramrod Key 4
MO01286
Historic well
Ramrod Key 5
MO01287
Artifact scatter -low density ( < 2 per sq
meter)
Sugarloaf Key 3
MOO1291
Twentieth century American, 1900-present
Sugarloaf Key 4
MOO1292
Historic town
Cudj oe Key 3
MOO 1296
Twentieth century American, 1900-present
Crane Road Cisterns
MO01480
Historic well
Singleton Homestead
MO02100
Historic well
Big Pine Key 3
MO02101
Twentieth century American, 1900-present
Big Pine Key 6
MO02104
Nineteenth century American, 1821-1899
Big Pine 7
MO02105
Historic well
Big Pine Key 8
MO02106
Historic refuse / Dump
Little Torch Key 1
MO02109
Unknown
Little Torch Key 2
M002110
Homestead
Draft Environmental Assessment 45 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Ramrod Key 1
M002111
Nineteenth century American, 1821-1899
Ramrod Key 2
MO02112
Historic refuse / Dump
Ramrod Key 3
M002113
Homestead
Cudj oe Key 2
MO02114
Twentieth century American, 1900-present
Sugarloaf Key 2
MO02115
Homestead
Historic Sites
Bat Tower
MO00228
Frame Vernacular
Big Pine Key 412
MOO1265
Unspecified by Surveyor
Water Metering Station
MOO1485
Moderne ca. 1920-1940
Squires Homstead
MOO1947
Arenson
MO03622
Masonry vernacular
No Name Pub
MO03623
Frame Vernacular
31131 Avenue D Big Pine Key
MOO 3733
Frame Vernacular
31336 Avenue E, Big Pine Key
MO03734
Frame Vernacular
Tackle and Bait Shop
MO03735
Frame Vernacular
30371 Poinciana Road, Big Pine
MO03736
Frame Vernacular
Key
30457 Palm Drive, Big Pine Key
MO03737
Frame Vernacular
30423 Oleander Boulevard, Big
MO03738
Masonry vernacular
Pine Key
30434 Oleander Boulevard, Big
MO03739
Frame Vernacular
Pine Key
30458 Oleander Boulevard, Big
MO03740
Frame Vernacular
Pine Key
423 Barry Avenue, Little Torch
MO03741
Frame Vernacular
Key
433 Barry Avenue, Little Torch
MO03742
Frame Vernacular
Key
580 Barry Avenue, Little Torch
MO03743
Other
Key
1257 Warner Road, Little Torch
MO03744
Frame Vernacular
Key
1269 Mills Road, Little Torch Key
MO03745
Frame Vernacular
1263 Mills Road, Little Torch Key
MO03746
Frame Vernacular
26936 Shanahan Road, Ramrod
MO03747
Frame Vernacular
Key
24915 Horace Street, Summerland
MO03748
International ca. 1925-present
Key
24945 Center Street, Summerland
MO03749
Masonry vernacular
Key
25063 Center Street, Summerland
MO03750
Masonry vernacular
Key
13 Center Street, Summerland Key
MO03751
Frame Vernacular
Draft Environmental Assessment 46 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Horace and Center Streets
MO03752
Frame Vernacular
Summerland
Restaurant and Fish Market
MO03753
Masonry vernacular
637 2nd Street, Summerland Key
MO03754
Masonry vernacular
25044 45th Street, Summerland Key
MO03755
Frame Vernacular
Galley Grill Restaurant
MO03756
Masonry vernacular
60 Dobie Street, Summerland Key
MO03757
Frame Vernacular
21074 Overseas Highway, Cudj oe
MO03758
Frame Vernacular
Key
Mangrove Mamas
MO03759
Frame Vernacular
81 Johnson Road, Sugarloaf Key
MO03760
Frame Vernacular
71 Johnson Road, Sugarloaf Key
MO03761
Frame Vernacular
19556 Navajo Street, Sugarloaf Key
MO03762
Frame Vernacular
19580 Mayan Street, Sugarloaf Key
MO03763
Frame Vernacular
19674 Indian Mound drive,
MO03764
Frame Vernacular
Sugarloaf Key
19591 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key
MO03765
Frame Vernacular
19616 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key
MO03766
Frame Vernacular
19582 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key
MO03767
Frame Vernacular
19572 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key
MO03768
Frame Vernacular
19583 Seminole Street, Sugarloaf
MO03769
Frame Vernacular
Key
19658 Seminole Street, Sugarloaf
MO03770
Frame Vernacular
Key
19520 Tequesta Street, Sugarloaf
MO03771
Frame Vernacular
Key
19525 Date Palm Drive, Sugarloaf
MO03772
Frame Vernacular
Key
19545 Date Palm Drive, Sugarloaf
MO03773
Frame Vernacular
Key
Chasehouse
MO03774
Frame Vernacular
Sugarloaf Lode
MO03775
Masonry vernacular
3.10 Demographics & Socioeconomics
Like most of the Florida Keys, the economy of the Lower Keys is largely dependent on the
continued health of the coral reefs in the Sanctuary. The coral reefs support a major recreational
industry that attracted more than three million tourists to the Keys and South Florida by the early
1990s who then spent an estimated $1.3 billion (Crosby 1997), figures that are no doubt
substantially greater today. SCUBA and free diving are the principal recreational activities
revolving around the coral reef, attracting over 1.2 million divers annually to the Florida Keys
and generating more than $220 million in economic benefit. Commercial fishing contributes
about one-half the economic benefit as diving, and constitutes the second largest of the water -
Draft Environmental Assessment 47 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
based economic contributors. While these figures are for the entire Florida Keys, they indicate
the importance of the health of the coral reef to the Florida Keys, including the residents and
businesses of the Lower Keys.
3.10.1 Demographics
The Cudjoe Regional Service Area lies within an unincorporated area in Monroe County and is
designated by the U.S. Census Bureau as Zip Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) 33042 and 33043.
The demographic data presented here is specific to the above ZCTAs. The permanent population
of the Service Area in 2000 was 11,256 (14.1 percent of Monroe County) (Table 3-9) and has
not substantially changed. Other characteristics of the Service Area are summarized below.
• Number of permanent residents over 65 is 15 percent, compared to 14.7 percent for
Monroe County and 17.6 percent for the State of Florida. The median age of the Service
Area's population is between 44.5 and 47 years, compared to 42 years in the county, and
18 in the state.
• The population is 95.3 percent white, compared to 90 percent in the county and 78
percent in the state. Hispanics make up 6.4 percent and African Americans make up 1.1
percent of the remaining population.
• Women make up 47.5 percent of the population in the Service Area, compared to 46.8
percent in the county and 51.2 percent in the state.
• Temporary residents make up a large portion of the population: 33.8 percent of the
housing is used seasonally, for recreational or occasional use, compared to 24 percent for
the county and 6 percent for the state.
1 Table 1,1 1 , Cudjoe Regional Service Area
Service Area Monroe County State of Florida
General Characteristics
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total population
11,256
(X)
79,589
(X)
15,982,378
(X)
Male
5,906
52.5
42,379
53.2
7,797,715
49
Female
5,350
47.5
37,210
46.8
8,184,663
51
Median age (N-ears)
46
(X)
42.6
(X)
39
(X)
Under 5 vears
388
3.4
3,462
4.3
945,823
6
18 vears and over
9,480
84.2
65,984
82.9
12,336,038
77
65 vears and over
1,688
15
11,648
14.6
2,807,597
18
One race
11,088
98.5
78,171
98.2
15,606,063
98
White
10,732
95.3
72,151
90.7
12,465,029
78
Black or African American
123
1.1
3,795
4.8
2,335,505
15
American Indian and Alaska Native
54
0.5
301
0.4
53,541
0
Asian
70
0.6
657
0.9
266,256
2
Draft Environmental Assessment 48 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander
5
0
35
0
8,625
0
Some other race
104
0.9
1,232
1.5
477,107
3
Two of more races
168
1.5
1,418
1.8
376,315
2
Hispanic or Latino
722
6.4
-
-
-
-
Household population
11,195
99.5
-
-
-
-
Group quarters population
61
0.5
-
-
-
-
Average household size
2.21
(X)
2.23
(X)
2.46
(X)
Average family size
2.59
(X)
2.73
(X)
2.98
(X)
Total housing units
7,644
(X)
51,617
(X)
7,302,947
(X)
Occupied housing units
5,062
66.2
35,086
(X)
6,337,929
(X)
Owner -occupied housing units
3,986
78.7
21,893
62.4
4,441,799
70
Renter -occupied housing units
1,076
21.3
13,193
37.6
1,896,130
30
Vacant housing units
2,582
33.9
16,531
32
965,018
13
Social Characteristics
Population 25 years and over
9,007
61,161
(X)
11,024,645
(X)
High school graduate or higher
7,972
88.5
-
84.9
-
79.9
Bachelor's degree or higher
2,342
26
10,256
16.8
1,573,121
14.3
Civilian veterans (civilian population 18
rears and over)
2,345
26
64,846
(X)
12,283,486
(X)
Disability status (population 5 years and
over)
2,598
28.8
13,700
(X)
2,199,021
(X)
Foreign bone
911
10.1
-
-
-
-
Male, Now married, except separated
(population 15 vears and over)
3,200
35.5
-
-
-
-
Female, Now married, except separated
(population 15 years and over)
3,015
33.5
-
-
-
-
Speak a language other than English at
home (population 5 vears and over)
1,622
18
-
-
-
-
Economic Characteristics
In labor force (population 16 years and
over)
6,118
63.3
43,838
64.9
7,471,977
58.6
Mean travel time to work in minutes
(workers 16 vears and older)
27
(X)
18.4
(X)
26.2
(X)
Median household income in 1999
(dollars)
47,896
(X)
42,293
(X)
38,819
(X)
Median family income in 1999 (dollars)
53,696
(X)
50,734
(X)
45,625
(X)
Per capita income in 1999 (dollars)
25,738
(X)
26,102
(X)
21,557
(X)
Families below poverty level
188
5.6
1,403
(X)
383,131
(X)
Individuals below poveity level
969
7.7
7,977
10.2
1,952,629
12.5
Draft Environmental Assessment 49 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Housing Characteristics
Single-family owner -occupied homes
3,135
-
-
-
-
Median value (dollars)
226,750
(X)
241,200
(X)
105,500
(X)
With a mortgage
2,761
(X)
8,480
60.1
2323,452
71.7
Not mortgaged
903
(X)
1 5,624
39.9
919,750
29.3
(X) Not applicable
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Tourism. Tourism is the largest export of Monroe County. An export is goods and services
which, through their sales, introduce new money into an economy. In this case, the goods and
services sold are tourism products, i.e. lodging, recreation, food, beverage, etc. Tourism directly
employs more workers than any other industry in Monroe County (Monroe County 2006).
Through a series of visitor surveys, NOAA calculated the amount of new money introduced into
the Florida Keys economy via tourism, or direct visitor spending. NOAA's conclusion was
tourism introduced into the economy $833.57 million new dollars in sales, $316.26 in income
and 13,655 jobs in direct employment over the time period of their study (1995-1996). Monroe
County's Tourism Development Council (TDC) estimates the direct and indirect effect of
tourism in Monroe County in 2005 was $2.2 billion in gross sales. These numbers demonstrate
the significance of the tourism industry in Monroe County's economy.
3.10.2 Socioeconomics
Cost of Living. One of the principal factors affecting the cost of living in the Florida Keys and a
factor that would be impacted by the proposed project is the cost of utility services. Utility
service and sewer rates for residents in the Keys are higher due to the long distances of utility
lines required to provide service and the infrastructure costs for wastewater, treatment,
collection, and disposal.
The principal factors that contribute to the high cost of living in Monroe County, including the
Service Area, are elevated costs of real estate, insurance, transporting goods and services, sales
tax, and utilities. With no rail transportation or commercial seaport, virtually all goods are
shipped by trick from the mainland and are more expensive than elsewhere in Florida. The 2009
Florida Price Level Index identified Monroe County as having the highest cost of living in
Florida, with an index value of 112.3 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2010), more
than ten percent higher than the national average.
Home Ownership. Within the Service Area, about 78.7 percent of the residents own their
homes, compared to 62 percent for Monroe County and 70 percent for the State of Florida (U.S.
Census Bureau 2002). The lower home ownership rate is attributable to the much higher cost of
housing units in Monroe County and the transient nature of the population.
Draft Environmental Assessment 50 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Poverty Level. Approximately 7.7 percent of the residents within the Service Area were living
below the U.S. Census Bureau designated poverty level in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2002),
compared to approximately ten percent in the county and 12 percent in the state. However,
because the cost of living in Monroe County is more than ten percent higher than the national
average, the actual proportion of residents living below the poverty level is probably also higher.
Based on the U.S. housing and Urban Development (HUD) income level system (FEMA 2000)
for identifying residents eligible for financial assistance, low-income residents have 80 percent
of the median family income, and very low-income residents have a household income of 50
percent of the median. Using these definitions, very low-income residents have no discretionary
income and low-income households have discretionary income levels of about $750 per month.
Utility Costs. The residents of the Lower Keys rely primarily on low cost septic systems for
wastewater treatment. Owners of cesspools incur virtually no cost for operation and
maintenance, and almost all systems have been in place for many years. Septic tank systems cost
very little to maintain and operate and generally require only pumping every few years. Current
developments must use advanced treatment units, On -Site Wastewater Nutrient Reduction
Systems (OWNRS), or central WWTFs.
For comparison purposes, customers of Key Haven Utilities, Ocean Reef Club and KW Resort
Utilities pay a total of $1,215 to $2,700 toward the cost of wastewater treatment and transmission
and from $55 to $64 per month for sewer service. Costs for connecting residences and
businesses and maintaining WWTFs and associated infrastructure is often very high.
3.11 Recreation
While local geology limits the formation of sandy beaches in the Florida Keys, the primary
natural attraction is the coral reef, as described in the PEIS (Section 3.11). The approximate 2.29
million visitors to the Florida Keys rely on clean water and beaches as well as the abundant fish
and wildlife that characterize this popular vacation spot. These visitors provide the basis of the
tourism industry on which the economy of the Florida Keys relies. Consequently, potential
impacts to recreational amenities and tourism that may result from the implementation of
FKWQIP must be examined.
Ninety percent of visitors to the Florida Keys visit for recreation or vacation. In addition to
water sports, historical and cultural resources associated with the Florida Keys support tourism.
Historical attractions include the remnants of the Overseas Railroad constricted in the early
1900s, Fort Zachary Taylor in Key West, and Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas. Recreation
days in Monroe County (Table 3-10) indicate that most activities are related to saltwater.
Draft Environmental Assessment 51 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
Table i
Recreation Days in Monroe County: 12-Month Period 1995-1996
Activities Recreation Days Re orted 7ercent of Total Day Reported
Boating Activities
Snorkeling
1,010.8
7.9
SCUBA diving
190.0
1.5
Offshore fishing
859.2
6.7
Personal watercraft
239.8
1.9
Viewing nature & wildlife
796.0
6.2
Non -Boating Activities
Snorkeling from shore
548.1
4.3
Fishing from shore
359.9
2.8
All beach activities
2,867.6
22.4
Swimming in outdoor pools
2,489.2
19.4
Wildlife & nature studies
1,789.8
14.0
Museums & historic sites
1,665.9
13.0
Leewofthv and V'ilev 1J)6.
3.12 Environmental Justice
Federal EO 12898 (1994), requires a federal agency to make environmental justice a part of the
planning process, ensuring greater public participation, and identifying differences in resource
consumption patterns of minority and low-income portions of the population. The USEPA
Office of Environmental Justice has defined environmental justices as:
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income irith respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies.
While the Mean Household Income (NMI) is the Service Area is above that of the county and
state, 7.7 percent of residents in the Service Area live below the poverty level. This percentage
may actually be larger given that the cost of living in Monroe County is more than ten percent
higher than that of the nation.
In addition, the proportion of residents over the age of 65 in the Service Area is greater when
compared with the county and the state, and 15 percent of the portion of the population lives
below the poverty level, compared with 9.8 percent in the county and 8.1 percent across the state.
This segment of the population often lives on fixed income and, while their income may not be
below the poverty level, they are affected by cost of living changes.
Draft Environmental Assessment 52 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
These factors suggest that while the majority of the residents within the Service Area are above
poverty levels, there are considerable impacts to residents associated with the costs of the Cudjoe
Regional Wastewater System, raising potential environmental justice concerns.
3.13 Land Use and Planning
This section addresses the land use patterns and regulations in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area.
Many of the water quality issues in the Florida Keys are closely associated with land uses
implemented prior to existing environmental regulations. Consequently, untreated stormwater
runoff and improper wastewater disposal practices continue to adversely affect wetlands and
nearshore waters. Greater detail regarding land use regulations and controls in the State of
Florida and Monroe County is provided in the PEIS (Section 3.14).
To ensure the sustainability of resources unique to the Florida Keys, Monroe County
comprehensive land use planning provisions have been developed and include a Permit
Allocation System and the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) to control future growth
(explained in further detail in Section 3.14.3). In addition, the FKCCS, sponsored jointly by the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) and the Corps, developed a planning tool to
assist in determining the level of development activities that will provide a means to avoid
further irreversible and/or adverse impacts to the Keys (Florida Administrative Weekly 1996).
3.13.1 Land Use
Land use classes in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are illustrated in Figure 3-4 (Monroe
County 2010). Residential land uses account for 8.7 percent of the land area in the Service Area
and accommodate permanent residents as well as seasonal and recreational residents.
Residential land uses along the shoreline of Florida Bay or the Florida Straits make the most of
the scenic resources and recreational access afforded by these waterfront locations. The Service
Area is comprised primarily of mangrove habitat (33.8 percent). Commercial land uses include
general commercial, commercial and recreational boating and fishing, as well as tourist -based
land uses.
The proposed WWTF will be constricted on approximately 3 acres of a larger 10.2 acre parcel
and is located on Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe County.
Monroe County has authorized the land -use change of decommissioning cells A & B of the
landfill and utilizing the area for the proposed WWTF (Permit Minor Modification, No.
0067347-005-SO/MM).
Draft Environmental Assessment 53 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
�I
O
w
�
J
J
� �
0 0
�
O O
C
�
q
E
ev
-6
a m
-Q "4
(4
tII
f0 tS
W C w
N
z a
a in rn
i
v E
c
"
.2
U
°
w � � `
ZS a c c C
nuin= J
ii
E
3.0 Affected Environment
3.13.2 Conservation Areas
The Sanctuary surrounds the Florida Keys and the Service Area and includes the most extensive
coral reef in North America and the third largest reef system in the world. Under Public Law
101-605, 2,600 square nautical miles of coastal waters are designated under the Sanctuary.
The USFWS is the largest land owner in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area, controlling nearly 39
percent of the total land area. Additionally, most of the Service Area lies within the fragmented
boundaries of the Florida Keys Wildlife Refuges Complex, which includes the National Key
Deer Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wild Refuge. The State of Florida and
Monroe County also own conservation lands within the Service Area, controlling approximately
16 percent and six percent of the total land area, respectively (Figure 3-5).
3.13.3 Future Land Use
The comprehensive plans of Monroe County and the incorporated cities of Islamorada,
Marathon, Layton, Key Colony Beach, and Key West are specifically structured to control and
direct future land use development to areas with sufficient services to accommodate the growth
(Chapter 163 F.S. Public facilities must serve the development at the adopted LOS standards
concurrent with the impacts of the development). LOS standards are established for traffic and
circulation, potable water, solid waste, sanitary sewer, drainage, and recreation and open space
(Monroe County 2000).
Under the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the total number of building permits issued per
year is limited by Monroe County's ROGO permit allocation system, not the presence of specific
infrastructure. Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan established an
interim permit allocation system to control growth based on hurricane evacuation, public safety
and environmental needs including water quality and habitat protection. To implement this
policy, Monroe County has adopted a ROGO that specifically allocates credits towards obtaining
building permits. Nutrient reduction credits are necessary to qualify for a building permit. Each
year this interim permit allocation system limits the number of building permits issued for new
residential development to the number of nutrient reduction credits earned within the same
ROGO area.
Future land uses in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are primarily conservation (40.1 percent)
and residential conservation (29.9 percent), which together make up 70.1 percent of the future
land use mapped for the Service Area (Figure 3-6). Additional future land uses within the
Service Area include: agriculture, airport district, education, industrial, institutional, military,
mixed use/commercial, public facilities and recreation (Monroe County, 2010). The proposed
WWTF would be located on a parcel identified as public facilities on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM).
Draft Environmental Assessment 55 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Le
I�
der
a �
e
f
9r
au
N
�
a
a
t.iw
cai
m
�
irs
�
y
v
d
a
c
c C
zs
=
rl
c
N
a
.--€yy4
CU.
�,
....�
�� ryry
V
z
�^r�,,
V
cm
ii
E
L4
c
.2
LL
aD
0
In 0
M W
0 10
0
0
2
2
E
E
o
�T
2 2
E E
E E
o D
E
2
E
E
o
0
:11
I
L]
z
�R
0
Ed
E
uo
ECZ
En
cn
cn
cz
7:V
3.0 Affected Environment
3.13.4 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
The Cudjoe Regional Service Area is located in the State of Florida's designated coastal zone.
The Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), the State of Florida's federally approved
management program, was approved by the NOAA in 1981.
The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (CBIA) reauthorizes and amends the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 3501-3510) and is described in the PEIS
(Chapter 3.0). Although the CBIA restricts federal expenditures for coastal barrier development,
Section 6(a)(6)(A) contains a broad exemption for projects relating to the study, management,
protection, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and habitats, including recreational
proj ects. Under the 1990 amendments, the Secretary of the Interior has consultation
responsibilities for additional exemptions from funding prohibitions under CBRA, including
water resource development projects.
A review of the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) maps shows that three designated
CBRS units lie within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area (FL-50, FL-52 and FL-54, see Figure
3-7). The Federal CBRS designation has been incorporated into the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan. Monroe County discourages the extension of facilities and services, such
as telephone or electricity, to designated coastal barrier areas. Constriction of the proposed
WWTF and all of the infrastructure and transmission lines needed to convey centralized
wastewater to the facility will occur outside the boundaries of these CBRS units. However,
several decentralized cold spots, located on Summerland Key, Big Torch Key and No Name
Key, are within the CBRS units.
3.13.5 Floodplain Management
EO 11988: Floodplain Management mandates that federal agencies evaluate the potential
effects of any actions it may take in a floodplain. If an agency proposes to allow an action to be
located in a floodplain, the agency must consider alternatives to avoid adverse affects or must
design or modify its action to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain.
Service Area. The overall Cudjoe Regional Service Area occurs within the AE Zone, within the
100-year floodplain (areas inundated by 100-year flooding for which Base Flood Elevations
[BFE] have been determined)(FEMA 1996).
WWTF Site. The proposed WWTF site is located within the 100-year floodplain (Zones AE).
Consequently, provisions of the Monroe County Floodplain Ordinance would apply. In addition,
federal funding, per EO 11988 requires that WWTFs, because they are designated critical
facilities, are subject to more stringent constriction requirements. Specifically, FKAA would
flood -proof the WWTF and when practical constrict critical operating components to the 500-
year floodplain standards per CFR Part 9.11.
Draft Environmental Assessment 58 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Ae'
WAR
0
Ae
C:
m
Us
E
a)
ti
CL
L
0-
as
Ed
E
3.0 Affected Environment
3.14 Infrastructure
Transportation service and corridor access for conveyance of potable water and electrical service
from the mainland are provided to the Florida Keys via U.S. Highway 1. The lack of centralized
WWTFs in the Keys is one of the contributing factors to degradation of nearshore waters due to
the discharge of nutrients and other pollutants.
3.14.1 Transportation
Transportation infrastructure in the Service Area includes roadways that link the mainland with
the Lower Keys via the Overseas Highway/U.S. Highway 1. This route allows vehicle traffic, as
well as boat transportation through the numerous waterways. However, the primary
transportation objective of Monroe County is to reduce the time required for hurricane
evacuation to 24 hours by the year 2010 (Monroe County 1997b).
Roadways. U.S. Highway 1 is the primary roadway in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area.
Within Monroe County, the highway stretches 112 miles from Key West to the Miami -Dade
County line and provides a means of transporting food, supplies, and tourists between the
mainland and the Florida Keys. Approximately 80 percent of U.S. Highway 1 is a two-lane
roadway, including much of the roadway located within the Service Area. Portions of U.S.
Highway 1 located on Big Pine Key are four -lane.
Public Transportation. With the exception of the Lower Keys Shuttle, which connects Key
West to Florida City, there is no public transportation within the Service Area.
Air Transportation. The two municipal airports in Monroe County are the Florida Keys
Marathon Airport and the Key West International Airport. Both airports have regularly
scheduled commercial passenger service and provide services for private aircraft at general
aviation fixed -base operations. While major carriers often route passengers through Miami
International Airport, some smaller carriers offer direct flights to Key West and Marathon from
major Florida cities and the Bahamas. The Cudjoe Regional Service Area includes two private
airstrips, located on Lower Sugarloaf Key and Summerland Key.
Waterways. There are no deep -water ports in the Service Area. The Coast Guard station at Key
West maintains navigational aids, provides emergency search and rescue services, and patrols
coastal waters to promote boating safety. The network of waterways, proximity to deep waters,
and the numerous marinas and boating facilities makes water transportation an important
function in the Florida Keys. There are several marinas located within the Service Area.
Draft Environmental Assessment 60 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
3.14.2 Utilities and Services
Electrical Power. Two electrical service providers serve the Florida Keys. To the south and
east of the Seven Mile Bridge service is provided by Keys Energy Services (KEYS). KEYS is a
municipal utility operated by a state authorized utility board and imports most of its power from
the mainland, but has an on -island emergency generator that can provide 60 percent of its power
in case of power interruption (KEYS 2003). KEYS power is distributed along a transmission
line paralleling U.S. Highway 1, jointly owned with Florida Keys Electric Cooperative (FKEC)
to the north of the Seven Mile Bridge.
The second electrical service provider is the FKEC, which provides electrical power to the
northern portion of the Keys. In 2001, FKEC had over 30,000 customers in Monroe County and
supplied 639,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity to those customers (FKEC 2002). FKEC
purchased power generated on the mainland by Florida Power and Light (FPL). This power is
distributed to the Keys by two 138,000-volt transmission lines.
Potable Water. The FKAA is the sole provider of potable water for the Florida Keys. The
potable water supply system extends 130 miles from Florida City to Key West and is
approximately 3 miles wide at its widest point. This system includes 187 miles of transmission
mains and 690 miles of distribution mains. The current transmission system in the Middle and
Upper Keys consist of 36-inch- and 30-inch-diameter transmission mains along U.S. Highway 1
and a 12-inch-diameter transmission main along Route 905 to Ocean Reef, which were
constricted in the early 1980s. The transmission system continues into the Lower Keys with a
24-inch-diameter transmission main, which was constricted in the late 1980s and mid-1990s.
The water supply for FKAA is the Biscayne aquifer from a well field west of Florida City in
Miami -Dade County. The well field contains some of the highest quality ground water in the
State of Florida. The water is pumped to the Florida Keys, with diesel pumps as backup. Water
storage facilities are located at various locations throughout the Keys in case of a pipeline
rupture. Desalination facilities have been constricted in Marathon, Stock Island and Florida
City.
Wastewater Treatment. No centralized wastewater treatment system or facilities currently
provide uniform service to the Service Area. Systems currently operating in the Keys are
administered by municipal governments or private developments.
The four basic methods for wastewater management and treatment presently used in the Keys
include cesspools, septic tanks, ATUs and OWNRS. These methods were described in detail in
the PEIS (Section 3.15).
At the time a development permit is issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities, including WWTFs and on -site sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), must
Draft Environmental Assessment 61 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
3.0 Affected Environment
be available to support the development at the adopted LOS, concurrent with the impacts of the
development (Monroe County 1997b). The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan includes
provisions for eliminating cesspools and improving failing septic systems and package treatment
facilities (Monroe County 1997b).
3.15 Hazardous Materials and Domestic Waste
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1974, Subtitle C, established a federal
program for the handling of hazardous wastes in a manner that would prevent impacts to human
health and the environment. The FDEP Division of Waste Management Bureau of Solid and
Hazardous Wastes oversees RCRA for the state. Florida Statues, Chapter 403, Florida Public
Health Section, Resource Recovery and Management, and FAC, Rule 62-730 provide the
regulations for the handling of hazardous materials and waste.
Monroe County collects solid wastes at three locations: Key Largo, Cudjoe Key and Long Key.
Waste material is collected at these locations by four private contractors and then separated and
either shipped to a landfill in Southeast Florida, or recycled. Household hazardous wastes are
collected at these three locations and handled separately. Hazardous wastes from commercial,
institutional, and industrial facilities in the Keys are collected at the generation site and disposed
of according to stringent regulations regarding the specific material. Treated wastewater sludge
materials are not considered hazardous wastes. Adequate collection, disposal, and resource
recovery for solid waste are essential for future developments. No building permits would be
issued unless adequate solid waste collection and disposal facilities needed to support the
development are available concurrent with the impacts of the development.
The proposed WWTF is located on Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by
Monroe County, which is a known source of contamination. Monroe County has authorized the
land -use change of decommissioning cells A & B of the landfill and utilize the area for the
proposed WWTF (Permit Minor Modification, No. 0067347-005-SO/MM). Prior to constriction
of the WWTF, the FKAA will remove the existing liner.
SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Environmental Assessment 62 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
This portion of the Draft EA presents an analysis of the environmental consequences anticipated
as a result of implementing the alternatives described in Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives.
The comparative analysis focuses on issues identified as concerns during initial scoping meetings
and communications with regulatory agencies and stakeholders. The environmental
consequences are summarized in Table 4-1. The three project alternatives under consideration
are briefly outlined below.
• Alternative 1: No Action. No federal agency would provide funding to the FKAA for
implementation of wastewater treatment improvement projects that would address state
mandates to meet wastewater treatment standards. Public entities would not constrict or
operate WWTFs. Lower Keys residents, communities, and businesses would be
responsible for addressing state mandates aimed at improving water quality in the
Sanctuary.
• Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Provide federal financial assistance from the Corps, as
part of the FKWQIP, to develop and implement a regional wastewater collection and
treatment system for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area that would address mandatory
state wastewater treatment standards.
• Alternative 3: Pursue Other Sources of Funding for Project Implementation. In the
absence of federal funding, provided by the Corps, alternative funding sources would be
pursued to implement projects for the FKAA that would address state mandates and
improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Sources of monies may include other state and
federal funding mechanisms (other than Corps) and/or additional costs levied against
Florida Keys residents.
Like most of the Florida Keys, residents in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area rely primarily on
septic tanks and cesspools, resulting in little or no treatment of wastewater that ultimately flows
to adjacent nearshore waters. Continuing research has identified these discharges as major
contributors to declining water quality in the canals and nearshore waters in the Florida Keys and
Sanctuary.
Application of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (Corps 2002). Importantly, the
Corps' model provided a means of quantifying the affects of wastewater improvement projects,
specifically the reductions in nutrient loads, within the Sanctuary. An independent contractor
from the team who originally developed the FKCCS model coordinated with and assisted the
South Florida Regional Planning Council in running the mode for FKWQIP projects, specifically
for Key Largo, Islamorada and Marathon. These similar wastewater districts provided the basis
for calculating the anticipated range of nutrient reductions associated with constriction of the
Cudjoe Regional WWTF.
The goal of the FKCCS is to "determine the ability of the Keys ecosystem, and the various
segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land development activities." The study
focused on establishing relationships between land development activities and carrying capacity
indicators and used these relationships to model impacts to terrestrial and marine ecosystems and
species, human infrastructure, socioeconomics, fiscal conditions, and water resources. Results
were integrated into a spatially explicit automated computer model that then characterized
Draft Environmental Assessment 63 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
current conditions as a baseline scenario as well as six additional scenarios with varying levels of
development and a scenario with the MCSWMP implemented.
The Alternatives. Implementation of the No Action alternative is expected to result in continued
adverse impacts to, and the persistence of, existing conditions described in Chapter 3, Affected
Environment due to discharges for septic systems (including substandard systems) and cesspools
in the Service Area. The Proposed Action and Alternative Funding ,Sources alternatives, call for
a new WWTF and associated infrastructure for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area, but vary due
to availability of funding and entities that would implement projects. The vast majority of
benefits under both alternatives are positive, consistent with the intent of the FKWQIP and other
federal, state, and local initiatives to improve water quality in the nearshore waters of the Florida
Keys and the Sanctuary.
Under the Proposed Action, federal financial assistance would be provided to constrict a WWTF
that would improve wastewater treatment in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area and address state
mandates to improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Under the Proposed Action, discharges to
soils and nearshore waters from septic systems (including substandard septic systems), and
cesspools in the Service Area would be eliminated and TN, TP and TSS loads would be
subsequently reduced.
In contrast, under Alternative Funding Sources, Lower Keys residents and businesses would
pursue alternate funding options for wastewater treatment improvements and implement projects
as funding becomes available. Although long-term benefits under Alternative Funding ,Sources
are the same as those described for the Proposed Action, the absence of Corps funding may delay
the implementation of projects, impede the integration of individual wastewater components, and
decrease cost effectiveness. Potential adverse impacts due to implementation of the Proposed
Action are relatively minor and are related to environmental justice and protected species and
associated habitat.
Potential Issues of Concern. Potential issues addressed in this Draft EA include environmental
justice and protected species and associated habitat. Approximately eight percent of the
population in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area was living below the poverty level in 2000, and
the proportion of residents over the age of 65 is approximately the same as that of the county and
state (14.7 percent and 17.6 percent, respectively). Consequently, the capital costs and monthly
service fees for wastewater treatment improvements may be disproportionately large for this
group and may require mitigation.
Although impacts to wetlands from the proposed wastewater infrastructure will be avoided
and/or minimized as the improvements will generally occur within existing ROW corridors,
some avoidable impacts to mangrove habitat along U.S. Highway 1 may occur as a result of
installing the transmission main. Coordination with FDEP is on -going and an ERP will be
obtained should avoidable impacts occur.
Draft Environmental Assessment 64 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4-1
ComparisonTable
Resulting
from the Alternative Actions
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Issue
Alternative Funding
No Action
Proposed Action Sources
N
Elimination of cesspools,
Expedited removal of cesspools,
Treatment NNill be less
septic tanks and associated
septic tanks and associated
affecti-e due to fragmented
nutrient and contaminants.
pollutants in pollutant hot spots
and delayed construction.
U0
Cesspool elimination
throughout the Florida Kees.
progress slowly.
Effluent disposal practices
WWTF,,N-ould have shallo,,v,,yell
Fever and smaller WWTFs
essentially remain the
injection of treated ,vater,
,vithout central management,
ZS 0
same.
reducing untreated effluent
potentially greater reliance on
w
discharge to the Sanctuary-.
injection "yells.
W Q
Disinfection ,vould reduce
bacteria concerns.
Continued odors associated
Temporary-, minor adverse
Reduced impacts due to fever
with existing or new
impacts due to construction.
WWTFs. Remaining
ZS
treatment facilities,
cesspools, septic tanks, and
d
cesspools and septic tanks.
odors ,vould be less ,N-hen
compared ,vith the Proposed
Action.
Biological Environment
Continued pollutant inputs
Potential minor adverse impacts
Conditions for Alternative 1
-:
may alter soils and habitat
to mangroves. Avoidance,
,vould continue until projects
C�j
and adversely impact
minimization and mitigation
are implemented. Delays and
ZS
vegetation and ,vildlife,
result in no significant adverse
smaller scale projects
o
w
through toxins and
impacts to protected species'
anticipated under this
bioaccumulation and food
habitat. Net environmental
alternative may result in
-�
chain transfer. Phosphorus
benefits to seagrasses and corals
similar, but less expansive
additions may benefit
due to fever algal blooms,
benefits, ,N-hen compared ,with
mangroves.
improved ,vater clarity and light
those for the Proposed Action.
penetration.
Potential adverse impacts
Minimal, to no, adverse impacts
Potential adverse affects as
7:)
due to continued habitat
due to infrastructure
described under No Action
degradation related to
construction. Section 7 USFWS
,vould continue until ,vater
cesspools and septic tanks,
consultation and review by
quality improvement projects
and subsequent nutrient and
FFWCC for state protected
are implemented.
other pollutant inputs into
species is ongoing.
nearshore coastal ,vaters.
Adverse impacts due to
Anticipated reductions in nutrient
Potential adverse impacts as
C
continued pollutant
loadings and discharge volumes
described under No Action,
wdischarges
into canals and
and improved nearshore habitats,
until projects are
W
nearshore ,vaters.
directly benefiting EFH. NMFS
implemented.
supports development of AWT.
Draft Enviromnental Assessment 65 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
U �
E
0
H
U
C"
Continued pollutant inputs
and -water quality -
degradation would adversely
impact benthic corals and
seagrasses.
No impacts to unidentified
cultural resources are
anticipated.
Constrained growth in land
development and population.
Residents may be
responsible for WWTF
project costs. Potential
impacts to the number of
residents >65 on a fixed
income.
Beach health advisories due
to poor water quality would
continue, adversely affecting
immediate recreational and
tourist opportunities.
Existing ,vaste,,vater
management costs ,Hill
remain the same.
Potential decrease in public
health due to higher levels of
bacteria.
No impacts to transportation
or utilities and services
-would occur.
No adverse impacts anticipated.
Benefits include improved water
quality and improved water
quality and improvements in
associated benthic, coral and
sea�rass habitats.
Human Environment
No documented occurrences of
archaeological or historic sites on
the proposed WWTF site.
Moderate growth expected for
wastewater improvements for
current residents.
Federal funding would alleviate
some costs for implementing
WWTF projects, although
additional costs of infrastructure
would still potential impact
residents >65 on a fixed income.
Improved water quality, fewer
beach advisories and closings,
and increased opportunities for
saltwater -based recreation.
Temporary transportation delays
due to construction activities.
Increased utility service costs
due to connection charges and
monthly fees, particularly for
love -income households.
Potential mitigation would
include low-cost financing and
subsidies.
Reduced incidences of water
borne disease, health advisories,
and beach closings related to
wastewater discharge.
Minor, temporary impacts to
traffic, utilities and services
could occur during construction
of WWTF and associated
infrastructure.
Continued nearshore water
quality degradation as
described under No Action
until project implementation.
Similar to Proposed Action if
alternative funding becomes
available.
Constrained growth in land
development and population.
Similar to the No Action
alternative if alternative
funding sources not obtained.
Once alternative funding
sources are available, impacts
,,would be similar to those
under the Proposed Action.
Some growth in tourism due
to improved nearshore ,vater
quality could be expected,
however, at a slower rate as
compared with the Prot)osed
Action.
Cost of wastewater
management would increase
at a slower pace as compared
with the Proposed Action.
Similar to the Proposed
Action, except beach health
advisories and closings would
continue until project
implementation.
Impacts would be similar to
those under the Proposed
Action, but impacts would be
staggered (construction
activities would occur at a
slo,,ver pace.)
Draft Environmental Assessment 66 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
No impacts anticipated.
No adverse impacts due to
Impacts of Alternative
CA
Future land use would be
compatibility with land use
Funding,Sources on land use
�= '
delaved or limited to
designations. Future
would be similar to those of
= � C
developments with approved
development would proceed per
the Proposed Action,
a
on -site ,vaste,,vater facilities.
ROGO and Monroe County
occurring more slowly and
Co m Plan.
ossibly at a lower level.
Florida Statutory Treatment
Florida Statutory Treatment
Difficult for county to meet
o
Standards of 2015 would not
Standards mandated for 2015
the treatment standards
be met.
compliance would likely be met.
mandated by Florida Statute.
zS
ap
a�
4.1 Climate
Climate is a regional environmental characteristic and will not be affected by any of the project
alternatives under consideration. Climate was discussed in Chapter 3, Affected Environment to
describe the environmental setting for the project site, including seasonal rainfall patterns.
4.2 Topography, Geology and Soils
Topography and geology would not be affected by the project alternatives. Potential impacts to
soils are important in the Florida Keys due to the relative absence of topsoil and seepage of
untreated wastewater into the limited amount of topsoil in the Florida Keys and the Cudjoe
Regional Service Area would be minor.
4.2.1 Alternative I (No Action)
Impacts to geology and soils under the No Action alternative would continue as described under
Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Existing wastewater and associated seepage from cesspools
and septic tanks in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would continue to elevate soil nutrient
levels. Under the No Action alternative, the transport of accumulated soil contaminants such as
heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides and herbicides in surface water
runoff to marine, estuarine and freshwater environments would continue and may be long-term.
Sinkhole formation is infrequent in South Florida as a result of the relative absence of soil and
overlying sediments, compared with mainland areas with 50 to 100 feet of overlying soils, in
addition to declining water tables. Sinkholes occur when underlying limestone is dissolved by
acidic rainfall moving through soil, especially along the fractures and weak layers. A cavity
forms and subsequently collapses under the weight of the overlying soils. Water also exerts
hydrostatic pressure on the clay layers that separate the shallow surficial aquifer from the deeper
Floridan aquifer and supports the limestone matrix. The direct connection of the aquifer to, and
interaction with, the marine environment via the porous limestone in the Florida Keys makes the
water source non -potable and maintains the hydrostatic pressure.
Draft Environmental Assessment 67 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action, the proposed WWTF and associated collection, treatment and
disposal facility would be constricted and discharges from cesspools and septic systems into
soils, and subsequently into wetlands and nearshore waters, would decrease or be eliminated.
Consequently, water quality in the Service Area and in the Sanctuary would be improved.
Effects on soils and geology in the Service Area would be minor. Disturbances to soils would
occur as a result of excavation and fill required to install the collection and transmission lines
along Service Area roads as well as the removal of cesspools and septic tanks.
The Cudjoe Regional WWTF currently includes four shallow injection wells. Shallow injection
wells are governed by Chapter 62-528 FAC. Shallow injection wells would be constricted to
meet both FDEP Class V reliability standards and FDEP UIC Class V well constriction and
monitoring requirements, as authorized by FDEP Permit No. FLA671932-001.
Under the Proposed Action, soils would be disturbed during constriction and other activities
associated with the proposed WWTF. When appropriate, clean suitable fill would be applied to
the WWTF site and excavated ROWS. Excavated material would be used for backfill and
remaining material would be transported to an appropriate offsite disposal facility.
Under the Proposed Action, appropriate BMPs, an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
and conventional site preparation techniques will be implemented to ensure protection of surface
waters. As a result, no long-term adverse affects on soils are anticipated. Sediment controls to
eliminate discharge to nearshore surface waters may include silt dams, barriers, and straw bales
placed at the foot of sloped surfaces. Soil erosion controls may include, but are not limited to,
grassing, mulching, watering, and seeding. Site preparation may include vegetation and topsoil
removal, followed by surface compaction and fill placement to attain the required constriction
elevation.
4.2.3 Alternative 3
Effects on the soil under this alternative would be similar to those described under the No Action
alternative until the FKAA acquires sufficient alternative funding to implement the regional
WWTF system. The delay would result in continued soils impacts, as described under the No
Action alternative. Once the proposed wastewater project is implemented, the effects would be
similar to those described under Alternative 2.
4.3 Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources as a result of implementing the Proposed Action are limited
to beneficial water quality effects. The proposed WWTF project is expected to improve water
quality in wetlands and nearshore waters of the Service Area and the Sanctuary by reducing or
eliminating nutrient inputs from inadequately and untreated wastewater. No adverse impacts to
potable water supplies are anticipated with respect to the proposed project. Potential impacts to
water resources under the No Action alternative are the same as those described in detail in
Chapter 3, Affect Environment and the PEIS (Section 4.3).
Draft Environmental Assessment 68 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.4 Water Quality
Water quality improvements in the Sanctuary are the primary objective of the Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater improvement project specifically and the FKWQIP in general. This section makes a
clear distinction between the environmental consequences of the No Action alternative
(continued reliance on septic tanks and cesspools and inadequate wastewater treatment) and the
benefits of implementing the proposed regional WWTF system in the Service Area. The
Proposed Action would eliminate the most significant sources of nearshore contamination.
4.4.1 Alternative I (No Action)
Under the No Action alternative, residents within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would
continue to rely on individual treatment systems (septic tanks and cesspools) and privately
owned cluster or package treatment facilities, as described under Chapter 3, Affected
Environment. Individual property owners and businesses would be responsible for meeting the
defined LOS standards prescribed by county ordinance or state regulation.
Ground Water Quality. Under the No Action alternative, continued adverse impacts to the
shallow waters of the Biscayne Aquifer due to existing wastewater practices are anticipated.
Seepage from cesspools and septic tanks would continue to elevate nutrient levels and negatively
impact the water quality of the canals and nearshore waters of the Service Area and surrounding
Sanctuary. Effluent disposal through shallow well injection into the underlying aquifers would
continue and would not meet 2015 water quality mandates would not be met.
Inland Waters, Nearshore and Offshore Water Quality. Under the No Action alternative,
continued adverse impacts to nearshore water quality are anticipated as a result of existing
inadequate wastewater practices. The effect of continued nutrient inputs to the nearshore system
may extend to offshore areas (Kruczynski and McManus 2002) and can only exacerbate historic
problems related to coral reef health in the Sanctuary.
4.4.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action, the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure would be
constricted and discharges from cesspools and septic systems would be reduced or eliminated,
resulting in improvements in water quality in the Sanctuary.
Ground Water Quality. Replacing existing cesspools and septic systems with a centralized
WWTF in the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would meet Florida statutory treatment standards
and reduce the nutrient and contaminant loads seeping or discharged into the aquifer.
Subsequent benefits would include improved water quality in canals and nearshore waters and a
reduced potential for human health concerns. Improvements in water quality are anticipated to
be between 85-88, 79-81 and 77-91 percent reductions in TN, TP and TSS loadings, respectively
(FKCCS 2004, Table 4-3), following implementation of the proposed WWTF. Constriction of
the transmission system for the WWTF would minimally and temporarily impact groundwater
resources due to constriction disturbances.
Draft Environmental Assessment 69 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
The maximum flow to the proposed WWTF is anticipated to be 0.94 MGD and effluent disposal
through shallow injection wells is proposed. The shallow well injection system will include
pumps and a pumping surge control system, four shallow injection wells and several existing
monitoring wells.
Potential impacts of highly treated effluent on groundwater resources are of concern to federal,
state, and local agencies and shallow injection wells constricted as part of the proposed project
would comply with all applicable and relevant standards for disposal. Public comments
regarding injection wells of AWT facility effluent were addressed in the PEIS.
Permitting and constriction of shallow injection wells are governed by Chapter 62-528 FAC.
Shallow injection wells would be constricted to meet both FDEP Class V reliability standards
and FDEP UIC Class V well constriction and monitoring requirements, as authorized by FDEP
Permit No. FLA671932-001. Monroe County falls within the jurisdiction of the FDEP Fort
Myers office UIC program.
Inland, Nearshore and Offshore Water Quality. Improved water quality in the Service Area,
particularly canals, would be expected under the Proposed Action. The environmental
consequent to inland, nearshore and offshore waters are closely related to those described above
for groundwater because of the direct link between groundwater, canal and nearshore waters. As
described for groundwater, 85-88, 79-81 and 77-91 percent reductions in loadings of TN, TP and
TSS, respectively, are anticipated. Affects of the WWTF also include 100 percent reductions in
TN, TP and TSS to canals. Parameters including length of flush time, localized hydrogeological
characteristics, and affectiveness of limestone in removing phosphorus from injected effluent
would affect the exact extent of anticipated improvements.
The proposed WWTF would reduce nutrient loading, improve human health and welfare
concerns in canals, meet federal and state regulatory water quality standards, and ultimately
assist in protecting water quality in the Sanctuary. Nutrient and TSS reductions would reduce
the potential for algal blooms, and water clarity and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations
would improve, possibly improving the overall health of seagrass habitats of nearshore and
offshore communities. Although implementation of the Proposed Action would not provide
quantifiable improvements to the quality of offshore waters, the benefits would contribute to a
healthier coral reef system due to improved water clarity and increased oligotrophic (nutrient
poor) conditions necessary for a healthy coral reef system.
No wetlands would be disturbed for the constriction of the proposed WWTF. Undisturbed salt
marsh and mangroves would remain intact and undisturbed. Erosion control BMPs would be
employed during constriction to reduce soil erosion and prevent discharge of sediments to
nearshore waters. NPDES permits would be required from the FDEP to control treated effluent
during operations.
Potential impacts to offshore water quality as a result of shallow well injection and the
subsequent potential discharge of nutrients via SGD are possible. Patterns of potential
groundwater input into Florida Bay from shallow wells have been established using natural
tracers of SGD (Burnett and Chanton 2000). A groundwater velocity estimate of approximately
Draft Environmental Assessment 70 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
1.9 cm day-1 was estimated for three sites and results suggest that the interactions between
groundwater and surface water are greatest nearshore along the Florida Bay side of the Florida
Keys. Other studies of discharges from shallow injection wells indicate that the nutrients are
taken up by seagrasses and phytoplankton before reaching the coral reefs.
4.4.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Benefits under Alternative Funding Sources would be similar to those described under the
Proposed Action, albeit with possible delays while the FKAA secures other funding sources.
This time delay would affectively allow further water quality degradation, particularly of
nearshore waters, increasing the cost and time to implement recovery. The delay in
implementing water quality improvements may also reduce the likelihood of meeting 2015
treatment standards.
4.5 Ecological Habitats
Implementation of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and subsequent water quality
improvements will reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality in terrestrial and
nearshore environments in the Florida Keys. Minimal avoidable impacts to mangrove habitat
may occur as a result of installing portions of the transmission main along U.S. Highway 1. The
long-term benefits of this program would substantially offset any unavoidable impacts to habitat.
Importantly, the No Action alternative will continue to adversely impact ecological habitats.
Under Alternative Funding,Sources (Alternative 3), water quality degradation will continue until
alternate funding is available to implement the proposed wastewater treatment improvements.
The habitat categories addressed here include, upland, freshwater and estuarine wetlands, marine
and benthic habitats, coral reefs and floodplains. The importance of each of these habitats was
discussed in detail in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Potential environmental consequences of
implementing the alternatives presented in this document are described in detail in this chapter.
There are no wetlands on the proposed WWTF site, and no Corps 404 Permits or state
Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) would be required.
4.5.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Upland Habitats. Under the No Action alternative, adverse impacts to upland habitats described
in Chapter 3, Affected Environment would continue. Adverse impacts to the upland habitats
within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area (pine rocldands and hardwood hammocks) would be
limited to locations with direct upland discharges and seepage and increased nutrient levels
would stimulate plant growth and lead to changes in plant species composition over time.
Estuarine and Freshwater Wetlands. Untreated wastewater from adjacent uplands would
continue to flow or seep into mangroves, buttonwoods, salt marsh, freshwater hardwoods, and
canals in the Service Area under this alternative. Elevated nutrient inputs from terrestrial runoff
would initially enhance the growth (height and biomass) of mangroves (Lugo and Snedaker
1974), as discussed in Section 3.5.3 of the PEIS. However, nutrient rich conditions can also
Draft Environmental Assessment 71 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
inhibit growth and resistance to infection in plants. Sediment from terrestrial runoff could lead
to changes in estuarine wetlands elevations and subsequent shifts in species composition,
including replacement of salt marsh by upland invasive native and non-native plants. Changes in
vegetation composition would directly affect wildlife habitat and use. For example, increased
nutrient loading from groundwater and commensurate increases in macroalgal growth have been
shown to decrease eelgrass cover and impact benthic fauna composition in Waquoit Bay,
Massachusetts (Valiela et al. 1992).
Freshwater hardwoods would continue to experience indirect impacts such as altered hydrology,
increased pollutant loading, and/or altered natural vegetation, resulting from continued
wastewater discharges in the Service Area. As described in Section 3.5.3 of the PEIS, increased
nutrients and toxins would likely adversely affect freshwater wetland vegetation and could lead
to bioaccumulation and biomagnification of toxins in aquatic and marine organisms. Elevated
nutrient levels could be exploited by opportunistic species and species composition may shift.
Sedimentation from terrestrial runoff could potentially change the elevation of freshwater
wetlands and possibly displace or shift the species composition.
Marine and Benthic Habitats. Marine and benthic habitats in the Service Area include
seagrass beds, hardbottom communities, and bare substrate. These communities are sensitive,
complex ecosystems influenced by many different sources. Under the No Action alternative,
continued adverse impacts to marine habitats, including seagrasses, are anticipated as a result of
continued wastewater practices in the Service Area. Nutrients that are transported from
cesspools and septic tanks to nearshore waters in the Service Area would increase existing
nutrient levels and subsequently adversely affect water quality in the nearshore waters of the
Sanctuary.
Changes in water temperature, pH, and clarity affect the health and survival of marine and
benthic communities. With respect to the proposed wastewater improvements, adverse impacts
to benthic and marine habitats would occur as a result of land -based activities and changes in
water quality through discharges to inland and nearshore waters. While direct impacts of diver
contact, overfishing, or boating contribute to the decline of seagrasses, indirect impacts, such as
nutrification of local waters, result in the increased growth of algae and subsequent shading and
gradual decline of seagrass beds.
As described in Section 4.5.1 of the PEIS, elevated nutrient levels can lead to algal blooms
which in turn reduce water clarity, decrease light penetration, and potentially result in hypoxic
(low oxygen) or anoxic (oxygen depleted) conditions in shallow, poorly flushed locations. These
conditions would adversely affect light -dependent organisms such as seagrasses, and can result
in adverse impacts such as fish kills and species shifts. In addition, the release of contaminants
and pathogens from wastewater can result in pollutant bioaccumulation and biomagnification in
the food chain, affecting human health and safety concerns.
The impact to marine habitats as a result of the lack of adequate wastewater treatment in the
Florida Keys has not been and may never be quantified. However, water quality degradation in
the nearshore waters and the substantial decline of these habitats are well documented. For the
Draft Environmental Assessment 72 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
most part, impacts to the marine habitats as a result of the implementation of the proposed
project would be highly beneficial, indirect, and long-term.
Coral Reefs. As discussed in ,Section 3.5.4, no coral reefs were identified within the 500-meter
buffer zone surrounding the Service Area. However, coral reefs are located within the Sanctuary
and will be affected by this FKWQIP project. Under the No Action alternative, continued
adverse impacts to nearshore waters in which coral reefs occur are anticipated as a result of
nearshore water quality degradation associated with nutrients from untreated wastewater. Corals
typically thrive in marine environments where oligotrophic (nutrient poor) conditions include
clear waters and low turbidity. Excess nutrients, whether from natural or anthropogenic sources,
may negatively impact marine and coral reef ecosystems in several ways. Consequently, coral
reefs would be adversely affected by continued nutrient loading to nearshore waters of the
Sanctuary caused by continued use of septic tanks and cesspools for wastewater treatment in the
Service Area.
Excess nutrients in the water column can increase the growth of phytoplankton and result in algal
blooms that reduce water clarity, decrease light penetration, and decrease seagrass and coral
growth. Additionally, high nutrient concentrations tend to favor the growth of non -symbiotic
mat -forming macroalgae that are not symbionts with the coral and will shade the coral,
eliminating the ability of the zooanthellae to photosynthesize, causing bleaching and eventual
death of corals.
Floodplains. Continued adverse impacts to habitats in floodplains (as described above) as a
result of inadequately treated wastewater are anticipated under the No Action alternative.
Without the implementation of the Cudjoe Regional WWTF and associated infrastructure, water
quality degradation in the habitats described above would continue. In addition, EO 11988 and
11990 would not apply under this alternative and compliance with wastewater system designs
with Monroe County Floodplain Ordinance would be required to protect the 100-year flood
plain.
4.5.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Upland Habitat. Implementation of the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure would
decrease or eliminate the seepage of nutrients and contaminants from cesspools and septic
systems. In addition, a reduction in the seepage of nutrients and contaminants to the Sanctuary
would improve water quality.
Under this alternative, no adverse impacts to upland communities are anticipated due to
constriction activities associated with the new WWTF and associated infrastructure. The
proposed WWTF will impact approximately 3 acres of developed lands. This project abides by
the USFWS recommendation, as described in the PEIS (Section 4.2.1.2), for wastewater
improvement sitings.
Estuarine and Freshwater Wetland Habitats. Implementation of the proposed WWTF and
associated infrastructure would decrease or eliminate nutrient and contaminant seepage from
cesspools and septic systems into wetlands in the Service Area and consequently decrease
Draft Environmental Assessment 73 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
pollutant loadings into adjacent nearshore waters. Commensurate decreases in pollutant loadings
into the aquifer, both directly and indirectly, would also improve water quality and habitat in
general in the Service Area, as discussed in the PEIS (Section 3.5.3).
No wetlands occur on the WWTF site. Therefore, no adverse impacts to wetlands are anticipated
as a result of the constriction and implementation of the proposed WWTF. Impacts to wetlands
from the proposed wastewater infrastructure will be avoided and/or minimized as the
improvements will generally occur within existing ROW corridors. Some avoidable impacts to
mangrove habitat along U.S. Highway 1 may occur as a result of installing the transmission
main. Coordination with FDEP is on -going and an ERP will be obtained should avoidable
impacts occur. This project abides by the USFWS recommendation, as described in the PEIS
(Section 4.2.1.2), for wastewater improvement sitings.
Marine and Benthic Habitats. No adverse impacts to marine and benthic habitats are
anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, constriction of the
proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure to service the Cudjoe Regional Service Area
would decrease or eliminate existing inputs of contaminants, nutrients, and other pollutant inputs
from cesspools and septic systems into nearshore waters surrounding the Service Area.
Consequently, water quality in nearshore waters of the Sanctuary would be improved.
Substantial benefits to the marine habitats in the Service Area would be anticipated under this
alternative. Reductions in nutrients would improve, and commensurate improvements in the
overall health of benthic marine communities would be expected. No mitigation would be
required due to the positive affects of this program.
Coral Reefs. As discussed in Section 3.5.5, no coral reefs were identified within the 500-meter
buffer zone surrounding the Service Area. However, coral reefs are located within the Sanctuary
and will be affected by this FKWQIP project. No adverse impacts to coral reefs in the Sanctuary
are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Benefits of the Proposed Action include
improved water quality of nearshore waters in the Service Area and commensurate
improvements in ecosystem health in the Sanctuary.
As described in Section 4.5.2 of the PEIS, marine flora and water quality dependent marine
organisms, including corals, in nearshore waters of the Sanctuary will benefit from reduced
nutrient levels. Implementation of the proposed project would potentially contribute to the
recovery of the only living coral barrier reef system in North America. Consequently,
implementation of this alternative would benefit the coral reef tract of the Florida Keys and
contribute to recovery of this important national treasure.
Floodplain. Under the Proposed Action, potential temporary adverse impacts to floodplains in
the Service Area may occur as a result of temporary constriction activities.
Constriction and implementation of the proposed WWTF and associated water treatment
improvements are anticipated to benefit the habitats associated with these floodplains (as
described above). However, there is public concern that the proposed WWTF and associated
improvements under the Proposed Action would lead to further floodplain development. The
Draft Environmental Assessment 74 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Monroe County ROGOs are based on hurricane evacuation times, public safety, and
environmental needs (including water quality and habitat protection) (Section 4.14). Since the
primary limiting factor in these ordinances is hurricane evacuation time, the permit allocation
should not change as a direct result of constriction of a new WWTF.
The proposed WWTF will proved a means to affectively treat existing wastewater flows, not a
means to introduce or support floodplain development. Therefore, if growth and development in
the floodplain occur after implementation of either alternative, they are the result of established
municipal planning and are not directly related to this proposed wastewater project. Because
much of the Florida Keys is in the 100-year floodplain, there are no other practical alternatives
for these facilities.
4.5.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Upland Habitats. Affects on upland habitats under this alternative would be similar to those
described under the No Action alternative until alternative funding is acquired for the proposed
WWTF and associated infrastructure. Once alternative funding sources are available and the
proposed wastewater improvement project is implemented, the benefits would be similar to those
described under the Proposed Action.
Estuarine and Freshwater Wetland Habitats. Adverse impacts to wetlands under this
alternative would be the same as those described under the No Action alternative until alternative
funding is acquired and the wastewater improvement project is implemented. The delay in
implementation would allow continued wetland habitat degradation with potential adverse
affects as described under the No Action alternative. Once the proposed wastewater
improvement project is implemented, the benefits would be similar to those described under the
Proposed Action.
Marine and Benthic Habitats. Adverse impacts to marine habitats under this alternative would
be the same as those described under the No Action alternative until the proposed wastewater
improvement project is implemented with alternative funding sources. The time delay would
allow continued marine habitat degradation with potential adverse affects as described under the
No Action alternative. Once alternative funding sources are available and the proposed
wastewater improvement project is implemented, the benefits would be similar to those
described under the Proposed Action.
Coral Reefs. Delayed implementation of the FKWQIP under this alternative would result in
continued adverse impacts to water quality in nearshore environments and associated coral reefs.
Once alternative funding sources are available and the proposed wastewater improvement project
is implemented, the benefits would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action.
Floodplains. Under Alternative Funding ,Sources, implementation of the proposed WWTF and
associated infrastructure would not occur until alternative funding is acquired. Consequently,
water quality degradation in the habitats described above would continue until the proposed
wastewater treatment improvements are made and floodplains would be protected under the
Monroe County Floodplain Ordinance.
Draft Environmental Assessment 75 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.6 Protected Species
Existing adverse impacts to protected species and their habitat that have occurred due to nutrient
and other pollutant inputs into nearshore waters in the Sanctuary are anticipated to continue
under the No Action alternative. Minimal adverse impacts to protected species or their habitat
may occur under the Proposed Action as a result of proposed WWTF and associated
infrastructure that would serve the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. However, the long-term
benefits of this program would substantially offset the unavoidable impacts to habitat.
Consultation with federal, state, and local agencies is an integral part of the planning process for
this project.
A majority of the Service Area lies within the fragmented boundaries of the Florida Keys
Wildlife Refuges Complex, with the USFWS controlling nearly 38 percent of the total land area.
Additionally, the State of Florida and Monroe County control approximately 13 percent and five
percent of the total land area with the Service Area, respectively. Consequently, any
constriction on natural lands could potentially impact a protected species or associated habitat.
Protected species in the Service Area include a minimum of 64 federally or state protected plants
and animals, as described in section 3.6.2 and 3.6.3. Protected species can be impacted directly
through a "take" (actual loss of an organism) or loss of federally designated critical habitat.
Indirect impacts would include the loss or degradation of the habitat that the organism requires to
sustain its population.
4.6.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Adverse impacts to protected species are not expected to occur within the Service Area under the
No Action alternative. However, protected species that rely on or live in nearshore waters of the
Sanctuary adjacent to the Service Area may be adversely affected as a result of continued
discharges of untreated wastewater into nearshore habitats. As described previously, continued
nutrient and other pollutant discharges into local canals and nearshore waters would likely
increase the potential for algal blooms, impair water clarity and light penetration, decrease
dissolved oxygen, increase the likelihood of fish kills, and encourage macroalgal growth. This
would in turn decrease light penetration and adversely affect benthic habitats and those protected
species using them.
4.6.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action, beneficial and minimal adverse impacts (if any) to protected species
are anticipated due to the constriction and implementation of the proposed wastewater
improvement project. The WWTF within the Service Area is proposed to be built on developed
land. Reductions in nutrients, contaminants, and other pollutants would improve water quality
and result in commensurate improvements in habitat in the nearshore waters surrounding the
Service Area. These improvements would directly benefit the health and status of protected
species in these nearshore habitats.
Draft Environmental Assessment 76 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Among the species of wildlife that would benefit under the Proposed Action are numerous state
listed piscivorous birds and the manatee. The long-term benefits of the proposed water quality
improvements would substantially offset the unavoidable impacts to habitat.
There is the potential for adverse impacts to occur, but are not anticipated as a result of
constriction of the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure. Based on FNAI database
records, 64 protected species may occur within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area. Adverse
impacts to these species could potentially occur as a result of the Proposed Action. However,
constriction for the WWTF and associated infrastructure will be aligned within existing ROW
corridors and, consequently, impacts to protected species from the proposed wastewater
infrastructure will be avoided and/or minimized.
Coordination with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies will occur for this project.
Compliance with USFWS recommendations for avoiding areas of tropical hardwood hammock,
pine rocldands, buttonwood grasslands, mangrove habitats, or freshwater marshes would also
occur.
Any action by the FKAA that results in the loss of natural areas has the potential to impact
protected species due to the few remaining natural areas in the Florida Keys. Biological surveys
for the proposed WWTF will be conducted prior to project initiation to provide observational
field data.
Constriction activities are limited to terrestrial areas resulting in no adverse impacts to marine
resources. Consequently, it has been determined there would be no affect to federally listed
threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS.
4.6.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Under Alternative Funding ,Sources, nutrient and other pollutant discharges into local canals and
nearshore waters, as described under the No Action alternative, would continue until alternative
funding sources are available and water quality improvements are implemented. With the delay
in implementation, the discharge of untreated wastewater and associated water quality
degradation in nearshore waters of the Cudjoe Regional Service Area and the Sanctuary would
continue. The affects on protected species would be similar to those described in the No Action
alternative. However, once the proposed wastewater project is implemented with funds from
alternative sources, the benefits to protected species would be similar to those described under
the Proposed Action.
4.7 Essential Fish Habitat
The MSA requires federal agency consultation with the NMFS on activities that may adversely
affect EFH. Informal consultation was initiated as part of the preparation effort of the PEIS
(Section 3.7) and several relevant species and associated habitats were identified.
Draft Environmental Assessment 77 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.7.1 Alternative I (No Action)
Until the wastewater improvement projects are implemented, adverse impacts to nearshore
waters and dependant fisheries would continue as described under the No Action alternative.
4.7.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action, beneficial and minimal adverse impacts (if any) to EFH are
anticipated due to the constriction and implementation of the proposed wastewater improvement
project. The WWTF is proposed to be built on developed land. Reductions in nutrients,
contaminants, and other pollutants would improve water quality and result in commensurate
improvements in habitat in the nearshore waters surrounding the Service Area. These
improvements would directly benefit the health and status of EFH in these nearshore waters.
4.7.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Under Alternative Fnnding,Sonrces, nutrients and other pollutant discharges into local canals and
nearshore waters, as described under the No Action alternative, would continue until alternative
funding sources are available and water quality improvements are implemented. With the delay
in implementation, the discharge of untreated wastewater and associated water quality
degradation in nearshore waters of the Service Area and the Sanctuary would continue.
However, once the proposed wastewater project is implemented with funds from alternative
sources, the benefits to EFH would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action.
4.8 Air Quality and Noise
Air quality and noise impacts resulting from the constriction and operation of the facilities
proposed for the FKWQIP would not differ from any other typical WWTF and associated
infrastructure. The operation and maintenance of these facilities would have less impact than the
constriction.
4.8.1 Alternative I (No Action)
No additional impacts to air quality or noise levels would occur as a result of implementing the
No Action alternative. Under this alternative, conditions would continue as described for the
affected environment.
4.8.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Air Quality. The constriction of the new WWTF would result in minor, temporary impacts to
the air quality in the vicinity of constriction sites. The operation of heavy equipment during
constriction may result in minor, temporary adverse impacts to local air quality from heavy
equipment engine exhaust. In addition, heavy equipment operation during constriction can also
result in windblown dust and particles. Dust can be minimized by adding moisture to the soil,
mulching, and landscaping soon after constriction completion. The Proposed Action consists of
the constriction of the WWTF and collection system. The schedule for constriction would be
Draft Environmental Assessment 78 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
dependent upon available funding. Operation of the facilities would also produce minor, long-
term impacts and mitigation would consist of odor abatement measures integrated into the design
of the facility. Monroe County is an air quality attainment area. Consequently, anticipated air
emissions from constriction activities are minimal.
Noise. The constriction of the new WWTF would result in temporary noise impacts to land uses
in the vicinity of the constriction sites. Heavy equipment operation and heavy tricks accessing
constriction sites would add additional noise to the ambient noise levels described in Section 3.8
of this Draft EA. Operation of the facilities would also produce minor, long-term impacts and
mitigation would consist of the noise abatement measures appropriated for the WWTF or each
specific pump station.
4.8.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Air Quality. Under the Alternative Funding Sources, impacts would be similar to the Proposed
Action. However, impacts would be staggered (constriction activities would occur at a slower
pace, and may be drawn out for an extended period of time).
Noise. Under Alternative Funding Sources, impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action.
However, potential impacts would be staggered (constriction activities would occur at a slower
pace, and may be drawn out for an extended period of time).
4.9 Cultural Resources
The protection of cultural, archaeological, and historical resources in the Florida Keys is
described in the PEIS (Section 3.9). Major federal laws protecting cultural resources include the
NHPA, ARPA, NAGPRA, and the AIRFA of 1978. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal
agencies to consider the affects of the Proposed Action on identified and potentially present
cultural resources. In addition, the SHPO, Tribal Historic Preservation Office, and the ACHP
would review and comment on a Proposed Action.
4.9.1 Alternative I (No Action)
Under this alternative, impacts to historic, archaeological, and cultural resources would only
occur as described for the existing environment in Chapter 3, Affected Environment.
Implementation of projects by individual residents or businesses may disturb buried and
undocumented historical resources. Those individuals or business owners would be responsible
for compliance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations.
4.9.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
To ensure the protection of archaeological or historical resources, constriction activities in close
proximity of documented occurrences of cultural and historical resources would be supervised by
a qualified archeologist who meets criteria set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and 36 CFR. Appropriate steps would
Draft Environmental Assessment 79 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
be taken in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and the procedures recommended
by the SHPO during constriction in potentially sensitive area.
No significant archaeological or historic resources or known archaeological or historic sites
occur on or adjacent to the proposed WWTF location. The wastewater collection would be
constricted within developed, public ROWS which are not anticipated to contain any significant
archaeological sites. If historic or archaeological items are found during project work, all
activities on the site would be terminated and consultation with the Corps, SHPO, and other
appropriate agencies would occur to identify actions necessary to comply with NHPA Section
106 and other applicable requirements. If human remains are discovered, the Florida unmarked
human burial law (F.S. Title XLVI 872.05 Unmarked Human Burials) would be implemented.
4.9.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Under this alternative, the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure would not be
constricted and implemented until alternative funding is acquired. If funding is obtained
through non-federal entities to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards, compliance
with Section 106 of the NNHPA would not be required. Once FKAA secures funding and the
project proceeds, affects on cultural resources would be similar to those described under the
Proposed Action.
4.10 Demographics and Socioeconomics
4.11 Recreation
The 2.2 million annual visitors to the Florida Keys provide the basis of the tourism industry on
which the economy relies. Tourism is based on clean water and beaches as well as the abundant
fish and wildlife that characterize this popular vacation destination. Consequently, potential
impacts of the proposed project on recreation amenities are examined below.
4.11.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action alternative, a decline in recreation opportunities would be expected as
inadequately treated wastewater discharges to nearshore waters of the Sanctuary and subsequent
water quality impacts continue as described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Anticipated
adverse impacts include additional beach advisories and closings and, potentially, further
damage to coral reefs.
4.11.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Most of the outdoor recreation in Monroe County (and the Service Area) relates directly to
marine resources. Implementation of the Proposed Action would decrease loadings of nutrients
and other pollutants into nearshore waters, improve water quality, and subsequently, benefit
recreation resources. Improvements in nearshore water quality, combined with fewer incidences
of beach advisories and closings, would increase recreation opportunities as well as the
perception of these opportunities, thereby improving the local economy in the Service Area.
Draft Environmental Assessment 80 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Constriction activities associated with completing the proposed project would result in minor,
temporary impacts to recreation activities. Discontinuing use of septic tanks and cesspools and
constriction of the WWTFs and infrastructure would result in temporary traffic delays and
constriction disturbances (e.g. staging sites, equipment). All of these constriction related
impacts would be temporary and minor, and state parks and other recreation areas would remain
open during these activities. Reducing nuisance odors (by discontinuing use of septic tanks and
cesspools) in Lower Keys would enhance the recreation opportunities as well.
4.11.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Under Alternative Funding Sources, delayed implementation of the proposed project would
delay improvements in nearshore water quality, beach health and recreational opportunities in
the Service Area described under the Proposed Action. The eventual benefits would be
significant because of the importance of the marine environment to recreation in the Keys.
Constriction related impacts would also occur over an extended period of time under this
alternative.
4.12 Open Space and Aesthetic Resources
Visitors to the Florida Keys enjoy a unique sightseeing experience over the miles of U.S.
Highway 1 that link the numerous islands across open water. Water quality is important to the
maintenance of healthy ecosystems and the open spaces of the Keys and the Cudjoe Regional
Service Area.
4.12.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action alternative, wastewater treatment would continue to rely primarily on
individual treatment systems and no impacts to aesthetic resources beyond those described in
Chapter 3, Affected Environment are anticipated. Nuisance odors and views associated with
increased algal blooms and fish kills caused by continued nutrient loading from wastewater
discharges would continue.
4.12.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
The proposed WWTF will be constricted on approximately 3 acres of a larger 10.2 acre parcel
and is located on Cudjoe Key at the decommissioned landfill owned by Monroe County.
Impacts to the open space and aesthetic resources would be minimal under the Proposed Action.
The constriction of a WWTF would be beneficial to the Cudjoe Regional Service Area by
reducing the water quality degradation of the nearshore waters of the Marine Sanctuary.
4.12.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Under Alternative Funding Sources, benefits to open space and aesthetic resources would be
delayed until alternative funding is acquired and wastewater improvement projects could be
implemented. However, once projects are implemented, benefits would be similar to those under
Draft Environmental Assessment 81 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
the Proposed Action, albeit at a slower pace. Nuisance odors and sights due to algal blooms and
fish kills would be reduced over time.
4.13 Environmental Justice
As required by EO 12898, this section focuses on potential impacts to minority and low income
residents as they relate to environmental justice (see Section 3.13 for a description of federal
requirements). Impacts to minority and low income populations that may occur as a result of the
proposed alternatives include:
• Sitting of wastewater and stormwater improvements, especially treatment facilities, in
minority or low income neighborhoods.
• Increase costs for wastewater management services in the form of sewer charges and
property taxes that disproportionately impact low income residents.
• Abandonment fees for outdated onsite treatment facilities.
Under both State of Florida statues and Monroe County ordinances, residents of the Florida Keys
are required to replace existing cesspools and failing septic tanks with adequate wastewater
treatment facilities. The financial impact to residents for these improvements would be
uniformly applied in accordance with Monroe County Codes and Tax Stricture.
4.13.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under the No Action alternative, residents would make wastewater improvements in the form of
on -site treatment systems sufficient to meet the county 2015 wastewater treatment requirements.
Estimated costs for these on -site treatment systems ranges from $18,000 to $22,000 per
household, and monthly costs range from $63 to $118 (FEMA 2002). Due to a lack of
discretionary income, low income and fixed income residents would be adversely impacted by
these costs. Residents who comply with the 2015 requirements by meeting interim requirements
would partially offset the costs of implementing the Proposed Action alternative.
4.13.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
The Proposed Action would impose an adverse economic impact on residents of the Cudj oe
Service Area, particularly on lower income residents. While facility sitting is not considered an
environmental justice issue under the Proposed Action, the increased costs to lower income
residents under the Proposed Action does constitute a potential environmental justice issue.
The implementation schedule for the proposed wastewater improvement project is accelerated in
comparison with the Alternative Funding Sources alternative (below) and would therefore
eliminate the need to install costly interim treatment facilities and allow residents to connect
directly to a central sewer system. Once the proposed facility is completed, residents would be
connected to the new facility over an anticipated two to three year period of time. The potential
to reduce, or address, the financial impact imposed on residents to replace cesspools and any
other substandard wastewater management system could benefit all residents, regardless of
income.
Draft Environmental Assessment 82 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Under the Proposed Action alternative, residents and businesses in the Cudjoe Regional Service
Area would be subject to higher utility costs in comparison with the No Action alternative.
Without subsidies residents and businesses connecting to the central wastewater system would
incur a system development charge as high as $15,000 to $20,000 per residence or EDU in
addition to a connection cost that could cost as much as $5,000 per residence. Finally, the
approximately recurring service cost could be as high as $60 per month per residential unit.
While this cost is generally comparable to that for an OWTS, the initial costs to residents and
businesses would be significantly greater.
The system development costs and cost of connecting to the wastewater transmission system
would be an especially difficult financial burden for lower income residents in the Lower Keys
regardless of whether the cost is evaluated alone or compared with OWTS costs. This is an
important consideration, even though the residents of the Lower Keys enjoy a median household
income greater than that of Monroe County as a whole and considerably higher than the State of
Florida. While the median household income in the Service Area is relatively high, about seven
percent of the residents live below the poverty line. This percentage may actually be larger
given that the cost of living in Monroe County is higher than ten percent higher than that of the
state.
The Service Area has a proportion of residents over the age of 65 comparable to the county and
the state. This segment of the population often lives on fixed income and, while their income
may not be below the poverty level, they are more affected by cost of living changes. These
factors suggest that while the majority of the residents are financially secure, there is
considerable disparity in wealth and income among residents, raising potential environmental
justice concerns. Three potential approaches that the FKAA may use to address this issue are
presented below, as previously outlined in the PEIS.
Subsidize Initial Connection Costs. With other central wastewater systems previously
constricted in the Florida Keys, lower income residents have received subsidies, mainly from
two sources: Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) and the FEMA. For certain
projects, Monroe County made CDBG funds available to help defray the combined cost of
service development fees and connecting residences to the wastewater transmission system
(Mark Bell 2004). These subsidies have been in the range of $5300 per qualifying resident. For
projects receiving funding from FEMA, grant funds have themselves been used to subsidize
residents' initial costs, and utility systems have pursued other funds, such as general fund
revenues, to provide the remaining system development costs. Presently, the only known
funding source is the federal government through the Corps. No CDBG funding is currently
available.
Subsidize Cost of Sewer Service. While the Proposed Action alternative will not have a
significant net impact on recurring charges for wastewater services, lower income residents will
be faced with a major financial burden from those charges regardless of whether they are
incurred for on -site treatment facilities or the central facilities developed under the Proposed
Action alternative. The only known source of funding for subsidizing those costs is Monroe
County general fund revenues. Such funding would probably not be practical over an extended
period of time, however.
Draft Environmental Assessment 83 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Implement an Increasing Block Rate Structure. Generally viewed as another form of
subsidy, a graduated rate stricture can also provide water conservation benefits when it is based
on metered water use. A rate stricture that provides a lifeline sewer bill would include a lower
base charge and volume charge for the first 3,000 gallons, for example, of water use per month,
with an increasing charge for more water use. Such a rate stricture links sewer charges to
metered water use, a common method for charging for sewer services. This type of rate stricture
has several drawbacks. First, it runs counter to the prevailing practice of charging on the basis of
the cost of service. Under most conditions, the cost of providing sewer service is relatively
fixed, especially in an older system with significant amounts of inflow and infiltration, so a cost
of service based rate normally has a high base charge and flat volume charge. Second, a low
base charge and low charge for the first two or three thousand gallons of water use places the
sewer utility at financial risk because its revenue is tied to water use by larger customers. Any
significant reduction in water use has a magnified affect on sewer utility revenues and, equally
important, the very factors that lead to a decline in water use often cause increased wastewater
management expenses. Third, higher rates for larger water users are arbitrary and
discriminatory, with no basis other than providing a subsidy for low volume customers. Finally,
such a rate stricture subsidizes all low volume water customers, regardless of ability to pay.
4.13.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
With delayed implementation of central wastewater systems, Alternative Funding Sources
alternative would result in many of the same impacts described for the No Action alternative,
albeit more slowly. However, similar to the No Action alternative, any such impacts would not
be related to the proposed federal action.
4.14 Land Use and Planning
The Proposed Action directly addresses the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
mandated reductions in nutrient loadings to the marine ecosystem, and EO 98-309, which
directed local and state agencies to coordinate with Monroe County in the implementation of the
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to eliminate cesspools, failing septic systems, and other
substandard on -site sewage systems.
4.14.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Land use and planning in the Service Area would continue as described in Chapter 3, Affected
Environment. The absence of federal funding for implementation of improved wastewater
treatment infrastructure under the No Action alternative is not anticipated to impact existing land
uses. However, planned future land use development would be limited under the No Action
alternative. Without wastewater treatment improvement projects, the Lower Keys risks non-
compliance with EO 98-309 and the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. In turn, noncompliance
with these plans could jeopardize the allocation of credits for new development.
Draft Environmental Assessment 84 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.14.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
No adverse impacts to land use are anticipated under the Proposed Action. The proposed
WWTF parcel is designated on the FLUM as public facilities (Figure 3-6).
The proposed project is consistent with the Monroe County ROGOs developed to control growth
and maintain a high standard of living while protecting remaining natural resources. Although
the proposed WWTF would support and facilitate planned growth, it would not induce growth,
increase permit allocations, or facilitate floodplain development beyond that which is already
planned. While county ROGO considerations include public safety and environmental needs
(including water quality and habitat protection), the primary limiting factor in the ROGO is
hurricane evacuation time. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect permit
allocation and associated development in the Service Area.
The proposed WWTF site on Cudjoe Key would be compatible with adjacent land uses, as the
adjacent site is a decommissioned landfill. Constriction activities would result in minor,
temporary impacts to land use (anticipated to last 24 months). Short-term traffic delays as well
as general constriction disturbances would occur during constriction.
4.14.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Under Alternative Funding ,Sources, impacts on land use would be similar to those described for
the Proposed Action once alternative funding is acquired and wastewater improvement projects
are implemented. However, potential impacts would occur at a slower pace. Prior to
implementation, residents and businesses in the Service Area remain at risk of non-compliance
with the 2015 treatment standards.
4.15 Infrastructure
The affects of the Proposed Action and other alternatives on transportation and utilities and
services in the Lower Keys are discussed in this section.
4.15.1 Alternative I (No Action)
Under the No Action alternative, residents within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area would
continue to rely on individual treatment systems (septic tanks and cesspools) and privately
owned cluster or package treatment facilities, as described under Chapter 3, Affected
Environment. Individual property owners and businesses would be responsible for meeting the
state or county defined LOS standards. Residents and businesses would risk non-compliance but
have no impacts to transportation or infrastructure; or they would implement many smaller
projects, which would in turn result in larger numbers of small traffic and infrastructure
disruptions.
Draft Environmental Assessment 85 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.15.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Transportation. The constriction of the new WWTF would result in minor, temporary impacts
to traffic in the vicinity of the proposed project due to heavy equipment and tricks accessing the
constriction site. In addition, the constriction of the wastewater collection system could affect
traffic patterns. Depending on available ROWS, transmission lines are generally constricted
under roadways, and segments of U.S. Highway 1 would be closed during constriction. A
traffic maintenance plan would be prepared to accommodate residential and business traffic
during constriction of the WWTF, pump stations, and associated sewer lines.
The operation of the WWTF would result in additional traffic due to workers traveling to the
facility site. However, the impacts on the area roadway system of the trips produced by the
WWTF would be insignificant.
Utilities and Services. The constriction of the centralized WWTF and collection systems would
result in minor, temporary impacts to utilities at various locations and times throughout the
Service Area. Utility transmission lines are often constricted under roadways or in roadway
ROWS. Consequently, it may be necessary to relocate buried transmission lines during
constriction thus impacts would be localized and short in duration.
4.15.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Transportation. Under Alternative Funding Sources, impacts would be similar to those
described for the Proposed Action. Although potential impacts would be delayed while
alternative funding is acquired to implement the proposed project, delayed funding could result
in a larger number of small projects and therefore greater traffic disruptions.
Utilities and Services. Under Alternative Funding ,Sources, wastewater treatment improvement
projects would not be constricted until alternative funding is acquired. Consequently, impacts
would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action but would be delayed (constriction
activities would occur at a slower pace, and may be drawn out for an extended period of time).
4.16 Hazardous and Toxic Materials
This section addresses the potential impacts of hazardous and toxic materials relevant to the
proposed project. Specifically, known areas of hazardous contamination would be avoided and
mitigation necessary should hazardous contamination be encountered and identified.
4.16.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Without federal funding for the Proposed Action, responsibility for implementing wastewater
treatment improvement projects would remain with individual property owners and businesses.
Disturbance or lands would be limited to individual actions and conditions would continue as
described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment.
Draft Environmental Assessment 86 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.16.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action, constriction and implementation of the proposed WWTF site and
the associated transmission lines and pump stations would include soil disturbance, grading, and
moving, and may, as a result, uncover or expose hazardous materials. For individual
infrastructure improvement projects, the non-federal sponsor would be responsible for
investigating the potential presence or extent of a hazardous substance regulated under the
CERCLA.
The constriction of the proposed WWTF and the infrastructure and normal Operations and
Management (O&M) of the treatment facility would not generate hazardous wastes under normal
circumstances. Contractors would be required to provide pollution prevention plans and contain
any petroleum spills that may occur during constriction. If hazardous wastes should enter the
system, a monitoring system typically identifies the malfunction and corrective actions are taken
to prevent the discharge.
Effluent disposal via shallow well injection would not generate hazardous wastes during the
operation of the WWTF, nor would it result in the discharge of hazardous wastes into the
groundwater. Treated effluent would be monitored for hazardous material contamination.
4.16.3 Alternative 3 (Alternative Funding Sources)
Impacts would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative until the FKAA
acquires sufficient alternative funding sources to implement the proposed WWTF. Once the
proposed wastewater project is implemented, the impacts would be similar to those described
under the Proposed Action.
4.17 Predicted Attainment of the Program Objectives
The primary goal of the FKWQIP is to provide federal funding for local municipalities and
entities to implement wastewater treatment projects that would result in commensurate water
quality improvements in the Sanctuary. The proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure
would provide improved wastewater treatment for the Lower Keys and associated Service Area
and decrease pollutant loads to local canals and nearshore waters. As a result, water quality
improvements in the nearshore waters of the Sanctuary would be anticipated, thereby meeting
federal, state and local goals and objectives.
4.18 Predicted Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are those that "result from the incremental consequences of an action when
added to other past and reasonably foreseeable future actions". The cumulative impacts of an
action may be undetectable, but can add to other disturbances and eventually lead to a
measurable environmental change.
Potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project are primarily beneficial and should be
considered in the spatial and temporal context of the wastewater and stormwater improvement
Draft Environmental Assessment 87 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
projects funded by federal, state, and local source. Multiple wastewater projects in the Keys
would be located closely both spatially and temporally and the cumulative impacts of these
facilities would be beneficial in terms of improved water quality in the Sanctuary. Improved
water quality would in turn enhance marine habitats, and would increase recreation and tourism
opportunities.
Due to constriction activities, minor cumulative adverse impacts to protected species or
protected habitat, terrestrial habitat loss, or both, may occur, depending on the locations of the
individual projects. Appropriate measures would be taken to minimize or mitigate for these
impacts at the individual project level. Implementation of multiple FKWQIP projects would not
have a cumulative environmental justice impact, since each community's financial impact would
be limited to its individual project.
While there is an overall trend to balance development and resource protection, development
trends continue to pressure South Florida. These trends include increased development within
the constraints of ROGOs, transportation corridor widening, and changes in land uses from
trailer parks to single family homes and multi -family units. Consequently, this cumulative
impacts analysis addresses the affects of the proposed FKWQIP projects in the context of larger
trends in South Florida, including the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP),
anticipated development, as well as other wastewater improvement projects. Issues and potential
impacts are outlined in Table 4-2 and described below.
CERP. Importantly, the WWTF and other proposed FKWQIP projects are consistent with the
effort of the CERP, and in combination with CERP, would cumulatively benefit the restoration,
protection, and preservation of water resources in South Florida. The CERP covers 16 counties
in central and South Florida, including the Everglades and the Keys, addresses water quality
through the multi -step Everglades Constriction Project, and also focuses on species diversity and
habitat protection.
Cumulative adverse impacts to water quality and habitat would be greatest under the No Action
alternative due to the continued discharge of inadequately and untreated wastewater into the
shallow aquifer, canals and nearshore waters in the Service Area and in the Keys in general.
Under the No Action and Alternative Funding ,Sources alternatives, the conservation of relatively
larger, contiguous habitats would be unlikely in the absence of regional planning and facilities.
In contrast, conservation of sensitive lands would be more likely as part of a regional plan under
the Proposed Action. Cumulative adverse impacts to water quality would be reduced under the
Proposed Action as a result of reduced discharges of nutrients, suspended solids, and pathogenic
organisms into the aquifer, canals, and nearshore waters of the Keys.
Urban Growth and Development. Cumulative adverse impacts of urban development include
increased impervious surface and stormwater runoff and fragmented habitat. Adverse
cumulative impacts of wastewater loads, although stormwater runoff and habitat fragmentation
are not expected to change as a direct result of the proposed project, would be reduced under the
Proposed Action and Alternative Funding,Sources due to improved wastewater treatment.
Although the proposed WWTF, as well as other FKWQIP projects, would support and facilitate
planned growth, they would not induce growth and no specific future development activities are
Draft Environmental Assessment 88 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
currently identified that would not proceed without the proposed project. The FKWQIP is
consistent with Monroe County ROGOs developed to control growth and maintain a high
standard of living while protecting remaining natural resources. ROGOs are based on several
conditions, including hurricane evacuation times, public safety, and environmental needs
(including water quality and habitat protection). FKWQIP implementation would not increase
permit allocations and would not contribute to or support floodplain development beyond that
which is already planned. Cumulative adverse impacts to land use and planning in the Keys are
not anticipated under any of the alternatives.
Ecological Habitats and Protected Species. Under the Proposed Action, beneficial cumulative
affects of the proposed wastewater improvement projects on marine biological resources are
anticipated due to reduced nutrient and pathogen inputs and subsequent improvement in quality
of groundwater, surface water, and nearshore waters, as discussed in Section 3.3 and 3.4 of this
Draft EA.
Cultural Resources. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated as a result of
the Proposed Action because federally funded actions would include coordination and review of
projects at the state (SHPO) and local (Monroe County Historic Preservation Society) level.
Under the No Action alternative, projects would not be reviewed for potential impacts to cultural
resources and cumulative impacts to these resources would be anticipated. Potential affects on
cultural resources and potential cumulative affects on historic and cultural resources may occur.
Table 4-2
Potential Cumulative ImpactsProposed
Wastewater Improvement
Issue No Action: No Federal Proposed Action: Alternative
Funding for FKWQIP Implementation of FKWQIP Funding Sources
Water Quality
Cumulative increases in
Anticipated nutrient
Cumulative water
nutrient loads to soils, aquifer,
reductions are between 85-88,
quality benefits,
canals and nearshore waters
79-81 and 77-91 percent in
similar to the
that reduce water clarity and
TN, TP and TSS loadings,
Proposed Action,
may adversely impact offshore
respectively, using AWT.
except that there
coral reefs.
Post -treatment nutrient levels
may be delays in
Z
may pose ecological risks for
improvements
surface water, but cumulative
until alternative
reductions in nutrients are
funding is
anticipated.
acquired, as well
Draft Environmental Assessment 89 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
� o
U ¢"
..
E
Cn
x C'J
S
Potential long-term and
cumulative adverse impacts to
human and ecological health in
absence of wastewater
disinfection and treatment and
continued discharges of
untreated or inadequately
treated effluents.
Potential release from aquifer
matrix and discharge into
nearshore environment via
SGD due to injected freshwater
effluent. However, no tracer
studies available for evaluation.
No USDWs, therefore no risk
to potable water supplies.
However, cumulative adverse
impacts to soils, canals and
nearshore waters. Potential
non-compliance with 2010
treatment standards.
Cumulative improvements in
water quality in soils, canals
and nearshore waters, and
possibly offshore marine
waters anticipated due to
combined wastewater and
stormwater improvements
throughout the Keys as well as
the CERP.
Unknown, but potential
release from aquifer matrix
due to interaction of injected
freshwater effluent with saline
aquifer and subsequent
discharge into nearshore
environment is possible.
No USDWs present. Also,
proper siting, constriction and
operation restrict fluid
movement and physically
isolate potential stressors. In
all cases, the risk would be
further reduced with
disinfection and treatment to
AWT standards.
Habitat and Protected Species
Continued cumulative decrease
in habitat for protected species
anticipated due to habitat loss
and fragmentation, within
constraints of county
regulations.
Continued cumulative loss and
fragmentation of vegetation
under existing county
regulation.
Cumulative loss of habitat
associated with constriction of
projects, although minor.
Coordination with federal,
state and local agencies will
ensure avoidance,
minimization and mitigation.
Short-term cumulative
reduction in amount of
vegetation, however,
conservation areas will
decrease fragmentation and
guard against future losses that
may occur, consistent with
county regulations.
Growth and Development Requirements
as less effective
implementation
due to fragmented
approach.
Cumulative habitat
loss, as in the
Proposed Action,
but impacts greater
when compared
with other
alternatives due to
less centralization,
greater habitat
fragmentation.
Draft Environmental Assessment 90 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
a)
a)
Cn
R,
Existing land uses may be
inconsistent with future
conservation areas and may be
incompatible with adjacent
resource protection efforts.
New development would
remain limited by existing
ROGOs. Existing residences
and businesses would continue
to operate without centralized
WWTFs. Would not comply
with 2010 Treatment
Standards.
No impacts to potable water
supplies. Little change in
number of EDUs to be treated
anticipated.
No state and federal
coordination required and
disturbance and/or removal of
cultural resources during
constriction and development
activities could occur.
Cumulative increase in
conservation lands, consistent
with future land uses.
Proposed projects are outside
existing conservation areas,
therefore adverse impacts to
these lands are not anticipated.
No cumulative impacts in
combination with CERP,
Comprehensive Plans.
Consistent with Monroe
County ROGO and Floodplain
Ordinance. Would facilitate
planned growth, but would not
induce growth and no specific
future development activities
are currently identified that
would not proceed without the
proposed project.
No impacts to potable water
supplies. Changes in land use,
e.g. from trailer park to
multifamily residential, may
change EDU volumes and
improve connection/treatment
efficiency.
Increased protection due to
compliance with state and
federal agencies during
constriction and development
activities.
Tourism Economy
Continued health advisories
and beach closings, and
subsequent decreases in beach
visitors, potential for adverse
cumulative impacts to related
economy. Loss of recreational
opportunities under some
scenarios.
Cumulative improvements to
tourism and related economy
due to reduced numbers of
health advisories and beach
closings. Improved fisheries.
Cumulative affects of strong
tourism on the Keys economy
would be positive, with a
commensurate increase in
demand for goods and
services.
Cumulative
increases in
development and
impervious
surfaces, similar to
other alternatives,
consistent with
ROGO. Multiple
projects could
result in multiple
road closures and
subsequent
impacts to tourism.
Also, adverse
impacts more
likely due to less
coordination with
state and federal
agencies and larger
number of smaller,
less centralized
facilities and
greater disruption
of existing or
proposed land use
plans.
Similar to
Alternative 2, with
potential delays
until funding is
acquired.
Draft Environmental Assessment 91 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Environmental Justice
No impacts beyond those
Cumulative water quality
Overall impacts to
presently occurring.
improvements would benefit
employment,
all demographics. Cost may
income, population
o
pose economic hardships in
and housing would
some municipalities and, to
be minor. Short -
help local municipalities
term constriction
address low income and fixed
gains would be
income issues, approaches
greater due to
have been proposed to assist
larger number of
o
with the capital costs
facilities being
associated with 2010 treatment
constricted.
standards compliance. Cost
may pose economic hardships
in some municipalities.
Short-term economic gains
Both short-term and long-term
from constriction activities.
beneficial economic affects
oLong-term
gains dependant on
would be expected from
W
intensity of development.
project constriction, although
minor.
4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
The Cudjoe Regional WWTF would be constricted on Cudjoe Key, adjacent to Monroe
County's Solid Waste Transfer Station. Fugitive dust from vehicle traffic and earth moving
would be unavoidable but temporary and short-term in nature. Temporary disruption of soils is
expected from the constriction of sewer systems and clearing and grubbing of the WWTF site.
Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may include the loss of the some mangrove habitat,
resulting from installation of the transmission may along U.S. Highway 1.
No historic or archeological sites are documented to occur on the proposed WWTF site. The
protection of potentially occurring cultural, archaeological, and historical resources is ensured
via major federal laws including the NHPA, ARPA, NAGPRA, and AIRFA of 1978. In addition,
the SHPO, relevant tribal historic preservation officers, and if necessary, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, would review and comment on a Proposed Action.
4.20 Indirect Affects
Substantial environmental benefits are anticipated due to indirect affects of the proposed project
on physical, human, and biological environments, primarily due to improved water quality in
nearshore waters of the Sanctuary. The only identified negative indirect consequence of program
implementation is increased potential growth as a result of constricting centralized sewer and
wastewater treatment systems. However, a number of local ordinances regulate growth, both for
private residences and new businesses. Advocates for property rights are very active in the Keys
and support continued growth and development of private property. Changes to the rate of
Draft Environmental Assessment 92 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
growth and building permit allocation system are at the discretion of the Monroe County Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the FDCA.
4.21 Compatibility with Federal, State and Local Objectives
As a result of declining nearshore water quality in the Keys, a number of federal, state, and local
laws and regulations have been implemented to improve wastewater management, monitor water
quality, assist in financing water quality improvements, and establish new water quality
monitoring standards. In particular, the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan, as well as
Florida EO 98-309 and FAC. 99-395, mandate that nutrient loading levels be reduced in the
marine ecosystem of the Keys by the year 2015. Specific actions include eliminating cesspools,
failing septic systems, and other substandard on -site sewage systems as well as requiring all
wastewater discharge be treated to Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. In response to the
mandated water quality improvements, a number of master plans have been prepared by Monroe
County and municipalities within Monroe County and these have been compiled into the Master
List of Projects provided in Appendix C of the PEIS.
The proposed project is part of the FKWQIP and therefore directly supports federal, state, and
local objectives for improvement of water quality in the Keys. The program is a direct result of
the Act of 2001 that directed the USEPA and the State of Florida to develop a water quality
protection plan for the Sanctuary.
4.22 Conflicts and Controversy
Controversial issues associated with the FKWQIP are the cost of program implementation, the
means of recovering initial capital investment, and the means of generating revenues to support
maintenance and operational activities. New urban development in the Florida Keys is limited
by the ROGO, consequently the number of new users would increase too slowly to share the cost
of new and improved wastewater infrastructure. A significant portion of the population in the
Keys is classified as low-income and/or fixed income. Many of the typical measures of
affordability are based on median family income which does not adequately reflect the abilities
of those least able to afford the capital costs associated with the installation of new treatment
systems or connecting to a new public sewer system.
Some users may be subject to the cost of immediate replacement of individual systems as well as
future sewer connections. Users with cesspools or septic tanks may be required to replace
existing systems with an OWNRS before a public sewer system can be made available to their
neighborhood. However, once a public sewer system is available, the user would be required to
connect to the public system, adding additional costs to the user. Under this scenario, the user
would be required to pay for both an OWNRS and for connection to the sewer system.
The disposal of wastewater effluent into the groundwater through injection wells and the
potential for groundwater contamination is of concern to the public. Most wastewater in the
Service Area remains untreated or inadequately treated. Disinfecting and treating the effluent to
AWT standards and disposing of it via shallow injection wells is an acceptable alternative. The
Draft Environmental Assessment 93 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
proposed wastewater improvements for the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System would use
shallow well injection.
Average estimated reductions in wastewater loading to nearshore waters in the Keys due to
implementation of FKWQIP are on the order of 69 and 73 percent in TN and TP loadings,
respectively, using AWT standards. Reductions in TN, TP, and TSS loadings between 85-88, 79-
81, and 77-91 percent, respectively, are anticipated for the Service Area as a result of
implementing the proposed wastewater improvements.
4.23 Uncertain, Unique, or Unknown Risks
The Act (2001) was passed with an authorization of up to $100 million to implement the
program. To date, however, limited funding has been appropriated for program implementation.
Without Congressional appropriation or identification of other funding sources, water quality
degradation would continue within the Sanctuary and the Florida Keys would not meet state
mandated statutory effluent standards for wastewater treatment systems. Without program
implementation, the number or health advisories in beaches and canals in the Keys can be
expected to increase. Local municipalities must also identify how they plan to raise the
necessary funding to meet the cost requirements (i.e. the 35 percent match required for the non-
federal sponsor).
4.24 Energy Commitments and Conservation Potential
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the expenditure of energy resources to
constrict treatment facilities, pump stations, and central sewers. These energy resources would
include fuel for constriction vehicles and equipment. Once the facilities are built and placed into
operation, there would be an increase in energy demands to operate the treatment and pump
stations. Energy available within the Service Area is adequate to accommodate the minimal
increase in energy demand required for the Proposed Action. Conservation potential for any of
the alternatives would be minimal.
4.25 Relationship between Short -Term Uses and Long -Term Productivity
While water quality improvements in the Sanctuary are anticipated as a result of the proposed
project, short-term, or localized, adverse impacts would undoubtedly occur. For example, the
constriction of centralized sewer systems throughout the Keys would disrupt local traffic
conditions. These constriction activities would be sequenced to minimize traffic congestion.
4.26 Environmental Commitments
Habitat and protected species surveys have not been conducted on the proposed WWTF sites, but
would be conducted prior to implementation of the project. Appropriate measures would be
implemented to minimized adverse affects.
Draft Environmental Assessment 94 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.27 Compliance with Environmental Requirements
This section of the Draft EA addresses compliance with applicable laws and regulations under
the Proposed Action. All environmental regulatory requirements are being addressed as part of
this NEPA documentation, as described in individual sections pertaining to protected species,
habitats, wastewater treatment, and other relevant issues.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Early identification of issues was conducted as
part of the FKWQIP, of which the Cudj oe Regional wastewater project was a component.
Scoping, a Notice of Intent to prepare a draft PEIS, and a draft and final PEIS were all released
for the FKWQIP between September 2002 and September 2004.
Environmental information on the Cudjoe Regional WWTF project has been compiled and an
EA has been prepared and released for public and agency review. The project is in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act.
Endangered Species Act of 1973. Coordination with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA
will occur during the NEPA review of the Draft EA. The Draft EA will constitute the Corps'
Biological Assessment and Section 4.6 addresses the affects to threatened and endangered
species. Section 7 coordination will be completed prior to constriction. Because constriction
activities are terrestrial and there would be no adverse impacts to marine resources, the Corps has
determined there would be no affect to federally -listed threatened or endangered species or
critical habitat under the jurisdiction of National Marine Fisheries Service. No further
coordination with NMFS is required. The project will be in compliance with the Act.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1958. The FKWQIP PEIS has been
coordinated with the USFWS and the protection of sensitive ecological resources, federal land
resources, protected species and critical habitat have been addressed in Sections 3.5, 3.6, 4.5, and
4.6 of this Draft EA. Coordination under the FWCA will be conducted during the NEPA review
of the Draft EA. This project is in full compliance with the Act.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Inter Alia) (PL 89-665, the Archeology and
Historic Preservation Act [PL 93-291] and Executive Order 11593). A review of the Master
Site Files was completed for the proposed WWTF site and is addressed in Sections 3.9 and 4.9 of
this Draft EA.
Clean Water Act of 1972. All state water quality standards will be met. The project is in
compliance with this Act. There are no wetlands on the proposed facility sites therefore, a 404
Permit is not required.
Clean Air Act of 1972. The Service Area is in a Clean Air Act compliance area. No air quality
permits would be required for this project. To comply with Section 309 of the Act, this Draft EA
will be reviewed by concerned agencies including the USEPA, other stakeholder agencies, and
the public.
Draft Environmental Assessment 95 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. A federal consistency determination in accordance
with 15 CFR 930 Subpart C has been included in this Draft EA as Appendix A. The consistency
review, delegated to the state of Florida, was performed during the public review of this Draft
EA. The state has determined that at this stage, the project is consistent with the Florida CZMP.
Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. Implementation of the proposed project would not
impact any prime or unique farmland. The proposed project is in compliance with the Act.
Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968. No designated wild and scenic river reaches would be
affected by project related activities.
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. No constriction work would be conducted in the
water. Therefore, project related activities would not result in take as defined by Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
Estuary Protection Act of 1968. Implementation of the proposed WWTF and associated
infrastructure would decrease or eliminate nutrient and contaminant seepage from cesspools and
septic systems within the Service Area and consequently decrease pollutant loadings into
adjacent estuarine habitats. This project is in full compliance with the Act.
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The proposed project has been
coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service and is in compliance with the Act.
Submerged Lands Act of 1953. The proposed project would not occur on submerged lands of
the State of Florida. This Act is not applicable.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. A review of
the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) maps shows that three designated CBRS units lie
within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area (FL-50, FL-52 and FL-54). Constriction of the
proposed central WWTF and all of the infrastructure and transmission lines needed to convey
wastewater to the facility will occur outside the boundaries of these CBRS units. However,
several decentralized cold spots, located on Summerland Key, Big Torch Key and No Name
Key, are within the CBRS units. The project will be in compliance with these Acts.
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The proposed work would not obstruct navigable waters of
the United States. The proposed project is in full compliance.
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. Anadromous fish species would not be affected. The
project has been coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service and is in compliance
with the Act.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Migratory birds do not
currently use the proposed WWTF site and therefore would not be affected by proposed
activities. The project is in compliance with these Acts.
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. The term "dumping" as defined in the Act
(3[33 U.S.C. 1402][f]) does not apply to this project. Therefore, the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act does not apply to this project.
Draft Environmental Assessment 96 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. A preliminary records search completed
for the Service Area during the preparation of this Draft EA found limited potential for
hazardous, toxic or radioactive waste substances to be encountered during implementation of the
proposed project. Hazardous waste for this project is addressed under Sections 3.16 and 4.16 of
this Draft EA. T he project is in compliance.
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. No substances regulated under this Act and related
laws have been identified in project lands. The project is in compliance.
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. No adverse affects to
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) are anticipated by implementing the proposed project.
Implementation of the proposed WWTFs and associated infrastructure would decrease or
eliminate nutrient and contaminant seepage from cesspools and septic systems within the Service
Area and consequently decrease pollutant loadings into adjacent marine and estuarine habitats,
therefore benefiting EFH. This Draft EA will be coordinated with the NMFS for concurrence.
The project is in full coordination of the Act.
E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands. There are no wetlands on the proposed WWTF sits
Overall, implementation of the proposed WWTF and associated infrastructure is anticipated to
benefit wetland habitat throughout the Service Area by decreasing or eliminating nutrient and
contaminant seepage from cesspools and septic systems. This project is in compliance with the
goals of this Executive Order.
E.O. 11988, Flood Plain Management. The project has been evaluated in accordance with this
Executive Order. This project is in compliance.
E.O. 12898, Environmental Justice. Executive Order 12898 requires the Federal Government
to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing disproportionately high adverse
affects of its activities on minority or low-income populations, and by involving potentially
affected minorities in the public coordination process. Environmental justice is specifically
addressed in Sections 3.13 and 4.13 of this Draft EA. The project is in compliance with the
Executive Order.
E.O. 13089, Coral Reef Protection. This Executive Order applies to coastal projects that might
directly or indirectly impact coral reefs. The Executive Order refers to "those species, habitats,
and other natural resources associated with coral reefs." This project will not adversely impact
coral reefs or coral reef resources and may, in fact, benefit these resources by improved water
quality of the nearshore waters adjacent to the Service Area. The project complies with this
Executive Order.
E.O. 13112, Invasive Species. Much of the vegetation within the WWTF footprints consists of
non-native invasive species, which will be removed within the immediate footprint as a
consequence of constriction of the impoundment. Constriction equipment will use standard
measures to avoid the spread of invasive species. This project will not authorize, fund, or carry
out any action that might spread or introduce invasive species. Therefore, this project complies
with the goals of this Executive Order.
Draft Environmental Assessment 97 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
5.0 Public Involvement
The topics of wastewater degradation in the Sanctuary and the need to reduce nutrient loading in
the nearshore waters of the Keys are of particular interest to regulatory agencies and citizens
alike. For this reason, public participation throughout the previously prepared PEIS included
actions by the Corps to accomplish the goals listed below.
• Comply with the intent of NEPA and other applicable statutes
• Solicit and address public and agency opinions during this process
• Document the process and characterize the project accurately
5.1 Public Involvement for Master Plans
As described in Chapter 1, the Corps did not undertake planning activities to delineate
alternatives in this Draft EA, but rather relied upon results of planning initiatives of Monroe
County municipalities. Thus, it is important to recognize the extensive public outreach and
involvement associated with these efforts.
Public involvement was an integral component of the Monroe County wastewater planning
process and the development of the MCSWMP. Public involvement activities conducted as part
of this master plan included over 30 meetings with key stakeholders and the public, hosted by the
FKAA and the county between 1998 and 2000. Public forums in the Upper, Middle, and Lower
Keys were held to allow key stakeholders and interested citizens of Monroe County the
opportunity to participate in, and influence, the outcome of the Master Plan. Interaction with the
public throughout the development process significantly assisted in the development of the
contents of the Master Plan. Numerous public involvement efforts were implemented as part of
the Master Plan development process and are outlined below.
• Public forums and workshops
• Meetings with civic, business, and environmental groups throughout the Keys
• Preparation and distribution of project fact sheets and brochures
• Media coordination
• Production of two videos
• Development of a project web site
Interested citizens and key stakeholders directly influenced the development of the decision and
evaluation processes, identified key issues to be addressed, and defined the elements of the
MCSWMP guiding Monroe County to achieve compliance with the Florida Statutory Treatment
Standards of 2010. Comments provided by participants generally expressed concerns regarding:
• Implementation costs
• Extent of improved water quality
• Implementation approaches
• Alternative wastewater conveyance/treatment technologies
• Measure of project performance
• County responsiveness to public input
Draft Environmental Assessment 98 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
5.0 Public Involvement
5.2 Public Involvement for PEIS
Applicable regulatory agencies, affected stakeholders, and interested members of the Keys
community have been provided opportunities to participate in the decision -making process
during the development of this Draft EA. The Notice of Intent (NOI), scoping letter, and the
responses to the scoping process can be found in Appendix G of the PEIS. A public meeting was
held in Marathon, Florida, on February 27, 2003 to solicit comments and input on issues to be
addressed during the NEPA documentation process. Issues raised at this public meeting are
listed below.
• Need for federal funding to support wastewater infrastructure development in the Keys
• Engineering and environmental issues associated with specific projects
• Cost of implementing wastewater improvements to residents of the Keys
5.3 Scoping and Public Involvement for Cudjoe Regional EA
On December 8, 2008 and December 11, 2008 public meetings were held in Big Pine Key and
Summerland Key, respectively.
Additional means of public outreach are planned following issuance of the Final EA. In
accordance with Corps procedures and NEPA public notification requirements, the Final EA will
be advertised in local newspapers and made available at local repositories for a 45-day comment
period. Public comments submitted to the Corps during this time will be reviewed and
addressed, as appropriate.
SPACE INTENTIOANLLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Environmental Assessment 99 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
6.0 Conclusion
This Draft EA provides the basis for examining and evaluating potential environmental impacts
of the proposed Cudjoe Regional Central Wastewater Treatment System on the physical,
biological, and human environment in the Sanctuary. Three project alternatives were evaluated
as part of this Draft EA, premised on the need to implement water quality improvement projects
that would reduce nutrient loadings to nearshore waters and result in commensurate
improvements in water quality of the Sanctuary. The three alternatives are briefly summarized
below.
• Alternative 1: No Action. No federal agency would provide funding to the FKAA for
implementation of wastewater treatment improvement projects that would address state
mandates to meet wastewater treatment standards. Public entities would not constrict or
operate WWTFs. Lower Keys residents, communities, and businesses would be
responsible for addressing state mandates aimed at improving water quality in the
Sanctuary.
• Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Provide federal financial and technical assistance from
the Corps, as part of the FKWQIP, to develop and implement a regional wastewater
collection and treatment system for the Cudjoe Regional Service Area that would address
mandatory state wastewater treatment standards.
• Alternative 3: Pursue Other Sources of Funding for Project Implementation. In the
absence of federal funding, provided by the Corps, alternative funding sources would be
pursued to implement projects for the FKAA that would address state mandates and
improve water quality in the Sanctuary. Sources of monies may include other state and
federal funding mechanisms (other than Corps) and/or additional costs levied against
Florida Keys residents.
The preferred alternative, based on an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated
with each alternative discussed in detail in Chapter 4, is the Proposed Action (Alternative 2),
under which a regional WWTF would be constricted to serve the Cudjoe Regional Service Area.
The WWTF is designed to reduce nutrient loading to nearshore waters and subsequently improve
water quality in the Sanctuary.
Importantly, the Corps' previously developed FKCCS model provided a means of quantifying
the affects of wastewater improvement projects, specifically the reductions in nutrient loads,
within the Sanctuary. An independent contractor from the team who originally developed the
FKCCS model coordinated with and assisted the South Florida Regional Planning Council in
running the mode for FKWQIP projects, specifically for Key Largo, Islamorada and Marathon.
These similar wastewater districts provided the basis for calculating the anticipated range of
nutrient reductions associated with constriction of the Cudjoe Regional WWTF. Improved
treatment technology is anticipated to reduce TN, TP, and TSS loads by an estimated 85-88, 79-
81, and 77-91 percent, respectively. The use of federal funds to assist in the constriction of the
WWTF is the best means to reduce this nutrient source and protect the Sanctuary.
Most of the residents and businesses within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area are connected to
septic tanks and outdated on -site package plants that, if not properly operated, can result in
harmful bacteria and nutrient inputs to nearshore waters. Under the No Action alternative,
Draft Environmental Assessment 100 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
6.0 Conclusion
wastewater inputs and commensurate water quality degradation of the Sanctuary would continue.
As a result, businesses, property owners, and residents within the Cudjoe Regional Service Area
may risk non-compliance with federal and state regulatory treatment standards for wastewater.
Under Alternative Funding ,Sources, federal funding would be unavailable and the FKAA would
pursue alternate funding for water quality improvement projects. Consequently, project
implementation, management, and expenditures would be less affective.
The Proposed Action addressed by this Draft EA is the constriction of a centralized wastewater
treatment system to service residents and commercial businesses located in the Lower Keys. The
proposed WWTF would use a five -stage Bardenpho system capable of meeting the Monroe
County effluent standards. This technology is considered appropriate for the Cudjoe Regional
Service Area because it is very stable and capable of operating over a range of influent flow
rates, which is important in consideration of the Lower Key's seasonal fluctuations in population
and tourism. The anticipated plant capacity is less than one MGD, so the WWTF will use
shallow well injection for effluent disposal. The Proposed Action is anticipated to accomplish
the following goals and objectives.
• Meet objectives of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act;
• Address regional water quality issues;
• Achieve reductions in nutrient loadings and commensurate improvement in water quality
in the nearshore waters of the Sanctuary associated with the Cudjoe Regional Service
Area; and
• Comply with federal and state regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely
manner.
SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Environmental Assessment 101 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Bibliography
Alexander, T.R. and J.D. Dickson. 1972. Vegetational changes in the National Key Deer Refuge,
Part IL Q.J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 35(2-3):85-89.
Allen, D.M., J.H. Hudson, and T.J. Costello. 1980. Postlarval shrimp (Penaeus) in the Florida
Keys: species, size, and seasonal abundance. Bull. Mar. Sci. 30:21-33.
Aronson, R.B. 1990. Onshore -offshore patterns of human fishing activity. Palaios 5:88-93.
Aronson, R.B., W.F. Precht, I.G. Macintyre and T.J.T. Murdoch. 2000. Coral bleach -out in
Belize. Nature 405:36.
Aronson, R.B., and Precht, W.F. 2001a. White -band disease and the changing face of Caribbean
coral reefs. Hydrobiologia 460:25-38.
Arthur, J.D., A.A. Dabousl, and J.B. Cowart. 2002. Mobilization of arsenic and other trace
elements during aquifer storage and recovery, southwest Florida. In George R. Aiken and
Eve L. Kuniansky, editors, U.S. Geological Survey Artificial Recharge Workshop
Proceedings Sacramento, California April 2-4, 2002. U.S. Geological Survey Open -File
Report 02-89.
Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack and G.A. Meester. 1998. A retrospective (1979-1996) multispecies
assessment of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys. Fishery Bulletin 96:395-414.
Ault, J.S., S.G. Smith, J. Luo, G.A. Meester, J.A. Bohnsack and S.L. Miller. 2001. Baseline
multispecies coral reef fish stock assessments for the Dry Tortugas. Final Report to the
National Park Service. RSMA S -University of Miami, Florida.
Avery, G.N. 1982. Cereus robinii in Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory office, Tallahassee,
Florida.
Babson, J. 2003. Scientists race for clues to what's killing coral —Two reefs off Keys raise fear of
spreading infection. Miami Herald, Sunday June 15, 2003.
Barada, W. and W.M. Partington, Jr. 1972. Report of investigation of the environmental effects
of private waterfront canals. Environmental Information Center, Florida Conservation
Foundation, Inc. 63 pp. As cited in Kruczynski, 1999.
Barbour, D.B. and S.R. Humphrey. 1982. Status and habitat of the Key Largo woodrat and
cotton mouse (Neotoma floridana smalli and Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola). Journal of
Mammalogy 63(1):144-148.
Barnes, D.J., and B.E. Chalker. 1990. Calcification and photosynthesis in reef -building corals
and algae. Pages 109-131 in Z. Dubinsky, editor. Ecosystems of the World, Volume 25.
Elsevier Science Publishing, New York.
Draft Environmental Assessment 102 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Beeler, I.E. and T.J. O'Shea. 1988. Distribution and mortality of the West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus) in the southeastern United States: a compilation and review of recent
information. Report prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. PB 88-207 980/AS. National Technical Information Service.
Birkeland, C. 1997. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. C. Birkeland, editor. Chapman & Hall, ITP,
New York.
Boesch, D.F., N.E. Armstrong, C.F. D'Elia, N.G. Maynard, H.W. Paerl, and S.L. Williams.
1993. Deterioration of the Florida Bay Ecosystem: An Evaluation of the Scientific Evidence.
Report to the Interagency Working Group of Florida Bay. National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, Washington D.C., 27 pp.
Bohnsack, J.A., D.E. Harper and D.B. McClellan. 1994. Fisheries trends from Monroe County,
Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54:982-1018.
Boucot, A.J. 1981. Principles of Benthic Marine Paleoecology. Academic Press, New York.
Boulon, R.H., K.L. Eckert and S.A. Eckert. 1988. Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle)
migration. Herp. Rev. 19(4):88.
Boyer, K.E., P. Fong, A.R. Armitage and R.A. Cohen. 2002. Elevated nutrient content of tropical
macroalgae increases rates of herbivory in coral, seagrass, and mangrove habitats. Prog. &
Abstracts, 83rd Annual Meeting Western Society of Naturalists, 27 pp.
Brand, L.E. 2002. The transport of terrestrial nutrients to south Florida coastal waters. Pages
361-414 in J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, editors. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral
Reefs of the Florida Keys —An Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Brinson, M.M. 1988. Strategies for Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Wetland Alteration on
Water Quality. Environmental Management, 12(5):655-662.
Brisbin, I.L., C.A. Ross, M.C. Downes, M.A. Staton, and B. Gammon. 1986. A Bibliography of
the American Alligator. Savannah River National Environmental Research Park, 310 pp.
Bruckner, A.W. 2002. Proceedings of the Caribbean Acropora Workshop: Potential Application
of the U.S. Endangered Species Act as a Conservation Strategy. NOAA Tech. Mem.
NMFSOPR-OPR-24.
Brown, B.E. 1997. Disturbance to reefs in recent times. Pages 354-379 in C. Birkeland, editor.
Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Chapman & Hall, ITP, New York.
Burnett, W.C., J. Chanton, D.R. Corbett, and K. Dillon. 2000. The Role of Groundwater in the
Nutrient Budget of Florida Bay. PART L FINAL REPORT. NOAA Project 4 NA96OP0234.
Department of Oceanography Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida.
Draft Environmental Assessment 103 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Butler, IV, J.H. Hunt, W.F. Herrnkind, M.J. Childress, R. Bertelsen, W. Sharp, T. Matthews,
J.M. Field and H.G. Marshall. 1995. Cascading disturbances in Florida Bay, USA:
cyanobacterial blooms, sponge mortality, and implications for juvenile spiny lobster
Panulirus Argus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Serv. 129:119-125.
Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. 2009. 2009 Florida price
level index.
Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. 2001. City of Marathon Reuse Component of Central
Wastewater RFP.
Causey, B.D. 2001. Lessons learned from the intensification of coral bleaching from 1980-2000
in the Florida Keys, USA. Pages 60-66 in R.V. Salm and S.L. Coles Coral Bleaching and
Marine Protected Areas. Proceedings of the Workshop on Mitigating Coral Bleaching Impact
through MPA Design. Asia Pacific Coastal Marine Program Report 40102, Honolulu.
Causey, B.D. 2002. The role of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in the south Florida
ecosystem restoration initiative. Pages 883-894 in J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, editors. The
Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys —An Ecosystem Sourcebook.
CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Causey, B., J. Delaney, E. Diaz, D. Dodge, J.R. Garcia, J. Higgins, W. Jaap, C.A. Matos, G.P.
Schmahl, C. Rogers, M.W. Miller and D.D. Turgeon. September 2000. Status of coral reefs
in the US Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
and Navassa. Pages 239-259 in C. Wilkinson, editor. Status of Coral Reefs of the World:
City of Key Colony Beach Sewer System Evaluation. Prepared for the City of Key Colony
Beach by URS Corporation.
Chen, E. and J.F. Gerber. 1990. Climate. Pages 11-34 in L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors.
Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida.
Chiappone, M., S.L. Miller and D.W. Swanson. 2002. Status of Acropora corals in the Florida
Keys: habitat utilization, coverage, colony density, and juvenile recruitment. Pages 125-135
in A. Bruckner, editor. Proceedings of the Caribbean Acropora Workshop:
PotentialApplication of the U.S. Endangered Species Act as a Conservation Strategy.
NOAA—OPR-24.
Cho, L.L. and J.D. Woodley. 2003. Recovery of reefs at Discovery Bay, Jamaica and the role of
Diadema antillarum. Proc. 9th Intl Coral Reef Symp. Bali 1:331-338.
City of Key West by Engineering Services. June 2001. City of Key West Long Range
Stormwater Utility Plan.
City of Key West. 1999. City of Key West Water Quality Improvements Program.
City of Key West 2010. Key West City.com.
Draft Environmental Assessment 104 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
http://www.keywestcity.com/depts/port/cniiseships/cniiseships.asp. June 2010.
City of Marathon, 2003, City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan, adopted 1990, amended 1996,
amended 2003 (Ordinance 03-09-01).
City of Marathon by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. January 2002. Design/Build/Operate
Wastewater Management System (DBOWMS) for the City of Marathon, Key West, Florida.
Classification of sea grass communities in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science 54:696-
717. As cited in FEMA, 2000.
Close, Kathy 2004, Personal Communication between Kathy Close, Long Key State Park
Manager and Kim Fitzgibbons, PBS&J, Jacksonville, FL., October 6, 2004.
Communication with representative, Operations Management International, Inc. Key West.
Cook, C. 1997. Reef corals and their symbiotic algae as indicators of nutrient exposure. Final
Report submitted to the Water Quality Protection Program as cited in Kr uczynski, 1999. As
cited in FEMA, 2000.
Corbett, D.R., J. Chanton, W. Burnett, K. Dillon, C. Rutkowski and J.W. Fourqurean. 1999.
Patterns of groundwater discharge into Florida Bay. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44:1045-1055.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cox, J. R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife
Habitat Conservation System. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee,
Florida.
Craft C.B., J. Vymazal and C.J. Richardson. 1995. Response of Everglades plant communities to
nitrogen and phosphorus additions. Wetlands 15:258-271.
Crewz, D.W. and R.R. Lewis III. 1991. An evaluation of historical attempts to establish
emergent vegetation in marine wetlands in Florida. Florida Sea Grant technical paper TP-60.
Florida Sea Grant College, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Crosby, M.P., K. Geenen, D. Laffoley, C.1 Mondor and G. O'Sullivan. 1997. Proceedings of the
Second International Symposium and Workshop on Marine and Coastal Protected Areas:
Integrating Science and Management, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD. 167 pp.
Davis, J.H. 1942. The ecology of the vegetation and topography of the sand keys of Florida.
Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 524:113-195.
Davis, J.H. 1943. The natural features of southern Florida, especially the vegetation and the
Everglades. Fla. Geol. Surv. Bull. 30:1-247.
Draft Environmental Assessment 105 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Davis, J.H., Jr. 1940. The ecology and geologic role of mangroves in Florida. Carnegie Inst.,
Wash. Publ. No. 517. Pap. Tortugas Lab. 32:304-412.
Davis S.M. 1991. Growth, decomposition and nutrient retention of Cladium jamaicense Crantz
and Typha domingensis Pers. in the Florida Everglades. Aqu. Bot. 40:203-224.
Day, J.W., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine Ecology. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Desola, C.R. 1935. Herpetological notes from southeastern Florida. Copeia. 1:44-45.
Diaz-Soltero, H. 1999. Endangered and threatened species: a revision of candidate species list
under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 64:33466-33468.
Duarte, C.J. 1995. Submerged aquatic vegetation in relation to different nutrient regimes.
Ophelia 41:87-112.
Dubinsky, Z. and N. Stambler. 1996. Marine pollution and coral reefs. Global Change Biol.
2:511-526.
Dustan, P. and J.C. Halas. 1987. Changes in the reef -coral community of Carysfort Reef, Key
Largo, Florida: 1974-1982. Coral Reefs 6:91-106.
Eakin, C.M. 1993. Post -El Nino Panamanian reefs: less accretion, more erosion and damselfish
protection. Proc. 7th Internat. Coral Reef Symp., Guam 1:387-396.
Edds, P.L., T.J. MacIntyre and R. Naveen. 1984. Notes on a sea whale (Balaenoptera borealis
Lesson) sighted off Maryland. Cetus 5(2):4-5.
Eisenberg, J.F. and J. Frazier. 1983. A leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea feeding in the
wild. J. Herp. 17:81-82.
Endries, M., R. Kautz, and T. Gilbert. 2001. Integrated wildlife habitat ranking system. Agency
technical report and CD-ROM with GIS data for application to Florida Department of
Transportation highway planning and design projects (FFWCC), Tallahassee, Florida.
English, D.B.K., W. Kriesel, V.R. Leeworthy and P.C. Wiley. 1996. Economic contribution of
recreating visitors to the Florida Keys /Key West. A part of Linking the economy and
environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay series.
Enos, P. 1977. Quarternary sedimentation in south Florida. Part I. Holocene sediment
accumulations of the south Florida shelf margin. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 147:1-130.
Epstein, P.R., B. Sherman, E. Spanger-Siegfried, A. Langston, S. Prasad and B. McKay. 1998.
Marine ecosystems —emerging diseases as indicators of change. Health Ecological and
Economic Dimensions of Global Change Program, 85 pp.
Draft Environmental Assessment 106 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Evans, C.C. 1987. The relationship between the topography of an ooid shoals and complex: The
Upper Pleistocene Miami Limestone. Pages 18-41 in J.M.R. Maurrasse, editor. Symposium
on South Florida Geology.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2002. Final Programmatic Environmental
Assessment, Wastewater Management Improvements in the Florida Keys, Florida. URS
Group, Inc., Miami Springs, Florida.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). Stream Corridor
Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices.
http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/newgra.html. 13 June 2003.
Federal Transit Authority (FTA). Endangered Species: Background.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/office/planning/ep/subjarea/endspec.html. 14 February 2003.
Ferren, R. 2003. Longstreet Highroad Guide to the Florida Keys & Everglades.
http://www.sherpaguides.com/florida/everglades/everglades np.html
Florida Administrative Weekly, April 12, 1996. After the USACOE.
http://www.saj.usace.art-ny.mil/projects/flcccsfesl strev.htm.
Florida Administrative Code. Effective December 1996. Criteria for Surface Water Quality
Classifications, Chapter 62-302.530.
Florida Administrative Code. June 1994, revised November 1999. Ground Water Guidance
Concentrations, Chapter 62-550.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). 2001. Rules of the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Plant Industry, Chapter 513-
0.0055 Regulated Plant Index. Preservation of Native Flora of Florida. Florida Statutes,
Section 581.185 (4). http://www.doacs. state.fl.us/—pi/5b-40.htm.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1985. Proposed designation of the
waters of the Florida Keys as Outstanding Florida Waters. Report to the Florida
Environmental Regulatory Commission. As cited in Kruczynski, 1999.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2001. Drinking Water: Miscellaneous
Contaminants. Assessed from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/st_misc.htm.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER). 1987. Florida Keys Monitoring
Study: Water quality assessment of five selected pollutant sources in Marathon, Florida.
FDER, Marathon Office, 187 pp. As cited in Knuczynski, 1999.
Florida Department of Health. 2003. Public health indicators data system.
http://hpeapps.doh.state.fl.us/phids/Phids1.asp 8 February, 2003.
Draft Environmental Assessment 107 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Master Site File
information, personal communication October 2010.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 1997. Florida's Endangered
Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern. Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2002a. Land Cover Classes, 30-
meter ArcInfo Grid, 1985-1989.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2002b. Potential Species Habitat
Models, 100-meter ArcInfo Grid.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2002d. Wildlife Observation
Database.
Florida Geographic Data Library County Series (FGDL). 1994. USGS 1:24,000 (7.5-min)
Digital Line Graph (DLG), hydrography polygon layer. Version 3. CD-ROM publication.
Florida Geographic Data Library County Series (FGDL). 2000. Soil Survey Geographic
(SSURGO) Database and National Wetlands Inventory Maps. Version 3. CD-ROM
publication.
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authortity (FKAA). http://www.flcaa.com.
Florida Keys Electric Cooperative Association. 2003. http://www.flcec.com/index.HTML.
Florida Keys Virtual Traveler. Keys Historical Highlights.
http://www.vtraveler.com/vt/history/history.html. June 2010.
Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI). 1998. Technical Report TR-4: Benthic Habitats of the
Florida Keys. In association with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). FNAI Occurrence Database. Provided by FNAI in
September 2010.
Folk, M.L. 1991. Habitat of the Key deer. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale, Illinois.
Fong, P. and M.A. Harwell. 1994. Modeling seagrass communities in tropical and subtropical
bays and estuaries: a mathematical model synthesis of current hypotheses. Bull. Mar. Sci.
54(3):757-781.
Fonseca, M.S., M.J. Kenworthy and G.W. Thayer. 1981. Transplanting of the Seagrasses Zostera
marina and Halodule wrightii for the Stabilization of Subtidal Dredged Material. Annu. Rep.
Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Beaufort Lab. to U.S. Army Corps of Eng.
Draft Environmental Assessment 108 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Forys, E.A. and S.R. Humphrey. 1992. Biology of the Lower Keys marsh rabbit at Navy lands in
the Lower Florida Keys. Semi-annual performance report no. 3, Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.
Fourqurean, J.W., G.V.N. Powell, W.J. Kenworthy, and J.C. Zieman. 1995. The effects of
longterm manipulation of nutrient supply on competition between the seagrasses Thalassia
testudinum and Halodule wrightii in Florida Bay. Oikos 72:349-353.
Fourqurean, J.W., M.J. Durako, M.O. Hall, and L.N. Hefty. 2002. Seagrass Distribution in South
Florida: A Multi -Agency Coordinated Monitoring Program. J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter,
editors. The Everglades, Florida Bay and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem
Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Fourqurean, J.W. and J.C. Zieman. 2002. Seagrass nutrient content reveals regional patterns of
relative availability of nitrogen and phosphorous in the Florida Keys, FL, USA.
Biogeochemistry 61:229-245.
Frankovich, T.A. and J.0 Zieman. 1994. Total epiphyte and epiphytic carbonate production on
Thalassia testudinum across Florida Bay. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54:679-695.
Gaines S.D. and M.W. Denny. 1993. The largest, smallest, highest, lowest, longest, and shortest:
extremes in ecology. Ecology 74:1677-1682.
Garrett, G. 2001. Director of Marine Resources, Monroe County. Personal communication with
Jonathan Randall, URS Group, Inc. As cited in FEMA, 2000.
Genin, A., B. Lazar and S. Brenner. 1995. Vertical mixing and coral death in the Red Sea
following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Naturalist 377:507-510.
Getter, C.D., J. Michel, G.I. Scott, and J.L. Sadd. 1981. The sensitivity of coastal environments
and wildlife to spilled oil in south Florida. South Florida Regional Planning Council, Miami.
126 pp.
Gilbert, T. and B. Stys. Descriptions of Plant Communities for Landsat Habitat Mapping.
FFWCC, Office of Environmental Services, Tallahassee, Florida.
Glynn, P.W. 1993. Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs 12:1-17.
Glynn, P.W. and L. D'Croz. 1990. Experimental evidence for high temperature stress as the
cause of El Nino -coincident coral mortality. Coral Reefs 8:181-191.
Good, B.J., and Patrick, W.H., Jr. 1987. Root -water -sediment interface processes, in Reddy,
K.R., and Smith, W.H., eds., Aquatic plants for water treatment and resource recovery:
Orlando, Florida, Magnolia Publishing Company, p. 359-371.
Draft Environmental Assessment 109 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Goodyear, N.C. 1987. Distribution and habitat of the silver rice rat, Oryzomys argentatus.
Journal of Mammalogy 68:692-695.
Grauss, R.R. and I.G. Macintyre. 1982. Variations in growth forms of the reef coral Monastraea
annularis: a quantitative evaluation of growth response to light distribution using computer
simulation. Pages 441-464 in K. Rutzler and I.G. Macintyre, editors. The Atlantic barrier reef
ecosystems at Carrie Bow Cay, Belize, L Stricture and communities. Smithson. Contr. Mar.
Sci. 12. 539. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Griffin, D.W. et al. 1999. Detection of Viral Pathogens by Reverse Transcriptase PCR and of
Microbial Indicators by Standard Methods in the Canals of the Florida Keys, 65 Applied and
Envtl.
Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia—Reptilia red data book, part I. Testudines,
Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Haig, S.M. 1992. Piping Plover. No. 2 The Birds of North
America. in A. Pools, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors. Philadelphia: The Academy of
Natural Sciences. The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
Halley, R.B., H.L. Vacher, and E.A. Shinn. 1997. Geology and hydrology of the Florida Keys in
Geology and Hydrology of Carbonate Islands, Developments in Sedimentology 54, pages
217-248. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam. As cited in FEMA, 2000.
Hallock, P. 1997. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Pages 13-42 in C. Birkeland, editor. Chapman
& Hall, New York.
Hallock, P., F.E. Muller Karger, and J.C. Halas. 1993. Coral reef decline—Anthropogenic
nutrients and the degradation of western Atlantic and Caribbean coral reefs. Research and
Exploration 9:358-378.
Hammer, D.A. 1992. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, USA.
Hammer, L. 1968. Anaerobiosis in marine algae and marine phanerogams. Pages 414-419 in K.
Nisizawa, editor. Proceeding of the 7th International Seawood Symposium. University of
Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
Hanisak, M.D. and L.W. Siemon. 1999. Macroalgal tissue nutrients as indicators of nitrogen and
phosphorus status in the Florida Keys. J. Phycol. 14:28.
Harlin, M.M. 1980. Seagrass epiphytes. In R.C. Phillips and C.P. McRoy, editors. Handbook of
seagreass biology: An ecosystem perspective. Garland STPM Press, New York.
Harmer, S.F. 1923. Cervical vertebra of a gigantic blue whale from Panama. Pages 1085-
1089.Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.
Harvell, C.D., K. Kim, J.M. Burkholder, R.R. Colwell, P.R. Epstein, D.J. Grimes, E.E. Hofmann,
E.K. Lipp, A.D. Osterhaus, M.E. Overstreet, R.M., Porter, J.W., Smith, and G.R. Vasta.
Draft Environmental Assessment 110 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
1999. Emerging marine diseases —climate links and anthropogenic factors. Science 285:1505-
1510.
Hay, M.E. 1981. Herbivory, algal distribution, and the maintenance of between -habitat diversity
on a tropical fringing reef. Amer. Nat. 118:520-540.
Hay, M.E. 1984. Patterns of fish and urchin grazing on Caribbean coral reefs: Are previous
results typical? Ecology 65:446-454.
Hay, M.E. and T. Goertemiller. 1983. Between -habitat differences in herbivore impact on
Caribbean coral reefs. The Ecology of Deep and Shallow Coral Reefs. Pages 97-102 in M.L.
Reaka, editor. NOAA Symposia Series for Undersea Research, Washington, D.C.
Hay, M.E. and P.R. Taylor. 1985. Competition between herbivorous fishes and urchins on
Caribbean reefs. Oecologia 65:591-598.
Hayes, R.L. and N.I. Goreau. 1998. The significance of emerging diseases in the tropical coral
reef ecosystem. Rev. Biol. Trop. 46(5):173-185.
Hayes, M.L., J. Bonaventura, T.P. Mitchell, J.M. Prospero, E.A. Shinn, F. Van Dolah, and R.T.
Barber. 2001. How are climate and marine biological outbreaks functionally linked?
Hydrobiologia 460:213-220.
Hirsh, S.L. 1981. Ecology of the Key Largo Woodrat (Neostomafloridana smalli). Journal of
Mammalogy 62:201-206.
Hubbard, D.K. 1997. Reefs as Dynamic Systems. Pages 43-67 in C. Birkeland, editor. Life and
Death of Coral Reefs. Chapman & Hall, ITP, New York.
Hudson, J.H., K.J. Hanson, R.B. Halley, and J.L. Kindinger. 1994. Environmental implications
of growth rate changes in Montastrea annnlaris: Biscayne National Park, Florida. Bull. Mar.
Sci. 54:647-669.
Hughes, T.P. 1994. Catastrophes, phase shifts and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral
reef. Science 265:1547-1551.
Hughes, T.P., A.M. Szmant, R. Steneck, R. Carpenter, and S. Miller. 1999. Algal blooms on
coral reefs: What are the causes? Limnol. Oceanogr. 44:1583-1586.
Humphrey, S.R. 1988. Density estimates of the endangered Key Largo Woodrat and Cotton
Mouse (Neostoma floridana smalli and Peromvscns gossvpinns allapaticola) using the
nested -grid approach. Journal of Mammalogy 69(3):524-531.
Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Key Largo cotton mouse (Peromvscns gossvpims allapaticola). Pages
110-118 in S.R. Humphrey, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume I.
Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Draft Environmental Assessment 111 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Hurt, G.W., C.V. Noble and R.W. Drew. 1995. Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area,
Florida. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Ponds.
http://dnr.state.il.us/wetlands /pond.htm. 13 February 2003.
J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter (editors). 2003. Keys —An Ecosystem Sourcebook. Pages 629-648.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Jaap, W.C. 1982. The ecology of the coral reefs of south Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, USFWS/OBS-82/08, Washington, D.C.
Jaap, W.C. and P. Hallock. 1990. Coral Reefs. Ecosystems of Florida. Pages 574-616 in L.
Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida.
Jaap, W.C., J.W. Porter, J. Wheaton, K. Hackett, M. Lybolt, M.K. Callahan, C. Tsokos, and G.
Yanev. 2001. USEPA/Sanctuary Coral Reef Monitoring Project: Updated executive
summary, 1996-2000.
Jackson, J.B.C. 2001. What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98:5411-
5418.
Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H.
Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S.
Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner. 2001.
Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629-638.
Jensen, J.R., K. Rutchey, M.S. Koch and S. Nar umalani. 1995. Inland wetland change detection
in the Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A using a time series of normalized remotely
sensed data. Photogram Engnr Remote Sensing 61:199-209.
Johnson A.F. and M.G. Barbour. 1990. Dune and maritime forests. Ecosystems of Florida. Pages
429-473 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida.
Johnston, I.S. 1980. The ultrastr ucture of skeletogenesis in hermatypic corals. Inter. Rev. Cyt.
67:71-214.
Jokiel, P.L. and S.L. Coles. 1977. Effects of temperature on the mortality and growth of
Hawaiian reef corals. Marine Biology 43:201-208.
Jones, R. and J. Boyer. 2001. Water Quality Monitoring Project: FY 2000 Annual Report.
Published by the Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University
under contract to USEPA. As cited in FEMA, 2000.
Draft Environmental Assessment 112 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Kenworthy, W. J. and D. E. Haunert (editors). 1991. The light requirements of seagrasses.
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-287.
Keys Energy Services. 2003. Utility Board of the City of Key West,
Florida.http://www.kwcityelectric.com/. Accessed September 2010.
Kisinger, Campo and Associates Corporation. September 1994. Stormwater Runoff Study.
Prepared for the City of Key West.
Kissling, D.L. 1965. Coral distribution on a shoal in Spanish Harbor, Florida Keys. Bull. Mar.
Sci. 15(3):599-611.
Kissling, D.L. 1977. Coral reefs in the lower Florida Keys: A preliminary report. Pages 209-215
in H.G. Multer, editor. Field Guide to Some Carbonate Rock Environments —Florida Keys
and Western Bahamas.
Klima, E.F., G.A. Matthews and F.J. Patella. 1986. Synopsis of the Tortugas pink shrimp fishery,
1960-1983, and the impact of the Tortugas Sanctuary. N. Am. J. Fish. Mgt. 6:301-310.
Klimstra, W.D., J.W. Hardin, N.J. Silvy, B.N. Jacobson, and V.A. Terpening. 1974. Key deer
investigations final report: December 1967-June 1973. Big Pine Key, Florida: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Knowlton, N. 1992. Thresholds and multiple stable states in coral reef community dynamics.
Amer. Zool. 32:674-682.
Knowlton, N. and J.B.C. Jackson. 2000. The Ecology of Coral Reefs. Pages 395-417 in M.D.
Bertness, S.D. Gaines, M.E. Hay, editors. Marine Community Ecology. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, MA.
Knowlton, N. 2001. The future of coral reefs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98:5419-5425.
Kohout, F.A. 1965. A hypothesis concerning cyclic flow of water related to geothermal heating
in the Floridan aquifer. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, series 2,
28:249-271.
Kruczynski, W.L. 1999. Water quality concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources, effects and
solutions. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program,
NOAA.
Kruczynski, W. 1999. Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources, Effects and
Solutions. EPA.
Kruczynski, W.L. and F. McManus. 2002. Water quality concerns in the Florida Keys: sources,
effects, and solutions. J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, editors. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and
coral reefs of the Florida Keys: An ecosystem sourcebook. CRC Press, Florida.
Draft Environmental Assessment 113 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Kruer, C.R. 1992. An assessment of Florida's remaining coastal upland natural communities:
Florida Keys. Unpublished report, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida.
Kushlan, J.A. 1990. Freshwater Marshes. Pages 324-363 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors.
Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida.
Kushlan, J.A. and F.J. Mazzotti. 1989. Historic and present distribution of the American
crocodilein Florida. J. Herp. 23(1):1-7.
Kuta, K.G., and L.L. Richardson. 1996. Abundance and distribution of black band disease on
coral reefs in the northern Florida Keys. Coral Reefs 15:219-223.
Lapointe, B.E. 1987. Phosphorus- and nitrogen - limited photosynthesis and growth of Gracilaria
tikvahiae (Rhodophyceae) in the Florida Keys: An experimental field study. Mar. Biol.
93:561-568.
Lapointe, B.E. 1987. A preliminary investigation of upwelling as a source of nutrients to Looe
Key National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS MEMD 9. NOAA,
Washington, D.C.
Lapointe, B.E., J.E. O'Connell, G.S. Garrett and N.P. Smith. 1990. Nutrient couplings between
on -site sewage disposal systems, ground waters, and nearshore surface waters of the Florida
Keys. Biogeochemistry 10:289-307.
Lapointe, B.E. and M.W. Clark. 1992. Nutrient inputs from the watershed and coastal
eutrophication in the Florida Keys. Estuaries 15:465.
Lapointe, B.E., J.E O'Connell, G.S. Garrett, N.P. Smith, D.A. Tomasko and W.R. Matzie. 1994.
Eutrophication and trophic state classification of seagrass communities in the Florida Keys.
Bull. Mar. Sci. 54:696-717.
Lapointe, B.E and W.R. Matzie. 1996. Effects of stormwater discharges on eutrophication
processes in nearshore waters of the Florida Keys. Estuaries 19:422-435.
Lapointe, B.E. 1997. Nutrient thresholds for bottom up control of microalgal blooms on coral
reefs in Jamaica and southeast Florida. Limnol. Oceanogr 42:1119-1131.
Lapointe, B.E. 1999. Simultaneous top -down and bottom -up forces control microalgal blooms on
coral reefs. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44:1586-1592.
Lapointe, B. E., W.R. Matzie and P.J. Barile. 2002. Biotic phase -shifts in Florida Bay and fore
reef communities of the Florida Keys: linkages with historical freshwater flows and nitrogen
loading from Everglades' runoff The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the
Florida.
Draft Environmental Assessment 114 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Larkum, A.W.B., A.J. McComb and S.A. Shepard. 1989. Biology of seagrasses: a treatise on the
biology of seagrass with special reference to the Australian region. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
New York. 842 pp.
Lawler, H.E. 1977. The status of Drymarchon corais couperi (Holbrook), the eastern indigo
snake, in the southeastern U.S.A. Herp. Rev. 8(3):76-79.
Layne, J.N. 1974. The land mammals of South Florida. Memoirs of the Miami Geologic Society.
2:386-413.
Leeworthy, V.R. and P.C. Wiley. 1996. Visitor profiles: Florida Keys /Key West. Linking the
Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, The Nature Conservancy, Monroe County Tourist Development Council,
University of Georgia, and U.S. Forest Service.
Leeworthy, V.R. and P. Vanasse. 1999. Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the
Florida Keys /Key West: Updates for the Years 1996-97 and 1997-98.
Leichter J.J., Shellenbarger G., Genovese S.J., Wing S.R. (1998). Breaking internal waves on a
Florida (USA) coral reef: a plankton pump at work? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 166:83-97.
Leichter, J. J. and S.L. Miller. 1999. Predicting high frequency upwelling: spatial and temporal
patterns of temperature anomalies on a Florida coral reef. Cont. Shelf Res. 19:911-928.
Levinton, J.S. 1982. Marine Ecology. Prentice -Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Thurman,
H.V., H.H. Webber. 1984. Marine Biology. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company:
Columbus, Ohio.
Levinton J.S. 1995. Marine biology: function, biodiversity, ecology. Oxford University Press,
Inc., New York.
Lewis, S.M. 1986. The role of herbivorous fishes in the organization of a Caribbean reef
community. Ecol. Monogr. 56:183-200.
Lewis, J.B. 1977. Process of organic production on coral reefs. Biol. Rev. 52:305-347.
Lipp, E.K., J.L. Jarrell, D.W. Griffin, J. Jacukiewicz, J. Lukasik, and J.B. Rose. 2002.
Preliminary evidence for human fecal contamination in corals of the Florida Keys, U. S.A.
Mar. Pollu. Bull. 44:666-670.
Livingston, R.J. 1990. Inshore Marine Habitats. Pages 549-573 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel,
editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida.
Luce, C.H., E. Kluzek and G.E. Bingham. 1995. Development of a High Resolution Climatic
Data Set for the Northern Rockies. Interior West Global Change Workshop: April 25-27,
1995. Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-GTR-262. pp. 106-111.
Draft Environmental Assessment 115 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Marathon Key, Florida Keys Official Tourism Site, Heart of the Florida Keys.
http://www.flakeys.com/marathon/. Accessed October 2010.
Marzelek, D.S., G. Babashoff, M.R. Noel and D.R. Worley. 1977. Reef distribution in south
Florida. Proceedings: 3rd International Coral Reef Symposium. Volume 2, pages 223-230 in
D.L. Taylor, editor. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of
Miami, Florida.
McClanahan, T.R. and N.A. Muthiga. 1988. Changes in Kenyan coral reef community stricture
and function due to exploitation. Hydrobiologia 166:269-276.
McCook, L. J., E. Wolanski, and S. Spagnol. 2001. Modeling and visualizing interactions
between natural disturbances and eutrophication as causes of coral reef degradation. Pages
113-125 in E. Wolanski, editor. Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs: Physical and
Biological Links in the Great Barrier Reef. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
McField, M. 1999. Coral response during and after mass bleaching in Belize. Bull. Mar. Sci.
64(1):155-172.
McMillan, C. and F.N. Moseley. 1967. Salinity tolerances of five marine spermatophytes of
Redfish Bay, Texas. Ecology 48:503-506.
McMillan, C. 1979. Differentiation in response to chilling temperatures among populations of
three marine spermatophytes, Thalassia testudinum, Syringodium filiforme, and Halodule
wrightii. Am. J. Bot. 66(7):810-819.
Mead, J.G., and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1993. Order Cetacea. Pages 349-364 in D.E. Wilson and
D.M. Reeder, editors. Mammal Species of the World. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Meylan, A. 1992. Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys umbricata. Rare and endangered biota of
Florida. Pages 95-99 in P. Moler, editor. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Meylan, A., B. Schroeder and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach, Florida,
IL Post -nesting movements of Caretta caretta. Biol. Conser. 26:79-90.
Miller, J.A. 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and
South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. HA 730-G. Contents of HA 730-G.
Miller, J.A. 1997. Hydrogeology of Florida. Pages 69-89 in Randazzo and Jones, editors. The
Geology of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Miller, M.W., M.E. Hay, S.L. Miller, D. Malone, E.E. Sotka, and A.M. Szmant. 1999. Effects of
nutrients versus herbivores on reef algae: a new method for manipulating nutrients on coral
reef s. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44:1847-1861.
Draft Environmental Assessment 116 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Mitchell, N.C. 1996. Silver rice rat status. Draft final report to Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission.
Moler, P.E. 1992. Introduction. Pages 1-8 in P.E. Moler, editor. Rare and endangered biota of
Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida.
Monroe County. 1997a. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Species and Natural Community
Summary for Monroe County, Tallahassee, Florida. Monroe County. 1997. Monroe County
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document. Adopted by the Monroe County
Boardof County Commissioners, Department of Community Affairs and Administration
Commission of the State of Florida.
Monroe County. April 1998. Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan with Phased Implementation for
the Marathon Area of the Florida Keys (Marathon Wastewater Facilities Plan). CH2MHi11 in
association with Lindahl, Browning Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc. and Continental Shelf
Associates, Inc.
Monroe County. June 2000. Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. Prepared for Monroe County by
CH2Mhi11 in association with Lindahl, Browning Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc., Ayers
Associates, Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Bryant, and Yon, P.A.
and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.
Monroe County. 2001a. Stormwater Management Master Plan. Prepared by Camp, Dresser and
McKee, Inc.
Monroe County. 2001b. Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, Volume 1. Prepared
by CH2MHi11.
Monroe County. Undated -a. Environment of Florida Keys /Florida Bay. NOAA. The Nature
Conservancy, Monroe County Tourist Development Council, 22 pp.
Monroe County. Undated-b. Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida
Bay. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA, The Nature Conservancy,
Monroe County Tourist Development Council.
Montague, C.L. and R.G. Wiegert. 1990. Salt Marshes. Pages 481-516 in R.L. Myers and J.J.
Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida.
Morris, L.J. and D.A. Tomasko (editors). 1993. Proceedings and conclusions of workshops on
submerged aquatic vegetation and photosynthetically active radiation. Special publication
SJ93- P13. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida.
Draft Environmental Assessment 117 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Muhs, D.R., C.A. Bush, K.C. Stewart, T.R. Rowland and R.C. Crittenden. 1990. Geochemical
evidence of Saharan dust parent materials for soil development on Quarternary limestones of
Caribbean and Western Atlantic Islands. Quarternary Res. 33:157-177.
Muller -Parker, G. and C.F. D'Elia. 1997. Interactions between corals and their symbiotic algae.
Pages 96-113 in Birkeland, editor. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Chapman and Hall, New
York.
Multer, H.G. (editor). 1977. Field guide to some carbonate rock environments: Florida Keys and
western Bahamas. Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Iowa.
Muscatine, L. 1990. The role of symbiotic algae in carbon and energy flux in reef corals. Coral
Reefs. Ecosystems of the World. Volume 25, Pages 75-87 in Z. Dubinsky, editor. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Guidance for Integrating Magnuson -Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act EFH Consultations with Endangered Species Act
Section 7 Consultations.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/images/guidancel .pdf.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1996. Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (FMP/EIS).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington, D.C.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). October 1998a. Essential
Fish Habitat Descriptions for Caribbean Fishery Management Plans.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/images/CFMChabitat types.pdf.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998b. Comprehensive
Amendment Addressing Essential Fish habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South
Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, South Carolina.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999a. Endangered and
Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, South Atlantic (North Carolina to Key West, Florida).
http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov/protect/sa—cand.htm.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999b. Endangered and
Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Florida -Atlantic Coast. http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov/protect/flac_can.htm.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999c. Endangered and
Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Florida -Gulf Coast.
http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov/protect/flgc_can.htm.
Draft Environmental Assessment 118 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2001 a. Response and
Restoration, Exposed Tidal Flats.
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oilaids/coastal/ExTideFl.pdf.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2001b. Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary, Sanctuary Resources.
http://www.flcnms.nos. noaa.gov/sanctuary _resources/welcome.html.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary: Visitor Information. http://www.flcnms.nos.noaa.gov/visitor—information/.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003c. Strategic Assessment
of Florida's Environment; Total Average Annual Precipitation.
http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/safe/environ/wgn9.html.
Necldes, H.A., E.T. Koepfler, L.W. Haas, R.L. Wetzel, and R.J. Orth. 1994. Dynamics of
epiphytic photoautotrophs and heterotrophs in Zostera marina (eelgrass) microcosms:
responses to nutrient enrichment and grazing. Estuaries 17(3):597-605.
Neil, W.T. 1971. The Last of the Ruling Reptiles. Columbia University Press, New York.
NOAA. 2000.
http://www. sancttiaries.nos.noaa.gov/scied/science/habitat/reefdescriptions.html.
Norse, E.A. and L. Watling 1999. Impacts of Mobile Fishing Gear: the Biodiversity Perspective
(pages 31-40) in Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. Edited by Lee R.
Benaka. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22. ISBN: 1-888569-12-3.
Odum, W.E. and C.C. McIvor. 1990. Mangroves. Pages 517-548 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel,
editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Florida.
Ogden, J.C. and B.W. Patty. 1981. The Recent Status of the Wood Stork in Florida and Georgia.
Georgia Dept. Nat. Res. Game and Fish Div. Tech. Bull. WL 5:97-101.
Operations Management International, Inc.
http://www.keywestwastewater.com/ftittire.htm.
Patterson, K.L., J.W. Porter, K.B. Ritchie, S.W. Polson, E. Mueller, E.C. Peters, D.L. Santavy,
and G.W. Smith. 2002. The etiology of white pox, a lethal disease of the Caribbean elkhorn
coral, Acropora palmata. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99(13):8725-8730.
Paul, J.H., J.B. Rose, J.K. Brown, E.A. Shinn, S. Miller, and S.R. Farrah. 1995. Viral tracer
studies indicate contamination of marine waters by sewage disposal practices in Key Largo,
FL. Applied Environmental. Microbiology 61:2230-2234.
Draft Environmental Assessment 119 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Paul, J.P., J.B. Rose, S. Jiang, X. Zhou, P. Cochran, C. Kellogg, J. Kang, D. Griffin, S. Farrah,
and J. Lukasik. 1997. Evidence for groundwater and marine water contamination by waste
disposal wells in the Florida Keys. Water Research 3 1: 1448-1454.
Pauly, D.W., J. Christiansen, J. Dahsgaard, R. Froese, and F.C. Torres, Jr. 1998. Fishing down
marine food webs. Science 279:860-863.
Pennings, S.C. 1997. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Pages 249-272 in C. Birkeland, editor.
Chapman & Hall, ITP, New York.
Perkins, R.D. 1977. Depositional framework of Pleistocene rocks in south Florida. P. Enos and
R.D. Perkins, editors. In Quarternary sedimentation in south Florida, 131-98. Geological
Society of America Memoir no. 147.
Peters, E.C. 1997. Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Pages114-136 in C. Birkeland, editor.
Chapman & Hall, ITP, New York.
Phillips, R.C. 1960. Observations on the ecology and distribution of the Florida seagrasses. Prof.
Paper Ser., No. 2. Fla. St. Bd. Conserv. Mar. Lab., St. Petersburg. 72 p.
Pitts, P.A. 2003. The role of advection in transporting nutrients to the Florida reef tract. Proc. 9th
Intl. Coral Reef Symp. Bali 2:1219-1224.
Porter, J.W., P. Dustan, W.C. Jaap, K.L. Patterson, V. Kosmynin, O.W. Meier, M.E. Patterson,
and M. Parsons. 2001. Patterns of spread of coral diseases in the Florida Keys. Hydrobiologia
460:1-24.
Prospero, J.M., R.A. Glaccuum, and R.T. Nees. 1981. Atmospheric transport of soil dust from
Africa to South America. Nature 289:570-572.
Randazzo, A.F. and R. Halley. 1997. Geology of the Florida Keys. Pages 251 259, Chapter 14.
Geology of Florida. University Press of Florida, Florida.
Reich, C.D., E.A. Shinn, T.D. Hickey A.B. and Tihansky. 2002. Tidal and meteorological
influences on shallow marine groundwater flow in the upper Florida Keys. Pages 827-881 in
J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, editors. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the
Florida Keys —An Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Richardson, L.L. and R.B. Aronson. 2003. Infectious diseases of reef corals. Proc. 9th Intl Coral
Reef Symp. Bali 2:1225-1230.
Richardson, L.L., W.M. Goldberg, K.G. Kuta, R.B. Aronson, G.W. Smith, K.B. Richie, J.C.
Halas, J.S. Feingold, and S.L. Miller. 1998. Florida's mystery coral -killer identified. Nature
393:557-558.
Draft Environmental Assessment 120 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Roberts, C.M. 1995. Effects of fishing on the ecosystem stricture of coral reefs. Conserv. Biol.
9:988-995.
Ross, M.S., J.J. O'Brien and L.J. Flynn. 1992. Ecological site classification of Florida terrestrial
habitats. Biotropica 24:488-502.
Rudnick, D.T., Z. Chen, D.L. Childers, J.N. Boyer and T.D. Fontaine, III. 1999. Phosphorus and
Nitrogen Inputs to Florida Bay: the Importance of the Everglades Watershed. Estuaries
22(2B):398-416. As cited in FEMA, 2000.
Santavy, D.L., E. Mueller, E.C. Peters, L. MacLaughlin, J.W. Porter, K.L. Patterson, and J.
Campbell. 2001. Quantitative assessment of coral diseases in the Florida Keys: strategy and
methodology. Hydrobiologia 460:39-52.
Schomer, S.N. and R.D. Drew. 1982. An ecological characterization of the lower Everglades,
Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-82/58.1. 246 pp.
Scoffin, T.P. 1970. The trapping and binding of subtidal carbonate sediments by marine
vegetation in Bimini Lagoon, Bahamas. J. Sediment. Petrol. 40:249-273.
Sheppard, C. 1993. Coral reef environmental science: dichotomies, not the Cassandras, are false.
Reef Encounter 14:12-13.
Shinn, E.A., R.S. Reese and C.D. Reich. 1994. Fate and pathways of injection -well effluent in
the Florida Keys. U.S. Geol. Survey Open -File Report 94-276, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Shinn, E.A. 1996. No rocks, no water, no ecosystem. Geotimes 41:16-19.
Shinn, E.A., G.W. Smith, J.M. Prospero, P. Betzer, M.L. Hayes, V. Garrison and R.T. Barber.
2000. African dust and the demise of Caribbean coral reefs. Geophys. Res. Letters 27:3029-
3032.
Shinn, E.A. 2001. African dust causes widespread environmental distress. U.S. Geological
Survey Open -File Report 01-246, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Small, J.K. 1917. The tree cacti of the Florida Keys. Journal of the New York Botanical Garden
18:199-203.
Smith, H.T. 1996. Roseate tern. Pages 246-256 in J.A. Rodgers, H.W. Kale, and H.T. Smith,
editors. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida Vol. V: Birds. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.
Snedacker, S.C. and A.E. Lugo. 1973. The role of mangrove ecosystems in the maintenance of
environmental quality and a high productivity of desirable fisheries. Final Rep. on Contract
14- 6-008-606. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildlife, Washington, D.C.
Draft Environmental Assessment 121 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Snyder, J.R., A. Herndon and W.B. Robertson. 1990. South Florida Rockland. Pages 230-277 in
R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida
Press, Orlando, Florida.
Starck, W.A. 1968. A list of fishes of Alligator Reef, Florida, with comments on the nature of the
Florida reefs fish fauna. Undersea Biol. l(1):4-40.
Steneck, R.S. 1998. Human influences on coastal ecosystems: does overfishing create trophic
cascades? Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:429-430.
Steneck, R.S. 1988. Herbivory on coral reefs: a synthesis. Proc. 6th Internat. Coral Reef Symp.,
Townsville, 1:37-49.
Stober, Q.J., K. Thornton, R. Jones, J. Richards, C. Ivey, R. Welch, M. Madden, J. Trexler, E.
Gaiser, D. Scheidt and S. Rathbun. 2001. South Florida Ecosystem Assessment -Phase I/II—
Everglades stressor interactions: hydropatterns, euthrophi cation, habitat alteration, and
mercury contamination. Monitoring for adaptive management: implications for ecosystem
restoration. United States Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA 904-R-01-002.
Szmant, A.M. 1997. Nutrient effects on coral reefs: a hypothesis on the importance of
topographic and trophic complexity to reef nutrient dynamics. Proc. 8th Intl. Coral Reef
Symp.
Szmant, A.M., and A. Forrester. 1996. Water column and sediment nitrogen and phosphorus
distribution patterns in the Florida Keys, USA. Coral Reefs 15:21-41.
Szmant, A.M. 2002. Nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: is it a major cause of coral reef decline?
Estuaries 25(4b):743-766.
Taylor, J.L., C.H. Saloman and K.W. Priest, Jr. 1973. Harvest and regrowth of turtle grass
(Thalassia testudinum) in Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull.
71(1):145- 48.
Teas, H. and J. Kelly. 1975. Effects of herbicides on mangroves of S. Vietnam and Florida.
Pages 719-728 in G. Walsh, S. Snedaker and H. Teas, editors. Proc. Int. Symp. Biol. Manage.
Mangroves. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Terrell, B.G. Cultural History of the Florida Keys. 1999. Sustainable Seas Expeditions Sanctuary
Log, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary
Program. http://sustainableseas.noaa.gov/missions/florida2/background/culttiralhistory.html.
Thayer, G.W. and A.J. Chester. 1989. Distribution and abundance of fishes among basin and
channel habitats in Florida Bay. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44:200-219.
Draft Environmental Assessment 122 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Tilton, D.L. and R.H. Kadlec. 1979. The Utilization of a Freshwater Wetland for Nutrient
Removal from Secondarily Teated Wastewater Effluent. JEQ 8:328-334.
Tomasko, D.A. and B.E. Lapointe. 1991. Productivity and biomass of Thalassia testidinum as
related to water column nutrient availability and epiphyte levels: field observations
andexperimental studies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 75:9-16.
Tomlinson, P.B. 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press, London,
England.
Turmel, R.J. and R.G. Swanson. 1976. The development of Rodriguez Bank, a Holocene mud
bank in the Florida ref tract. J. Sediment. Petrol. 46(3):497-518.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1997. Economic Census: Summary Statistics for Monroe County, FL.
http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/fl/FLO87.HTM. October 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1998. County estimates for people of all ages in poverty for Florida 1998.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/stcty/a98_12.htm. October 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable. Accessed October 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. County business patterns for Monroe Florida.
http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/map/00data/12/087.txt. October 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000b. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/FL/05012087.pdf. October 2010.
U. S. Census Bureau. 2004. Subcounty population datasets. Accessed from the Internet at
http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2003-states.html. October 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. Undated. People quickfacts.
http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/12/12087.html. October 2010.
U.S. Congress. 1996. Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.).
USEPA 2003. Relative Risk Assessment of Management Options in South Florida. USEPA 816-
R-03-010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Water Quality Protection Program for
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Phase II Report. Final report submitted to the
Draft Environmental Assessment 123 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Environmental Protection Agency under Work Assignment 1, Contract No. 68-C2-0134.
Continental Shelf Assoc., Inc., Jupiter, FL and Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1994. Executive Order 12898, federal actions
to address environmental justice in minority and low-income populations.
http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/justice/eo12898.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Water Quality Protection Program for
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Batelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury,
Massachusetts, and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Jupiter, Florida.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. National health protection survey of
beaches for the 2001 swimming season.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/beach2002.nsf/CountyMap/12087.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Undated -a. National Pollutant Discharge
Eliminations System (NPDES), Storm Water Program.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfi-n?program id=6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Undated-b. Environmental. Justice Web Page.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982a. Schaus swallowtail butterfly recovery plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982b. Stock Island tree snail recovery plan. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. American crocodile recovery plan. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Species Account —Key Largo Woodrat
(Neotoma floridana smalli). http://endangered.fws.gov/i/a/saa7v.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Biological Opinion on FEMA's Administration
of the National Flood Insurance Program in Monroe County, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. South Florida Multi -Species Recovery Plan.
USFWS Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000a. What are coastal barrier resources?
http://www.fws.gov/cep/whatbarr.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000b. Types of coastal barriers.
http://www.fws.gov/cep/typebarr.html. 13 February 2003.
Draft Environmental Assessment 124 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Undated -a. The National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program. http://www.fws.gov/cep/cwg.dec02.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Undated-b. Threatened and Endangered Species
System (TESS). http://ecos.fws.gov/servlet/TESSWebpage.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Undated-c. National Wildlife Refuges of the Florida
Keys. http://library.fws.gov/refuges/florida_keys.pdf.
U.S. Government, Federal Executive Order 12898.
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/ej/htmldoc/execordr.htm. 9 February 2003.
University of Florida (UF). Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 2001 Florida price level
index. 2001
University of Florida (UF). 2002. Florida Water Resource Primer, Soil and Water Science
Department. http://waterquality.ifas.ufl.edu/PRIMER/h2o4.html.
University of Florida (UF). Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS). 2003.
Invasive Exotic Removal Guide.
http://monroe.ifas.ufl.edu/invasive—exotic2.htm.
University of Miami-Rosensteil School of Marine Science (UMRSMAS). 2001-2003. The
Florida Current. http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/florida.html.
Urban, N.H., S.M. Davis and N.G. Aumen. 1993. Fluctuations in sawgrass and cattail density in
Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A under varying nutrient, hydrologic and fire regimes.
Aqua Bot 46:203-223.
URS Group, Inc. 2002. Draft programmatic environmental assessment in the Florida Keys,
Florida. Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia.
Valiela, I., K. Foreman, M. LaMontagne, 1992. Couplings of watersheds and coastal waters:
sources and consequences of nutrient enrichment in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries
15:443-457.
Vessey, S.H., D.B. Meilde and S.R. Spaulding. 1976. Biological survey of Raccoon Key Florida:
a preliminary report to the Charles River Breeding Labs, Wilmington, Massachusetts.
Vitousek, P.M., J. Aber, R.W. Howarth, G.E. Likens, P.A. Matson, D.W. Schindler, W.H.
Schlesinger and D. Tilman. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and
consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7:737-750.
Voss, G.L. and N.A. Voss. 1955. An ecological survey of Soldier Key, Biscayne Bay, Florida.
Bull. Mar. Sci. 5(3):203-229.
Draft Environmental Assessment 125 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Walsh, G.E., R. Barrett, G.H. Cook and T.A. Hollister. 1973. Effects of herbicides on seedlings
of the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle. L. BioScience 23:361-364.
Weiner, A.H. 1979. The Hardwood Hammocks of the Florida Keys: An Ecological Study. Natl.
Audubon Soc. and Florida Keys Land Trust.
Weller, M.W. 1994. Freshwater Marshes Ecology and Wildlife Management. Third edition.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Wenner, E.L., G.F. Ulrich and J.B. Wise. 1987. Exploration for golden crab, Geryon fenneri, in
the South Atlantic Bight: distribution, population stricture and gear assessment. Fishery
Bulletin 85(3):547-560.
White, W.A. 1970. The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Florida Bureau of Geology.
Bulletin 51.
Wilkinson, C.R. 1987. Interocean differences in size and nutrition of coral reef sponge
populations. Science 236:1654-1657.
Wilkinson, P.M. and M. Spinks. 1994. Winter distribution and habitat utilization of piping
plovers in South Carolina. Chat 58(2):33-37.
Wilkinson, C. 2000. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2000. Australian Institute of Marine
Science, Cape Ferguson and Dampier.
Wilson, D.E. and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 750pp.
Wood, P.B., T.C. Edwards and M.W. Collopy. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nesting habitat
in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):441-449.
Wood, E.J.F. and J.C. Zieman. 1969. The effects of temperature on estuarine plant communities.
Chesapeake Sci. 10:172-174.
Zieman, J.C. 1982. The ecology of the seagrasses of south Florida: a community profile. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-
82/25.
Zieman, J.C. and R.G. Wetzel. 1980. Methods and rates of productivity in seagrasses. Handbook
of seagrass biology. Pages 87-116 in R.C. Phillips and C.P. McRoy, editors. Garland STMP
Press, New York.
Zischke, J.A. 1973. An ecological guide to the shallow -water marine communities of Pidgeon
Key, Florida. Published by the author and supported in part by N. S.F. Sci. Fac. Fellowship
No. G1213, St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota.
Draft Environmental Assessment 126 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
Appendix
Alfisols. A class of soils that have light colored surface horizons, low organic matter content and
loamy subsoil horizons, with moderate to high base saturation. They occur throughout the
physiographic provinces in the south Florida ecosystem.
Aquifer. An underground layer of water -bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials
(gravel, sand, silt, or clay) from which groundwater can be usefully extracted using a water well.
Brackish Water. Water that has more salinity than fresh water, but not as much as seawater. It
may result from mixing of seawater with fresh water, as in estuaries, or it may occur in brackish
fossil aquifers. Brackish water contains between 0.5 and 30 grams of salt per liter —more often
expressed as 0.5 to 30 parts per thousand (ppt or %o).
Caliche. A sedimentary rock, a hardened deposit of calcium carbonate. This calcium carbonate
cements together other materials, including gravel, sand, clay, and silt.
Category I Pest. Plant or animal species that alter native plant communities by displacing
native species, changing community strictures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with
natives.
Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project. A multi -purpose project authorized by
Congress in 1948, that provides flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial and
agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, water supply for Everglades National Park,
and protection of fish and wildlife resources. The primary system includes approximately 1,000
miles of levees, 720 miles of canals and approximately 200 water control strictures.
Class I Deep Injection Well. The first of five well classifications developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under their underground disposal control program to
categorize the injection of various types of liquid wastes. Class I wells are typically used by
hazardous waste generators and operators, as well as industrial and municipal disposal systems,
to inject fluids into a geologic formation that is beneath the lower -most formation containing an
underground source of drinking water within one quarter mile of the well bore. A Class I Well
must meet siting, constriction, operation, and maintenance criteria specific to this well class, as
established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida State regulating
agency
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Plan developed to modify the Central
and Southern Florida Project. The Plan was approved in the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) of 2000. It includes more than 60 elements and will take more than 30 years to
constrict. The goal of CERP is to capture fresh water that now flows unused to the ocean and
the gulf and redirect it to areas that need it most. The majority of the water will be devoted to
environmental restoration. The remaining water will benefit cities and farmers by enhancing
water supplies for the south Florida economy.
Degasifed. To remove dissolved gases from water, or other liquid.
Demineralized. To remove dissolved mineral salts from water, or other liquid
Draft Environmental Assessment November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Desalination. The process of removing dissolved salt and other minerals from seawater to
create freshwater.
Endangered [species]. A plant or animal that is in danger of becoming extinct through loss of
habitat, habitat degradation, over hunting or harvesting, or other reasons. In the United States,
animals and plants are added to the Endangered Species List by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
part to the Department of Interior (DOI).
Endemic [species]. A plant or animal that is found exclusively in a particular area, and are
naturally not found anywhere else.
Entisols. A class of soils that have a minor or undeveloped soil profile. Entisols are found in
nearly all of the physiographic provinces in the south Florida ecosystem.
Environmental Assessment (EA). A study of land to determine any unique environmental
attributes, considering everything from endangered species to existing hazardous waste to
historical significance. Depending on the findings of an EA, and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) may or may not be needed.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity (Magnuson -Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq).
Herbaceous. A plant that has leaves and stems that die down at the end of the growing season to
the soil level. They have no persistent woody stem above ground. A herbaceous plant may be
annual, biennial or perennial. Annual herbaceous plants die completely at the end of the growing
season or when they have flowered and fruited, and they then grow again from seed.
Histosols. A class of soils that are dominantly organic, consisting of peat and muck deposits of
varying thickness over sand, marl, or limestone. These soils usually are found in swamps,
mangroves, and fresh and saltwater marsh environments. They are less frequently found in
rockland areas.
Lower East Coast (LEC) Water Supply Plan. Plan developed by the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) to meet future water demands of urban and agricultural uses,
while meeting the needs of the environment. The process identified areas where historically
used sources of water will not be adequate to meet future demands, and evaluates several water
source options to meet those demands.
Natural Forest Community. All stands of trees, including their associated understory, which
were designated as Natural Forest Communities on the Miami -Dade County Natural Forest
Community Maps and approved by the BOCC, pursuant to Resolution No. R-176-84.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A Congressional act established in 1969 that
directs all federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of their programs, projects, and
funding decisions. NEPA considers the effects on all resources of natural and built environments
and includes compliance requirements with all other applicable federal laws, such as the
Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Justice Executive Order.
Draft Environmental Assessment 128 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System
7.0 Biblioara
Oolitic Facies. A formation of rocks consisting mostly of small, spherical calcium carbonate
grains.
Phsiography. Physical geography.
Pine Rocklands. A plant community unique to southern Florida and the Bahamas. In Florida
they are found on limestone substrates on the Miami Rock Ridge, in the Florida Keys, and in the
Big Cypress Swamp. Pine rocldands are dominated by a single canopy tree, South Florida slash
pine (Pinns elliottii var. densa), a diverse hardwood and palm subcanopy, and a very rich
herbaceous layer. The flora of pine rocldands is composed of a diverse assemblage of tropical
and temperate taxa.
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). A concise public document
prepared pursuant to NEPA. It contains sufficient analysis to determine the likely significance of
a group of similar Proposed Actions (projects) and alternatives' impacts, to aid decision making.
A project- and site -specific affects evaluation document supplements the PEIS, generically called
a Supplemental NEPA documentation.
Reverse Osmosis (RO). A method of obtaining pure water from water containing a salt, as in
desalination. Pure water and the salt water are separated by a semi permeable membrane and the
pressure of the salt water is raised above the osmotic pressure, causing water from the brine to
pass through the membrane into the pure water.
Reverse Osmosis (RO) Concentrate. Brine solution that has not passed through the semi
permeable membrane.
Reverse Osmosis (RO) Permeate. Freshwater that has passed through the semi permeable
membrane.
Saltwater Intrusion. The migration of saltwater into freshwater, resulting when water is
withdrawn from an aquifer system at a rate that exceeds its recharge capacity
Siliciclastic. Non -carbonate rocks that are almost exclusively silica -bearing, either as forms of
quartz or other silicate minerals, and are formed by inorganic processes, or deposited through
some mechanical process, such as stream deposits that are subsequently lithified.
Spodosols. A class of soils characterized by a spodic horizon, a zone where organic matter
combined with aluminum and/or iron has accumulated due to downward leaching. These soils
usually are associated with flatwoods and dry prairies, sandhill and sand pine scrub, mixed
hardwood forests, swamps, marshes, and infrequently in salt marsh and mangrove ecosystems.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). A measure of the combined content of all inorganic and organic
substances contained in a liquid in molecular, ionized or micro -granular suspended form.
Transmissivity. The rate at which limestone allows the transmission of water into an aquifer
system.
Draft Environmental Assessment 129 November 2010
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System