HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem J3
3696
3697
3698
Work Program Requirements for 2025 Annual Report
Pursuant to Rule 28-20.140, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)
Rule 28-20.140 Comprehensive Plan, (F.A.C.)
(5) WORK PROGRAM.
(a) Carrying Capacity Study Implementation:
2. Provide data to report on the land acquisition funding and efforts in the Florida Keys to
purchase Tier I and Big Pine Key Tier II lands and the purchase of parcels where a
Monroe County building permit allocation has been denied for four (4) years or more.
The report shall include an identification of all sources of funds and assessment of fund
balances within those sources available to the County and the Monroe County Land
Authority.
From July 13, 2024 to July 12, 2025, the Monroe County Land
Authority (MCLA) and the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) acquired fee simple or less than fee
interests in 31 parcels of land designated either Tier 1 or Tier 2,
including 1 parcel for ROGO Administrative Relief. In addition
to these property categories, MCLA and the BOCC also acquired
fee simple or less than fee interests in 23 parcels of land
designated Tier 3A or Tier 3, and fee simple interests in 3 parcels
of land with no Tier designation in Marathon.
The total of all types of conservation and density reduction land
purchased by MCLA and the BOCC retired 47.79 transferrable
development rights (TDRs) and totaled 57 parcels (63.4 acres) at
a cost of $6,217,464.
Support Information Acquisition Report and MCLA Budget
Status attached (Exhibit A).
3699
3. Provide data on applications to state or federal land acquisition funding opportunities (at
least one).
Monroe County evaluated its land acquisition needs and,
pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement between the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), the Monroe
County Land Authority (MCLA) pursued the opportunity of
accessing Florida Forever funding by selling pre-acquired
conservation land to the Board of Trustees. From July 13, 2024
to July 12, 2025, this partnership resulted in MCLA receiving
$2,701,098 in reimbursement funding from the sale of 191
parcels of pre-acquired conservation land to the Board of
Trustees.
Support Information Memorandum of Agreement attached
(Exhibit B).
(b) Wastewater Implementation.
1. Provide an evaluation and allocation of funding for wastewater implementation,
identifying any funding included in the annual update to the Capital Improvements
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Complete).
Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity) approximately $30M
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Hurricane Irmarelated
mitigation, totaling around $7M
Resilient Florida Grant Program (FY2122) approximately $17.5M
Florida Senate Local Funding Initiative Requests (FY2224)
Appropriations in the range of $1020M each
HMGP Grant submission pending request at approximately $3M
Financial Plan 2024 Financial Summaries for wastewater related
expenditures in the Five Year Capital Improvement and Capital Financing
Plan (Exhibit C)
2. Provide evaluation of wastewater needs and state and federal funding opportunities and
applications to state or federal funding opportunity for wastewater projects and
connections (Complete).
Wastewater applications for funding opportunities submitted during the reporting
period of July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025
FDEP Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern FY24-25
Summerland Equalization Tank
FDEP Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern FY24-25
369:
Big Coppitt Equalization Tank
FDEP Alternative Water Supply Grant Program FY24-25
Big Coppitt Reclaimed Water System Expansion
(c) Wastewater Project Implementation
3. Provide updates on the number of completed connections to the South Lower Keys
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and outline the initiatives and actions taken
during the current reporting period to complete the remaining connections in the Big
Coppitt Regional System. Include information on the number of parcels referred to code
enforcement for failure to connect to sewer and the number of parcels not connected to
sewer that were notified to connect (Complete).
Big Coppitt connections are at 99.75%.
See attached FKAA Wastewater Connection Report for more details.
(Exhibit D)
4. Provide updates on the number of completed connections to the Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility and outline the initiatives and actions taken during the
current reporting period to connect the remaining connections to Cudjoe Regional
WWTP. Include information on the number of parcels referred to code enforcement for
failure to connect to sewer and the number of parcels not connected to sewer that were
notified to connect (Incomplete).
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan connections are at
97.4%.
See attached FKAA Wastewater Connection Report for more details.
(Exhibit D)
(d) Canal Restoration Implementation
5. Provide the list of canal restoration projects and implementation plans for each canal
project. See Canal Workplan Report (Exhibit E)
The County is in the process of designing and permitting the following 8 canals:
266 Big Pine Key Phase 2 Backfill. Estimate of $3 Million
255 Big Pine Key organic muck removal, backfilling, air curtain, and an injection
well. Estimate $3 Million
105 Tavernier Backfill and Culvert. Estimate $1.5 Million
82 Key Largo (Rock Harbor) Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain.
Estimate $3.2 Million
474 Geiger Key Backfill and Air Curtain Restoration Projects. Estimate $222,651.
295 (RESTORE) Big Pine Key Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain.
Estimate $1,040,727.
297 (RESTORE) Big Pine Key Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain.
Estimate $ 1,352,390.
299 (RESTORE) Big Pine Key Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain.
Estimate $2,151,972
36:1
300 (RESTORE) - Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain, Estimate
$1,490,926
315 Big Pine Key Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain. Estimate
$2,373,982. Design and permitting in process.
6. Provide information on the evaluation of canal restoration needs, state and federal
funding opportunities, and applications to at least one federal funding opportunity for
canal restoration projects. See Canal Workplan Report (Exhibit E)
Gulf Consortium - $12,650,000
FDEP (Stewardship) - $3,000,000
EPA - $393,388
7. Provide information on the evaluation and allocation of funding for canal restoration
implementation and whether it was included in the annual update to the Capital
Improvements Element (CIE) of the Comprehensive Plan. See Canal CIE (Exhibit F)
9. Report which canal restoration projects have been initiated and projects that were
completed during the reporting.
See Canal Workplan Report (Exhibit E)
12. Provide information on the assessment of the effectiveness of canal restoration in
accordance with the plan identified in subparagraph (5)(d)11.
See Canal Water Quality Data Collection Restoration Project (Exhibit G)
In addition to the reporting information required pursuant to Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C., the
following information will be required for the period of July 13, 2024, to July 12, 2025:
Number of market rate units allocated; 61
Number of market rate unit permits in queue; 219
Number of affordable housing units allocated; 4*
Number of affordable units remaining in the pool; 0 **
Number of affordable housing unit permits in queue; 3
Number of administrative relief or beneficial units allocated; 1
Number of administrative relief units remaining in the pool; 145
Number of affordable units borrowed forward; 0
Number of market rate units borrowed forward; 0
*10 Affordable allocations were reserved
** 193 Early-Out Affordable Allocations were reserved; 67 Early-Out Affordable Allocations
remain
36:2
36:3
Cost
$63,301$89,720$16,203$26,216$20,205$39,250$41,253$76,242$56,617$70,419$17,895$61,376$55,233$61,652
$144,248$210,677$202,102$268,923$116,885
$123,598$159,678$916,729
$2,604,648
2.000.070.400.350.061.000.031.001.001.040.511.271.801.004.751.350.030.032.001.001.002.00
19.67
TDRs
Retired
0.21.11.50.10.30.10.20.10.12.21.00.60.20.20.11.00.20.10.10.2
10.555.1
35.5
Acres
2111212112115112112112
------------ included above ------------------------ included above ------------------------ included above ------------------------ included above ------------------------ included
above ------------------------ included above ------------------------ included above ------------------------ included above ------------29
------------ included above ------------------------ included above ------------
Parcels
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo
Yes
Relief
Admin
SubtotalSubtotal
221111111111111111211122
1111111
Tier
Property Type ConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConse
rvationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservationConservation/Affordable HousingConservation/Affordable
HousingLess Than Fee Density ReductionLess Than Fee Density Reduction
B
Page 1 of 2
Fyijcju
from July 13, 2024 to July 12, 2025
Acquisition of Tier 1, Tier 2, and ROGO Administrative Relief Lands
Subdivision Doctor's Arm 1st AdditionDoctor's Arm 1st AdditionSummerland Key PropertiesSummerland Key PropertiesSummerland Estates Re-Subdivision No. 2First Addition to The Ladies AcreFirst
Addition to The Ladies AcreRamrod Shores First AdditionPine CrestPine CrestHarris Ocean Park EstatesSandsNorth Sugarloaf Acres Section OneNorth Sugarloaf Acres Section OneCudjoe AcresRamrod
Key AcreageKinerchaKinerchaKinerchaKinerchaKinerchaEden Pines Colony Third AdditionBig Torch Key AcreageThompsonsThompsonsRainbow BeachNiles ChannelSandsSandsEden Pines Colony 3rd AdditionEden
Pines Colony
8571285
2021192022101415161718181415
3618104617
Lot
OOO
Part of Tract H
Part of Tract KK
RE 00114240-000000RE 00112810-000000
4424444444
677
11282827282518
2412121728
Block
SettlementDateMonroe County Land Authority Acquisitions:07/18/2407/18/2408/30/2409/05/2409/06/2409/24/2409/24/2409/24/2409/24/2409/24/2402/21/2502/28/2503/21/2503/21/2503/21/2503/21/2503/21/2504/18/2
504/30/2506/30/25 Monroe County BOCC Acquisitions (Excluding Lands Pre-acquired by MCLA):08/06/2409/04/24
10/21/2412/06/2412/20/2412/20/2404/30/2504/30/2505/29/2506/19/2506/30/25
36:4
Cost
$123,598$317,749
$2,403,783$2,721,532
1.005.00
16.6721.67
TDRs
Retired
0.10.6
54.755.3
Acres
15
2631
Parcels
2210
B
Page 2 of 2
Fyijcju
from July 13, 2024 to July 12, 2025
Acquisition of Tier 1, Tier 2, and ROGO Administrative Relief Lands
Summary of Tier 1, Tier 2, and ROGO Administrative Relief Acquisitions: Subtotal of All ROGO Administrative Relief Acquisitions Subtotal of All Tier 1 Acquisitions (including the Administrative
Relief acquisition) Subtotal of All Tier 2 Acquisitions Total of All Tier 1, Tier 2, and ROGO Administrative Relief Acquisitions Summary of ROGO Administrative Relief Activity: Administrative
Relief Properties Referred to MCLA by the BOCC for Purchase Offers Administrative Relief Properties Currently Under Contract for Purchase by MCLA Administrative Relief Properties
Purchased By MCLA Administrative Relief Properties Where Owner Declined MCLA's Purchase Offer
In addition to the property categories listed above:- The Monroe County Land Authority also purchased fee simple title to 20 parcels of Tier 3A and Tier 3 land for conservation at a
cost of $2,453,266.- The Monroe County Land Authority also purchased fee simple title to 3 parcels of land with no Tier designation in Marathon for conservation at a cost of $47,423.-
The Monroe County BOCC also purchased fee simple title to 3 parcels of Tier 3 land for density reduction at a cost of $995,243.The total of all types of conservation and density reduction
land purchased by MCLA and the BOCC was 57 parcels (63.4 acres) retiring 47.79 TDRs at a cost of $6,217,464.Note: The Board of Trustees also purchased 191 parcels of land pre-acquired
by MCLA at a cost of $2,961,958. To avoid double-counting, these acquisitions are excluded from the above totals. The Board of Trustees costs shown are subject to confirmation
by DEP.
Monroe County Land Authority FY 2025 Budget Status
as of August 7, 2025
FL Keys Area of Critical State Concern
General Acquisitions
Budget15,732,386$
Less expenditures(5,145,764)$
Less encumbered funds(378,481)$
Balance10,208,141$
Construction Funding
Budget2,240,000$
Less expenditures-$
Less encumbered funds(2,240,000)$
Balance-$
Reserve for ROGO Administrative Relief
Budget3,293,248$
Less expenditures(123,598)$
Less encumbered funds(174,061)$
Balance2,995,590$
General Reserves
Contingency$ 500,000
End of Year Cash500,000$
Key West Area of Critical State Concern
General Acquisitions
Budget145,647$
Less expenditures-$
Less encumbered funds-$
Balance145,647$
Construction Funding
Budget18,728,500$
Less expenditures-$
Less encumbered funds(16,170,457)$
Balance2,558,043$
36:5
FyijcjuC
36:6
FyijcjuC
36:7
36:8
36:9
36::
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
FyijcjuD
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority’s Budget and Financial Plan 2024 Financial Summaries
Five Year Financial Plan (continued)
For fiscal years 2024-2028
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND CAPITAL FINANCING PLAN
Estimated five-
year
20242025202620272028expenditures
Description
Water Projects
Kermit H Lewin Reverse Osmosis Emergency Generator Facility 1,750,000 - - -
- 1,750,000
J. Robert Dean WTP Painting and Filter Gallery Upgrade 250,000 - - -
- 250,000
Ramrod Pump Station Diesel Storage 200,000 - - - - 200,000
Kermit H Lewin Building Rehabilitation - 500,000 - - -
500,000
Kermit H Lewin Diesel Tank Replacement - 75,000 750,000 - - 825,000
Stock Island Garage Replacement - - - 200,000 2,500,000 2,700,000
J. Robert Dean WTP Accelator No. 1 1,400,000 - - - - 1,400,000
J. Robert Dean WTP Accelator No. 3 - 1,400,000 - - - 1,400,000
Kermit H Lewin Reverse Osmosis Facility 15,000,000 1,000,000 - - - 16,000,000
Crawl Key Reverse Osmosis Facility 4,000,000 16,000,000 25,000,000 23,000,000 - 68,000,000
J. Robert Dean WTP Wastewater Forcemain 720,000 - - - -
720,000
J. Robert Dean WTP Diesel Pump Upgrades 1,500,000 2,500,000 - - - 4,000,000
J. Robert Dean WTP Electrical Improvements- (Phase 2) 400,000 3,200,000 3,200,000 - - 6,800,000
J. Robert Dean WTP Storage Tank Coatings 650,000 - - 1,350,000 - 2,000,000
J. Robert Dean WTP Storage Tank (5 MG) - - - 250,000 6,000,000 6,250,000
Long Key, Marathon, and Ramrod Pump Station Electrical Upgrades 250,000 2,750,000 - - -
3,000,000
Transmission Islamorada (MM 79-84) 20,000,000 - - - - 20,000,000
Transmission Windley Key (MM 84-86) 15,000,000 - - - - 15,000,000
Transmission Plantation Key (MM 86-91) - 26,500,000 26,500,000 - - 53,000,000
Transmission Terminus Replacement 4,000,000 - - - - 4,000,000
Transmission Marathon (Knights Key) 600,000 3,000,000 - - - 3,600,000
Transmission Ocean Reef 6,000,000 1,500,000 - - - 7,500,000
Cathodic Protection System Repair and Improvements 200,000 2,000,000 - - -
2,200,000
Transmission Snake Creek Crossing (Directional Drill) - 2,000,000 - - -
2,000,000
Transmission C111 Crossing (Directional Drill) - 3,000,000 - - -
3,000,000
Distribution Valve Replacement Program 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000
Key West Pump Station Electrical Upgrades 30,000 400,000 - - - 430,000
Desal Storage Tank 300,000 - - - - 300,000
Distribution Twin Lakes Key Largo 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000
Distribution Upgrades 900,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 7,100,000
Distribution Replacement South Street 600,000 - - - -
600,000
Distribution and Storage Ocean Reef - - 500,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 8,500,000
Distribution Storage Tank Replacement Crawl Key 2,500,000 - - - -
2,500,000
Distribution Duck Key Inner Island - - - - -
Distribution Replacement Middle Keys - - 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 4,500,000
Coco Plum Drive Distribution(Phase 1) 600,000 - - - -
600,000
Meter Gateways (Phase III) 200,000 200,000 200,000 - - 600,000
Key West Storage Tank 250,000 3,000,000 - - - 3,250,000
NAS Key West Boca Chica Field - East Fire Pumping Station - - - -
- -
NAS Connection A & B Distribution Boca Chica - - - - -
-
Total water projects$ 78,900,000$ 70,525,000$ 59,150,000$ 32,000,000$ 15,900,000$ 256,475,000
52| Page
3718
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority’s Budget and Financial Plan 2024 Financial Summaries
Five Year Financial Plan (continued)
For fiscal years 2024-2028
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND CAPITAL FINANCING PLAN(CONT.)
Estimated five-
year
20242025202620272028expenditures
Description
Wastewater projects
City of Key West Wastewater Forcemain (Key Haven) 2,300,000 - - - - 2,300,000
Wastewater On-site Projects 500,000 - - - - 500,000
Big Coppitt Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements 1,000,000 - - - - 1,000,000
Big Coppitt and Cudjoe Wastewater Improvements 4,095,000 11,975,000 - - - 16,070,000
Big Coppitt Lift Station Upgrades - 510,000 - - - 510,000
Total wastewater projects 7,895,000 12,485,000 - - - 20,380,000
Total capital improvement projects$ 86,795,000$ 83,010,000$ 59,150,000$ 32,000,000$ 15,900,000$ 276,855,000
Funding sources
Funds from retail rates and cash on hand$ 28,195,000$ 24,510,000$ 24,150,000$ 22,000,000$ 15,900,000$ 114,755,000
Navy water rates - - - - -
-
Federal and state appropriations 33,600,000 16,500,000 5,000,000 - - 55,100,000
Bond proceeds
25,000,000 42,000,000 30,000,000 10,000,000 - 107,000,000
Total$ 86,795,000$ 83,010,000$ 59,150,000$ 32,000,000$ 15,900,000$ 276,855,000
53| Page
3719
FyijcjuE
Richard J. Toppino
Florida Keys
Chairman
District 2
Aqueduct
J. Robert Dean
Vice-Chairman
Authority
District 3
1100 Kennedy Drive
Cara Higgins
Key West, Florida 33040
Secretary/Treasurer
Telephone:(305)296-2454
District 1
www.fkaa.com
Luis Gonzalez, Sr.
District 4
Nicholas W. Mulick
District 5
Gregory W. Veliz
Executive Director
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
JULY 2025
WASTEWATER CONNECTION REPORT
CROSS KEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is actively working with the Property Owners to connect to the FKAA
Wastewater Collection System. FKAA has verified that a total of 12 Parcel Owners are in the process of obtaining permits
for connections and 1 Parcel Owner will commence permitting upon start of construction of new residence. All Parcel
Owners that are not connected or not in the permitting process have been referred to Monroe County Code
Enforcement.
TABLE CK01
CROSS KEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA CONNECTION INFORMATION
Total Parcels Total Parcels
Identified Requiring Total Parcels NotTotal Percent of
WastewaterConnected to Connected to Parcels Connected
AreaConnection *WastewaterWastewater *to Wastewater
Cross Key25111444.0%
Totals:25111444.0%
* The quantity indicated includes Parcels that are vacant (non-habitable), FKAA is tracking these Parcels to ensure Wastewater Service is provided
LAYTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA
The service area has vacant parcels that are not connected to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), these parcels
will be required to connect to the FKAA Wastewater Collection System as part of the building permit application and
certificate of occupancy requirements.
TABLE L01
LAYTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA CONNECTION INFORMATION
Total Parcels Total Parcels
Identified Requiring Total Parcels NotTotal Percent of
WastewaterConnected to Connected to Parcels Connected
AreaConnection *WastewaterWastewater *to Wastewater
Long Key3533294.3%
Totals:3533294.3%
* The quantity indicated includes Parcels that are vacant (non-habitable), FKAA is tracking these Parcels to ensure Wastewater Service is provided
Page 1 of 4
371:
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
JULY 2025
WASTEWATER CONNECTION REPORT
DUCK KEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA
The service area has vacant parcels that are not connected to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), these parcels
will be required to connect to the FKAA Wastewater Collection System as part of the building permit application and
certificate of occupancy requirements.
TABLE DK01
DUCK KEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA CONNECTION INFORMATION
Total Parcels Total Parcels
Identified Requiring Total Parcels NotTotal Percent of
WastewaterConnected to Connected to Parcels Connected
AreaConnection *WastewaterWastewater *to Wastewater
Duck Key - Residential5004821896.4%
Duck Key - Hawk's Cay Resort110100.0%
Duck Key - Hawk's Cay Villas3453450100.0%
Conch Key1161160100.0%
Totals:9629441898.1%
* The quantity indicated includes Parcels that are vacant (non-habitable), FKAA is tracking these Parcels to ensure Wastewater Service is provided
CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) continues to work with the existing Parcel Owners that have habitable
structures to connect to the FKAA Wastewater Collection System. The service area has vacant parcels that are not
connected to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), these parcels will be required to connect to the FKAA
Wastewater Collection System as part of the building permit application and certificate of occupancy requirements.
TABLE CR01
CUDJOE REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA CONNECTION INFORMATION
Total Parcels Total Parcels
Identified Requiring Total Parcels NotTotal Percent of
WastewaterConnected to Connected to Parcels Connected
AreaConnection *WastewaterWastewater *to Wastewater
No Name Key4240295.2%
Big Pine Key3,0482,93711196.4%
Little Torch Key7587352397.0%
Middle Torch Key14140100.0%
Big Torch Key5351296.2%
Ramrod Key6075941397.9%
Summerland Key8228101298.5%
Cudjoe Key1,1881,1701898.5%
Upper Sugarloaf Key381373897.9%
Sugarloaf Key21210100.0%
Lower Sugarloaf Key585579699.0%
Totals:7,5197,32419597.4%
* The quantity indicated includes Parcels that are vacant (non-habitable), FKAA is tracking these Parcels to ensure Wastewater Service is provided
Page 2 of 4
3721
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
JULY 2025
WASTEWATER CONNECTION REPORT
BAY POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA
The service area has vacant parcels that are not connected to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), these parcels
will be required to connect to the FKAA Wastewater Collection System as part of the building permit application and
certificate of occupancy requirements. This Treatment Plant is in the process of being decomissioned, the wastewater
from this Service Area will be within the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Service Area in the future.
TABLE BP01
BAY POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA CONNECTION INFORMATION
Total Parcels Total Parcels
Identified Requiring Total Parcels NotTotal Percent of
WastewaterConnected to Connected to Parcels Connected
AreaConnectionWastewaterWastewaterto Wastewater
Saddle Bunch Key - North2382380100.0%
Saddle Bunch Key - South32320100.0%
Blue Water RV Park81810100.0%
Totals:3513510100.0%
BIG COPPITT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) continues to work with the existing Parcel Owners to connect to the FKAA
Wastewater Collection System. The service area has vacant parcels that are not connected to the Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority (FKAA), these parcels will be required to connect to the FKAA Wastewater Collection System as part of the
building permit application and certificate of occupancy requirements. The service area is also experiencing
redevelopment activities, which FKAA is requiring all new construction to connect to the FKAA Wastewater Collection
System as part of the building permit application and certificate of occupancy requirements.
TABLE BC01
BIG COPPITT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVICE AREA CONNECTION INFORMATION
Total Parcels Total Parcels
Identified Requiring Total Parcels NotTotal Percent of
WastewaterConnected to Connected to Parcels Connected
AreaConnection *WastewaterWastewater *to Wastewater
Shark Key42420100.0%
Big Coppitt Key - North7717710100.0%
Big Coppitt Key - South33330100.0%
Geiger Key2652650100.0%
Rockland Key105102397.1%
Boca Chica Key550100.0%
Totals:1,2211,218399.8%
* The quantity indicated includes Parcels that are vacant (non-habitable), FKAA is tracking these Parcels to ensure Wastewater Service is provided
Page 3 of 4
3722
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
JULY 2025
WASTEWATER CONNECTION REPORT
SUMMARY
TABLE S01
SUMMARY OF THE CONNECTION INFORMATION
Total Parcels Total Parcels
Identified Requiring Total Parcels NotTotal Percent of
WastewaterConnected to Connected to Parcels Connected
AreaConnection *WastewaterWastewater *to Wastewater
Cross Key Wastewater Treatment
25111444.0%
Plant Service Area
Layton Wastewater Treatment
3533294.3%
Plant Service Area
Duck Key Wastewater Treatment
9629441898.1%
Plant Service Area
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater
7,5197,32419597.4%
Treatment Plant Service Area
Bay Point Wastewater Treatment
3513510100.0%
Plant Service Area
Big Coppitt Wastewater
1,2211,218399.8%
Treatment Plant Service Area
Totals:
10,1139,88123297.7%
* The quantity indicated includes Parcels that are vacant (non-habitable), FKAA is tracking these Parcels to ensure Wastewater Service is provided
Page 4 of 4
3723
Exhibit E
The County completed restoration for 0 canals this past year. Reporting period is July 13, 2024 July
12, 2025.
The County has completed the design and permitting of the following canals:
293 (RESTORE) Big Pine Key Avenues H & I Organic Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain,
$2.1 M Design and permitting complete July 2023.
The County is in the process of designing and permitting the following 8 canals:
266 Big Pine Key Phase 2 Backfill. Estimate of $3 Million
255 Big Pine Key organic muck removal, backfilling, air curtain, and an injection well. Estimate
$3 Million
105 Tavernier Backfill and Culvert. Estimate $1.5 Million
82 Key Largo (Rock Harbor) Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain. Estimate
$3.2 Million
474 Geiger Key Backfill and Air Curtain Restoration Projects. Estimate $222,651.
295 (RESTORE) Big Pine Key Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain. Estimate
$1,040,727.
297 (RESTORE) Big Pine Key Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain. Estimate $
1,352,390.
299 (RESTORE) Big Pine Key Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain. Estimate
$2,151,972
300 (RESTORE) - Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain, Estimate $1,490,926
315 Big Pine Key Organic Muck Removal, Backfilling and Air Curtain. Estimate $2,373,982.
Design and permitting in process.
Grant Funded Award Approved Project
No. Project Title By: Amount by BOCC Period
23-1 Canal
GNSSP25FL0064-Masterplan Gulf 5/8/25 -
01-00 Implementation Consortium $12,650,000 03/25/25 10/1/29
Canal 82
Construction Rock FLDEP 7/1/24 -
KG006 Harbor (Stewardship) $3,000,000 06/18/25 12/31/27
152 Poor/Fair Canals
Monitoring &
Shoreline Mgmt. 9/1/25 -
05D337325 Practices Ranking EPA $393,888 08/20/25 8/30/27
OnAugust 25 27, 2025, the County submitted 7 applications to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection FY2025-26 Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern Grant Program portal
3724
Exhibit E
for 11 projects under Monroe County's canal restoration program.. If awarded, funds will be used towards
restoration work on the canals listed below:
A. CONSTRUCTION-READY PROJECTS (Design and Permitting Near Completion) Request:
$7.5 Million
Priority 1 Canal #266 Big Pine Key - Located Between Ave I & J
Request Amount: $3.0 Million
Description: This canal was part of a previous demonstration project for organic muck
removal. It now requires a more comprehensive restoration involving backfilling and the
installation of a larger capacity air curtain and pumps. Residents in this area are already
co
Priority 2 Canal #255 Big Pine Key Located Between Louise, Geraldine, Canal, Lucrecia, and
Big Pine Streets
Request Amount: $3.0 Million
Description: Ranked #3 on the canal restoration master plan list, this project includes organic
muck removal, backfilling, an air curtain, and an injection well. Community approval for an
MSBU is already in place.
Priority 3 Canal #105 Key Largo - Located Between Old Fashion, Stinger, Orange Blossom and
Dubonnet Roads
Request Amount: $1.5 Million
Description: Ranked #2 on the canal restoration master plan list, this project includes organic
muck removal, backfilling, and a culvert installation. Community approval for an MSBU is
already in place.
B. DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND PROCUREMENT PROJECTS Request: $500K
Priority 4 Canals #470, #472, #474, #475, #476 Geiger Key
Request Amount: $250K
Description: This group of canals within the same neighborhood requires a combination of
organic muck removal, backfilling, and air curtain installation.
Priority 5 Canal #300 Big Pine Key Located between Avenues D and E
Request Amount: $80k
Description: Ranked #7 on the canal restoration list, this project involves organic muck
removal, backfilling, and air curtain installation.
Priority 6 Canal #283 Big Pine Key Located between Gordon Drive, Winifred Street and
Avenue A.
Request Amount: $85K
Description: Ranked #18 on the canal restoration list, this project involves organic muck
removal, backfilling, and air curtain installation.
3725
Exhibit E
Priority 7 Canal #265 No Name Key Located between Bimini Lane and Tortuga Lane
Request Amount: $85K
Description: Ranked #21 on the canal restoration list, this project includes organic muck
removal, backfilling, and air curtain installation.
3726
G
Fyijcju
3727
3728
FyijcjuH
Monroe County
Canal Water Quality Data Collection Restoration Project
September 11, 2025
This project is being completed to meet the deliverables outlined in the Canal Work Program Chapter 28-20Land
Planning Regulations for The Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Monroe County, Florida
Monroe County and its team of environmental scientists and engineers from WSP USA Inc. (WSP) consulted with
the DEP Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to develop this plan. Monroe County accounted for
Attachment1 for
these agency review comments and responses and email documentationof correspondence with FDEP DEAR.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
In 2012, the County prepared a Canal Management Master Plan (CCMP) which included an evaluationof virtually
every canal in the Florida Keys. Over 500 canals were visited, tested, and ranked for water quality, resulting in over
300 canals being considered impaired and not meeting state water quality standards.
The CMMP has relied on one-time dissolved oxygen (DO) readings within a year to help quantify the water quality
within the residential canals. The DO monitoring program within the county
the seasonal water quality variationswithin the canal(s) and will establish a framework and a benchmark to assess the
tiveness of canal restoration projects. It will also assist with adjusting asneededforthe ranking(s) for canal
restoration.
The objective of the scope of work is to provide DO monitoring for the County’s residential canals to assist with
meeting the Department of Commerce Canal Restoration Implementation program by collecting DO data for 283
residential canals. In 2014, the FDEP implemented a new standard operating procedure for monitoring DO. The DO
results for each canal will be compared to the Chapter 62-303.420 Aquatic Life-Based Water Quality Criteria
Assessment Table
In 2020, a Canal Work Program for the Florida Keys canals wereadopted by the FloridaAdministration Commission
requiring tasks the County and municipalities must complete. TheCounty subsequently created a Canal Restoration
List containing 96 canal projects to restore for$538 Million, ranging from $200,000 to $50 million per project. The
County has expended more than $20 Million to date to restore 14canals.
The current quarterly monitoringbeginning in 2026will providethe County with information to understand the
seasonal and environmental variabilitieswithin the canal systemsand provide the effectiveness reporting that is
required for meeting theRule 28-20.140 (5)(d)12., F.A.C., which states: Beginning July 1, 2024, and annually
thereafteruntil 2030, Monroe County shall assess the effectiveness of canal restoration in accordance withthe plan
identified in subparagraph (5)(d)11. The DEP will make monitoring information relatedto Keys water quality
available to Monroe County to inform the assessment.
METHODS
Semi Annual, instantaneous grab samples are being collected from each canal, depending on funding.The DO
measurements consist of three readings for each canal, one collected 1 foot below the water surface, one collected at
1
3729
mid depth, and one collected 2 feet above the canal bottom. The upper and lower readings are averaged pursuant to
page 45 of the FDEP Watershed Monitoring Section Sampling Manual. The DO measurements are recorded as
percent saturation and DO concentration in mg/L. The average DO reading is corrected for time of day to estimate the
daily average DO concentration using the regression equation that was developed by WSP for the 2017 CMMP
sampling effort. Where applicable and for individual restoration projects, the following plan will be used as a model
for assessment of canal restoration projects.
RESULTS
The annualWQ DO results from 2017, 2021 and 2025 are presented in Attachment 2. As noted above, starting in
2026 the County will begin monitoring the canals on a quarterly basis to understand the effectiveness of restoration
along with identifying priorities for the Canal Work Plan.
The results for WQ DO are shown below:
2013 – All 503 Canals were sampled
DO Description # of Canals
Good 171
Fair 180
Poor 131
2017– Unincorporated MC Canals sampled only (283)
DO Description # of Canals
Good 146
Fair 61
Poor 76
2021– Unincorporated MC Canals sampled only (283)
DO Description # of Canals
Good 58
Fair 170
Poor 55
2025– Unincorporated MC Canals sampled only (283)
DO Description # of Canals
Good 93
Fair 137
Poor 53
2
372:
Monroe County Canal Restoration Projects completed as of September 10, 2025
1. Canal25 Key Largo – Backfill
Funding Source: FDEP grant through FL Keys Stewardship Act
Construction completed:2023
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
2. Canal 28 Key Largo– Backfill
Funding Source: FDEP grant through FL Keys Stewardship Act
Construction completed: 2023
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
3. Canal 29 Key Largo – Backfill
Funding Source: County Funds
Construction completed: 2015
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
4. Canal 75 Key Largo– Backfill
Funding Source: FDEP grant through FL Keys Stewardship Act
Construction completed: 2018
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
5. Canal 83 Rock Harbor– Organic Muck Removal and Backfill
Funding Source: FDEP grant through FL Keys Stewardship Act
Construction completed: 2017
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
6. Canal 84 Rock Harbor – Organic Muck Removal and Backfill
Funding Source: FDEP grant through FL Keys Stewardship Act
Construction completed: 2022
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
7. Canal 90 – Backfill
Funding Source: FDEP grant through FL Keys Stewardship Act
Construction completed: 2024
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
8. Canal 259 Big Pine Key – Culvert
Funding Source: RESTORE Act Funding
Construction completed: 2023
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
9. Canal 266 Big Pine Key – Organic Muck Removal and Air Curtain
Funding Source: County funds
Construction completed: 2015
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
3
3731
10. Canal277 Big Pine Key– Culvert
Funding Source: County Funds
Construction completed: 2016
Water quality monitoring in place:Yes
11. Canal 278 Big Pine Key– Injection Well
Funding Source: FDEP grant through FL Keys Stewardship Act
Construction completed: 2016
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
12. Canal 290 Big Pine Ke y – Organic Muck Removal and Air Curtain
Funding Source: County funds
Construction completed: 2015
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
13. Canal 472 Geiger Key – Culvert
Funding Source: FDEP grant through FL Keys Stewardship Act
Construction completed: 2015
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
14. Canal 475 Geiger Key – Culvert
Funding Source: FDEP grant through FL Keys Stewardship Act
Construction completed: 2023
Water quality monitoring in place: Yes
4
3732
FEDP DEAR Review of the example monitoring plan 5/12/23
1.The sampling design in sections 1.4(page 4)and 2.2 (page 6) differ. In section 1.4, three DO
measurements at varying depths will be conducted and averaged, and in section 2.2, only two
DO measurements and depths will be conducted and averaged.
2.Section 1.7 (page 5). Field personnel must also follow DEP SOP FT 1000.
3.Section 2.1 (page 6) The Sampling Process Design only mentions Canal 114 – please include the
sampling to be conducted in Canal 113 as stated in section 1.4.
4.Section 2.2 (page 6). Please provide the depth of the other field measurements.
5.Section 2.7 (page 7). Ensure ICV and CCV known standards both chronologically and
quantitatively bracket field measurements.
6.Section 2.7 (page 7). If ICV and/or CCV do not meet DEP acceptance criteria, field measurements
must be appropriately qualified with a “J” qualifier and a comment per Chapter 62-160, Florida
Administrative Code.
7.Section 2.7 (page 7). Listed DO and pH acceptance criteria have a caveat of “or historically
established criteria not to exceed 0.5 mg/L (or 0.5 pH units) difference.” This statement is not an
acceptable DEP SOP acceptance criteria for these field parameters. Field measurements
associated with ICV/CCV values outside of 0.2 mg/L and 0.2 pH units, respectively, must be
qualified.
8.Section 2.7 (page 7). DEP SOP acceptance criteria for specific conductance is +/- 5% of standard
value (not 10%). Field measurements associated with ICV/CCV values outside of 5% acceptance
criterion must be qualified.
9.Section 2.7 (page 7). Instrument Calibration:
a.FT 1000 is also applicable to the calibration and verification of data sondes.
b.FT 1300 Field Measurement of Salinity was not previously mentioned as a field
parameter in the QAPP sampling design.
c.FT 1100 Field Measurement of Hydrogen Ion Activity (pH) is not listed.
d.FT 1700 is incorrectly listed; the correct SOP is FT 1500 Field Measurement of DO.
10.Page 3 & 4. It is indicated that the proposed injection well will be installed in Canal 114 and
Canal 113 will also be monitored and act as a control site for the evaluation. Will data be
collected to compare multiple locations? For example, has data been collected to show that the
two canals are similar and have similar DO levels?
a.If possible, I would suggest that the two canals be monitored as close as possible
temporally (i.e., within the same hour or less) to minimize diel and tidal differences.
11.The equation for the time of day correction should be corrected.
a.The corrected equation shows an approximately 30% saturation diel swing. The
statement that “The maximum correction (both positive and negative) is 14 percent
(Wood 2017) is somewhat misleading and should be clarified to indicate that the
maximum correction is 14 percent DO saturation and not 14 percent of the
measurement.
b.The equation appears to make a correction to 13:00 instead of mid-day as indicated.
c.Also, there appears to be a large difference between the start and end of the diel cycle
predicted by the equation that suggests a potential problem with the equation, or the
data used to derive it.
d.Because the data was used to generate the diel curve was collected near the surface, it
would not be appropriate to apply it to the average of the three depths or to the mid-
and bottom depths. Especially in deep canals that are stratified as indicated on Page 2,
3733
applying this equation to the bottom waters would greatly exaggerate the correction
needed. The equation should be applied only to the surface waters or not used at
all. Note: the DO criteria for marine waters do not include a time of day adjustment.
12. Assuming the pre-project data from the two canals are similar, I would suggest using the
comparison between canals as the primary assessment method without applying the time of
day correction. (The data from the canals should be collected within the same hour or
less). Also, there should be a comparison to the applicable DO criterion both pre- and post-
project.
13. If determining “worst case scenarios” then the data from the three depths should not be
averaged and the data from each depth evaluated separately focusing on the bottom
measurement because that is where the primary problem exists as described on page 2 and
where the largest effect from the project would be expected. Averaging would likely just
minimize any improvement observed.
14. Editorial
th
a. Page 7, 7line, “to no meet” should be “to not meet”.
b. Page 8, last bullet, “success of failure” should be “success or failure”
15. In section 1.6, they only mention using current FDEP methodology for collecting DO readings,
but earlier they mention collecting grab samples. Are they also using FDEP methodology for
collecting grab samples? This needs to be clarified in the document.
16. The use of the term “grab” samples should be avoided and instead use the word “discrete”
measurement.
17. The addition of continuous data at one of the test sites, 5 or 100 ft from the intake would also
produce a data set that could be used to evaluate the efficacy of the well. I recommend meeting
the daily average and seven-day average data sufficiency requirements in 62-302.533(2)(a) at
regular intervals (monthly, bimonthly) throughout the project period. Or all three, the daily
average, seven-day average, and, 30-day data sufficiency requirements less frequently,
quarterly.
3734
FDEP DEAR Review of the example monitoring plan 6/5/23
1.The sampling design in sections 1.4(page 4)and 2.2 (page 6) differ. In section 1.4, three DO
measurements at varying depths will be conducted and averaged, and in section 2.2, only two
DO measurements and depths will be conducted and averaged.
Response: Three measurements (1 foot below the surface, mid-depth, and 2 feet above the
bottom) will be collected, but only the upper and lower readings will be averaged pursuant to
page 45 of the FDEP Watershed Monitoring Section Sampling Manual (January 2016).
2.Section 1.7 (page 5). Field personnel must also follow DEP SOP FT 1000. Acknowledged.
3.Section 2.1 (page 6) The Sampling Process Design only mentions Canal 114 – please include the
sampling to be conducted in Canal 113 as stated in section 1.4.
Response: The monitoring activities to be performed in Canal 113 will be identical in scope, and
will be conducted at the locations identified in the attached figure.
4.Section 2.2 (page 6). Please provide the depth of the other field measurements.
Response: All measurements will be collected from 1 foot below the surface, mid-depth, and 2
feet above the bottom.
5.Section 2.7 (page 7). Ensure ICV and CCV known standards both chronologically and
quantitatively bracket field measurements. Acknowledged.
6.Section 2.7 (page 7). If ICV and/or CCV do not meet DEP acceptance criteria, field measurements
must be appropriately qualified with a “J” qualifier and a comment per Chapter 62-160, Florida
Administrative Code. Acknowledged.
7.Section 2.7 (page 7). Listed DO and pH acceptance criteria have a caveat of “or historically
established criteria not to exceed 0.5 mg/L (or 0.5 pH units) difference.” This statement is not an
acceptable DEP SOP acceptance criteria for these field parameters. Field measurements
associated with ICV/CCV values outside of 0.2 mg/L and 0.2 pH units, respectively, must be
qualified. Acknowledged.
8.Section 2.7 (page 7). DEP SOP acceptance criteria for specific conductance is +/- 5% of standard
value (not 10%). Field measurements associated with ICV/CCV values outside of 5% acceptance
criterion must be qualified. Acknowledged.
9.Section 2.7 (page 7). Instrument Calibration:
a.FT 1000 is also applicable to the calibration and verification of data sondes.
Acknowledged.
b.FT 1300 Field Measurement of Salinity was not previously mentioned as a field
parameter in the QAPP sampling design. Response: We are not measuring salinity, just
conductivity. This SOP will be removed.
c.FT 1100 Field Measurement of Hydrogen Ion Activity (pH) is not listed. Response: FT
1100 will be added.
d.FT 1700 is incorrectly listed; the correct SOP is FT 1500 Field Measurement of DO.
Response: The SOP name will be corrected.
10.Page 3 & 4. It is indicated that the proposed injection well will be installed in Canal 114 and
Canal 113 will also be monitored and act as a control site for the evaluation. Will data be
collected to compare multiple locations? For example, has data been collected to show that the
two canals are similar and have similar DO levels?
a.If possible, I would suggest that the two canals be monitored as close as possible
temporally (i.e., within the same hour or less) to minimize diel and tidal differences.
Response: The purpose of monitoring Canal 113 is to identify ambient changes in water
quality that could affect the water quality readings in Canal 114. Effectively, the readings in
3735
C114 will be evaluated on their own merit, unless there is reason to believe that there are
external factors affecting the readings in Canal 114 based on the observations collected in
Canal 113. The readings at the two canals will be collected as close as possible.
11. The equation for the time of day correction should be corrected.
a. The corrected equation shows an approximately 30% saturation diel swing. The
statement that “The maximum correction (both positive and negative) is 14 percent
(Wood 2017) is somewhat misleading and should be clarified to indicate that the
maximum correction is 14 percent DO saturation and not 14 percent of the
measurement. Response: the statement will be corrected to 14 percent DO saturation.
b. The equation appears to make a correction to 13:00 instead of mid-day as indicated.
Response: 12:00 is mid-day chronologically, but not with respect to solar time. The
regression of the 2017 diel data identified 13:00 as the mid-point in the correction
function.
c. Also, there appears to be a large difference between the start and end of the diel cycle
predicted by the equation that suggests a potential problem with the equation, or the
data used to derive it. Response: This statement is unclear, since 14 percent DO
saturation is added in the beginning of the function at 7:00 AM, and 14 percent DO
saturation is subtracted at the end of the function at 18:00 PM. It is symmetrical. A
reverse function centered around 1:00 AM could also be used, but that is not applicable
to this effort.
d. Because the data was used to generate the diel curve was collected near the surface, it
would not be appropriate to apply it to the average of the three depths or to the mid-
and bottom depths. Especially in deep canals that are stratified as indicated on Page 2,
applying this equation to the bottom waters would greatly exaggerate the correction
needed. The equation should be applied only to the surface waters or not used at
all. Note: the DO criteria for marine waters do not include a time of day adjustment.
Response: This approach would be more appropriate for deeper canals. However,
since both Canal 113 and Canal 114 are approximately 10 feet deep, it is anticipated
that diurnal shifts in DO saturation will occur at the bottom of the canal as well. Also,
the FDEP suggests that the time of day for DO measurement is an important
consideration on page 64 of the March 2013 Technical Support Document for the
Derivation of the Dissolved Oxygen Criteria. For example, WSP could introduce
significant bias into the sampling program by not using a time of day correction, and
collecting the pre-operation readings in the morning and the post operation readings in
the evening. It is likely that such an approach would show a 30 percent increase in DO
saturation for a technology that has no effect.
12. Assuming the pre-project data from the two canals are similar, I would suggest using the
comparison between canals as the primary assessment method without applying the time of
day correction. (The data from the canals should be collected within the same hour or
less). Also, there should be a comparison to the applicable DO criterion both pre- and post-
project.
Response: If the measurements were collected within an hour of each other, both sets of data
would be adjusted in a similar manner. The time of day correction provides for a more
appropriate means of comparison between sample sets, and removes bias associated with
sampling time.
3736
13. If determining “worst case scenarios” then the data from the three depths should not be
averaged and the data from each depth evaluated separately focusing on the bottom
measurement because that is where the primary problem exists as described on page 2 and
where the largest effect from the project would be expected. Averaging would likely just
minimize any improvement observed.
Response: WSP suggests that the recommendations on page 45 of the FDEP Watershed
Monitoring Section Sampling Manual (January 2016) should be followed as that is the standard
of care. Additionally, the worst case scenario is not our objective, rather WSP is attempting to
quantify the beneficial effect of the pilot technology. The recommended approach of evaluating
the bottom interval discretely is not inline with the FDEP DO criteria.
14. Editorial
th
a. Page 7, 7 line, “to no meet” should be “to not meet”. Acknowledged.
b. Page 8, last bullet, “success of failure” should be “success or failure” Acknowledged.
15. In section 1.6, they only mention using current FDEP methodology for collecting DO readings,
but earlier they mention collecting grab samples. Are they also using FDEP methodology for
collecting grab samples? This needs to be clarified in the document. Response: Grab samples
are used synonymously with instantaneous measurements.
16. The use of the term “grab” samples should be avoided and instead use the word “discrete”
measurement. Acknowledged. Please note “grab” sample is used extensively in the March 2013
Technical Support Document for the Derivation of the Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to denote an
instantaneous measurement.
17. The addition of continuous data at one of the test sites, 5 or 100 ft from the intake would also
produce a data set that could be used to evaluate the efficacy of the well. I recommend meeting
the daily average and seven-day average data sufficiency requirements in 62-302.533(2)(a) at
regular intervals (monthly, bimonthly) throughout the project period. Or all three, the daily
average, seven-day average, and, 30-day data sufficiency requirements less frequently,
quarterly. Response: WSP will comply with the request, with sondes deployed 1 foot below the
surface and 2 feet above the bottom approximately 100 feet from the intake for a duration of
one week for two separate quarters. The data will be used to update the time of day correction,
with interval specific regressions.
3737
Peter Frezza
From:ODonnell, Kevin <Kevin.ODonnell@FloridaDEP.gov>
Sent:Friday, May 12, 2023 3:22 PM
To:Peter Frezza; Ralys, Benjamin; beckyjetton@gmail.com
Cc:'Corning, Greg W'; garrettg@ci.marathon.fl.us; 'Haag-Rhonda'; barbara.powell@deo.myflorida.com
Subject:
RE: DISSOLVED OXYGEN MONITORING
Attachments:IVIO QAPP 4-1-21_DEP_Revised.pdf; Monitoring Plan Review_DEAR_Revised.docx
HiPeter,
Pleaseseetheattachmentstothisemailfor59tƭcommentsregardingtheexampleDOmonitoringplan.Ļķhoped
togetthistoyouallsoonertoo.PleaseletusknowifǤƚǒķliketogothroughourcommentsindetailthroughaTeams
meetingasyourconvenience.Ourcommentsareacoordinatedrevieworiginatingfromnumerousprogramswithin
DEARandifneededwepullinotherstaffasneeded.Forconvenience,thecommentsareembeddedinthepdf
document,butalsomirroredintheworddocument.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin OÓDonnell
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Environmental Assessment & Restoration
Water Quality Evaluation & TMDL Program (WQETP)
Program Administrator
Kevin.odonnell@floridadep.gov
2600 Blair Stone Rd MS# 3560
Tallahassee, FL 32399
O: 850-245-8469
C: 850-445-2903
From:PeterFrezza<peter.frezza@islamorada.fl.us>
Sent:Thursday,April27,20231:21PM
To:ODonnell,Kevin<Kevin.ODonnell@FloridaDEP.gov>;Ralys,Benjamin<Benjamin.Ralys@FloridaDEP.gov>;
beckyjetton@gmail.com
Cc:'Corning,GregW'<greg.corning@wsp.com>;garrettg@ci.marathon.fl.us;'HaagRhonda'<Haag
Rhonda@MonroeCountyFL.Gov>
Subject:RE:DISSOLVEDOXYGENMONITORING
EXTERNALMESSAGE
ThisemailoriginatedoutsideofDEP.Pleaseusecautionwhenopeningattachments,clickinglinks,orrespondingtothis
email.
HiKevin,
Ijustwantedtofollowuponthisandletyouknowthatwearestillinneedof59tƭcommentsonthis.
Thanks,
PeterFrezza
EnvironmentalResourcesManager
Islamorada,VillageofIslands
Office:3056646427
1
3738
Cell:3053930982
peter.frezza@islamorada.fl.us
From:PeterFrezza
Sent:Wednesday,March15,202310:35AM
To:ODonnell,Kevin<Kevin.ODonnell@FloridaDEP.gov>;Ralys,Benjamin<Benjamin.Ralys@FloridaDEP.gov>;
beckyjetton@gmail.com
Cc:'Corning,GregW'<greg.corning@wsp.com>;garrettg@ci.marathon.fl.us;'HaagRhonda'<Haag
Rhonda@MonroeCountyFL.Gov>
Subject:RE:DISSOLVEDOXYGENMONITORING
ThanksKevin.Thatwouldbefine.WeneedtohaveaplansubmittedtoDEObyJuly1.SoIthinkweareokayontime.
PeterFrezza
EnvironmentalResourcesManager
Islamorada,VillageofIslands
Office:3056646427
Cell:3053930982
peter.frezza@islamorada.fl.us
From:ODonnell,Kevin<Kevin.ODonnell@FloridaDEP.gov>
Sent:Wednesday,March15,202310:01AM
To:PeterFrezza<peter.frezza@islamorada.fl.us>;Ralys,Benjamin<Benjamin.Ralys@FloridaDEP.gov>;
beckyjetton@gmail.com
Cc:'Corning,GregW'<greg.corning@wsp.com>;garrettg@ci.marathon.fl.us;'HaagRhonda'<Haag
Rhonda@MonroeCountyFL.Gov>
Subject:RE:DISSOLVEDOXYGENMONITORING
GoodmorningPeter,
Thanksforprovidingusthemodel/exampleformonitoringplanandQAprocessfortheplannedcanalrestoration
work.BenandIwillreviewtheattachmentandprovidethegroupourcomments,questions,recommendations,etc.So
thatwecanplanwithinyourscheduleaccordingly,whenwouldyouliketoreceive59tƭ(DEAR)comments?Isthree
toolong?
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin OÓDonnell
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Environmental Assessment & Restoration
Water Quality Evaluation & TMDL Program (WQETP)
Program Administrator
Kevin.odonnell@floridadep.gov
2600 Blair Stone Rd MS# 3560
Tallahassee, FL 32399
O: 850-245-8469
C: 850-445-2903
From:PeterFrezza<peter.frezza@islamorada.fl.us>
Sent:Wednesday,March15,20239:48AM
To:Ralys,Benjamin<Benjamin.Ralys@FloridaDEP.gov>;ODonnell,Kevin<Kevin.ODonnell@FloridaDEP.gov>;
2
3739
beckyjetton@gmail.com
Cc:'Corning,GregW'<greg.corning@wsp.com>;garrettg@ci.marathon.fl.us;'HaagRhonda'<Haag
Rhonda@MonroeCountyFL.Gov>
Subject:RE:DISSOLVEDOXYGENMONITORING
EXTERNALMESSAGE
ThisemailoriginatedoutsideofDEP.Pleaseusecautionwhenopeningattachments,clickinglinks,orrespondingtothis
email.
HiBenandKevin,
Thankyoufortheinformation.TheattachedisamonitoringplanincludingQAprocessforacanalrestorationproject
Islamoradaiscurrentlycompleting.Thecanalrestorationtechnologybeingusedforthisprojectisaninjectionwell.
However,thisisthemodelformonitoringthatIslamoradawouldliketoincorporatewithourprojectsmoving
forward.Couldyoupleasereviewthisplanandletusknowifyouhadanythoughtsorcomments.
Thanks,
PeterFrezza
EnvironmentalResourcesManager
Islamorada,VillageofIslands
Office:3056646427
Cell:3053930982
peter.frezza@islamorada.fl.us
From:Ralys,Benjamin<Benjamin.Ralys@FloridaDEP.gov>
Sent:Monday,March13,202312:40PM
To:beckyjetton@gmail.com;ODonnell,Kevin<Kevin.ODonnell@FloridaDEP.gov>
Cc:PeterFrezza<peter.frezza@islamorada.fl.us>;'Corning,GregW'<greg.corning@wsp.com>;
garrettg@ci.marathon.fl.us;'HaagRhonda'<HaagRhonda@MonroeCountyFL.Gov>
Subject:RE:DISSOLVEDOXYGENMONITORING
GoodAfternoonRebecca,
Thankyouforthereminder.Attached,pleasefindcopiesofthedissolvedoxygencriteriatechnicalsupportdocument
(TSD)andDr..ƩźĭĻƓƚƭcanalmonitoringpresentationandscopeofworkdocument.Ihavealsoattachedtwocomment
documentsfromDEP(AEQAandWAS)onDr..ƩźĭĻƓƚƭstudy.Thisshouldhelpprovideyouwithanideaofthe
informationandlevelofdetailDEPwouldrequireforthistypeofmonitoring.
Also,includedbelowarelinkstoboth59tƭͻğƷĻƩQuality{ƷğƓķğƩķƭͼandͻLƒƦğźƩĻķWaterswǒƌĻͼͲspecificallythe
citationslistedbelowprovideinformationonhowdissolvedoxygendataisusedin59tƭwaterqualityassessments.
WaterQualityStandards:
62302.533(2)
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=SURFACE%20WATER%20QUALITY%20STANDARDS&ID=62302.533
SeeattachedDO_TSD_032813.pdf
ImpairedWatersRule:
62303.320https://www.flrules.org/gateway/readFile.asp?sid=0&type=1&tid=17118286&file=62303.320.doc
(6)(ae)
(4)(af)
Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestions.
3
373:
Thanks,
Ben
From:beckyjetton@gmail.com<beckyjetton@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday,March11,202311:09PM
To:Ralys,Benjamin<Benjamin.Ralys@FloridaDEP.gov>
Cc:'PeterFrezza'<peter.frezza@islamorada.fl.us>;'Corning,GregW'<greg.corning@wsp.com>;
garrettg@ci.marathon.fl.us;'HaagRhonda'<HaagRhonda@MonroeCountyFL.Gov>
Subject:DISSOLVEDOXYGENMONITORING
EXTERNALMESSAGE
ThisemailoriginatedoutsideofDEP.Pleaseusecautionwhenopeningattachments,clickinglinks,orrespondingtothis
email.
Asafollowuptoourmeeting,youallpromisedtosendexamplesofdissolvedoxygeninmarineenvironments.Could
youpleaseforwardthisdocument?Thanksforyourhelp.
RebeccaJetton,VillageofIslamorada
To help protect your privacy,
Microsoft Office prevented
automatic download of this
picture from the Internet.
Dep Customer Survey
4
3741
1
3742
1
3743
1
3744
1
3745
1
3746
1
3747
3748
3749
374: