DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Conch Key Wastewater System MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared for The Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV 3003 Chamblee-Tucker Rd. Atlanta, GA 30341 June 26, 2003 URS Group, Inc. 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 700 South Royal Poinciana Blvd. Suite 1000 Miami Springs, FL 33166 Abstract iv SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 PROJECT AUTHORITY 1-1 1.2 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 1-1 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION 1-1 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-3 SECTION 2 - ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 2-1 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-1 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION 2-1 2.2.1 Wastewater Collection System 2-2 2.2.1.1 Option 1: Vacuum Sewer System 2-4 2.2.1.2 Option 2: Gravity Sewer System 2-4 2.2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-5 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 – NEW WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION 2-8 2.3.1 Wastewater Collection System 2-9 2.3.2 Vacuum Pump Station 2-9 2.3.3 Wastewater Transmission System 2-10 2.3.4 Hawk's Cay Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-11 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 2-12 SECTION 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-1 3.1 TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY 3-1 3.1.1 Topography 3-1 3.1.2 Soils 3-1 3.1.3 Geology 3-3 3.2 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY 3-4 3.2.1 Groundwater 3-4 3.2.2 Inland, Nearshore, and Offshore Waters 3-5 3.2.2.1 Inland Waters 3-5 3.2.2.2 Nearshore and Offshore Marine Waters 3-5 3.2.2.3 Stormwater 3-6 3.2.3 Floodplains and Wetlands 3-7 3.2.3.1 Floodplains 3-7 3.2.3.2 Wetlands 3-8 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3-10 3.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems 3-11 3.3.1.1 Pine Rocklands and Tropical Hardwood Hammocks 3-13 3.3.1.2 Mangrove Forests and Salt Marshes 3-13 3.3.1.3 Freshwater Systems 3-13 3.3.1.4 Dunes and Coastal Ridges 3-13 3.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystems 3-13 3.3.2.1 Seagrass Beds and Sand Flats 3-14 3.3.2.2 Coral Reefs 3-14 3.3.2.3 Hardbottom 3-14 3.3.2.4 Sandy Bottom 3-15 3.3.2.5 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 3-15 3.3.2.6 Alternative 2 – New Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction 3-15 3.3.2.7 Alternative 3 – New Wastewater Transmission System Construction 3-16 3.3.3 Special Status Species 3-17 3.4 AIR QUALITY 3-18 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-19 3.6 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 3-21 3.6.1 Tourism 3-21 3.6.2 Fishing Industry 3-22 3.6.3 Local Fees and Taxes 3-23 3.6.3.1 Existing Wastewater Management Costs in the Conch Key Service Area 3-23 3.6.4 Public Health 3-26 3.7 DEMOGRAPHICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 3-26 3.7.1 Population and Race 3-27 3.7.2 Income and Poverty 3-27 3.7.3 Wastewater Fees and Affordability for Keys Low-income Residents 3-28 3.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 3-30 3.9 INFRASTRUCTURE 3-31 3.9.1 Traffic and Circulation 3-31 3.9.2 Utilities and Services 3-32 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING 3-33 3.11 NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3-34 3.11.1 Noise 3-34 3.11.2 Visual Resources 3-36 SECTION 4 - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 4-1 4.1 TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY 4-1 4.2 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY 4-1 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4-1 4.4 AIR QUALITY 4-1 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-1 4.6 SOCIOECONOMICS 4-2 4.7 DEMOGRAPHICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 4-2 4.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 4-2 4.9 INFRASTRUCTURE 4-2 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4-3 4.11 NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES 4-3 SECTION 5 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5-1 SECTION 6 - MITIGATION MEASURES AND PERMITS 6-1 6.1 MITIGATION 6-1 6.2 PERMITS AND LICENSES 6-1 SECTION 7 - CONSULTATIONS AND REFERENCES 7-1 7.1 REFERENCES 7-1 SECTION 8 - LIST OF PREPARERS 8-1 Tables (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) Table 1-1 Residences and Commercial Businesses in the Service Area Table 2-1 Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Consideration Table 3-1 FDEP Forms Required for Injection Wells Table 3-2 Observed Plant Species Table 3-3 Project Areas Businesses Table 3-4 Fiscal Year 2002 - HUD's Low-Income and Very Low-Income Limits, Monroe County, Florida Table 3-5 Alternative 2 - Low-Income and Very Low-Income Funding Assistance for the System Capital Cost Figures Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map Figure 2-1 Proposed Conch Key New Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Site Location Map Figure 2-2 Typical Building Connection Figure 2-3 Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Figure 2-4 Proposed Conch Key WWTP Preliminary Drawings Figure 2-5 Proposed Conch Key Wastewater Transmission System Site Location Map Figure 2-6 Vacuum Pump Station Preliminary Drawings Figure 2-7 Hawk's Cay WWTP Connection Preliminary Drawings Figure 3-1 Project Area Soils Figure 3-2 Project Area Vegetation Figure 3-3 Walker's Cay Entrance Road Jurisdictional Wetland Figure 3-4 Project Area Benthic Habitats Figure 3-5 Lift Station B, Duck Key Appendices Appendix A Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix B Agency Coordination Letters Appendix C Site Photographs Appendix D Public Notice Appendix E Public Comments Appendix F Regulated Fisheries Species in the Keys Appendix G Conch Key Cultural Resources Assessment Report In response to Hurricane Georges damages and losses in 1998, Congress enacted Public Law 106-31, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, to fund long-term disaster recovery projects in Florida counties whose needs were unmet through primary disaster relief funds. Monroe County was included among the counties eligible for "Unmet Needs" funding and requested that wastewater management improvement projects be considered for this funding since many existing wastewater facilities in the county are not storm-resistant. Since then, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has received a grant application from the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) requesting Federal assistance to construct a new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to service Conch Key and Walker's Cay in the Middle Keys. FEMA prepared this draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to address the likely effects of implementing three alternatives proposed in Conch Key. The alternatives evaluated in this document include: Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative FEMA would not fund a wastewater treatment project in Conch Key. Alternate funding sources would need to be located to finance the large capital costs of constructing a wastewater treatment system to meet the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards by 2010. Until alternate funding is secured, environmental degradation would continue. Depending on the amount of alternative funding secured, increased wastewater management costs and the potential for significant economic impacts would be likely, particularly to service recipients that currently have cesspits or septic systems. The likely increase in wastewater management costs could cause a disproportionately high and adverse economic effect on low-income service recipients. Alternative 2 – Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant on Bay Side Alternative FKAA, with FEMA funding, would construct a new community WWTP on the bay side of U.S. Route 1 (US-1) at about Mile Marker (MM) 62.8. Wastewater effluent would be collected through either vacuum pumping or a low-pressure grinder pump system. Following tertiary treatment, wastewater effluent would be disposed of through two shallow injection wells. FKAA would be responsible for facility construction, operation, and maintenance. Alternative 3 – Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant on Ocean Side Alternative FKAA would use FEMA funding to construct a wastewater collection system and vacuum pump station on Conch Key. Under this alternative, a new wastewater transmission system (WTS) would be constructed to convey wastewater to the existing Hawk's Cay WWTP on Duck Key, at about MM 61. Following tertiary treatment, wastewater effluent would be disposed of either through on-site irrigation or through six existing shallow injection wells. Alternatives 2 and 3 For both Alternatives 2 and 3, potential project effects on topography, soils, and geology; hazardous materials; infrastructure; land use and planning; and noise and visual resources within the project area are expected to be minimal. Appropriate mitigation measures would reduce any potential adverse effects of the project alternatives on these resources. Effects on water resources and water quality are anticipated to be beneficial. Effects on air quality and cultural resources would be negligible. Potential effects on biological resources resulting from site development are expected to be minimal. Effects on socioeconomic resources of the area would be minimal. Effects on minority populations and low-income populations in the area would be minimal and would be mitigated by the implementation of an assistance program. Socioeconomic effects would be mitigated with the use of FEMA grant funding, and capital costs associated with Alternative 2 & 3 would be affordable to service recipients. Implementation of the proposed wastewater projects would equally benefit, through improved water quality, the various demographic groups in the Keys. FEMA has imposed assistance guidelines that will further lower the capital costs and the lateral and abandonment costs in order to mitigate any disproportionately high and adverse economic effects on low-income service recipients. The levels of assistance are based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) very-low and low family income levels. 1. Section 1 ONE Introduction 1.1 PROJECT AUTHORITY In 1998, after Hurricane Georges, Congress enacted Public Law 106-31, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, to provide additional monies for long- term disaster recovery projects in the State of Florida. The funds were allocated to assist counties whose needs were yet unmet through allocation of primary disaster relief funds. This Unmet Needs money was earmarked for the counties most impacted by Hurricane Georges, including Monroe County. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), State of Florida, and the impacted counties determined funding priorities. Monroe County requested that wastewater management improvement projects be considered for disaster funding, since many existing wastewater facilities in Monroe County are not storm- resistant, do not provide adequate wastewater treatment, and contribute to degraded water quality in the Keys. Since then, FEMA has received a grant application from the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) requesting Federal assistance for construction of wastewater treatment systems for several areas in Monroe County, including one in Conch Key, which would improve wastewater treatment and ultimately water quality in the Florida Keys, as well as assist residents in meeting State mandated wastewater discharge targets as set forth in the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan requires these Standards be met in Monroe County by 2010. Specifically, wastewater treatment systems must treat discharge to advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) levels or best available technology (BAT). For facilities that treat over 100,000 gallons per day (gpd), the AWT standards are 5 mg/L Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), 5 mg/L Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 3 mg/L Total Nitrogen (TN), 1 mg/L Total Phosphorus (TP); and for facilities treating less than 100,000 gpd the BAT standards are 10, 10, 10, 1 respectively. 1.2 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS A Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and FEMA regulations (44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations). These laws and regulations require FEMA to take into account environmental considerations when funding any Federal actions. The PEA, finalized on December 23, 2002, provides a framework to address impacts of a range of wastewater treatment projects in the Florida Keys. Section 1.7 (Water Quality Protection Measures at the Local, State, and Federal Levels) of the PEA provides a complete discussion of water quality protection measures at Federal, State, and local levels. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) tiers from the PEA for Wastewater Management Improvements in the Florida Keys (URS, 2002a) as proposed by FEMA and hereby incorporates the PEA by reference, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The project areas encompass Conch Key, Walker's Cay, and Duck Key, all of which are located in the central portion of the Florida Keys chain, known as the Middle Keys. Conch Key covers about 35 acres and is located at about Mile Marker (MM) 62.8, immediately northeast of Duck Key (MM 61.0) and Walker's Cay (MM 62.3), within Section 15, Township 66 South, Range 34 East, Monroe County (Figure 1-1). U.S. Route 1 (US-1), the main thoroughfare in the Keys, bisects Conch Key into the ocean side and bay side. Ocena side is the aide of the land mass adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and bay side is adjacent to the Florida Bay, as divided by U.S. Route 1. Although human-made waterways have been constructed on both sides of the island, most of the land is on the bay side (refer to Figure 1-1). Both Walker's Cay and Duck Key are ocean side of US-1. Walker's Cay, also known as Walker's Island or Little Conch Key, is about 8.5 acres in area. Duck Key, located in Sections 20 and 21, Township 65 South, and Range 34 East, is a 300-acre natural island, composed of five smaller islands (Yacht Club Island, Center Island, Harbor Island, Plantation Island, and Indies Island) that are all connected by bridges. Conch Key and Walker's Cay are connected to Duck Key via the Tom's Harbor Cut Bridge. Duck Key connects to US-1 via the Duck Key Bridge. The historic Flagler Bridge runs parallel to the ocean side of US-1 throughout the project areas. Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity Map (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) The wastewater service area would include Conch Key and Walker's Cay, and would serve about 2,000 people. 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose and need for action is described in PEA Section 1.9 (Purpose and Need for Action). In particular, the purpose of the FKAA project is to reduce wastewater nutrient loading at selected Monroe County-identified "hot spots," thereby improving water quality. These "hot spots" are believed to contribute to water quality degradation. The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (MCSWMP) ranked Conch Key as the second most critical "hot spot" in the Middle Keys, and the tenth most critical "hot spot" Keys-wide (PEA Appendix C [Hot Spot Locations]). The "hot spot" ranking is linked to the use of cesspools and septic systems as Conch Key and Walker's Cay's main wastewater treatment systems. 2. Section 2 TWO Alternatives Analysis NEPA, CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508), and FEMA regulations for NEPA compliance (44 CFR Part 10) direct FEMA to investigate and evaluate project alternatives. Alternatives identified in the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (2000) and in the PEA are evaluated for the proposed Conch Key Wastewater System. In the following sections, three alternatives are considered and evaluated in detail: No Action, New Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction, and New Wastewater Transmission System Construction. 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE As discussed in PEA Section 2.3.1 (No Action Alternative), FEMA would not provide funding assistance to the FKAA for the proposed action. To meet Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010, FKAA and service area residents would need to identify another funding source for upgrading currently inadequate wastewater treatment systems. 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION Alternative 2 is described in PEA Section 2.3.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative). FKAA would apply FEMA funding to the construction of a wastewater collection system, vacuum pump station, and WWTP) that would be located on Conch Key (Figure 2-1). The proposed WWTP would be designed to meet the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 for effluent disposal to shallow injection wells. The new system would serve about 2,000 people within the service area. The design parameters for this alternative were calculated using wastewater flows and peaking factors for the service area (Boyle, 2002). Wastewater flow data for residences and businesses were used to estimate the number of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs), as summarized below. - Number of Residences 158 residences (1 EDU) - Annual average daily flow 167 gallons per day (gpd) per residence - Number of Commercial buildings 3 buildings (3 EDUs) - Annual average daily flow 501 gpd per building - Maximum daily flow 72 gallons per minute (gpm) Based on the estimated number of EDUs, at 167 gpd per EDU, the total estimated annual average daily flow (AADF) for the service area would be 27,889 gpd; estimated AADF for the treatment plant would be 30,000 gpd (FKAA, 2002). About 107 cesspools and septic systems currently utilized by property owners on Conch Key and Walker's Cay would be removed. Pursuant to the Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements, each property owner would be responsible for decommissioning and abandonment of their existing on-site system. Figure 2-1. Proposed Conch Key Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Site Location Map* *Arrows represent direction of wastewater flow. (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) 2.2.1 Wastewater Collection System Wastewater collection mains would be installed within existing portions of the rights-of-way (ROWs), or easements, along the service area roads in front of the residences and businesses to be served. The streets and ROWs on the bay side service area of Conch Key consist of paved roads with ROW widths of about 40 feet. On the ocean side of Conch Key, collection mains would be aligned within a utility easement overlaying the existing private roads in the Coral Key Village Mobile Home community. Service areas on both the ocean side and bay side would be served by separate collection systems that would connect at the treatment plant. The ocean side collection system would cross under US-1 to connect to the bay side collection system at the WWTP site (Figure 2-1). A separate collection main would be routed from the treatment plant west along US-1 through an existing abandoned FKAA 18-inch water main to Walker's Cay. The abandoned pipeline would act as a casing or sleeve pipe for the Walker's Cay force main. Service laterals, for connection to the collection system by the property owner, would be provided up to the ROW line for bay side residences, and up to the service connection for ocean side residents (Figure 2-2). Residents on Walker's Cay would need to install a 2-inch force main to connect those properties to the sliplined force main at the intersection of the island's entrance road and US-1. Connection to the collection system would be the responsibility of the property owner. Special plumbing fixtures or electrical connections would not be required at houses or mobile homes, since the current fittings are adequate. About 50 cubic yards of soil material would be excavated for the installation of vacuum sewer mains, vacuum pits, buffer tanks, and gravity service laterals for the entire system. The majority of the excess excavated material would be used for backfill and the remainder would be disposed of offsite in approved locations. Figure 2-2a. Plan View Typical Building Connection (FKAA, 2002) (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) Figure 2-2b. Profile Detail Typical Building Connection (FKAA, 2002) (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) The proposed collection system would either consist of a vacuum sewer system with a vacuum pump station (VPS) or a gravity sewer system with multiple grinder pump stations. A description of both sewer systems follows. 2.2.1.1 Option 1: Vacuum Sewer System The vacuum sewer system would be composed of gravity collection mains and/or service laterals, sewage holding sumps and vacuum valve pits, vacuum collection mains and a vacuum pump station building, as described in PEA Section 2.3.2.1.1 (Vacuum Pumping). Ssewage would flow by gravity into a vacuum valve pit, the lower portion of which is a fiberglass holding sump, and the upper portion of which includes a vacuum valve. Two or more homes would be serviced by one vacuum valve pit. When wastewater in the holding sump rises to a preset level, a sensor extending from the valve chamber into the holding sump detects the liquid level in the sump, and the vacuum interface valve is pneumatically opened. Differential air pressure propels the sewage from the sump through the valve and into 3-inch or larger polyvinyl chloride (PVC) vacuum wastewater collection mains. Vacuum mains would be constructed 3 feet below existing grade throughout the service area. Sewage would then be transported from the collection mains to the wastewater collection tank at the vacuum pump station by the introduction of air into the collection main from successive open/close cycles of the vacuum valves in the system. A vacuum pump station, located within the treatment plant site, would be required to generate the negative pressure necessary on the vacuum collection mains. The station would draw raw sewage through the collection mains and pump it to the treatment plant. The station would consists of an about 40-foot by 30-foot slab-on-grade building containing air blowers, discharge pumps, a collection tank, and an emergency generator. Discharge pumps connected to the vacuum collection tank would transfer sewage to the treatment plant. A separate concrete pad external to the station would accommodate odor control equipment (either a vapor phase activated carbon filter or a biological filter) for the treatment of air discharged from the collection tank by the vacuum pump station blowers. A small pump station would also be installed at the Walker's Cay entrance road to transport wastewater from the island to the treatment plant. 2.2.1.2 Option 2: Gravity Sewer System The gravity sewer system would consist of gravity service laterals, gravity collection mains, lift stations with submersible grinder-type pumps and pressure force mains, as described in Section 2.3.2.1.2 (Low-Pressure Grinder Pump Sewer System). Sewage would flow by gravity from each service connection to a main gravity sewer pipe. The main sewer pipe would be sloped to provide flow velocity adequate to transport solids and to prevent settling in the pipes and manholes. When the main gravity sewer pipe reaches the maximum practicable construction depth, a lift station would pump the sewage from the gravity main to either another lift station or the treatment plant. Lift stations would consist of a wet well made of concrete or fiberglass, submersible-type centrifugal grinder pumps or progressive cavity pumps, discharge pumping, control valves, and an electrical control panel containing electrical and instrumentation equipment. The wet well would store sewage collected from the gravity mains until wastewater rises to preset levels, the pumps are automatically activated, and the sewage is drawn out of the well and into the discharge force main. Three small lift stations would be placed on the ocean side of Conch Key and three small stations would operate on the bay side. One grinder-type lift station would also be installed at the Walker's Cay entrance road to transport wastewater from the island to the treatment plant. Discharge pump motors would be sized to provide a force main flow velocity between 2.0 and 2.5 feet per second to minimize flow surges to the treatment plant and provide operational stability to the treatment process. 2.2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant The WWTP would be located on currently vacant, Monroe County lands, immediately northeast of the existing Monroe County Fire Rescue Station on the bay side of Conch Key (Figure 2-3). The proposed plant site is a 50-foot wide by 110-foot long, open space that contains landscaped plants, and grass and sand ground cover. It is bordered to the northeast by North Conch Avenue, to the northwest by South Conch Avenue, and to the southeast by US-1. Private residences and the aforementioned Fire Rescue Station are located north and west of the site, respectively. The closest water body to the treatment plant site is Florida Bay, about 150 feet southwest of the site. Conch Key Harbor is located 250 feet north of the site. Figure 2-3. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Site (URS site visit; August 1, 2002) (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) The WWTP would provide primary treatment, biological treatment, solids removal, phosphorus removal, filtration, effluent disinfection, and disposal to shallow injection wells (Figure 2-4). Effluent discharged would meet the 2010 Florida Statutory Treatment Standards for BAT of 10 mg/L BOD, 10 mg/L TSS, 10 mg/L TN, 1 mg/L TP. Raw sewage flow from the collection system into the treatment plant would be measured, recorded, and totaled by an in-line magnetic flow meter. Automatic screening, using either a mechanical bar screen or rotary screen, of the influent wastewater would remove large particulate matter. Pretreatment screenings would be discharged to a collection hopper or trash receptacle for collection and hauling to a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permitted sanitary landfill facility for disposal (FKAA, 2002). If necessary, the pH of the influent wastewater would also be buffered using sodium hydroxide. The buffering process would utilize all the available sodium hydroxide; no excess would be discharged into the environment because the sodium hydroxide would immediately dissolve and be consumed and no longer be an active compound in the environment (Garcia, Pers. Comm., 2003). Components of the sodium hydroxide feed system would include storage drums, metering pumps, small diameter PVC piping and valves, and a small containment area with a concrete slab and curb, electrical power and controls. Figure 2-4. Proposed Conch Key WWTP Preliminary Drawings (FKAA, 2002) (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word, PDF versions, or the public notice to view in hard copy) Wastewater would likely be treated using the upflow sludge blanket filter process with filtration. This is a modification of the sequencing batch reactor process and is well suited for small areas and flows of 500,000 gpd or less (FKAA, 2002). Other possible methods of treatment include the modified Ludzak-Ettinger process, Bardenpho process, immersed membrane bioreactor, and the sequencing batch reactor process. Two parallel process trains, each with two equally sized biological reactor systems, would be used so that if one system was out of service the remaining train would be capable of treating the system design flow. Additional treatment would include the addition of metal salts, such as aluminum sulfate (alum), sodium aluminate, ferric chloride, ferrous chloride, ferric sulfate, or ferrous sulfate to reduce the total phosphorus of the wastewater to 1 milligram per liter (mg/L). The alum would be utilized to coagulate excess phosphorus and would be disposed with the decanted sludge (Garcia, Pers. Comm., 2003). Sludge would be disposed of at landfills or applied to designated lands in compliance with local, state, and federal laws. Components of a liquid metal salt feed system would include storage drums, metering pumps, small diameter PVC piping and valves, a containment area with a concrete slab and curb, electrical power and controls. Filtration may also be needed to produce effluent with TSS of not more than 10 mg/L, remove soluble effluent phosphorus concentrations in excess of 1 mg/L, and remove unsettled phosphorus precipitate discharged from the settling tank. Two automatic backwashing filter units would be needed. The units would be sized such that with one filter out of service the remaining unit would have sufficient capacity to receive flow equal to not less than 75% of the design capacity of the treatment plant. Effluent disinfection would occur in a disinfection contact tank using one of three methods: calcium hypochlorite tablets or briquettes, commercial grade or on-site generated sodium hypochlorite, or ultraviolet radiation. Calcium hypochlorite and sodium hypochlorite would be dissolved in the effluent stream to render potential biological pathogens harmless. The fate of this material would be in the form of dissolved hypochlorite, sodium, and calcium ions in the effluent stream. Ultraviolet radiation disinfection is a passive treatment means and would not result in the addition of materials to the effluent. Effluent would be disposed by gravity flow into two 8-inch diameter shallow disposal wells, cased and grouted to 60 feet below land surface (bls), with a gravel-packed open hole section from 60 feet to 90 feet bls (PEA Section 2.3.2.2 [Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal Options]). Shallow wells would be constructed as part of this alternative and would have a capacity of 100 gpm each. One 3-inch groundwater monitoring well, 10 feet bls cased depth and 30 feet bls total depth, would also be constructed. Recycle flows, including filter backwash and digester decant, would be directed back to the head of the treatment plant for processing. Stabilization of residual bio-solids would occur via the aerobic digestion process. The aerobic digester would be equipped with an aeration system used to mix and aerate the residual bio- solids. Decanted sludge residuals would be returned to the plant for treatment; settled solids would be removed from the digester and loaded into a tank truck through a draw-off pipe located near the base of the tank. The fill station would be located to be easily accessed by tanker trucks. Decanted sludge would be temporarily stored in an aerated holding tank on-site, and the liquid sludge would be hauled by truck to one of the three Monroe County Solid Waste Transfer Stations. Several neighboring municipalities have the capacity to accommodate the expanded waste quantity from Monroe County (e.g., Miami-Dade South District WWTP, Florida City, etc.). FKAA would enter into an agreement with the accepting municipality prior WWTP start- up (Shimokubo, Pers. Comm., 2003). Based on the estimated volume of bio-solids generated by the wastewater treatment process and a maximum thickened sludge concentration of 2.0% in the aerobic digester, sludge hauling is estimated to be required once per month using a 4,000-gallon capacity tanker truck. In addition to the new treatment plant, other design elements at the site would include parking and paved access roads, as well as storage space for maintenance equipment, treatment chemicals, and other operations materials; no additional buildings would be necessary. The finish floor elevation of buildings subject to occupancy and structures containing electrical equipment or process equipment would be constructed above the 100-year flood level. Clean, suitable fill would be brought in to increase grade by about three feet in the footprint of the proposed building. The facility would be operated on a permanent basis and would be automated based on pre-set vacuum and collection tank levels. Station controls would be made resistant to fire, wind, and flood. The length of time required for construction, including sewer line placement, would be about eight months. Construction equipment would likely include a backhoe, trenching machine, bulldozer, crane, pile driver, drilling rig, front-end loader, street sweeper, and boring machine. Trucks would also be used to transport equipment and materials to and from the project sites. The lifespan of the treatment plant would be between 30 and 50 years. 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 – NEW WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION Alternative 3, construction of a new transmission system, is described in Section 2.3.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative). FKAA would apply FEMA funding to the construction of a wastewater collection system and vacuum pump station on Conch Key, and a wastewater transmission system (WTS) extending from the vacuum pump station on Conch Key to the existing Hawk's Cay Wastewater Treatment Plant on Duck Key, between MM 61 and MM 63 (Figure 2-5). The basis of design for this alternative is similar to that used for Alternative 2. The total estimated AADF for the service area would be 27,889 gpd and the estimated peak hour flow (PHF) would be 110,220 gpd (FKAA, 2002). Upgrades to the existing WWTP on Duck Key would not be required to accommodate the increased flow from the service area. As in Alternative 2, about 107 cesspools and septic systems currently utilized by property owners on Conch Key and Walker's Cay would be removed. Pursuant to the Florida DOH requirements, each property owner would be responsible for decommissioning and abandonment of their existing on-site system. The time needed for construction of the new wastewater transmission system, including sewer line placement, would be about eight months. Construction equipment needed would include a backhoe, trenching machine, bulldozer, crane, pile driver, drilling rig, front-end loader, and street sweeper. Trucks would be used to transport equipment and materials to and from work sites. Figure 2-5. Proposed Conch Key Wastewater Transmission System Site Location Map* *Arrows represent direction of wastewater flow. (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) 2.3.1 Wastewater Collection System The collection system would be similar to the one described in Section 2.2.1. The service areas on both the bay side and ocean side would be served by separate collection systems. Use of a vacuum sewer system would require construction of a pump station on Conch Key. This facility would be located at the proposed Alternative 2 treatment plant site, and is described further in Section 2.3.2. The ocean side collection main would traverse under US-1, beneath the existing FKAA water mains, and connect to the pump station. Service laterals, for connection to the collection system by the resident, would be provided up to the right-of-way line for bay side residences, and up to the service connection of ocean side residents (Figure 2-2). Walker's Cay residents would need to install a 2-inch force main to connect those properties to the sliplined force main at the intersection of the island's entrance road and US-1. As in Alternative 2, connection to the collection system would be the responsibility of the property owner; special plumbing fixtures or electrical connections would not be required since the current fittings are adequate. 2.3.2 Vacuum Pump Station The vacuum pump station would be located at the treatment plant site as described in Alternative 2 (Section 2.2; Figure 2-5). Design elements at the site would include the new pump station, influent vacuum mains, and discharge yard piping, site access, parking, and landscaping. Equipment housed in the vacuum pump station would include two vacuum blowers, a vacuum collection tank, two wastewater pumps and an emergency generator (Figure 2-6). Vacuum blowers would create a vacuum of about 16 to 20 inches of mercury or 0.53 to 0.67 atmospheres, capable of extracting wastewater from the vacuum valve pits, through the collection mains into the tank. The tank would provide adequate storage to allow the sewage pumps to operate. The vacuum pump station would be required to generate the negative pressure necessary on the vacuum collection mains. The station would draw raw sewage through the collection mains and pump it through a force main to the Hawk's Cay wastewater collection system. The station would be an about 40-foot by 30-foot slab-on-grade building containing air blowers, discharge pumps, a collection tank and an emergency generator. Discharge pumps connected to the vacuum collection tank would transfer sewage to the Hawk's Cay collection system. A separate concrete pad external to the station would accommodate odor control equipment for the treatment of air discharged from the collection tank by the vacuum pump station blowers. Wastewater discharge pumps would direct flow accumulated in the vacuum collection tank to the force main transmission system and ultimately to the Hawk's Cay WWTP on Duck Key. Each pump would be capable of about 72 gpm peak hour wastewater flow. Since the pumps would be susceptible to inundation, submersible units would be utilized. One wastewater pump and one vacuum blower would be operational while an additional wastewater pump and an additional vacuum blower would provide backup. To minimize odors, air discharged from the blower exhaust at the vacuum pump station would run through a filter such as an in-ground wood chip bed or packaged iron filings bed before emission. Figure 2-6. Vacuum Pump Station Preliminary Drawings (Boyle, 2002) The vacuum pump station facility that would permanently house the vacuum pump station would consist of a fixed structure slab-on-grade building. The finish floor elevation of buildings subject to occupancy and structures containing electrical equipment or process equipment would be constructed above the 100-year floodplain level. Fill would be brought in to increase grade by about three feet in the footprint of the proposed building. The facility would be operated on a permanent basis and would be automated based on pre-set vacuum and collection tank levels. Station controls would be made weatherproof against fire, wind, and flood. A small pump station would also be installed at the Walker's Cay entrance road to transport wastewater from the island to the force main transmission system. 2.3.3 Wastewater Transmission System The transmission main would commence at the pump station and be routed west along US-1 through an existing abandoned FKAA 18-inch water main ultimately to the Hawk's Cay WWTP (refer to Figure 2-5). The abandoned pipeline would act as a casing or sleeve pipe for the Conch Key force main. The 4-inch proposed force main would be slip-lined inside the abandoned 18- inch pipeline at the most favorable locations (i.e., straight portions of pipeline). The transmission system would extend to the pipeline's existing terminus at MM 62, which coincides with the bridge crossing at Tom's Harbor Cut. The force main would be attached to the US-1 bridge for a distance of about 1,250 feet (0.23 miles) extending across Tom's Harbor Cut. The force main would be fed into the 18-inch pipeline beginning from the west side of the bridge crossing to the intersection of US-1 and the Duck Key Bridge. The lengths of the force main would be butt- fusion welded at 50-foot intervals while being slip-lined into the 18-inch pipeline, and the pipeline would be sealed at the beginning and end of each extension to prevent infiltration of water and soil. The 4-inch force main would proceed south to Hawk's Cay along the Duck Key Bridge and Duck Key Drive and tie into the Hawk's Cay wastewater system at an existing gravity collection system manhole (MH B-3) located about 850 feet south of US-1 on Duck Key. The force main would be trenched from the Duck Key Bridge to the manhole. The total length of the transmission system from the vacuum pump station to the Hawk's Cay gravity collection system would be about 10,500 linear feet (about two miles). Installation of the force main within the existing 18-inch FKAA abandoned pipeline would require construction of several access points along the transmission system route. Each access point would require temporarily clearing a 4- foot-by-4-foot area for manhole construction. 2.3.4 Hawk's Cay Wastewater Treatment Plant From the existing manhole (MH B-3), raw sewage would flow to an existing lift station (Lift Station B; LS-B), located about 600 feet south along Hawk's Cay Drive, which would pump to a downstream gravity system through manhole six (MH M-6) to Lift Station F (LS-F) (Figure 2-7). Lift Station F is an existing master lift station that would pump the wastewater from Conch Key to the Hawk's Cay WWTP. The Hawk's Cay wastewater system facilities affected by the additional flow from Conch Key include LS-B and LS-F and the interconnecting force mains. In the event that either of these two lift stations would need to be upgraded, a 25-foot-by-25-foot temporary work area would be required around each lift station. The Hawk's Cay WWTP is currently permitted to 20/20 (TSS/BOD in mg/L) effluent disposal requirements. Effluent at the WWTP is treated to advanced secondary standards with high-level disinfection (irrigation-quality water with TSS of 5 mg/L or less and fecal coliform values below detectable limits per 100 milliliters [ml] of sample) in accordance with the 62-600 Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.] (Regulations of Domestic Wastewater Facilities). With the addition of wastewater from Conch Key, the Hawk's Cay WWTP would be treating about 110,000gpd and would therefore be required to be in compliance with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards for AWT of 5 mg/L BOD, 5 mg/L TSS, 3 mg/L TN, 1 mg/L TP by 2010. The irrigation-quality treated effluent currently flows by gravity into a 60-ft by 50-ft open-lined holding pond. Sludge from the Hawk's Cay WWTP would continue to be transported out of the Keys to the Florida mainland for disposal at an appropriately permitted facility. Six existing shallow injection wells are currently used to dispose of effluent that cannot be used for irrigation purposes. The shallow injection wells are 90 feet deep and cased to 60 feet. Upon final design, lift stations LS-B and LS-F would need to be inspected to determine the impact of the additional flow on the existing facilities. Existing wastewater flows to the WWTP are estimated to be about 80,000 gpd with peaks to 120,000 gpd. Capacity of the Hawk's Cay WWTP is sufficient for the anticipated additional average day wastewater flow from Conch Key (estimated at 27,555 gpd or 16 gpm) (FKAA 2002). Figure 2-7. Hawk's Cay WWTP Connection Preliminary Drawings (Boyle, 2002) (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION Given the limited size of Conch Key and the lack of available land for development, very few alternative sites were considered feasible. One alternative site was considered but eliminated from consideration as a result of unsuccessful lease negotiations with the Coral Key Village Mobile Home community. The installation of clustered on-site wastewater nutrient reduction systems (OWNRS) was considered but dismissed due to the limited amount of available land. Additional information related to technology alternatives that were considered but eliminated from further consideration are contained in Section 2.4 (Alternatives Considered but Dismissed). 3. ion 3 THREE Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences This section describes environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative and the two action alternatives, and details the potential effects on physical, natural, and socioeconomic resources within the project area. Discussion in this document includes direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. 3.1 TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY 3.1.1 Topography Affected Environment The existing environment is similar to that described in Section 3.1.1.1 (Topography). Conch Key bay side elevations are often 2.0 feet to 4.0 feet above mean sea level (amsl) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), whereas ocean side elevations are around 5.0 feet amsl NGVD. The elevation of US-1 is about 12.0 feet amsl NGVD (Boyle, 2002). Elevations decrease with increasing distance from US-1. Slope throughout the proposed WWTP site is relatively flat. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that once funding is secured, effects on topography would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3. Topographic impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 would be limited to temporary surface disturbances during construction of the wastewater collection system and transmission system. The WWTP site would require site clearing, grubbing, and an increase in surface elevation by about three feet of clean, suitable fill in the footprint of the proposed building. Grading requirements would permanently change the surface topographic elevation of the subject properties, but this impact is minor because it would not significantly alter the flat surface topography of Conch Key. 3.1.2 Soils Affected Environment The existing soil conditions are similar to those described in Section 3.1.2.1 (Soils). The project sites' soil type is the Udorthents-Urban Land Complex, a moderately well-drained soil consisting mostly of crushed oolitic limestone or coral bedrock (Figure 3-1). This soil type is generally found in constructed upland areas next to water bodies throughout the Keys (USDA, 1995). The seasonal high water table is at a depth of two to four feet during the wet periods of most years and the soil permeability is variable. Houses and other urban structures cover most areas with this soil type. Other soil types present in the project area include Urban Lands and Islamorada Muck Tidal; neither of these soil types are present within the project sites. Figure 3-1. Project Area Soils (USDA, 1995) Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that once funding is secured, effects on soils would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3. Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, soils would be disturbed during construction. About three feet of clean, suitable fill would be used to achieve the final elevation at the proposed WWTP site. Fill would consist of fine sand, free of rubble, organics, clay, debris, and any other unsuitable material. In addition, about 50 cubic yards of soil material would be excavated to install sewer mains, vacuum pits, buffer tanks, gravity service laterals and lift stations. Most of the excess excavated material would be used for backfill and the remainder would be disposed of offsite. Implementation of appropriate best management practices (BMPs), development of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and use of conventional site preparation techniques is recommended prior to and during construction to protect area water bodies and canals. Planned measures to control sediment from discharge to nearshore surface waters may include, but are not limited to, silt dams, barriers, and straw bales placed at the foot of sloped surfaces. Planned measures to control soil erosion may include, but are not limited to, grassing, mulching, watering, and seeding of on-site surfaces. Site preparation may include grubbing of vegetative roots, topsoil materials, followed by surface compaction and fill placement to attain the required construction elevation. Applying BMPs and appropriate erosion mitigation measures would limit adverse soil impacts during construction of the treatment system. The Udorthents-Urban Land Complex is well suited for urban development, and losses of soil productivity or fertility are not of concern because this soil type generally does not support vegetation. Overall, no long-term adverse effects on soils are anticipated if site soil excavation, disposal, and erosion potential are managed in accordance to State standards and applicable BMP and erosion control guidelines. 3.1.3 Geology Affected Environment The existing geologic environment is similar to what is described in Section 3.1.3.1 (Geology). At the project areas, the upper stratum of bedrock is Miami Oolite, a very porous, solution riddled, carbonate rock. Results of geotechnical test borings conducted at the proposed WWTP site revealed a surface layer of medium dense sand with limestone fragments in the upper three feet, underlain by hard to very hard limestone and coralline rock with sand and shell lenses to a depth of 25 feet (Nutting Engineers, 2002). In two soil borings, a layer of gray silt to silty sand was encountered between two and three feet below land surface. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that once funding is secured, effects on geology would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 2, new WWTP construction, would have minor impacts on geology. Excavation would be done to install the sewer mains at elevation 1-foot to 2-feet amsl NGVD along service area roads, and to remove cesspits and septic systems. WWTP construction would require installation of one groundwater monitoring well and two shallow wells to dispose of treated wastewater effluent. The shallow injection wells would be cased and grouted to 60 feet below land surface (bls), with a gravel-packed open hole section from 60 feet to 90 feet bls (Section 2.3.2.2 [Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal Options] of the PEA). The shallow wells' effects on project site geology are expected to be minor and are discussed in Section 3.1.3.2.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative). The applicant is responsible for obtaining all applicable FDEP permits for Class V shallow injection wells (Table 3-1). Table 3-1.(Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) As discussed in PEA Section 3.1.3.2.2 (Alternative 2), aside from the potential impacts from injection well use, WWTP construction is not expected to adversely affect the project site geology. The environmental consequences to the geologic environment with shallow injection well use are expected to be limited to the effects of injection of relatively fresh effluent into brackish to saline water aquifers, which could affect the rate of limestone solution (dissolving). In mainland Florida, sinkhole development, especially in areas of declining water tables, has been a severe engineering problem. However, on Conch Key, the water table is two and a half feet below the ground surface, and water tables have not been declining. Therefore, new and/or expanded sinkholes are not likely to result from this alternative. Alternative 3 would have minor geological impacts from construction of the collection system and the removal of cesspits and septic systems, as discussed in Alternative 2 above. Construction of shallow wells for effluent disposal would not occur because effluent from Conch Key would be transported to the Duck Key WWTP for treatment and disposal. Therefore, no long-term geological effects are anticipated under Alternative 3. 3.2 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY 3.2.1 Groundwater Affected Environment The affected environment for groundwater is described in PEA Section 3.2.2.1 (Groundwater). Throughout the project areas, the water of the Biscayne Aquifer ranges from brackish to saline and is of little potential utility except as input for desalination systems. Freshwater lenses have not been documented for Conch Key, Walker's Cay, or Duck Key. Groundwater levels at the treatment plant site are about two and a half feet below the existing grade (Nutting Engineers, 2002). Six shallow Class V injection wells are located in the project areas. All shallow Class V wells are sited on Duck Key at the Hawk's Cay WWTP and are 90 feet deep and cased with cement and steel to 60 feet (Bergin, Pers. Comm., 2002). The wells discharge up to 0.05 mgd of relatively fresh water and effluent into the Biscayne Aquifer. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA funding would not be available for the wastewater management projects. Although Conch Key residents would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards by 2010, removal of nutrient and pathogen inputs to the shallow groundwater of Conch Key would not occur until a funding source is secured. Therefore, local groundwater quality improvements would be delayed under the No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 2, a new WWTP would be designed and constructed to meet Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 effluent requirements for disposal to shallow injection wells. Treated effluent would still contain limited nutrients even under conditions that meet the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. However, by removing the septic and cesspool systems, the overall nutrient and pathogen inputs to the shallow groundwater of the island would be reduced, and overall local groundwater quality would improve. Replacement of existing wastewater systems with wastewater management systems that meet Florida Statutory Treatment Standards would result in 92% reduction in TN input to groundwater and 86% reduction in TP input to groundwater (refer to Appendix D [Water Quality Improvements Analysis] of the PEA). Under Alternative 3, septic and cesspool systems would be removed, and a collection system, pump station and transmission system would be constructed to collect and transport wastewater to the Hawk's Cay WWTP for treatment and disposal. The Hawk's Cay WWTP is currently permitted to 20/20 (TSS/BOD in mg/L) effluent disposal requirements; effluent is treated to high-level disinfection (water with fecal coliform values below detectable limits per 100 ml of sample) in accordance with 62-600 F.A.C., Regulations of Domestic Wastewater Facilities. TN and TP concentration data in discharge at the Hawk's Cay facility was not available. By 2010, the Hawk's Cay WWTP would be required to upgrade to meet AWT Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. Near term effects on groundwater from construction would be similar to those described under Alternative 2. Significant improvement in treated effluent would be delayed until the Hawk's Cay WWTP is in compliance with the Florida Treatment Statutory Standards of 2010. 3.2.2 Inland, Nearshore, and Offshore Waters Affected Environment Surface water resources of the project areas include: (1) canals for boat access to marinas and residential developments; (2) stormwater runoff to ditches and drainage systems in developed areas; and (3) nearshore and offshore marine waters. 3.2.2.1 Inland Waters Project area inland waters include human-made canals and enclosed waterbodies, as described in PEA Section 3.2.3.1.1 (Inland Waters). About ten human-made waterbodies are present within the project areas. Two canals and a boat basin are located on Conch Key. South of Conch Key, Walker's Cay is connected to US-1 by two causeways, which have created an enclosed waterbody or human-made salina. About 23,000 square feet (0.5 acres) of canals were dredged on Duck Key during the 1950's prior to residential development activities. Canals and other confined water bodies exhibiting signs of eutrophication during a review of Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) in the Florida Keys were listed as "Hot Spots" (refer to Appendix C [Hot Spot Locations] of the PEA). Monroe County (2000) ranked Conch Key, as the second and tenth most critical "hot spot" believed to contribute to water quality degradation in the Middle Keys and Florida Keys, respectively. Duck Key was ranked sixth and fortieth relative to water quality degradation in the Middle Keys and Florida Keys, respectively. 3.2.2.2 Nearshore and Offshore Marine Waters Kruczynski (1999) and Szmant and Forrester (1996) determined that in general, nutrient pollution emanating from the Keys has greater nearshore effects than offshore effects due to dilution by tides and currents. Offshore areas in the Middle Keys that had higher nutrient levels than offshore areas in the Upper Keys were attributed to the relatively high nutrient-content of Florida Bay (Kruczynski 1999; Szmant and Forrester, 1996). Project area nearshore and offshore marine waters are described in PEA Section 3.2.3.1.2 (Nearshore and Offshore Marine Waters). The Florida DOH collects beach water quality data from the Curry Hammock State Park water quality monitoring station on Crawl Key (MM 56). Located about 6.5 miles south of Conch Key, it is the closest monitoring station to the proposed project areas. Since August 2000, three health advisories/warnings have been issued (State of Florida, DOH, 2003). Health advisories are issued by DOH when sampling results indicate that contact with the water at that site may pose increased risk of infectious disease, particularly for susceptible individuals. A poor rating is measured as 104 or greater of Enterococcus sp. or 800 or greater fecal coliform organisms per 100 ml of marine water. A poor rating requires resampling before issuing a health advisory. On four other occasions between August 2000 and April 2003, water at this site received a poor water quality rating although a health advisory was not issued. However, no trends were observed regarding correlation with a particular time of year, or with poor water quality ratings for either fecal coliforms or Enterococcus sp. categories. The Water Quality Monitoring Project for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary's Water Protection Program maintains a monitoring station (Station 244) between Conch Key and Long Key, about four miles to the northeast of Conch Key, offshore on the ocean side of US-1 (SERC, 2002). Established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1995, the objective of this project is to characterize water quality status and trends in the Florida Keys. Levels of total organic nitrogen recorded at Station 244 average at 0.22 ppm. Surface levels of total nitrogen recorded at Station 244 average at 0.22 ppm; these levels are higher (22.2 percent more) than the average total nitrogen reading taken from all monitoring stations, Keys-wide (0.18 ppm). Total phosphorus loadings recorded at Station 244 average 0.006 ppm; these levels are comparable to the Keys-wide average (0.007 ppm). Over time, both TN and TP are only slightly increasing. It is difficult to correlate these trends directly with higher nutrient loads from Conch Key because of the distance of Station 244 from Conch Key. In addition, the Middle Keys receive greater nutrient inputs from Florida Bay (PEA Section 3.2.3.1.2) which may affect water quality at Station 244. 3.2.2.3 Stormwater Although few data exist, Monroe County has represented US-1 as the topographic divide for each island, whereby lands on the bay side of US-1 drain mainly toward Florida Bay and lands on the ocean side of US-1 drain toward the Florida Straits (Monroe County, 2001). Stormwater improvement projects have not been conducted within the project areas. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA funding would not be available for the wastewater management projects. Effects on surface water quality in the vicinity of Conch Key would likely continue in the near term due to nutrient and pathogen inputs from on-site systems on the island. However, by 2010, Conch Key residents would be required to upgrade to meet Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. Conch Key residents would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatments Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that once funding is secured, effects on surface waters would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3; although delayed because of later implementation. Stormwater runoff from roadways, bridges, driveways and yards, rooftops, and parking lots contribute stormwater loading to nearshore waters. As described in PEA Section 3.2.2.2.1, improvements to water quality under Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to reduce TN and TP loadings on the order of 92 and 86%, respectively. Both Alternative 2 and 3 eliminate the nutrient pollution and fecal contamination of canal and nearshore waters caused by overflowing on-site wastewater treatment systems during storm events. Other effects on inland, nearshore, and offshore water quality are similar for Alternatives 2 and 3. These effects are expected to be beneficial and are discussed in PEA Section 3.2.3.2.2 (Environmental Consequences; Inland, Nearshore and Offshore Waters). Implementation of either alternative would not adversely affect stormwater flows or quality, and are expected to result in generally positive effects on the water quality of stormwater flows. Use of appropriate BMPs and development and full implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, under FDEP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, would be needed before and during construction to protect area water bodies and surrounding areas. Planned measures to control sediment from discharge to nearshore surface waters include, but are not limited to, silt dams, barriers, and straw bales placed at the foot of sloped surfaces. 3.2.3 Floodplains and Wetlands Affected Environment 3.2.3.1 Floodplains Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to take action to minimize occupancy and modification of floodplains. Furthermore, EO 11988 requires that Federal agencies proposing to site a project in the 100-year floodplain consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the floodplain. Application of the Eight- Step Decision-Making Process, as required by 44 CFR Part 9, ensures that Federally funded projects are consistent with EO 11988 objectives. These objectives ensure avoiding the support of development in a floodplain when practicable alternatives exist. By its nature, the NEPA compliance process involves the same basic decision-making methods to meet its objectives as does the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process. Therefore, the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process has been applied through the implementation of the NEPA process. PEA Section 3.2.4.1.1 (Floodplains) of the PEA describes the affected environment related to floodplains. According to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Conch Key, Walker's Cay, and Duck Key are located entirely within the 100-year floodplain (FIRM panel 12087C1293H). Conch and Duck Keys are located in a FEMA- designated Zone AE whereas Walker's Cay is in Zone VE (a storm-surge hazard zone). The highest elevation within the project areas is the centerline of US-1; the remainder of the land is at elevations less than 10 feet NGVD. 3.2.3.2 Wetlands Wetland communities are discussed in PEA Section 3.2.4.1.2 (Affected Environment, Wetlands). Under EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), Federal agencies are required to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and preserve and enhance their natural and beneficial values. FEMA applies the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process, required by 44 CFR Part 9, to meet the requirements of EO 11990. Field investigations were conducted by two URS biologists on August 1, 2002, to identify jurisdictional wetlands within the project areas. No freshwater wetlands were identified within the project areas (Figure 3-2), although jurisdictional wetlands were identified on both sides of the entrance road to Walker's Cay (Figure 3-3). Further, a narrow mangrove fringe is located along the south margin of the periodically mowed US-1 ROW. Dominant species comprising the mangrove fringe include Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), and bushy seaside oxeye (Borrichia frutescens). Photo- documentation obtained from the field investigation is provided in Appendix C. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, impacts on floodplains or jurisdictional wetlands would be similar to Alternative 2 and 3. However, without FEMA funding water quality degradation would likely continue, until systems are upgraded with another funding source. No notable effects on floodplains associated with Alternative 2 are anticipated; these are further described in PEA Section 3.2.4.2.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative). Since the treatment plant would be constructed in the floodplain, it would be elevated with fill as described in PEA Section 2.2.2 (Alternative 2, Wastewater Treatment Plant) to prevent storm and flood damages. As specified in 44 CFR Part 9, structures must be elevated such that the lowest floor of the structures is at or above the level of the base flood elevation (BFE). No direct impacts on jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated on Conch Key since there are no wetlands at the proposed WWTP site or along service area roads. Installation of the force main within the existing 18-inch FKAA abandoned pipeline would require construction of one sliplining work area and a small pump station or lift station at the entrance road to Walker's Cay. This would require temporarily clearing a 4-foot by 4-foot area for access to the pipe and would be located outside any jurisdictional wetlands (see Section 2.3.3 of this document). No additional work space would be necessary and upland vegetation would be allowed to naturally revegetate the cleared area. Jurisdictional wetlands would not be impacted by construction activities. There is public concern that the proposed WWTP would lead to further development in the floodplain within the project area by introducing key infrastructure, which is often linked to additional development. However, development within the Keys is not controlled by addition of key infrastructure, but instead by Monroe County's Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) permit allocation system, as described further in PEA Section 3.10 (Land Use and Planning). The construction of new wastewater treatment in the Keys is for the purpose of effectively treating existing wastewater flows, and is not proposed as a way to introduce or support increased development. Therefore, if growth and development in the floodplain occurs following implementation of this alternative, it is a function of established county planning and is not directly related to proposed projects for wastewater management improvements. Given the above points, an evaluation of secondary effects on floodplains with regard to the potential for increased development under the alternatives was not conducted. It should be noted that the Conch Key service area has already been substantially built out so additional development is unlikely. As stated in PEA Section 3.2.2.2 (Environmental Consequences; Inland, Nearshore and Offshore Waters) the use of appropriate BMPs and development and full implementation of an FDEP- approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is recommended prior to and during construction to protect area water bodies and wetlands. Planned measures to control sediment from discharge to nearshore surface waters include, but are not limited to, silt dams, barriers, and hay bales placed at the foot of sloped surfaces. Under Alternative 3, though the collection system, pump station, and transmission system would be built within the floodplain and next to mangrove wetlands, construction is not expected to notably affect any wetlands or floodplains. Sliplining work areas would be constructed outside of jurisdictional wetlands using appropriate BMPs and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, as stated in Alternative 2, to ensure no impacts on wetland resources. Figure 3-2. Project Area Vegetation (McNeese, 1998) (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) Figure 3-3. Walker's Cay Entrance Road Jurisdictional Wetlands (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES As in much of the Keys, humans have significantly altered the lands and waters within the project area through urban development activities, including clearing, grading, dredging, and filling. Of the six major native terrestrial communities (pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammocks, mangroves, salt marsh, freshwater systems and dunes/coastal ridges) that are Keys- wide and further described in PEA Section 3.3.1.1 (Terrestrial Environment) of the PEA, only one type (mangroves) occurs within the project sites. Three of the four marine communities that occur in the Keys (seagrasses, coral reefs, hardbottom, and sandy bottom) are found within the vicinity of the project areas; coral reefs are not present in the project vicinities. Terrestrial and aquatic environments are discussed in Section 3.3.1 of this document, and in PEA Section 3.3 (Biological Resources). A preliminary field investigation was conducted by two URS project biologists on March 19, 2002. The purpose of the investigation was to field verify preliminary terrestrial community type boundaries established in office literature reviews and during photo interpretation. Photo- documentation obtained from the field investigation is provided in Appendix C, Site Photographs. A supplementary field investigation was conducted by two URS project biologists on August 1, 2002. During this investigation, existing vegetation within the project areas was characterized as developed lands, containing highly disturbed ruderal and artificially landscaped habitats with varying degrees of bare rock and/or gravel coverage. A composite list of plant species observed and identified within the project sites is provided in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. Observed Plant Species (URS site visit; August 1, 2002) (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word, PDF versions, or the public notice to view in hard copy) Affected Environment 3.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems Little to no native vegetation remains on Conch Key; natural vegetation has largely been replaced by planted ornamental species and exotic species. Existing vegetation within the project area, as characterized by the Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) mapping project, is dominated by developed and/or filled land and bordered by fringe mangroves (McNeese 1998; Figure 3-2). The proposed construction sites for the WWTP (Alternative 2) and proposed vacuum pump station (Alternative 3), located north of US-1, mostly consist of a gravel and sand parking area that transitions to a periodically mowed area along the southern edge, adjacent to US-1 (Figure 2-3). Vegetation here is mostly ruderal plant species typical of disturbed sites, and includes West Indian dropseed (Sporobolus indicus), false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata), Indian hemp (Sida rhombifolia), crowfootgrass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium), morningglory (Ipomoea indica), hyssopleaf sandmat (Chamaesyce hyssopifolia), sandbur (Cenchrus spinifex), and beggarticks (Bidens alba var. radiate). Additionally, several coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) are scattered along the edge of the US-1 roadway right-of-way (ROW). Upland areas within the periodically mowed and maintained US-1 ROW between Conch Key, Walker's Cay and Duck Key have herbaceous ruderal species typical of roadways and disturbed areas in the Florida Keys. Vegetation in the areas next to the Conch Key Cottages Resort Road include West Indian dropseed, false buttonweed, St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), Indian hemp, beggarticks, crowfoot grass, scorpionstail (Heliotropium angiospermum), and fingergrass (Eustachys petraea). A few scattered spiderlily (Hymenocallis latifolia) occur in the lower portions of the US-1 ROW, west of the Walker's Cay entrance road. The vegetated areas next to the east end of Tom's Harbor Cut Bridge, along the south side of US-1, have ruderal and exotic plant species. This area consists of a gravel parking area and a mowed vegetated area that gently slopes down to a seawall at the base of the raised bridge approach. A narrow band of buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) is located along the top of the seawall. Dominant vegetation located in the portion of the work area between the gravel parking area and the seawall consists of ruderal and exotic species such as white leadtree (Leucaena leucocephala), yellow joyweed (Alternanthera flavescens), beggarticks, false buttonweed, Indian hemp, blue porterweed (Stachytarpheta jamaicensis), railroad vine (Ipomoea pes-caprae), burrnut (Tribulus cistoides), painted leaf (Poinsettia cyathophora), West Indian dropseed, wild bushbean (Macroptilium lathyroides), crowfootgrass, scorpionstail, and fingergrass. Vegetated areas next to the west end of Tom's Harbor Cut Bridge, along the south side of US-1, have ruderal and exotic plant species. The site consists of a bare gravel parking area on the south side of US-1 with a mowed area that slopes southward to a low gravel parking area by the shoreline. The slope between the two parking areas is vegetated with regularly mowed ruderal grasses and forbs. The roadway entrance to Duck Key is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Duck Key Drive and US-1. Landscaping at the entranceway includes ornamentals such as coconut palm, other ornamental palms, silver buttonwood, and bougainvillea, as well as a Duck Key entranceway sign. Behind and south of the entrance sign, the ground slopes down to a rocky shoreline with large boulders. The sloped substrate behind the wall is vegetated with ruderal species such as beggarticks, yellow joyweed, and puncture vine. During the site investigations, mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos) and Eurasian collared doves (Streptopelia decaocto) were observed near the proposed construction sites. Mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) were observed near one proposed Conch Key construction sites. Turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) were observed soaring above two proposed Conch Key construction sites. Other than common sea birds often seen flying aloft (e.g., gulls, terns, cormorants, pelicans, etc.), no other birds were observed during the site visits. However, unidentified bird species were heard calling or singing in the vicinity of the proposed construction sites. Brown anoles (Anolis sagrei) were observed at the Duck Key connection site. No other reptiles, amphibians, or mammals were observed during the field investigations. No nests, burrows, or other roosting means were observed in the vicinity of the proposed work or construction sites. A discussion of several habitat types follows. 3.3.1.1 Pine Rocklands and Tropical Hardwood Hammocks Pine rocklands and tropical hardwood hammocks are limited in distribution throughout the Upper and Middle Keys and are not present within the project areas (Figure 3-2). 3.3.1.2 Mangrove Forests and Salt Marshes Throughout the Keys, mangroves dominate most coastal vegetation communities. Mangroves are found along the edges of shorelines, bays and lagoons and on over wash areas throughout the Keys. Mangroves are discussed in PEA Section 3.3.1.1.2 (Mangroves). Mangroves near the project sites are limited to shrubby, fringing mangroves located along the shoreline between Conch Key, Walker's Cay and Duck Key, and parallel to US-1 (Figure 3-2). The narrow mangrove fringe located on both sides of the Walker's Cay entrance road is comprised of dominant species including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), red mangrove, black mangrove, white mangrove, buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), and bushy seaside oxeye (Borrichia frutescens). The invasive exotic species latherleaf (Colubrina asiatica) has intensively invaded this mangrove fringe. 3.3.1.3 Freshwater Systems Freshwater wetlands are restricted to areas landward of the seasonal high tide level and are primarily restricted to portions of the Lower Keys underlain by freshwater lenses (McNeese, 1998). There are no freshwater wetlands in the project areas (refer to Figure 3-2). 3.3.1.4 Dunes and Coastal Ridges Dune systems form along sandy beaches where wind and wave-borne sand is trapped and accumulated by extremely salt-tolerant low-lying beach vegetation. Dunes and coastal ridges are not present within the project areas (refer to Figure 3-2). 3.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystems Marine habitats are present within the human-made canals and marine waters around Conch Key. Seagrasses and hardbottom communities dominate marine habitats near the project sites; areas of hardbottom/seagrass are also present (Figure 3-4). A discussion of individual marine community types is provided below. As described in PEA Section 3.3.3.1 (Special Status Species), essential fish habitat (EFH) present in the vicinity of the project sites consists of estuarine seagrass, marine live/hard bottom, mangrove communities, and the marine water column. In the Keys, regulated fisheries are managed through the Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC) and South Atlantic (SAFMC) Fishery Management Councils. A compiled list of the fishery species under GMFMC and SAFMC management is included in Appendix F. Figure 3-4. Project Area Benthic Habitats (FMRI, 1992) (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word, PDF versions, or the public notice to view in hard copy) 3.3.2.1 Seagrass Beds and Sand Flats Seagrass communities are the most abundant sea bottom community type in the Keys. Distribution of seagrass communities is influenced by the interaction of factors such as water quality, water depth, sediment depth, and current velocity (FMRI, 2000). Seagrass communities are dominated by turtle-grass (Thalassia testudinum) and manatee-grass (Syringodium filiforme), with shoal-grass (Halodule wrightii) becoming dominant in more eutrophic areas (Fonseca et al., 1998). Within the vicinity of the project areas, seagrass communities dominate the northern, bay side of the islands (Figure 3-4). This community type also occurs on the ocean side alone or in combination with hardbottom communities. The affected environment for seagrass beds and sand flats is described in PEA Section 3.3.1.2.1 (Seagrass Beds and Sand Flats). 3.3.2.2 Coral Reefs The Middle Keys, which are relatively small in size and are separated by numerous wide channels connecting with Florida Bay, have limited reef development, largely due to a lack of protection from the variations in temperature, salinity and clarity of water coming from the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Bay (FMRI, 2000). Coral reefs are not present near the project areas. 3.3.2.3 Hardbottom Hardbottom habitats are solid, flat, low-relief, rock substrate composed of rock or rubble that is exposed or covered with a thin layer of sediment (FMRI, 2000). Nearshore hardbottom is the dominant ecological community throughout the Keys. Low-relief hardbottom communities are characterized by their proximity to shore, shallow depth, and visual dominance of octocorals (Chiappone and Sullivan, 1994). These communities occur within 1.25 miles of shore on either side of the Keys at depths of about 3 to 16 feet (Chiappone and Sullivan, 1996). Within the vicinity of the project sites, hardbottom habitat is interspersed with seagrass communities on the ocean side of the islands (Figure 3-4). Areas of hardbottom are located at the east side of Conch Key and in Tom's Harbor Cut, between Walker's Cay and Duck Key. The affected environment for hardbottom communities is described in see PEA Section 3.3.1.2.3 (Hardbottom). 3.3.2.4 Sandy Bottom Bare bottom communities, over either calcareous muds and/or sands, have no algae and seagrasses. The flora and fauna is sparse and is typically dominated by sponges, small corals, and calcareous algae (Chiappone, 1996). Near the project areas, sandy bottom communities exist in limited patches on the southeast side of Conch Key and throughout the artificial waterways on Conch and Duck Keys (refer to Figure 3-3). The affected sandy bottom communities are described in PEA Section 3.3.1.2.4 (Sandy Bottom). Environmental Consequences 3.3.2.5 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, improved wastewater management activities would be implemented to meet the new Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. Implementation of a WWTP that meets Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 would reduce nutrient loading in nearshore marine waters and result in a corresponding improvement to long-term ecological health. However, without FEMA funding, the project applicants would need to identify additional financing options, delaying wastewater treatment improvements. As discussed in PEA Section 3.3.2.1 (Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative), while mangrove swamps could benefit slightly from higher TP concentrations, coral reefs prefer nutrient-poor environments with clear waters and low turbidity. Adverse effects on nearshore marine ecosystems would continue as a result of septic tank and cesspools effluents, which can lead to increased eutrophication of nearshore marine waters. Therefore, area reefs may continue to be adversely affected by high nutrient levels by encouraging algal blooms that reduces water clarity and decreases coral growth or by favoring the growth of macroaglae that can out compete and shade corals causing shading and eventual death. 3.3.2.6 Alternative 2 – New Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Under this alternative, no direct impacts on terrestrial or marine biological resources are anticipated as a result of construction of the collection system and treatment plant. Construction activities on Conch Key are proposed along the roads in front of the residences and businesses in the service area and therefore would not impact biological resources. Individual homeowners may encounter temporary, indirect impacts on landscaped plants and vegetation during connection of individual residences. However, these impacts are outside of the scope of this assessment. Since the proposed treatment plant site is largely devoid of significant vegetation, no impacts on terrestrial communities would result from construction of the plant. Installation of the force main within the existing 18-inch FKAA abandoned pipeline would require construction of one sliplining work area and a small pump station or lift station at the entrance road to Walker's Cay. This would require temporarily clearing a 4-foot by 4-foot area for access to the pipe in an area vegetated with St. Augustine grass. No additional work space would be necessary and the grass would be allowed to naturally revegetate the cleared area. Although no direct effects on marine resources are anticipated under Alternative 2 or 3, wastewater treatment improvements would indirectly affect the nearshore marine waters in the vicinity of Conch Key. Improvements to nearshore marine water quality on the order of 92 and 86 percent reductions in TN and TP loadings, respectively, would occur due to increased treatment and as a result of meeting Florida Statutory Treatment Standards (see Appendix D [Water Quality Improvement Analysis] of the PEA). Although treated to Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010, effluent would still have a higher level of nutrients than ambient concentrations (SERC 2002). There is little available research that specifically assesses the impact of effluent treated to BAT or AWT standards on biological resources; however, reducing nutrient loading in nearshore marine waters is expected to cause a corresponding improvement in long-term ecological health. In general, as discussed in PEA Section 3.3.2.1 (Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative), while mangrove swamps could benefit slightly from high TP levels, coral reefs prefer oligotrophic environments with clear waters and low turbidity and therefore can be adversely affected by high nutrient levels by encouraging algal blooms that reduces water clarity and decreases coral growth or by favoring the growth of macroaglae that can out compete and shade corals causing shading and eventual death. Implementation of the wastewater treatment plant that meets Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 would reduce nutrient loading in nearshore marine waters and result in a corresponding improvement to long-term ecological health. 3.3.2.7 Alternative 3 – New Wastewater Transmission System Construction Under Alternative 3, effects on terrestrial and marine biological resources would be similar to those in Alternative 2. Individual homeowner impacts may be similar to Alternative 2, as discussed above. Trenching activities from the Duck Key Bridge to LS-B would occur in the mowed grass areas adjacent to Duck Key Drive. Trenched areas would be allowed to revegetate naturally following completion of construction. No additional improvements to the Hawk's Cay WWTP would be required; therefore, there would not be any notable aquatic ecosystem impacts from this part of the alternative. However, reduction of TN and TP loadings would be delayed until the Hawk's Cay WWTP is upgraded to meet the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. Under Alternative 3, long-term aquatic habitat health would be similar to those for Alternative 2, as discussed in PEA Section 3.3.2.2 (Biological Resources). Both LS-B and LS-F may need to be upgraded. LS-B is located along Golf Course Drive, in the southeast corner of the Duck Key Plaza. The plaza is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Duck Key Drive and Golf Course Drive. LS-F is located within the administratively/resort owned parts of Duck Key, near Harbor Drive, Pebble Beach Lane, Duck Key Drive and Greenbriar Circle. No notable aquatic habitat impacts would be associated with upgrading the lift stations. Figure 3-5. Lift Station B, Duck Key (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) 3.3.3 Special Status Species Affected Environment The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 requires Federal agencies to consider impacts of their actions on threatened and endangered species and their habitats, and take steps to conserve and protect these species. Additionally, Federal agencies must also comply with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) that requires the identification of EFH for Federally managed fishery species and the implementation of measures to conserve and enhance this habitat and the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) Public Law 104-297. Special status species are described in PEA Section 3.3.3.1 (Special Status Species, Affected Environment). A URS biologist conducted site visits on August 1, 2002, concurrently with vegetation and wildlife investigations, to investigate the potential presence of Federally protected species and suitable habitat for these species in the project area and sites. No State- or Federally-listed species were observed in any of the proposed construction sites. Vegetated portions of the proposed construction sites consist of disturbed ruderal and landscape plants; therefore no portions of the proposed construction sites are likely to provide nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat for any special status species that could occur in this portion of the Florida Keys. Additionally, due to the relatively small size of Conch Key and Duck Key, their isolation from large contiguous vegetated tracts of land and the lack of native vegetation cover, none of the proposed construction sites are unlikely to provide nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat for migratory birds or other transient species. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA funds would not be used for wastewater management improvements in the Keys. As such, FEMA would not be required to undertake activities for compliance with Section 7 of ESA and EFH. Conch Key residents would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that effects on special status species, once funding is secured, would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3. FEMA consulted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the potential impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3. URS biologists conducted site-specific surveys and, based on information collected, determined that the proposed alternatives would not have an effect on special status species. In a letter dated, February 7, 2003, FEMA notified both FWS and NMFS of their finding determination, requested concurrence, and initiated informal consultation. Based on the information provided, the USFWS stated in their response on February 27, 2003, that they concurred with the no effect finding for Federally-listed species or their critical habitat. Therefore, no further action is required under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. The NMFS stated in their response on February 27, 2003 that neither alternative would be likely to affect EFH; therefore no further action is required under the MSA and the SFA. No state special status species are known to occur at the project sites. A letter dated January 31, 2003, was sent to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission concerning state listed species and they have not responded. The project would not affect state special status species. Agency coordination letters for this SEA are included in Appendix B. 3.4 AIR QUALITY Affected Environment Air pollution within the project areas has not been extensively documented; however motor vehicles are the main source of emissions. The FDEP has designated Monroe County as an air quality attainment area, meaning that air quality standards set by both FDEP and the EPA are maintained county-wide (Monroe County, 1995). Air quality in the Florida Keys is generally excellent, and data from FDEP's two ambient air monitoring stations in Key West and Marathon indicate that particulate matter concentrations remain well below the State's standards. The affected environment for air quality is similar to that described in PEA Section 3.4.1 (Air Quality, Affected Environment). Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that effects on air quality, once funding is secured, would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3. Under Alternative 2, minor temporary adverse effects on air quality would occur during construction from increased exhaust pollutants and fugitive dust. These temporary impacts could be mitigated through standard construction practices including a decrease in idle time, and watering down of construction areas. Operational effects of the WWTP on air quality would be similar to those discussed in Section 3.4.2.2 (Environmental Consequences, Alternative 2 – Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant). The pump station aerates odors by allowing air into the pump system behind wastewater that has accumulated in holding tanks. The only release of air occurs from the blower exhaust at the pump station, which passes through a biofilter before emission. In addition, an odor control system, such as an in-ground wood chip bed, or packaged iron fillings bed, would be utilized to minimize odors. No long-term effects on air quality are anticipated. Under Alternative 3, minor temporary adverse effects on air quality would occur during construction from increased exhaust pollutants and fugitive dust and mitigation measures similar to those described in Alternative 2 would be implemented. During operation, atmospheric air used for transport within the collection system would enter through the 4-inch screened air intake on the gravity line. It is unlikely that odor would emanate from this air inlet due to the small volume of sewage (10 gallons) and short detention times in the sump. An odor control system, as detailed in Alternative 2, would be used to eliminate odors at the pump station. Therefore, no long-term adverse effects on air quality are anticipated. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Affected Environment PEA Section 3.5.1 (Cultural Resources, Affected Environment) provides an overview of Monroe County's cultural history. In addition to review under NEPA, consideration of impacts on cultural resources is mandated under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and implemented by 36 CFR Part 800. Requirements include identification of significant historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project. For the purposes of Section 106, historic properties are defined as archaeological sites, buildings, structures, districts, or sites that are listed in or are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 60.4). As defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), the Area of Potential Effect (APE) "is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist." The APE is identical for Alternatives 2 and 3, and consists of the proposed construction site of the WWTP and VPS, and the entrance to Conch Key Cottages Walker's Cay and 50-feet on either side of the entrance in the US-1 ROW (Figure 2-1) In addition to identifying historic properties that may exist in the proposed project's APE, the Federal agency must also determine, in consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), what effect, if any, the action would have on historic properties. Moreover, if the project would have an adverse effect to these properties, the Federal agency must consult with the SHPO on ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect. Historic resources identified near the project sites include the Overseas Highway and Flagler Railway Bridges (NRHP, 2002). Portions of these bridges are listed in the NRHP (1979-08-13) and include the section between Long and Conch Keys (MM 63.0 to 65.5). Although the historic Flagler railroad bridge located between Conch Key and Duck Key, across Tom's Harbor Cut, is not currently listed in the NRHP, it is considered a historic resource potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP (Edwards, Pers. Comm., 2002). A third resource is an underwater archaeological site located within one mile of Conch Key. Due to a paucity of information in the archaeological site report, this resource is considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted by a URS archaeologist on August 1, 2002. The purpose of the assessment was to assist FEMA's project planning, ensure NEPA and NHPA compliance, and provide the Florida SHPO with information on potential cultural resource impacts. The assessment included an in-person records search at the Florida Master Site File Preservation Office, and a 100 percent pedestrian reconnaissance survey of the APEs. Site files located at the Florida SHPO listed no historic standing structures or archaeological sites within or adjacent to the APEs. However, one underwater archaeological site (8MO132), one historic bridge (Long Key Bridge) listed in the NRHP (8MO1131a), and one historic bridge (across Tom's Harbor cut) eligible for listing in the NRHP were within a one-mile radius of each project area. These resources will not be affected by the proposed action. Archaeological pedestrian surveys found that the project area soils consisted of disturbed soils or a thin 1- to 2- inch layer of soil overlying limestone bedrock. Both the topsoil and bedrock were previously disturbed from mechanical grading. No artifacts or cultural features were observed in the APEs. No above-ground cultural resources were observed in the APE or within the viewshed that might potentially be eligible for the NRHP. The results of the assessment indicate that there are no archaeological resources present within the APEs and no further assessments were recommended (Appendix G; Conch Key Cultural Resources Assessment Report). Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that once funding is secured, effects on Cultural Resources would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3. If Conch Key obtains funding through nonfederal entities to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards the locality would not be required to comply with Section 106 of the NHPR. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, no effects on historic, archaeological, or cultural resources are anticipated because none were identified within the APE. A Cultural Resources Assessment summarizing these findings was prepared and submitted to the SHPO with a letter dated February 26, 2003 (Appendices B and F). The SHPO stated in their response dated March 13, 2003 (received March 27, 2003), that it was the determination of the SHPO that the Cultural Resources Assessment was complete. However, in order for the final report to be considered sufficient based on the criteria specified in Chapter 1A-46.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, it required some additional information. The revised Cultural Resources Assessment was submitted to SHPO on [date]. In a letter dated [date], the SHPO accepted FEMA's revision to the Cultural Resources Assessment, and concurred with FEMA's findings of no effect. However, should any unanticipated historic or archeological materials be discovered during project work, all activities on the site shall be halted immediately and the FKAA shall consult with FEMA, SHPO and other appropriate agencies for further guidance. In addition, if a human burial is discovered, Florida's unmarked human burial law will be implemented (Florida Statute Title XLVI, 872.05 Unmarked human burials). Specifically: "When an unmarked human burial is discovered … all activity that may disturb the unmarked human burial shall cease immediately, and the district medical examiner shall be notified. Such activity shall not resume unless specifically authorized by the district medical examiner or the State Archaeologist. If the district medical examiner finds that the unmarked human burial may be involved in a legal investigation or represents the burial of an individual who has been dead less than 75 years, the district medical examiner shall assume jurisdiction over and responsibility for such unmarked human burial, and no other provisions of this section shall apply. The district medical examiner shall have 30 days after notification of the unmarked human burial to determine if he or she shall maintain jurisdiction or refer the matter to the State Archaeologist. If the district medical examiner finds that the unmarked human burial is not involved in a legal investigation and represents the burial of an individual who has been dead 75 years or more, he or she shall notify the State Archaeologist, and the division may assume jurisdiction over and responsibility for the unmarked human burial pursuant to subsection (6) [of Florida Statute 872.05]. When the division assumes jurisdiction over an unmarked human burial, the State Archaeologist shall consult a human skeletal analyst who shall report within 15 days as to the cultural and biological characteristics of the human skeletal remains and where such burial or remains should be held prior to a final disposition [Florida Statute Title XLVI, Chapter 872.05]." 3.6 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 3.6.1 Tourism Affected Environment Tourist facilities on Conch Key are located on the bay side and include a dive shop, inn, marina and boat ramp, and seafood market. There are several vacation homes and apartments. Tourist facilities are not present on the ocean side of Conch Key, which is occupied entirely by the Conch Key Mobile Home Community. Tourist populations in the vicinity of the project sites are concentrated south of Conch Key, on Walker's Cay, and Indies Island in Duck Key. Table 3-3 lists all commercial businesses located within the project area businesses. Table 3-3. Project Areas Businesses (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not fund the proposed project. Wastewater treatment projects would be locally funded, which could increase local taxes. This could be passed to tourists through higher costs for hotels, food, and other goods and services. In addition tourism impacts from decrease water quality, beach closures and storm infrastructure impacts would continue until wastewater improvements were implemented. Under this scenario, wastewater treatment projects would be funded by local sources, which could potentially increase local taxes. Tax increases in turn could be passed down to the tourist, through higher costs for hotels, food, and similar merchandise in Conch Key. In addition, impacts on tourism associated with decreased water quality, beach closures and other infrastructure impacts during storm events would continue until wastewater improvements were implemented. Under Alternative 2, adverse construction impacts Conch Key tourism would be short-term and minimal. Installation of the collection system would temporarily hinder, but not obstruct, traffic movement to and from the seafood market and several vacation rentals located along North Conch Avenue and Sea View Avenue, and resort traffic on Walker's Cay. Appropriate signage and traffic management (as described in PEA Section 3.9.1, Traffic and Circulation) would reduce the degree of this impact. Installation and operation of the treatment plant is not expected to impact tourism beyond those effects described in PEA Section 3.6.1.2.1 (Tourism, Environmental Consequences, No Action Alternative). The Bayview Inn Marina is the closest business to the proposed treatment plant site; the treatment plant would be clearly visible from the Bayview Inn Marina. To mitigate these effects, the applicant should be required to install vegetative screens on the areas surrounding the treatment plant to obscure views from marina customers. Additionally, improved water quality may benefit the tourism industry by increasing tourist enjoyment of activities listed in PEA Section 3.6.1.1 (Tourism, Affected Environment). Under Alternative 3, tourism would not be adversely affected. Both negative and positive effects on tourism are similar to those described for Alternative 2. Pipeline trenching activities for transmission system construction and upgrades to lift stations on Duck Key would not obstruct the access roads to Duck Key and visitors' enjoyment of the island. Temporary construction activities associated with wastewater treatment improvements would be short-term and minimal. 3.6.2 Fishing Industry Affected Environment Conch Key contains a small commercial fishing community. Nichols Seafood on Conch Key employs over 40 family-operated commercial fishing businesses. Species commercially harvested by Nichols Seafood include spiny lobster, yellowtail snapper, dolphin, mangrove snapper, mutton snapper, black grouper, red grouper, kingfish, stone crab, Key West pink shrimp, and St. Augustine white shrimp (Florida Internet Group, Inc., 1997). The Florida Keys Fishing Club is also located on Conch Key and has three fishing charter boats for recreational fishing trips (Florida Keys Fishing Club, 2000). Species recreationally harvested around Conch Key include tarpon, bonefish, kingfish, dolphin, sailfish, wahoo, snapper, grouper, shark, and barracuda. The affected environment for the fishing industry is described further in PEA Section 3.6.2.1 (Fishing Industry, Affected Environment). Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, Conch Key would not receive FEMA funds for wastewater management. Overall environmental benefits to the fishing industry would be delayed until funding was obtained for wastewater improvements on Conch Key (as described in PEA Section 3.6.2.2.1, [No Action Alternative]). Under Alternatives 2 and 3, FEMA would provide funding for projects to aid in the construction of a WTTP or WTS, respectively. These projects are expected to improve nearshore water quality which would, in turn, benefit nearshore commercial species currently being adversely affected by poor water quality in the Conch Key area. Beneficial effects on commercial fishing are described in PEA Section 3.6.2.2 (Environmental Consequences). FEMA consulted the NMFS regarding the potential impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 on fisheries resources. The NMFS stated in their response on February 27, 2003 that neither alternative would be likely to affect EFH; therefore, no further action is required under the MSA and the SFA. Agency coordination letters for this SEA are included in Appendix B. 3.6.3 Local Fees and Taxes Affected Environment Monroe County residents must pay county, State, and Federal taxes. The average property tax rate for all Monroe County districts is 13.4% of the appraised property value, excluding property tax deductions such as the homestead exemption (Monroe County, 2001b). Several governmental agencies within Monroe County affect the total property tax rate. Additional details on local taxes are in PEA Section 3.6.3.1 (Local Fees and Taxes, Affected Environment). 3.6.3.1 Existing Wastewater Management Costs in the Conch Key Service Area For the purpose of this SEA, wastewater management cost discussions include reference to: 1) system capital costs, which include expenses associated with planning, designing, engineering, purchasing, building, and installing a wastewater treatment system, and the required wastewater conveyance piping in public ROWs and selected effluent disposal method; 2) abandonment and lateral costs, which include the expenses associated with removal and disposal of the existing wastewater treatment system and piping on service recipients' property for connection to a new system; and 3) operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the new system. Five basic types of wastewater systems are presently used in Monroe County: cesspits, septic tanks, on-site aerobic treatment units (ATUs), on-site wastewater nutrient reduction systems (OWNRS), and centralized WWTPs. On Conch Key and Walker's Cay, approximately 107 cesspools and septic systems are currently utilized by property owners. Septic systems collect sewage in a tank and allow the liquid waste to filter through the drainfield into shallow soils and subsurface limestone. For septic systems in working condition, pumping to remove solid waste is needed only about every 6 to 10 years (D and D Enterprises, Inc., Pers. Comm., 2001). The cost to pump a standard 1,000-gallon septic tank, presently about $300, would average about $38 a year or a little over $3 a month if pumped once every 8 years. Almost all Keys' cesspits are at residences built before 1970. From discussions with wastewater service companies in the Keys, it was found that "properly" functioning cesspits (i.e., those that drain and leach out effluent into the surrounding soil and subsurface limestone) do not need to be pumped out, and consequently, have little or no associated operation and maintenance costs. As most of them were installed more than 30 years ago, there are also currently no associated system capital costs. Cesspits are currently illegal to install in Monroe County, and are being removed as part of the Monroe Cesspit Identification and Elimination Grant Program (discussed in detail in PEA Section 3.6.3.2.1 [Local Fees and Taxes, Environmental Consequences]). For comparison, the average monthly wastewater rates for customers that currently use non- compliant WWTP systems in other parts of Monroe County are $56, $64, and $55 per month for customers of Key Haven Utilities, Ocean Reef Club, and K W Resort Utilities, respectively. There are three businesses on Conch Key and Walker's Cay. Two of them (seafood store and inn/marina) currently use septic systems (Line, Nichols Pers. Comm., 2003); the third business is a resort that is located on its own 2.5 acre island and has 12 guest cottages. This business is currently using an ATU that is not in compliance with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. The owners purchased their system less than 10 years ago and in addition to O&M costs, are still paying capital costs (Wilson, Pers. Comm., 2003). Additional information related to local fees and taxes is in PEA Section 3.6.3 (Local Fees and Taxes). Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not fund the Conch Key wastewater management projects. To achieve compliance with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards, residents and businesses would have to use other funding for improvements. Economic effects of the No Action Alternative on local wastewater fees or taxes are difficult to quantify, as they will depend on the final costs of the 2010-compliant systems chosen, the amount of State and Federal grants and contributions, and the details of the chosen financing options, including applicable repayment terms. Based upon information in PEA Section 3.6.3.3, the No Action Alternative may result in higher wastewater management costs for Conch Key residents and businesses than would be expected from either FEMA-funded Alternative 2 or 3. Under Alternative 2, the estimated system capital cost to service recipients, after grant funding has been applied, would be about $4,255, per EDU. In addition, property owners would pay for their abandonment and lateral costs. The estimated monthly service operation and maintenance fee for continuing operation and maintenance of the WWTP would be about $59 per EDU, with no capital cost applied to the monthly service fee (Shelby, Pers. Comm., 2003). All costs estimated for Alternative 2 are associated with the gravity sewer system. Under Alternative 3, costs to Conch Key service recipients are expected to be comparable to those under Alternative 2. At the present time, formal engineering cost estimates of system capital costs and monthly operation and maintenance fees associated with service from the Hawk's Cay WWTP have not been completed. As with Alternative 2, these cost estimates will be made in association with a gravity sewer system. Because the Hawk's Cay WWTP does not currently meet 2010 treatment standards, the plant will need to be upgraded in the next few years. Estimates of potential increased costs to Conch Key service recipients for the upgrade of the Hawk's Cay WWTP have not yet been made (Teague, Pers. Comm., 2003). Like Alternative 2, under Alternative 3 property owners would pay for their abandonment and lateral costs. Abandonment and lateral costs are estimated to range between $1,500 and $5,000 per EDU, depending on the type of existing on-site system and the amount of work needed to remove or abandon the system. Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, businesses in the service area would be assessed wastewater fees in the same manner as residential service recipients, with system capital costs following the rates outlined above and monthly service operation and maintenance fees following a flow-based rate structure. The flow-based rate structure would follow the same per EDU cost as residential service recipients, with one EDU worth of flow being equivalent to 167 gallons per day. Businesses that used more than one EDU worth of water would be charged accordingly. As an example, under Alternative 2, a business that generated 417 gallons of wastewater per day would be charged $162.50 or 2.5 times the residential rate of $65, because 417 gallons per day is 2.5 times the 1-EDU flow of 167 gallons per day (Shimokubo, Pers. Comm., 2003). Those businesses that do not generate as much wastewater as they use clean water (e.g. those that make ice and ship it out) will have the option to petition for a wastewater flow analysis to determine wastewater generation. The one business in the service area that currently has an ATU system is being analyzed by FKAA for the cost-effectiveness of its hookup to a centralized system (under both Alternatives 2 and 3). If it is concluded by FKAA and the county that it is not cost effective to connect it to a centralized system, the business will be responsible for upgrading its ATU to Florida Statutory Standards (Wilson, Pers. Comm., 2003). Also, under both Alternatives 2 and 3, property owners unable to pay their system capital cost in full at the time of availability of service would be able to make amortized annual payments of principal plus interest (currently estimated at 5.5%) under a 20-year, non-ad valorem special assessment, which would be included on their annual property taxes (FKAA, 2002). Under Alternative 2, this would be about $334.72 a year for 20 years. Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, wastewater costs would be required to fall at or below the affordability threshold of approximately 2% of Median Household Income and within the cost ranges set forth in PEA Section 3.6.3. Alternative 2 is currently within this range. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners has adopted resolution 306-2002, indicating that a connection fee of $2,700 for capital costs is reasonable. At the time of publication, Monroe County has not taken any further action with respect to achieving these initial guidelines. With the use of FEMA grant funding towards the costs of wastewater treatment for Conch Key, no significant economic impacts to service recipients are expected. 3.6.4 Public Health Affected Environment As mentioned in Section 3.2.2.2 (Nearshore and Offshore Marine Waters), beach water quality data has been collected since August 2000 by Florida DOH from the Curry Hammock State Park monitoring station on Crawl Key (MM 56). On seven separate occasions, these data indicated elevated levels of fecal coliform and Enterococcus sp. in the vicinity of the monitoring station that could potentially pose a health risk. Consequently the DOH issued three health advisories/warnings (State of Florida, DOH, 2003). The Curry Hammock State Park monitoring station is 6.5 miles south of Conch Key and is the closest monitoring station to the service area. Public health consequences from contaminated water are described further in PEA Section 3.6.4.1 (Public Health, Affected Environment). Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, it is likely that nearshore and offshore water quality conditions affecting public health would improve, but the rate of improvement would be dependent on local, State, and Federal funding sources to implement wastewater improvements. The available data do not conclusively demonstrate instances of infection or health problems specifically related to groundwater or offshore contamination caused by current sewage treatment practices. However, as described in PEA Section 3.6.4.1 (Affected Environment), the presence of enteric microbes in canals and nearshore marine waters can pose a health risk if ingested while swimming or eating contaminated seafood (Paul et al., 1995; Caffry, Pers. Comm., 2001). Therefore, it may be reasonably assumed that public health risks exist and would continue under this alternative. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, project area residents would benefit from implementation of improved wastewater treatment facilities because they would reduce public health risks. The environmental consequences of Alternative 2 are discussed further in PEA Section 3.6.4.2.2 (Alternative 2 – Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant). 3.7 DEMOGRAPHICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Environmental Justice), entitled "Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations," directs Federal agencies "to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States…" EO 12898 also requires Federal agencies to ensure that public notifications regarding environmental issues are concise, understandable, and easily accessible. Accordingly, the socioeconomic and demographic conditions in the service area were examined, including alternative impacts. Affected Environment 3.7.1 Population and Race Conch Key is a small, moderate- to low-income residential area with 158 residences. Walker's Cay has 3 residences. Conch Key has under 400 residents. U.S. 2000 Census results were obtained for the Conch Key area, also referred to as the Duck Key census designated place (CDP). The Duck Key CDP is a statistical entity, defined for each decennial census according to Census Bureau guidelines, a dense population that is not within an incorporated place, but is locally identified by a name. CDP's are delineated cooperatively by State and local officials and the U.S. Census Bureau, following Bureau guidelines. The Duck Key CDP includes Conch Key, Walker's Cay and Duck Key. "Whites" were 99 percent of the Duck Key CDP population. Three percent of those were Hispanic. (U.S. Census, 2000). 3.7.2 Income and Poverty As discussed in PEA Section 3.7 (Socioeconomics), a common indicator of income level used by government agencies is the county-specific estimated Median Family Income (MFI). U.S. Census (2000) data for the Duck Key CDP indicates that about 46% of families had MFIs less than $35,000 per year and about 30% had MFIs between $35,000 and $59,999 per year. The remaining 24% had MFIs greater than $60,000. The corresponding average family size for the Duck Key CDP was 2.46 people. In 2003, the annual MFI for Monroe County was estimated at $56,500 (U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], see citation below Table 3-3.). The indicator known as the "poverty threshold" is set for the entire nation and, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii, is not adjusted for local cost-of living differences. For the year 2003, the poverty threshold is set at an annual income of $15,260 for a household of three people (U.S. Census, 2003). In areas like the Keys, where the cost of living is higher than the national average, $14,480 consequently buys less, effectively making a household near the poverty threshold in the Keys poorer than similar households in areas where the cost of living is lower. The Monroe County Housing Authority currently uses the first two tiers of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) MFI-based income levels to administer its low-income assistance programs. To administer their programs fairly, HUD makes annual projections of MFI by county and adjusts for family size. The first two tiers of low- and very low-income levels are set as percentages of the county MFI. In 2003, the income limits for a family of three in Monroe County were $40,700 for the low-income level and $25,450 for the very low-income level. Table 3-4 below shows HUD's FY 2003 low and very low-income levels for various family sizes in Monroe County. Table 3-4. Fiscal Year 2002 – HUD's Low-Income and Very Low-Income Limits, Monroe County, Florida (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) Based on the above statistics, the FKAA estimates that up to 25% of homestead exempt property owners within the service area may be considered low- and very low-income (Note: A homestead exemption is a 3% annual limit on property tax increases, available to those property owners who are year-round county residents [FKAA, 2002]). As described in PEA Section 3.7, it has been determined that low- and very low-income service recipients would incur a financial hardship if their wastewater management costs increased. 3.7.3 Wastewater Fees and Affordability for Keys Low-income Residents The installation of systems that meet Florida Statutory Treatment Standards, under any of the alternatives, would improve water quality in shallow aquifers, canals, and nearshore marine waters, and to a lesser extent, off-shore marine waters as well. The resulting reduced fecal contamination and nutrient pollution would likely reduce adverse effects on public health. Low- income and minority populations are expected to benefit from these wastewater management improvements to the same degree as other Keys demographic populations. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not fund the Conch Key wastewater management projects. To comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010, residents and businesses would have to use other funding for improvements. As described in PEA Section 3.6.3 (Local Fees and Taxes), the No Action Alternative may result in higher wastewater management costs for Conch Key residents and businesses than would be expected with the benefit of FEMA funding. No disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority populations are expected, unless they are also low-income. Under the No Action Alternative, households at or below the low-income level would incur financial hardship if their wastewater management costs increase to levels that approximate the affordability threshold cited in PEA Section 3.6.3.1.2, of near 2% of Median Household Income (approximately $75/month). Unmitigated, increased wastewater management costs would disproportionately and adversely affect low-income populations, as the increased financial burden would represent a higher percentage of their discretionary income. Under Alternative 2, the estimated system capital cost to service recipients, after grant funding has been applied, would be about $4,255, per EDU. In addition, property owners would pay for their abandonment and lateral costs, estimated to be between $1,500 and $5,000 per residence. The estimated monthly service operation and maintenance fee for continuing operation and maintenance of the WWTP would be about $59 per EDU, with no capital cost applied to the monthly service fee (Shelby, Pers. Comm., 2003). Under Alternative 3, costs to Conch Key service recipients are expected to be comparable to those under Alternative 2. At the present time, formal engineering cost estimates of system capital costs and monthly operation and maintenance fees associated with service from the Hawk's Cay WWTP have not been completed. In addition, because the Hawk's Cay WWTP does not currently meet 2010 treatment standards, it will need to be upgraded before the year 2010. Estimates of potential increased costs to Conch Key service recipients for the upgrade of the Hawk's Cay WWTP have not yet been made. Like Alternative 2, under Alternative 3 property owners would pay for their abandonment and lateral costs. To reduce costs to low-income and very low-income service recipients in compliance with EO 12898, financial assistance guidelines have been developed. As described in PEA Section 3.7, the estimated amount of assistance available to cover the system capital costs for homestead- exempt low- and very low-income property owners under Alternatives 2 and 3 is shown in Table 3-5. Low-income property owners would receive assistance with at least 70% of their system capital cost; and 70% of their existing system abandonment and lateral costs, up to $3,000. Very low-income property owners would receive assistance with at least 90% of their system capital cost, and 90% of their existing system abandonment and lateral costs, up to $3,000. Under Alternative 2, for low-income property owners, the estimated resulting system capital cost after assistance would be about $1,200 in one payment or about $100.42 a year for 20 years (about $2,008.40 total). For very low-income property owners, the estimated resulting system capital cost after assistance would be about $400 in one payment, or about $33.47 a year for 20 years (about $669.40 total). Costs to low-income property owners and very low-income property owners under Alternative 3 have yet to be determined but are expected to approximate those under Alternative 2. Table 3-5. Alternative 2 - Low-Income and Very Low-Income Funding Assistance for the System Capital Cost (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) Because the property owner's total cost for abandonment and lateral costs will vary from one property to the next, it is not possible to estimate the final cost with the assistance program. Nevertheless, the assistance program would cover at least 90% of this cost for very low-income property owners (up to $3,000 total) and at least 70% of this cost for low-income property owners (up to $3,000 total). At this time, no programs would be available to help low- and very low-income populations with the payment of monthly operation and maintenance fees. Under both Alternative 2 and 3, property owners unable to pay their system capital cost in full at the time of availability of service would be able to make amortized annual payments of principal plus interest (at 5.5%) under a 20-year, non-ad valorem special assessment, which would be included on their annual property taxes (FKAA, 2002). The assistance guidelines presented above represent a minimum goal and will be required during project implementation in order for the FKAA to receive FEMA grant funding. Costs to low- income service recipients may be further offset at the applicant's discretion. Further assistance could come from State grant funding made available from Community Development Block Grants, the State Housing Initiative Partnership Program, and/or a project contingency made available from existing State and Federal grant funding. At the time of publication, Monroe County has identified a little over half a million dollars in CDBG funds available to help low- income wastewater service recipients throughout the county. Low-income service recipients on Conch Key have been identified as a high priority for receipt of a portion of these funds, although the final amount to be allocated has yet to be determined. The assistance program set forth under Alternatives 2 and 3 is designed to address the needs of low-income and very low-income property owners. Although FEMA does not have specific requirements under EO 12898 to assist low-income renters, renters may seek assistance through local assistance programs, such as the Monroe County Housing Authority. With the implementation of the FEMA assistance program and the use of FEMA grant funding, no highly disproportionate or adverse affects would be felt by low-income or very-low income property owners. 3.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Affected Environment A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. to evaluate the potential for hazardous materials and wastes to occur at the project sites (ECT, 2002). Phase I results indicated that the area is covered with limerock gravel with little to no vegetation. Small areas of surficial soil discoloration, attributed to normal automobile operations, were noted. No areas of distressed or discolored vegetation, which could be evidence of discharges of environmental contaminants, were observed. Based on a review of the information collected during the investigation, it was determined that the subject property was vacant prior to 1964, and landscaped with vegetation after this time. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, impacts related to hazardous materials and wastes are expected to be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 described below. Wastewater sludge waste from the Keys would continue to be hauled to a transfer facility and taken to a wastewater treatment facility in Miami-Dade County for treatment. Under Alternative 2, wastewater would be treated as described in Section 2.2.2 of this document (Wastewater Treatment Plant). Decanted sludge would be temporarily stored in an aerated holding tank on-site, and the liquid sludge would be hauled by truck to one of the three Monroe County Solid Waste Transfer Stations. Miami-Dade has committed to accepting increased loads and has the capacity to accommodate the expanded waste quantity from Monroe County (Williams, Pers. Comm., 2001). Additional environmental consequences of this alternative are discussed in PEA Section 3.7.2.2 (Alternative 2 – Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative). The most common hazardous materials that enter the wastewater systems are grease and typical household cleaning products (Rios, Pers. Comm., 2001). Each incident of inadvertent disposal of hazardous wastes to wastewater effluent is more likely to affect smaller plants like the Conch Key WWTP than larger plants, because the materials are usually more diluted in the larger plants. However, the frequency of these incidents at a smaller facility should be correspondingly lower so there would likely be no net increase in potential concern. Hazardous materials that would enter the WWTP may kill the biological component that treats the wastewater, and would have to be pumped out and sent to a larger treatment plant for reprocessing. Treatment chemicals would be added at various points in the treatment process. The pH of influent wastewater may be adjusted with the addition sodium hydroxide, a buffering agent. The sodium hydroxide would immediately dissolve and be consumed in a reaction which raises wastewater pH and would no longer be an active compound. In order to remove phosphorus from the wastewater, metal salts may be added to coagulate the excess phosphorus. The resultant sludge would be collected and disposed as previously described. The metal salts would be disposed with this material and not released to the aquatic environment. Disinfectants, such as sodium hypochlorite or calcium hypochlorite may be added as the wastewater effluent is release to the environment to kill remaining biologic pathogens. These materials would be dissolved and be consumed in disinfecting reactions with organic materials. Under Alternative 3, wastewater would be treated as described in Section 2.3.4 of this document (Hawk's Cay Wastewater Treatment Plant). Additional environmental consequences of this alternative are discussed in Alternative 2. 3.9 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.9.1 Traffic and Circulation Affected Environment Conch Key is a small residential area with only seven local roads as well as US-1. There are no traffic lights on US-1 within the project area. The project area falls within the Duck Key Highway capacity segment (MM 60.5 to MM 63.0). The 2001 level of service (LOS) for US-1 in the project area is Class B, classified as "adequate," with a travel speed criteria of 48 mph to 50.9 mph; median speed through the segment was 54 mph (URS, 2002b). This LOS is above the LOS C standard (45.0 mph to 47.9 mph) adopted for Monroe County. County roads are subject to a lower standard (LOS D) than US-1. Based on the analysis found in the Technical Document of the Monroe County Year 2001 Comprehensive Plan, all County roads are operating at or above LOS D (Monroe County, 2002) Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not fund Conch Key wastewater management projects. Therefore traffic and circulation effects would be delayed until funding for systems needed to meet the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 is secured. Once funding is obtained, it is anticipated that effects would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, construction traffic would temporarily increase during the implementation of wastewater management projects. Temporary construction traffic would increase in the vicinity of the proposed facility and would be expected to last for about eight months from the start of construction. Construction activities are not expected to interrupt vehicular traffic on US-1. Installation of a collection system would temporarily hinder, but not obstruct, traffic movement to and from the seafood market and several vacation rentals located along North Conch Avenue and Sea View Avenue. Installation and operation of the treatment plant or pump station would temporarily increase traffic to each facility depending on road capacity and operations. Under Alternative 3, pipeline trenching activities for construction of the transmission system would not obstruct the access roads to Duck Key. Public service disruptions from construction are expected to be brief and infrequent. During construction, minor detours may be needed to allow homeowners access to their property (FKAA, 2002). A traffic control plan would be developed and implemented as required by funding and/or permitting agencies. This plan would include specific information about temporary traffic control, alternate routes, staging area locations, and optimal working times to minimize traffic disruption. Construction activities in the roadways ROW would not be subject to Monroe County Land Development Regulations since development, as defined by the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Monroe County, 1995), excludes roads. 3.9.2 Utilities and Services Affected Environment Electricity, gas, and potable water services for the project areas are detailed in PEA Section 3.9.2.1 (Public Utilities and Services, Affected Environment). The main types of wastewater treatment within the project sites are septic tanks and cesspools. Of the Conch Key bay side properties, 53 have septic tanks, five parcels currently utilize cesspools, and 13 parcels do not have a wastewater treatment method listed (Monroe County Property Appraiser database, 2001). Wastewater collection methods for Conch Key ocean side properties are not listed (Monroe County Property Appraiser's database, 2001). A Monroe County Fire Rescue Station is located on South Conch Avenue, Conch Key. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for wastewater management. However, Conch Key residents would still be required to comply with the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. Once a funding source has been identified, it is anticipated that effects on services and utilities would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there could be temporary adverse effects on utilities and services during construction. Conch Key is fully developed and receives all services, which support the proposed wastewater improvement alternatives. The FKAA would contact the diggers/excavation utility hotline at the Sunshine State One Call Center at least two business days before construction to ensure minimal disruptions to services during construction of wastewater improvement projects. Short-term adverse impacts on wastewater utilities could occur as residents and businesses connect to the new wastewater system. If proper utility notification and construction practices are observed, adverse long-term effects on utilities and services are not expected. Long-term beneficial effects would occur as current wastewater methods are switched out and operated accordingly. Regular maintenance of Conch Key's utilities and services would help ensure standards were maintained. For both Alternatives 2 and 3, sewer collection mains would be installed with a 10-foot horizontal separation from the existing FKAA water system as required by the FDEP. Proposed rule changes may require the separation of water and vacuum sewer collection mains to change to a 3-foot horizontal separation and a 12-inch vertical separation. However, the current, applicable rule requirements would be applied at the time of construction. In addition, the ocean side collection main would cross beneath US-1, under the existing FKAA water mains, one of which is a 30-inch main currently in use and the other is the 18-inch abandoned pipeline. No interruptions to water service are expected. Installation of the force main within the abandoned FKAA water main would not impact utilities since the FKAA pipeline is no longer in use. Under Alternative 3, the existing lift stations, LS-B and LS-F, on Duck Key would need to be inspected to determine the impact of the additional flow on the existing facilities. The existing lift stations would be able to handle the increased flows until such time as they could be upgraded, at which time, there would be a brief interruption in service. This interruption would not affect residents in the service area or on Duck Key. Existing flows to the existing Hawk's Cay WWTP are estimated to be about 80,000 gpd with peaks to 120,000 gpd. Capacity of the Hawk's Cay WWTP is sufficient for the anticipated additional average day wastewater flow from Conch Key (estimated at 27,555 gpd or 16 gpm). 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING Affected Environment Conch Key is part of unincorporated Monroe County and is zoned Commercial Fishing District 16. Permitted land uses for the island include mobile homes, detached dwellings, vacation rentals, and commercial fishing uses. No State-identified Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) or other conservation lands are present on Conch Key. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary surrounds the island seaward from the mean high water line. Conch Key and Walker's Cay are not located within a Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) unit (CBRA Zone). Four of the five islands (Yacht Club Island, Center Island, Plantation Island, and Harbor Island) that compose Duck Key are zoned Residential and one, Indies Island, is zoned Commercial. Indies Island contains the Hawk's Cay Resort and Village, Hawk's Cay WWTP, waterfront villas and small condominiums. Walker's Cay is zoned Mixed Use District. The affected environment for land use and planning is further discussed in PEA Section 3.10.1 (Land Use and Planning, Affected Environment). Duck Key, Walker's Cay and Conch Key are all contained within Planning Area Enumeration District (PAED) 10 (about located from MM 61 to MM 64; Monroe County, 2002). Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, Monroe County Applicants would not receive FEMA funds for wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that once funding is secured, effects on land use and planning would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3. Impacts on land use and planning are similar for Alternatives 2 and 3 and are further discussed in PEA Section 3.10.2.2 (Land Use and Planning, Environmental Consequences). The proposed treatment plant and pump station would be located on surplus US-1 ROW owned by the Monroe County Land Authority. In accordance with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Sections 9.5-257.4 and 9.5-257.5), the construction of a new treatment plant or pump station would not require amendments to the land uses permitted in Commercial Fishing Special District 16 (Jerry Buckley, Pers. Comm., 2003). As described in PEA Section 3.10 (Land Use and Planning), development within the Keys is not controlled by addition of key infrastructure, but instead by Monroe County's Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) permit allocation system. The construction of new wastewater treatment infrastructure in the Florida Keys is essential to effectively treat existing wastewater flows, and is not proposed as a way to introduce or support increased development. Therefore, if growth and development occurs following implementation of this alternative, it would be the result of established county planning and is not directly related to proposed projects for wastewater management improvements. It should be noted that the Conch Key service area has already been substantially built out so additional development is unlikely. Direct impacts on CARL lands, conservation lands or CBRS units would not occur since none are located in the project area. FEMA consulted the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) regarding the potential impacts of this project. The Florida DCA stated in their response on February 25, 2003 that water quality improvement in the Keys was an agency priority and that it supports the proposed projects. In a letter dated April 4, 2003, the Florida Office of Intergovernmental Programs stated, on behalf of DCA, FDEP, and the South Florida Regional Planning Council, that Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with the State's comprehensive coastal management program (Appendix B). 3.11 NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.11.1 Noise Affected Environment Noise within the project areas has not been extensively documented but is associated primarily with traffic. Sensitive noise receptors are considered areas that sustain greater impacts from noise sources than other areas (such as industrial areas). Sensitive receptors to noise typically include churches, schools, residential areas and dwellings, hospitals, and public facilities. All potential noise receptors in the project areas were documented by URS on August 1, 2002. As discussed in PEA Section 3.11.1.1 (Noise), Conch Key is an urban residential area along a major roadway, therefore the overall noise level for this type of classification is moderately loud. The current generation of noise is associated primarily with the following: - Normal traffic along US-1, which is about 50 feet south of the proposed treatment plant site; - Emergency response vehicle sirens from the Monroe County Fire Rescue Station, north of US-1, about 150 feet west of the proposed WWTP site; and - Marine fishing/trapping business activities located on the south side of US-1, about 300 feet southeast of the proposed WWTP site. Observed sensitive noise receptors near the proposed WWTP site include: - Occupied mobile homes in the Conch Trailer Court directly north of the site. The closest mobile home is about 60 feet north of the site; and - Occupied mobile homes in the Coral Key Village Mobile Home community, south of US-1. The closest mobile home is about 300 feet south of the site. No other noise receptors were identified. No natural or artificial noise buffers were observed between the proposed treatment plant site and the noise receptors. The proposed transmission system route can be considered a natural vegetated area along a major roadway. The overall noise level for this type of classification is moderately loud. Current noise generation is associated primarily with general vehicle operation along US-1. No noise receptors were observed within close proximity to the proposed transmission system route. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for wastewater management. Therefore impacts on ambient noise conditions would not occur under this alternative. Eventually wastewater improvements would occur and impacts on sensitive noise receptors would likely be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 described below. Given that the activities for Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve a range of construction activities, the impacts related to construction and noise within the project sites would be similar and are discussed in Section 3.11.1.2 (Environmental Consequences). The analysis of noise and treatment plant operations pertains only to Alternative 2 – New WWTP Construction. An increase in localized noise levels would occur at various locations throughout the approximate 8 month duration of construction (Teague, Pers. Comm., 2001). Conch Key residents may experience disruptive noises during allowable construction work hours, but these are permissible under current Monroe County Code (Article III, Sections 13-51 to 13-55). However, the potential for residents to experience hearing damage or loss due to construction noises is considered low. To mitigate for construction-related noise impacts on residents, the applicant would be required to construct vegetative buffers around the project areas (Shimokubo, Pers. Comm., 2003). Construction personnel would be required to observe the established noise ordinance of Monroe County Code in order to reduce disruptive noises to adjacent areas. To mitigate noise impacts on laborers, workers would be required to comply with applicable occupational safety regulations and implement appropriate noise control measures, such as wearing hearing protection (e.g., ear plugs, ear muffs, a helmet, or canal caps) and limiting exposure times. If these measures are implemented during construction and operations, no adverse noise affects on workers are anticipated. 3.11.2 Visual Resources Affected Environment Conch Key is a medium density residential area along a major roadway. The island is 95 percent developed (i.e., 150 developed lots out of 158 lots total) and is dominated by residences, roadways, canals, and a few commercial structures. Vegetation on Conch Key contains some native plant species, but is largely artificially created. There is a mangrove fringe along both sides of US-1 from Conch Key southwest to Tom's Harbor Cut. Views of the nearshore waters may be seen from the bridge crossing Tom's Harbor Cut and along US-1 from the bridge, south to Duck Key. Natural areas of mangrove forests, salt marshes, tropical hardwood hammocks, pine rockland communities and beaches are not present in the project sites. Visual assessments of the project sites were conducted by URS on August 1, 2002. The proposed WWTP site has mowed grasses with a few landscape trees and shrubs, and no natural aesthetic buffers. Dominant features of the project site viewshed include: - US-1; - Canals and marine waters; - Commercial structures; - Monroe County Fire Rescue Station; and - Natural coastal communities, including mangroves. The area along the proposed transmission system route is a natural vegetated area along a major roadway. Vegetation along either side of US-1 consists of mowed grasses, coastal mangroves and salt marsh. Dominant features of the project site viewshed include: - US-1; - Marine waters; - Tom's Harbor Cut bridges (US-1 and the historic Flagler Railroad bridges); - Landscaping (along the entranceway to Duck Key); and - Natural coastal communities including mangroves. Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, Monroe County applicants would not receive FEMA funds for wastewater improvements. However, at some point, construction similar to that proposed in the alternatives, would occur. As such, effects on visual resources would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 described below. Under Alternative 2, construction of a WWTP would not adversely affect the viewshed on Conch Key, since the island is mostly developed and does not contain unique natural communities, high quality and unique views, or natural areas. The treatment facility may cause an aesthetic impact to the nearby residents. To mitigate these effects, the areas surrounding the WWTP would be landscaped with vegetative screens to obscure views from nearby residents and traffic on US-1. Under Alternative 3, visual effects from construction of a vacuum pump station would be similar to those from Alternative 2. Visual effects may be mitigated through use of vegetative screens, to obscure views of the pump station from nearby residents and traffic on US-1. Most of the transmission system would be underground; therefore, no impacts on the existing aesthetics are expected along those portions. The new force main would be exposed along the south side of the US-1 bridge as it crosses Tom's Harbor Cut; however, the pipe will be placed along side the existing water main and should not have a notable aesthetic impact. 4. Section 4 FOUR Cumulative Effects Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to the FKAA for wastewater management improvements. Thus, Conch Key, private wastewater utility operators, business owners, and homeowners would have to get alternate funding for the large capital costs to improve their wastewater treatment systems to meet the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. Conch Key residents that currently use on-site systems, such as cesspools and septic systems, to manage wastes would have to construct either community or regional WWTPs, suitable on-site wastewater nutrient reduction systems (OWNRS), and/or upgrade or rebuild existing WWTPs. As a result, the cumulative effects on physical, biological and socioeconomic resources would be similar across all alternatives, and are discussed below. Currently there are no infrastructure projects under construction or planned near the project area (Buckley, pers. comm. 2003). 4.1 TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY Implementation of proposed new wastewater treatment services on Conch Key would cumulatively increase the island's impervious surface area due to the construction of wastewater treatment systems. However, the total additional impervious surface would be a relatively small part of Conch Key's surface area. Soils would be temporarily disturbed during construction; however, the implementation of BMPs would decrease the potential for short-term surface soil erosion. No cumulative effects are anticipated for topography and geology. 4.2 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY Cumulative effects on water resources, including jurisdictional wetlands, groundwater, surface waters, marine waters, and water quality for the Florida Keys are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.2. Considering Keys-wide wastewater and stormwater management activities and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP), cumulative water quality improvements are expected in the service area, in the canals and nearshore marine waters, and to a lesser extent, also in offshore marine waters. 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Cumulative effects on biological resources and special status species are expected to be beneficial due to improved groundwater, surface waters, and marine water quality. Cumulative effects on biological resources are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.3 (Biological Resources). 4.4 AIR QUALITY Cumulative effects on air quality are expected to be minimal. Cumulative effects on air quality are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.4 (Air Quality). 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Since wastewater projects under the No Action Alternative would not be subject to Section 106 review for potential effects on cultural resources, potential cumulative effects on historic and cultural resources may occur. Coordination and project review with the SHPO and Monroe County Historic Preservation Society would minimize the effects on cultural resources from ground disturbing activities associated with wastewater projects. No cumulative impacts on cultural resources are anticipated. Cumulative effects on cultural resources are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.5 (Cultural Resources). 4.6 SOCIOECONOMICS The implementation of wastewater services would cumulatively improve ground and nearshore water quality and presumably reduce or eliminate the number of health advisories for beaches and canals in the Keys. This would likely increase the number of visitors to beaches that formerly posted advisories and/or reduce visitor pressure on alternate beaches and recreational activities, consequently having a positive effect on tourism. The cumulative effects of a strong tourism sector on the economy of the Keys would be positive, with greater demand for goods and services resulting. Water quality improvements would also benefit commercial fisheries to the extent they are currently being adversely impacted by nutrient pollution. Generally, it may be predicted that harvested species that occur in nearshore waters such as spiny lobster, white mullet, gray snapper, various flounder, shrimp, and stone crab would benefit from improved water quality. Benefits may range from relatively insignificant to potentially substantial improvements in harvest rates, thus benefiting the fishing industry. With the use of FEMA grant funding towards the costs of wastewater treatment for Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation Key, no significant cumulative economic impacts to service recipients are expected 4.7 DEMOGRAPHICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Although the implementation of any of the alternatives would generally result in an increase in the cost of wastewater disposal for residents, the siting of wastewater facilities under Alternatives 2 or 3 is not expected to cause cumulative adverse effects on minority and/or low- income populations. This is due to the mitigation measures of financial assistance to low-income property owners discussed in Section 3.7.2 above. Though the No Action Alternative has the potential to cause cumulative adverse affects to minority and/or low-income populations, this will depend on the final costs of 2010-compliant system chosen, the amount of State and Federal grants and contributions, and the details of the chosen financing options, including applicable repayment terms. Cumulative effects on demographics and environmental justice are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.7 (Demographics and Environmental Justice). 4.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Potential cumulative effects from hazardous materials an wastes are not expected. Cumulative effects from hazardous materials are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.8 (Hazardous Materials and Wastes). 4.9 INFRASTRUCTURE The construction of wastewater facilities proposed in Alternatives 2 or 3, in combination with other wastewater activities throughout the Keys, would lead to an overall centralization of wastewater treatment systems compared to individual septic tanks and cesspits. This should improve the maintenance and servicing of wastewater systems and improve overall water quality throughout the Keys. Implementation of Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 is expected to result in minimal adverse cumulative impacts on Monroe County's overall utility infrastructure. 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING The installation of new wastewater facilities is not expected to cause changes to the County's existing growth pattern. Since the proposed facilities are sited outside of conservation, CARL lands, and CBRS units, adverse cumulative effects on these special status lands are not anticipated. The Florida Keys Tidal Restoration Project, a component of the CERP, is located south of Duck Key; therefore no cumulative impacts on this project would occur. PEA Section 4.2.10 discusses the cumulative effects of the alternatives on land use and planning. 4.11 NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES Potential cumulative effects on noise and visual resources are expected to be minimal. Cumulative effects on noise and visual resources are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.11 (Noise and Visual Resources). 5. Section 5 FIVE Public Participation FEMA's public involvement activities related to the proposed Conch Key wastewater project began with the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare this Draft SEA (Appendix D), in view of providing the public an opportunity to give early comments. The NOI was published in The Reporter on January 24, 2003; the Key West Keynoter on January 25, 2003; and in the Key West Citizen on January 26, 2003. It was sent to the agencies and organizations listed in Appendix B. The Draft SEA is being released on July 7, 2003 for a 15-day intergovernmental review and public comment period. It will be made available to the public at the Marathon Branch of the Monroe County Public Library (3251 Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL 33050) and on the FEMA Web page at http://www.fema.gov/ehp/. FEMA will be holding a public meeting on the proposed projects on July 15, 2003 at Emergency Operations Center at the Marathon Government Center 2798 Overseas Hwy, Marathon, Florida. As part of its NEPA process, FEMA will review comments submitted by the public and government agencies and address these comments in the Final SEA. In addition to FEMA's public involvement activities, FKAA has held project-specific meetings in Conch Key. FKAA's public meeting for the Conch Key project was held on December 3, 2002 at the Monroe County Fire Station on Conch Key. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting. Prior to this meeting, Monroe County held a series of public meetings throughout the Keys during the development of the MCSWMP as described in PEA Section 5 (Public Involvement). 6. Section 6 SIX Mitigation Measures and Permits 6.1 MITIGATION In order to mitigate impacts on the preferred alternative, the project applicant would be required to: - Develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; - Implement appropriate best management practices (BMPs) during construction; - Construct vegetative barriers around the treatment plant site to reduce construction noise and obscure views from US-1 and adjacent residences; - Implement low income assistance program as described in Section 3.7.3 of this SEA and Section 3.7.1.5; - Ensure residential service recipients would not be charged hook-up costs beyond those presented in the PEA; - Develop and fully implement of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, under FDEP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements; and - Perform sliplining work in accordance with Section 62-604.400, Florida Administrative Code. - Provide wastewater service at a cost that falls below the affordability threshold described in the PEA. - Implement financial assistance for low-income and very low-income residents, consistent with FEMA's guidelines and definitions as described in the PEA; 6.2 PERMITS AND LICENSES Permits required for the construction and operation of the Conch Key Wastewater Treatment System are listed in PEA Appendix E (Applicable Permit Information). These permits may include an Application to Construct/Operate/Abandon Class V Injection well Systems; a Construction/Clearance Permit; a Certification of Construction Completion; an Authorization for Use; an Application for Plugging and Abandonment Permit; a Notification to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection of Ownership; and a Certification of Monitor Well Completion. Construction activities would also require authorization in the form of two Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs); one from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and one from the Monroe County Growth Management Division. 7. Section 7 SEVEN Consultations and References 7.1 REFERENCES Bergin, Tim. 2002. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. Personal communication with Amy Lecours, URS Group, Inc. Boyle Engineering Corporation. 2002. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Conch Key Wastewater System, Preliminary Design Report. Contract No. FW-F76-303-00. Buckley, Jerry. 2003. Monroe County Planning Department. Personal communication with Laura Cherney, URS Group, Inc. Caffry, Wendy. 2001. Medical Technologist, Lower Keys Medical Center. Personal communication with Jonathan Randall, URS Group, Inc. Chiappone, M. 1996. Marine Benthic Communities of the Florida Keys. In: Site Characterization for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Environs, Volume 4. The Preserver, Zenda, Wisconsin. Chiappone, M. and K. M. Sullivan. 1994. Ecological structure and dynamics of nearshore hard- bottom communities in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science 54(3):747-756. _______. 1996. Functional ecology and ecosystem trophodynamics. In: Site Characterization for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Environs, Volume 8. The Preserver, Zenda, Wisconsin. D and D Enterprises, Inc. 2001. Personal communication with Joyce Friedenberg, URS Group, Inc. Edwards, Scott. 2002. Personal communication with Amy Lecours, URS Group, Inc. Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT). 2002. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Conch Key Property. ECT No. 02-0987-0100 C. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1999. National Flood Insurance Program, Consolidated CBRA Q3 Electronic Flood Hazard Data. Diskette 4. Florida and Georgia. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2002. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Wastewater Management Improvements in the Florida Keys. Florida Internet Group, Inc. 1997. Nichols Seafood of Conch Key. http://www.upperkeys.com/nichols/. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA). 2002. Wastewater Management System for Conch Key, Monroe County, Florida. Basis of Conceptual Design Report. Florida Keys Fishing Club, 2000. Sunset Villas of the Florida Keys. www.sunsetvillas.com/fishing.htm. Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) Technical Report TR-4. 2000. Benthic Habitats of the Florida Keys. In association with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. FMRI. 1992. Benthic Habitats of the Florida Keys CD-ROM, ARC\INFO Coverage. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Fonseca, A.S., W. J. Kenworthy and G.W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the conservation and restoration of seagrasses in the United States and adjacent waters. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 12. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 222 pp. Garcia, Carlos, 2003. Senior Hazardous Waste Specialist, URS Group, Inc. Personal Communication with Ramon Mendieta, URS Group, Inc. Kruczynski, W. 1999. Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources Effects, and Solutions. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Line, 2003. Personal correspondence with Mrs. Nichols, Owner of Bayview Inn Marina, 4/10/2003. McNeese, P. 1998. Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) Project Technical Summary Document. Monroe County. 2002. Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report, Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. July. Monroe County. 2000. Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. Volume 1. Submitted by CH2MHILL. June. Monroe County Property Appraiser database. 2001. Monroe County. 2001. Stormwater Management Master Plan. Prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., Keith and Associates, Inc. in association with Environmental Consulting Systems, Glen Boe and Associates, Mote Marine Laboratories, The Market Share Company, and Valerie Settles, Esq. Vol. 1 (February), 2 (August). Monroe County. 1995. Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Technical Document. Monroe County Planning Department. Key West, FL. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 2002. National Register Information System database, Park Net, National Park Service. http://www.nr.nps.gov/. Nichols, Kelly, 2003. Daughter of owner of Nichols Seafood, Personal correspondence with URS, 4/10/2003. Nutting Engineers, Inc. 2002. Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. Wastewater Treatment Plant & Vacuum Pump Station, Conch Key, Florida. Paul, J.P., J.B. Rose, J. 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, Florida. Appl. Environ. Mircobiol. 61:2230-2234. Shimokubo, Ray, 2003. Wastewater Engineer, FKAA. Personal Communication with Ramon Mendieta, URS Group, Inc. Southeast Environmental Research Center (SERC)-Florida International University (FIU) Water Quality Monitoring Network, as supported by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/SERC Cooperative Agreements #C-10244 and #C-13178 as well as EPA Agreement #X994621-94-0. March 1995 - Present. http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/FKNMS-CD/2001FKNMS.pdf, http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/FKNMS-CD/DataDL.htm. State of Florida, Department of Health (DOH). 2002. Florida Healthy Beaches Program. http://apps3.doh.state.fl.us/env/beach/webout/default.cfm. Szmant, A.M. and A. Forrester. 1996. Water column and sediment Nitrogen and Phosphorus distribution patterns in the Florida Keys. Coral Reefs. 15: 21-41. Teague, Jack 2001. Wastewater Programs Administrator, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. Personal communication with Sonya Krogh and Jonathan Randall, URS Group, Inc. U.S. Census, 2003 citation: http://www.cms.gov/medicaid/eligibility/pov0103.pdf U.S. Census. 2002. U.S. Poverty Threshold Statistics for Fiscal Year 2002. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/ threshld/thresh02.html U.S. Census. 2000. DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics. Geographic Area: Duck Key CDP, Florida. www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1995. Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture/National Resources Conservation Division in cooperation with the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Stations, and Soil and Water Science Department; and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 72 pp. URS Corporation. 2002a. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment on Wastewater Management Improvements in the Florida Keys. Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA. URS Corporation. 2002b. Arterial and Travel Time/Delay Study. Prepared for Monroe County. Williams, Zully, 2001. Project Manager, Village of Islamorada. Personal communication with Sonya Krogh, URS Group, Inc. Wilson, Ron, 2003. Owner of Conch Key Cottages Resort Personal correspondence URS, 4/14/2003. 8. Section 8 EIGHT List of Preparers Project Management and Technical Research Daniel M. Savercool, M.S., Senior Ecologist and Ecological Resources Manager. Project Director. Jonathan Randall, M.S., Project Environmental Planner. Project manager, technical researcher, and document author. Amy Lecours, M.S., Project Environmental Scientist. Technical researcher and document author. Laura Cherney, Environmental Scientist. Technical researcher and document author. Keith Stannard, Senior Environmental Scientist. Field biologist and document author. Michael Breiner, Project Technician. Field biologist and document author. Justin Patton, Archaeologist. Lead archaeologist and document author. Joyce Friedenberg, M.S., Economist. Technical researcher and document author. Brian Richards, GIS Analyst. Lead GIS analyst and document author. Technical Peer Review Roger Gunther, M.S., Ecological Services Program Director. Document peer reviewer. Angela Chaisson, Senior Ecologist and NEPA Group Leader. Document peer reviewer. FEMA Technical and Editorial Review Science Kilner, M.S., Region IV Lead Environmental and Historical Preservation Specialist. Document peer reviewer. William Straw, Ph.D., FEMA Region IV Environmental Officer. Document peer reviewer. Appendix A Acronyms and Abbreviations AADF Annual average daily wastewater flow ADID Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands amsl above mean sea level alum aluminum sulfate APE Area of Potential Effect ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment BAT Best available technology BFE base flood elevation bls below land surface BMPs Best management practices BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CARL Conservation and Recreation Lands CBRS Coastal Barrier Resource System CDP Census designated place CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program CFR Code of Federal regulations DCA Department of Community Affairs DOH Department of Health EDU Equivalent dwelling unit EFH Essential Fish Habitat EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERP Environmental Resource Permit ESA Endangered Species Act F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMRI Florida Marine Research Institute Ft Foot GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute LOS level of service LS-B Lift Station B LS-F Lift Station F MCSWMP Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan mg/L milligrams per liter MH manhole ml milliliters MM Mile marker MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places OFW Outstanding Florida Waters OWNRS On-site wastewater nutrient reduction systems PAED Planning Area Enumeration District PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment PHF peak hour flow ppm parts per million PVC polyvinyl chloride ROGO Rate-of-Growth Ordinance ROW Right-of-way SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment SERC Southeast Environmental Research Center SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer T&E Threatened and endangered TN Total Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorus TSS Total Suspended Solids ΅m micromoles URS URS Corporation US-1 U.S. Route 1 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VPS Vacuum pump station WTS Wastewater transmission system WWTP Wastewater treatment plant Appendix B Agency Coordination Letters List of Agencies Contacted Jay Slack, Field Supervisor USFWS South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 cc: Phil Frank, Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Winn-Dixie Plaza Big Pine Key, FL 33043 Georgia Cranmore, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator NMFS, Southeast Region Protective Resources Division 9721 Executive Center Drive North St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Jocelyn Karazsia, Fishery Biologist National Marine Fisheries Service 11420 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 103 Miami, FL 33176 cc: Rickey N. Ruebsamen, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator NMFS, Southeast Region Habitat Conservation Division 9721 Executive Center Drive North, Suite 201 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Dr. Janet Matthews, Director State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historical Resources R.A. Gray Building, Room 305 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 cc: Laura Kammerer, Section Administrator Compliance and Review Section Florida State Clearinghouse Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mark Robson, Regional Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission South Region 8535 North Lake Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33412 Gus Rios, Branch Manager FDEP, South District - Marathon Branch 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 221 Marathon, FL 33050 cc: Richard Cantrell, South District Director FDEP – South District Office 2295 Victoria Avenue, Suite 364 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2549 Cecilia Weaver, Acting Director South Florida Water Management District Florida Keys Service Center 80431 Old Hwy. Islamorada, FL 33036 John Studt, South Permits Branch Chief U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Permits Division 4400 PGA Blvd., Suite 500 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 cc: Vic Anderson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Marathon Regulatory Office 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 221 Marathon, FL 33050-4276 Heinz J. Mueller, Chief US EPA, Region 4 Office of Environmental Assessment Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 Gerald Briggs, Chief Florida Department of Health Bureau of Onsite Sewage, HSES 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin #A08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1713 Bart Bibler, Chief Florida Department of Health Bureau of Water Programs, HSEW 4042 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, FL 32311 Teresa Tinker, Policy Coordinator Growth Management and Strategic Planning Office of the Governor 1501 Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Miles Anderson Division of Emergency Management Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumand Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Rebecca Jetton Planning Manager Marathon Regional Service Center 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, FL 33050 Bill Causey, Superintendent Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary P.O. Box 500368 Marathon, FL 33050 Tim McGarry Monroe County Growth Management Director 2798 Overseas Highway Marathon, FL 33052 TO OBTAIN COPIES OF AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE, PLEASE CONTACT: Stephen Carruth URS Group, Inc. 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 tel: 301-670-5478 fax: 301-309-1579 stephen_carruth@urscorp.com Appendix C Site Photographs Appendix D Public Notice FEMA 1) NOTICE OF FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, 2) NOTICE OF PROGRAMMATIC FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, AND 3) NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CONCH KEY WASTEWATER PROJECT The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has received a grant application from the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) to fund construction of a wastewater treatment system to serve Conch Key, Florida. The proposed project would be funded through FEMA 1249-DR Post Disaster - Unmet Needs funds, as noticed on August 6, 1999, in Vol. 64 No. 151 of the Federal Register. Matching funds will be provided through the Florida Division of Emergency Management and the FKAA. The purpose of the project is to improve the Conch Key service area's wastewater treatment to meet State requirements (Chapter 99-395 Laws of Florida) by 2010, per the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. FEMA has completed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Wastewater Management Improvements in the Keys, for various wastewater projects including Conch Key; and hereby publishes notice of availability of the Final PEA. A Programmatic Finding of No Significant Impact has been issued for the PEA. These documents can be obtained by writing to the point of contact below or may be viewed and downloaded at the following website: http://www.fema.gov/ep/assess.shtm. Furthermore, FEMA hereby publishes its notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the proposed action serving Conch Key, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (PL 91-190) and associated environmental statutes, as implemented by FEMA's regulations 44 CFR Part 10; and in accordance with Presidential Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management); as implemented in 44 CFR Part 9. This SEA will address the purpose and need of the proposed project, project alternatives considered, the affected environment, project and site-specific environmental consequences, and impact mitigation measures. Once completed, the Draft SEA will be available for public review and comment; and a public meeting will be scheduled. Project Alternatives: Alternatives to be considered in the SEA include: 1) No Action Alternative: The Conch Key service area continues to use its existing wastewater treatment systems and obtains funding from other sources to meet the State 2010 requirements and the Comprehensive Plan deadline; 2) Action Alternative 1: Implement the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan recommendation of building a community wastewater collection system and treatment plant of Conch Key; 3) Action Alternative 2: Install a wastewater collection system on Conch Key to convey wastewater to the existing Hawk's Cay Wastewater Treatment Plant located on Duck Key, subject to Monroe County acquiring ownership or beneficial use of the existing treatment plant from its current private owner. Comment Period: Comments will be accepted from the affected public; local, state and federal agencies; and other interested parties in order to consider and appropriately scope and evaluate the likely effects of the proposed Conch Key project alternatives on the physical, biological, and social/built environment. Comments should be in writing, sent to the FEMA point of contact listed below, and postmarked no later than 15 days of this notice. Point of Contact: Ms. Science Kilner, Lead Environmental Specialist FEMA Region IV 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, Georgia 30341 Fax: (770) 220-5440 science.kilner@dhs.gov Appendix E Public Comments Public Comments resulting from the public comment period and public meeting will be summarized in the Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment. Appendix F Regulated Fisheries Species in the Keys (Not Available in TXT format. Please refer to MS Word version or the public notice to view in hard copy) Appendix G Conch Key Cultural Resources Assessment Report TABLE OF CONTENTS E:\CONCH KEY DRAFT EDITS.DOC\27-JUN-03\\ i List of Tables, Figures and Appendices E:\CONCH KEY DRAFT EDITS.DOC\27-JUN-03\\ iv Abstract SECTIONONE Introduction E:\CONCH KEY DRAFT EDITS.DOC\27-JUN-03\\ 1-2 Appendix A Acronyms and Abbreviations E:\CONCH KEY DRAFT EDITS.DOC\27-JUN-03\\ A-2 Appendix B Agency Coordination Letters E:\CONCH KEY DRAFT EDITS.DOC\27-JUN-03\\ B-2 Appendix C Site Photographs E:\CONCH KEY DRAFT EDITS.DOC\27-JUN-03\\ C-1 Appendix D Public Notice E:\CONCH KEY DRAFT EDITS.DOC\27-JUN-03\\ D-1 Appendix E Public Comments E:\CONCH KEY DRAFT EDITS.DOC\27-JUN-03\\ E-1 Appendix F Regulated Fisheries Species in the Keys E:\CONCH KEY DRAFT EDITS.DOC\27-JUN-03\\ F-1 Appendix G Conch Key Cultural Resources Assessment Report E:\CONCH KEY DRAFT EDITS.DOC\27-JUN-03\\ G-1