FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT


Plantation Key Colony / North Plantation Key
Proposed Wastewater Treatment System
Village of Islamorada
Monroe County, Florida


Prepared For
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
3003 Chamblee-Tucker Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30341


Prepared By
URS Group, Inc.
200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101
Gaithersburg, MD 20878

700 South Royal Poinciana Blvd. Suite 1000
Miami Springs, FL  33166



October 20, 2003


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT	Ab-1
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	1-3
SECTION 2	ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS	2-1
2.1	ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE	2-1
2.2	ALTERNATIVE 2 – CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ON BAYSIDE SITE)	2-
1
2.2.1	Wastewater Collection and Transmission System	2-2
2.2.1.1	Collection System	2-2
2.2.1.2	Transmission System Components	2-3
2.2.2	Wastewater Treatment Plant	2-5
2.2.2.1	Site Description	2-5
2.2.2.2	System Components	2-6
2.2.2.3	System Operation	2-7
2.2.2.4	Effluent Disposal	2-8
2.2.3	Construction Activities	2-9
2.2.4	Operation and Maintenance	2-10
2.3	ALTERNATIVE 3 – CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ON OCEANSIDE	2-
10
2.3.1	Site Description	2-10
2.4	ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION	2-12
SECTION 3	AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENT 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	3-8
3.2.3.1	Floodplains	3-8
3.2.3.2	Wetlands	3-9
3.3	BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES	3-10
3.3.1	Terrestrial Ecosystems	3-13
3.3.1.1	Pine Rocklands and Tropical Hardwood Hammocks	3-14
3.3.1.2	Mangrove Forests and Salt Marshes	3-15
3.3.1.3	Freshwater Systems	3-16
3.3.1.4	Dunes and Coastal Ridges	3-16
3.3.2	Aquatic Ecosystems	3-16
3.3.2.1	Seagrass Beds and Sand Flats	3-17
3.3.2.2	Coral Reefs	3-18
3.3.2.3	Hardbottom	3-18
3.3.2.4	Sandy Bottom	3-18
3.3.2.5	Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative	3-18
3.3.2.6	Alternative 2 - Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant on Bayside 
Site	3-19
3.3.2.7	Alternative 3 - Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant on Oceanside
	3-19
3.3.3	Special Status Species	3-20
3.4	AIR QUALITY	3-21
3.5	CULTURAL RESOURCES	3-22
3.6	SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES	3-24
3.6.1	Tourism	3-24
3.6.2	Fishing Industry	3-26
3.6.3	Local Fees and Taxes	3-27
3.6.4	Public Health	3-29
3.7	DEMOGRAPHICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE	3-29
3.7.1	Population and Race	3-30
3.7.2	Income and Poverty	3-30
3.7.3	Wastewater Fees and Affordability for Keys Low-income Residents	3-31
3.8	WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS	3-33
3.9	INFRASTRUCTURE	3-35
3.9.1	Traffic and Circulation	3-35
3.9.2	Utilities and Services	3-35
3.10	LAND USE AND PLANNING	3-37
3.11	NOISE AND VISUAL RESOURCES	3-39
3.11.1	Noise	3-39
3.11.2	Visual Resources	3-41
SECTION 4	CUMULATIVE IMPACTS	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	4-2
4.5	CULTURAL RESOURCES	4-2
4.6	SOCIOECONOMICS	4-2
4.7	DEMOGRAPHICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE	4-2
4.8	WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS	4-2
4.9	INFRASTRUCTURE	4-3
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	CONCLUSIONS	7-1
SECTION 8	REFERENCES	8-1
SECTION 9	LIST OF PREPARERS	9-1



Tables
Table 1-1	Subdivisions within the Service Area
Table 1-2	Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Service Area
Table 2-1	Preliminary Wastewater Influent Characteristics
Table 3-1	FDEP Forms Required for Injection Wells
Table 3-2	Observed Plant Species at the Preferred Site (Alternative 2)
Table 3-3	Observed Plant Species at the Alternate Site (Alternative 3)
Table 3-4	Existing Vegetation in the Service Area
Table 3-5	Commercial Businesses in the Service Area
Table 3-6	Fiscal Year 2003 – HUD's Low-Income and Very Low-Income Limits, 
Monroe 
County, Florida
Table 3-7	Alternatives 2 & 3 Low-Income and Very Low-Income Funding Assistance 
for the 
System Capital Cost
Table 3-8	The Village of Islamorada – Abandonment and Lateral Costs Assistance 
Program 
Priority Scoring System
Table 3-9	Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Village of Islamorada 

Figures
Figure 1-1	Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2-1	Service Area for the Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation Key 
Wastewater 
Treatment System
Figure 2-2	Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation Key Proposed Wastewater 
Collection 
System Preliminary Layout
Figure 2-3	Preferred Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Location 
Figure 2-4	Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Site Plan
Figure 2-5	New Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Location Map
Figure 3-1	Project Area Soils
Figure 3-2	Project Area Floodplains 
Figure 3-3	Project Area Vegetation
Figure 3-4	Project Area Benthic Habitats 
Figure 3-5	Project Area Current Land Uses 

Appendices
Appendix A	Acronyms and Abbreviations
Appendix B	Agency Coordination Letters
Appendix C	Site Photographs
Appendix D	Public Notice
Appendix E	Community Development Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program 
Overview
Appendix F	Regulated Fisheries Species in the Keys
Appendix G	Land Protection Agreement between DCA and the Village
Appendix H	Plantation Key Cultural Resources Assessment Survey Report


ABSTRACT
In response to Hurricane Georges damages and losses, 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 Village of Islamorada (Islamorada), requesting Federal 
assistance to 
construct a new wastewater treatment facility to service Plantation Key 
Colony/North Plantation 
Key. FEMA prepared this draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to 
address the 
likely effects of implementing three alternatives proposed in North Plantation 
Key. The 
alternatives evaluated in this document include:

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative
FEMA would not fund the proposed wastewater treatment project within North 
Plantation 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 Bayside Alternative 
(Proposed)
The Village would use FEMA funding to construct a new community WWTP on the 
bayside of 
U.S. Route 1 (US-1) at Mile Marker (MM) 89.8 and associated collection system 
for Plantation 
Key Colony. Although the WWTP is designed for capacity to serve the present 
North Plantation 
Key service area population, grant funding would not include installation of a 
collection system 
for this sub-service area. Wastewater effluent would be collected through either 
vacuum 
pumping or a low-pressure grinder pump system. Following Advanced Wastewater 
Treatment 
(AWT), wastewater effluent would be disposed of through shallow injection wells 
or made 
available for reuse. The Village would be responsible for facility construction, 
operation, and 
maintenance.

Alternative 3 – Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant on Oceanside Alternative
The Village would use FEMA funding to construct a new community WWTP serving the 
same 
area as described under Alternative 2, but on the ocean side of US-1 at MM 89.7. 
Wastewater 
collection, treatment and disposal, as well as plant operation responsibilities 
would be the same 
as under Alternative 2.

Alternatives 2 and 3
For both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, potential project effects on 
topography, soils, geology, 
floodplains and wetlands, air quality, 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 public health, water resources, and water quality 
are anticipated to be 
beneficial. Effects on cultural resources would be negligible. Potential effects 
on biological 
resources resulting from site development would be mitigated through the 
purchase and 
protection of replacement habitat at a 2 to 1 ratio.  Socioeconomic effects 
would be mitigated 
with the use of FEMA grant funding, and the system 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 
system capital 
costs, and the lateral hook-up and onsite system 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.  In addition, the Village is providing 
assistance, beyond 
the FEMA mandated levels, to help low-income service recipients with onsite 
system 
abandonment and lateral hook–up costs.



Section 1 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 not met 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, the Village of Islamorada (Village), through the State 
of Florida 
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), has applied for Federal funding 
assistance from 
FEMA for construction of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that would service 
Plantation 
Key Colony (PKC) and North Plantation Key, improve wastewater treatment and 
ultimately 
water quality in the Florida Keys, as well as assist residents in meeting state 
mandated water 
quality targets as set forth in the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 
2010.  The Village  
2001 Comprehensive Plan requires these Standards be met 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 
associated with a range of wastewater treatment projects in the Florida Keys. 
PEA Section 1.7 
(Water Quality Protection Measures at the Local, State, and Federal Levels) 
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 2002) as proposed by FEMA and 
hereby 
incorporates the PEA by reference, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. 

1.3	PROJECT LOCATION
The Village is located in the northern portion of the Florida Keys chain, known 
as the Upper 
Keys, and encompasses four islands, which are, from north to south, Plantation 
Key, Windley 
Key, Upper Matecumbe and Lower Matecumbe Key. The Village limits extend from US-
1 Mile 
Marker (MM) 72.7 to MM 90.9; Plantation Key is located between MM 85.5 and MM 
90.9. It is 
about 1,071 acres in area and is bordered by Tavernier Creek to the north and 
Snake Creek to the 
south.

Proposed wastewater treatment improvements would service the Plantation Key 
Colony and 
other subdivisions (Table 1-1), as well as possible schools, businesses, and 
other residences in 
North Plantation Key, for a total wastewater service area of about 517 acres, 
located within 
Sections 4 and 5, Townships 62 and 63 South, Range 38 East (Figure 1-1). The 
service area is 
mostly developed (79.5 percent), with 106.0 acres of vacant land.

 
[Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1-1 shows the proposed project location on Plantation Key]

The area to be served by the proposed Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation Key 
wastewater 
treatment plant are comprised of two sub-service areas as follows:
*	Plantation Key Colony Subdivision (PKC) Sub-service Area (Phase I): This 
sub-
service area occupies 130 acres and is located west of U.S. Route 1 (US-1) in 
the center 
of Plantation Key. It is bounded by Plantation Canal to the north, Lake Road to 
the south, 
Florida Bay to the west and Gardenia Street to the east.

*	North Plantation Key Sub-service Area (Phase II): This sub-service area is 
comprised 
of the remainder of North Plantation Key and is located north and east of the 
PKC Sub-
service area. It is bounded by Tavernier Creek to the north and northeast, the 
Atlantic 
Ocean to the east, High Street to the south, and Florida Bay and US-1 to the 
west, and is 
387 acres in area.

[Table 1-1.  Subdivisions within the Service Area 
(First American Real Estate Solutions, 1999)
Oceanside:                 	Bayside:
Boatman's Colony 2        	Kahiki Harbor 2
Tropical Atlantic Shores 2	Edenaire 2
Fontaine Lake Estates 2		Tavernaero 2
Plantation Shores 2		Plantation Tropical Park 2
				Sunshine Estates 2
				Plantation Key Colony 1
				Lake Harbor 1

1 PKC Subdivision Sub-service Area
2 North Plantation Key Sub-service Area]

1.4	PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose and need for action is described in PEA Section 1.9 (Purpose of and 
Need for 
Action). In particular, the purpose of the proposed Village 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.
As described in PEA Section 2.1 (Alternative Development Background), "hot 
spots" represent 
priority areas where the high concentration of people and poor existing 
wastewater treatment 
practices justify the installation of a more advanced wastewater treatment 
system within that 
area. The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (MCSWMP; Monroe County, 
2001) 
ranked Plantation Key Colony as the 6th most critical "hot spot" in the Upper 
Keys, the 14th most 
critical "hot spot" Keys-wide (Appendix C [Hot Spot Locations] of the PEA), and 
is the number 
one priority within the Village ( MCSWMP; Monroe County, 2003). The "hot spot" 
ranking is 
linked to the use of onsite septic systems as a main wastewater treatment system 
for the majority 
of residences and businesses in North Plantation Key. The remainder of 
residences and 
businesses are connected to one of six existing WWTPs (Table 1-2). 


[Table 1-2.  Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Service Area
Name:					Address/Location:
Plantation Key Elementary School	100 Lake Street
Coral Shores High School		MM 90, Bayside
Sea Gulls Condominium			100 Wrenn Street
Turek Building				MM 90.5, Bayside
Tavernier Harbor			90311 Overseas Highway
Tropic Vista Motel			90701 Overseas Highway]


Section 2 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. The Village has prepared the Plantation Key Colony/North 
Plantation Key 
Wastewater Treatment System Conceptual Design (PBSJ, 2002), and subsequent 
request for 
proposals (RFP; Islamorada, 2002) that outline preferred alternatives for 
wastewater 
improvements within its selected service area. Based on the information 
contained in the 
conceptual design report and in consultation with representatives from the 
Village, the following 
alternatives were developed for consideration in this SEA: No Action 
(Alternative 1), 
Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant on Bayside Site (Alternative 2), and 
Centralized 
Wastewater Treatment Plant on Oceanside Site (Alternative 3).  While FEMA 
funding would 
only be applied to the Plantation Key Colony subservice (Phase I)  area, this 
document considers 
the effects of the entire service area the plant is designed for (Phase I and 
II, the North Plantation 
Key subservice area) because these are viewed as "connected actions" under NEPA 
despite 
separate and possibly delayed funding.

2.1	ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
As discussed in Section 2.3.1 (No Action Alternative) of the PEA, FEMA would not 
provide 
funding assistance to the Village for the proposed wastewater treatment project. 
To meet the 
Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010, the Village and service area 
residents and 
businesses would need to identify another funding source for upgrading currently 
inadequate 
wastewater treatment systems.

2.2	ALTERNATIVE 2 – CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ON 
BAYSIDE SITE)
Alternative 2 is described in Section 2.3.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment 
Plant Alternative) 
of the PEA. The Village would apply FEMA funding to the construction of a new 
community 
WWTP on the bayside of Plantation Key, including the associated wastewater 
collection system 
for Plantation Key Colony. Alternative 2 would establish new service to 
residents formerly 
utilizing onsite systems within the Plantation Key Colony and eventually to the 
North Plantation 
Key service areas. Estimated annual average daily wastewater flow (AADF) for the 
Plantation 
Key Colony subservice area would be about 70,410 gpd.  The Estimated AADF for 
the entire 
service area would be about 226,940 gpd. The system design assumes a complete 
build-out of 
PKC and North Plantation Key that would total 1,232 single-family homes, 49 
mobile homes, 
39 businesses, and two schools (PBSJ, 2002). At the owner's expense, existing 
onsite septic 
systems and cesspools would be removed from residences and businesses in the 
service area. 
Similarly, service recipients would be responsible for installing piping from 
their residence or 
business to the wastewater collection system service lateral at the street.
Wastewater improvements would be implemented  in a three-phased approach as 
shown in 
Figure 2-1. Phases I and II would consist of the PKC Sub-service area and North 
Plantation Key 
Sub-service Area, respectively. Phase IA would consist of two schools: 
Plantation Key 
Elementary School and Coral Shores High School; although it should be noted 
these schools may 
build/expand their own wastewater system and not require service from the 
proposed plant. 
Removal of existing systems would be phased in accordance with construction of 
the collection 
system, and pursuant to Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements. 
 
[Figure 2-1.	Service Area for the Plantation Key Colony/North
Plantation Key Wastewater Treatment System (PBSJ, 2002)
Figure 2-1 shows the three phases of proposed wastewater improvements in the 
Plantation Key 
Colony/North Plantation Key service area.]

2.2.1	Wastewater Collection and Transmission System
As described in Section 2.3.2.1.1 (Collection Option 1 – Vacuum Pumping) of the 
PEA, a 
vacuum sewer system would be used to collect and transfer wastewater flow from 
houses and 
businesses to the WWTP. Vacuum sewers are typically considered for areas, such 
as the Upper 
Keys, that are difficult to sewer by gravity due to the relatively flat terrain, 
high ground water 
tables, and soil conditions. Therefore, the plant design would be based on a 
vacuum sewer 
system.

2.2.1.1	Collection System
Wastewater flow would be conveyed from houses and businesses via gravity lines 
to a vacuum 
pit or collection sump located in the rights-of-way (ROWs) within the service 
area (Figures 2-2a, 
b, and c). Wastewater collection mains would be installed within existing 
portions of ROWs or 
easements, along the service area roads in front of the residences and 
businesses to be served. 
The streets and ROWs in the service area consist of paved roads with ROW widths 
of about 
40 feet. When wastewater accumulates in the sump, the vacuum interface valve 
located above 
the sump would automatically open and differential air pressure would propel the 
sewage 
through the valve and into the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or high-density 
polyethylene (HDPE) 
vacuum. On average, 2.5 connections would be serviced by each vacuum pit. In 
high-density 
residential areas, fewer vacuum pits would be required. In commercial areas, 
separate vacuum 
pits could be required for each connection. The gravity lines would consist of 
PVC pipes and 
would terminate at the ROW line.

Service laterals, for connection to the collection system by the resident, would 
be provided up to 
the ROW. 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. Soil material would be excavated 
for the 
installation of vacuum sewer mains, vacuum pits, buffer tanks, and gravity 
service laterals.

2.2.1.2	Transmission System Components
Wastewater would be conveyed from the vacuum pits to the wastewater collection 
tank at the 
WWTP through HDPE vacuum lines ranging in size from 3-inches to 10-inches in 
diameter. The 
incoming vacuum lines would connect individually to the collection tank, 
effectively dividing 
the system into zones. The main vacuum lines installed in Phase I would be sized 
to 
accommodate the additional flows from Phase IA and Phase II.

[Figure 2-2 Figure 2-2 shows the preliminary layout of the proposed Plantation 
Key 
Colony/North Plantation Key wastewater collection system, including location of 
the treatment 
plant, vacuum station site, and vacuum lines.]

2.2.2	Wastewater Treatment Plant

2.2.2.1	Site Description
The proposed WWTP site (preferred alternative site) is located on six 
contiguous, vacant lots on 
the bayside of Plantation Key at MM 89.8 (Figure 2-3), immediately northeast of 
Plantation Key 
Elementary School, on the southeast corner of the Plantation Key Colony Sub-
service area, 
between US-1 to the east and Gardenia Street to the west (Photo 2-1). The site 
is roughly 
L-shaped, about 0.8 acre in area, with the long axis of the L-shaped site 
running along US-1 
(Photo 2-2).

Photo 2-1.	North View of the Western Property Boundary
		along Gardenia Street

Photo 2-2.	North View of the Eastern Property Boundary along US-1


[Figure 2-3.	Preferred Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Location 
Figure 2-3 shows the preferred wastewater treatment plant site location. The 
preferred site is 
located on six contiguous, vacant lots on the bayside of Plantation Key at MM 
89.8, immediately 
northeast of Plantation Key Elementary School, on the southeast corner of the 
Plantation Key 
Colony Sub-service area, between US-1 to the east and Gardenia Street to the 
west.]

2.2.2.2	System Components
Design elements at the site include the new WWTP, vacuum station, storage 
facilities for 
maintenance equipment, treatment chemicals, and other operations materials; as 
well as parking, 
paved access roads, and landscaping (Figure 2-4). The WWTP itself would contain 
three aeration 
tanks, odor control equipment, a chlorine tank, Class V injection wells, and an 
equipment 
container for all pumps and blowers. The vacuum station would be located next to 
the WWTP 
and would contain vacuum pumps, sewage pumps, a collection tank, and controls. 
The vacuum 
collection tank in the vacuum station would be made of either steel or 
fiberglass.

[Figure 2-4.	Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Site Plan (PBSJ, 2002)
Figure 2-4 shows the preliminary site plan for the proposed wastewater treatment 
plant. The figure shows 
the location of the plant, vacuum station, and storage facilities for 
maintenance equipment, treatment chemicals, 
and other operations materials; as well as parking, paved access roads, and 
landscaping.]

2.2.2.3	System Operation
The vacuum pumps, located within the vacuum station, would create a negative 
pressure 
condition in the sewer lines (16 to 20 inches of mercury [Hg]). The pressure 
differential would 
open the vacuum interface valves at the vacuum pits that would transport the 
sewage. These 
interface valves would normally be closed and the vacuum pumps would not need to 
run 
continuously. Sewage would flow through the vacuum lines and collect in a 
collection tank at the 
vacuum station. As sewage enters the system, the vacuum would slowly decrease. 
The station 
would be automated based on vacuum and collection tank levels. A stand-by 
generator would 
keep the vacuum sewer system in operation during any extended power outages.
Sewage pumps would transfer sewage from the collection tank through a force main 
to the 
WWTP headworks. Wastewater influent to the WWTP would be typical domestic 
wastewater 
(Table 2-1; Islamorada, 2002). Incoming sewage would be screened by a screenings 
press, which 
would dewater and compact the materials collected by the screens. The screenings 
would be 
removed as required and disposed in an appropriate landfill. Odor control would 
be provided at 
the WWTP headworks, where the screens and screenings press would be located.

[Table 2-1. Preliminary Wastewater Influent Characteristics
Parameter: 				Concentration (mg/l):
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)		250 
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)		250 
Total Nitrogen (TN)			45 
Total Phosphorous (TP)			8 
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)		150]

Effluent at the WWTP would be treated to high-level disinfection (62-600 Florida 
Administrative Code [F.A.C.], Regulations of Domestic Wastewater Facilities, 
water with fecal 
coliform values below detectable limits per 100 milliliters [ml] of sample) 
through the addition 
of liquid chlorine and passage of the effluent through a chlorine contact tank. 
The system would 
be capable of delivering different dosages of chlorine based on the requirements 
for the different 
disposal methods. The chlorination systems would be operated to deliver 
sufficient chlorine to 
maintain a chlorine residual of 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/l) when discharging 
to the shallow 
wells and 1.0 mg/l when discharging to reuse storage. The higher residual for 
reuse is required to 
meet F.A.C. 62- 600.440 criteria.

2.2.2.4	Effluent Disposal
Shallow Injection Wells
Effluent disposal to shallow injection wells, described in detail in Section 
2.3.2.2.1 (Disposal 
Option 1 – Shallow Injection Wells) of the PEA, would be the primary method of 
effluent 
disposal. Because the proposed WWTP would be expected to treat about 226,940 
gdp, it would 
be designed to meet Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 for AWT plant 
(5 BOD/ 5 
TSS/ 3 TN/ 1 TP in ppm) effluent requirements for disposal to shallow Class V 
Injection Wells. 
The injection wells would be designed and constructed to 90-feet depth and cased 
to 60-feet, in 
accordance with the Federal Underground Injection Control program, and F.A.C. 
62-528. 
Sludge that is generated at the WWTP may be transported to a suitable facility 
for final disposal. 
Suitable disposal facilities are located in the City of Homestead and the Miami-
Dade County 
South or Central District Wastewater Treatment Plants, both in Miami-Dade County 
(PBS&J 
2002).  Sludge may also be disposed of as described in Section 3.8.2.2 
(Centralized Wastewater 
Treatment Plan Alternative) of the PEA by being hauled to a remote agricultural 
land application 
site outside of Monroe County in the Lake Okeechobee area of South Florida.

Wastewater Reuse 
Reuse of treated wastewater is discussed in detail in Section 2.3.2.2.2 
(Disposal Option 2 - 
Wastewater Reuse) of the PEA. Treated wastewater may be reused for various 
purposes in 
compliance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 
regulations governing 
wastewater reuse.

Design of this wastewater treatment system may include the option of 
implementing water reuse 
at Founders' Park. Using a Phase I plus IA flow of 79,100 gpd, it was estimated 
about 10.2 acres 
would be required to fully reuse the treatment plant effluent. Effluent may be 
reused at Founders' 
Park over a 24-acre area. This system would require a storage tank, pump 
station, and additional 
piping. The Village would be responsible for identifying a willing recipient of 
the treated 
effluent if this option were selected or used in conjunction with other options. 
FDEP regulates the reuse of treated wastewater through its Domestic Wastewater 
and Water 
Reuse Programs in accordance with Florida State objectives in Section 373.250 
and Section 
403.064 Florida Statutes of encouraging and promoting reuse and requires permits 
under these 
regulations. See PEA Appendix E (Applicable Permit Information, Section 3) for 
additional 
information on permits.

2.2.3	Construction Activities
Construction activities will include building the WWTP and associated 
structures, and will 
require installation of treatment tanks, underground and aboveground pipes, 
pumping stations, 
and sand or fabric filtration facilities. Other related activities at the site 
would include the 
construction of storage facilities for maintenance equipment, treatment 
chemicals, and other 
operations materials; as well as, construction of an administrative building, 
parking lot, and 
paved access road. Removal of septic systems and pipeline trenching activities 
would occur 
throughout the service area.

Excavation for the collection system and WWTP site development, pipelines, and 
removal of 
septic tanks and cesspools would require a bulldozer, front-end loader, and 
several dump trucks 
to haul material, equipment, and construction debris. Temporary construction 
traffic would be 
expected to increase in the vicinity of the proposed facility for about 16 
months (PBSJ, 2002). 
The proposed site would also contain an area that would be used as a temporary 
staging area for 
construction equipment and building materials.

All construction activities would be conducted pursuant to applicable facility 
planning 
regulations at the State and county level. Coordination between the Village of 
Islamorada 
Building Department, Public Works, and Village Engineers, among other parties, 
would be 
required to ensure that the plant's structural and mechanical integrity meet 
current code, and to 
ensure that permits relating to siting, planning, design, and operation are 
obtained and any 
conditions to those permits are met. The Village would also contact the 
diggers/excavation utility 
hotline at the Sunshine State One-Call Center at least two business days prior 
to construction. 

Because the WWTP and service areas are located in the 100-year floodplain, the 
design 
provisions of the Village's Floodplain Ordinance will apply.  Furthermore, 
because of federal 
funding, per Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), as implemented in 
FEMA's 
regulations at 44 CFR Part 9, wastewater treatment facilities are considered 
critical facilities and 
therefore subject to more stringent construction requirements.  Specifically, 
the WWTP and its 
critical operating components must be floodproofed to the 500-year flood 
elevation (44 CFR Part 
9.11).

Appendix E (Applicable Permit Information) of the PEA provides a summary of 
permits 
required for construction of wastewater improvements. The design/build 
contractor would be 
responsible for obtaining all applicable permits.

2.2.4	Operation and Maintenance
The new WWTP would be operated and maintained by the Village.

2.3	ALTERNATIVE 3 – CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ON OCEANSIDE 
Alternative 3 is described in Section 2.3.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment 
Plant Alternative) 
of the PEA. The Village would apply FEMA funding to the construction of a new 
community 
wastewater treatment system on the ocean side of North Plantation Key, including 
associated 
wastewater collection system for Plantation Key Colony. This alternative would 
establish new 
service to residents formerly utilizing onsite systems. Under this alternative, 
the engineering and 
system design are identical to that of Alternative 2; however, the construction 
of the WWTP 
would occur on an alternate site. 

2.3.1	Site Description
The alternate site for the North Plantation Key/Plantation Key Colony WWTP is 
located on the 
ocean side (east side) of US-1 at about MM 89.7 (Figure 2-5). The project area 
is rectangular in 
shape and is slightly more than 1 acre in area. It is bounded by US-1 to the 
west, Old State Road 
4A to the east, Plantation Shores Drive to the north and High Street to the 
south. The project area 
is part of a narrow, contiguous vegetated corridor that extends along the ocean 
side of US-1 
(Photos 2-3 and 2-4).

[Figure 2-5.	New Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Location Map
Figure 2-5 shows the alternate wastewater treatment plant site location on the 
ocean side of Plantation Key.]

Photo 2-3.	South View of Western Property Boundary
		along US-1 Access Road

Photo 2-4.	South View of Eastern Property Boundary along US-1

2.4	ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER 
CONSIDERATION
A number of alternatives were considered but eliminated from further 
consideration in Section 
2.4 (Alternatives Considered but Dismissed) of the PEA. The Bayside Site 
analyzed in the 
Preferred Alternative of this SEA was selected by the Village due to its 
proximity to the service 
area as well as the reduced environmental impacts associated with the property.

Section 3 Affected Environment and Environment 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 PEA Section 3.1.1.1 
(Topography, 
Affected Environment) . North Plantation Key is relatively flat and elevations 
are often less than 
5.0 feet to about 10.0 feet above mean sea level (amsl) National Geodetic 
Vertical Datum 
(NGVD). The elevation of US-1 in the service area is about 5.0 feet amsl NVGD. 
Elevations of 
10.0 feet amsl NVGD or greater are found in central PKC, Kahiki Harbor and 
Plantation Shores. 
The slope throughout the preferred WWTP site is between 5.0 feet and 10.0 feet 
amsl NVGD; 
while the slope at the alternate site is between 5.0 and 10.0  feet amsl NVGD 
but increases to 
10.0 feet or greater amsl NGVD in the vicinity of the southwestern corner of the 
property.

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, the Village would not receive FEMA funds for 
wastewater 
management. North Plantation Key/Plantation Key Colony residents would still 
need to comply 
with Florida Statutory Treatments 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 collection system, treatment plant, and removal of 
existing onsite 
treatment septic systems. The WWTP site would require site clearing and grubbing 
and fill to 
possibly elevate the administration and utility buildings for appropriate flood 
protection . 
Grading requirements would permanently change the surficial topographic 
elevation of the 
proposed project sites, but this impact is minor because it would not 
significantly alter the flat 
surface topography of the service area.

3.1.2	Soils
Affected Environment
The existing soil conditions are similar to those described in the PEA, Section 
3.1.2.1 (Soils, 
Affected Environment). The project sites' soil types  are Pennekamp Gravelly 
muck and 
Udorthents-Urban Land Complex (Figure 3-1). Pennekamp Gravelly muck is a well-
drained soil 
found on tropical hammocks in the Upper Keys. About 10 percent of the surface of 
this soil is 
covered with stones that are predominantly 10 to 20 inches in diameter. Per the 
Farmland 
Protection Policy Act, there are no prime farmlands in Monroe County.  
Elevations are generally 
5.0 feet  to 15.0 feet amsl NVGD so that the higher areas are subject to rare 
flooding from 
hurricanes and other tropical storms. The Pennekamp soil has a seasonal high 
water table at a 
depth of 3.5 to 5.0 feet during the wet periods of most years, and permeability 
is moderately 
rapid (USDA, 1995).

The Udorthents-Urban Land Complex is a moderately well-drained soil consisting 
of crushed 
oolitic limestone or coral bedrock. The seasonal high water table is at a depth 
of two to four feet 
during the wet periods of most years and permeability is variable. This soil 
type is generally 
found in constructed upland areas next to water bodies throughout the Keys; 
houses and other 
urban structures cover most areas with this soil type. Other soil types present 
in the vicinity of 
the service area include Islamorada muck, tidal; Key Largo muck, tidal; 
Matecumbe muck, 
occasionally flooded; and Rock outcrop – Tavernier complex, tidal (USDA, 1995).
 
[Figure 3-1.	Project Area Soils (USDA, 1995)
Figure 3-1 is the soils map for the project area.]

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, The Village would not receive FEMA funds for 
wastewater 
management. North Plantation Key/Plantation Key Colony residents would still 
need to comply 
with Florida Statutory Treatments Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that once 
funding is 
secured, effects on soils would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 or 3.
Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, soils would be disturbed during the 
construction processes. 
Clean, suitable fill may be required to achieve the final grade at the proposed 
WWTP site. In 
addition, soil would be excavated for the installation of sewer mains, vacuum 
pits, and buffer 
tanks. 

Implementation of appropriate best management practices (BMPs), development of 
an approved 
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, and use of conventional site preparation 
techniques are 
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 onsite surfaces. Site preparation may include grubbing 
of vegetative 
root systems, topsoil materials, followed by surface compaction and placement of 
fill to attain 
the required construction elevation.

Applying BMPs and appropriate erosion mitigation measures would limit adverse 
soil impacts 
during construction of the wastewater treatment system. Both the preferred and 
the alternate sites 
are located in the Pennekamp Gravelly muck, which is well suited for urban 
development due to 
the increased elevations. 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 the PEA, 
Section 3.1.3.1 
(Geology, Affected Environment). Results of geotechnical test borings at the 
Alternative 2 plant 
site revealed a surface layer of gray to brown fine sand and limestone to depths 
ranging from 1 to 
3 feet below the ground surface. Below the surface layer, hard to very hard 
limestone with 
coralline limestone lenses was encountered within 8 feet, the maximum depth 
explored (Nutting 
Engineers, 2003).

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, the Village would not receive FEMA funds for 
wastewater 
management. North Plantation Key/Plantation Key Colony residents would still 
need to comply 
with Florida Statutory Treatments Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that once 
funding is 
secured, effects on geology would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 
3. 
Alternatives 2 and 3 new WWTP construction would have minor impacts on geology. 
Excavation would be done to install sewer mains at 1-foot to 2–feet amsl NVGD 
along service 
area roads and for the removal of cesspits and septic systems.

WWTP construction would require underground installation of two shallow wells to 
dispose of 
treated wastewater effluent and one groundwater monitoring well. Very hard 
limestone will be 
encountered during the installation of the sewer line. Therefore, the equipment 
used to excavate 
the trenches would need to be capable of penetrating the coralline limestone. 
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 (see Section 2.3.2.2 
[Wastewater Treatment 
Plant Effluent Disposal Options] of the PEA). The shallow wells' effects on 
project area geology 
are expected to be minor and are discussed in Section 3.1.3.2.2 (Centralized 
Wastewater 
Treatment Plant Alternative) of the PEA. The applicant is responsible for 
obtaining all applicable 
FDEP permits for Class V shallow injection wells (Table 3-1). 

[Table 3-1.	FDEP Forms Required for Injection Wells
Form Title: 										Form 
Number:
Application to Construct/Operate/Abandon Class I, III, or V Injection well 
Systems	62-528.900(1)

Certification of Plugging Completion Class I, III, or V Well			
	62-528.900(2)

Construction/Clearance Permit Application for Class V Well			
	62-528.900(3)

Certification of Class V Well Construction Completion				
	62-528.900(4)

Authorization for Class V Well Use							62-
528.900(5)

Application for Class V Well Plugging and Abandonment Permit			
	62-528.900(6)

General Permit Form for Closed-Loop Air Conditioning Return Flow Class V 
Injection well	62-528.900(7)

Notification to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection of Class V 
Well 
Ownership										62-528.900(8)

Certification of Monitor Well Completion						62-
528.900(10)]

As discussed in PEA Section 3.1.3.2.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant 
Alternative), 
aside from the potential impacts of injection well use, WWTP construction is not 
expected to 
adversely affect the project area 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 
Plantation Key, 
the water table is about 4 feet below the existing ground surface, and water 
tables have not been 
declining. Therefore, new and/or expanded sinkholes are not likely to result 
from this alternative. 

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, 
Affected Environment). Throughout the project area, 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 Plantation Key. 

Results of geotechnical test borings at the Alternative 2 plant site generally 
revealed the 
groundwater was encountered about four feet below the existing ground surface 
(Nutting 
Engineers, 2003). This water table elevation is subject to change due to tidal 
fluctuations, 
rainfall, construction activity, and other site-specific factors.

Seven shallow Class V injection wells are located in the service area; three are 
located on the 
bayside of US-1, and four are on the ocean side (FDEP 2003) These wells 
discharge relatively 
fresh but nutrient-rich waters and effluents into the Biscayne Aquifer within 
the service area.
Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA funding would not be available for the 
wastewater 
management projects. Although residents of the service area would still need to 
comply with 
Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010, reduction of nutrient and 
pathogen inputs to the 
shallow groundwater of Plantation Key would not occur until a funding source is 
secured. 
Therefore, local groundwater quality improvements would be delayed under the No 
Action 
Alternative.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a new WWTP would be designed and constructed to meet 
Florida 
Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 effluent requirements for disposal to 
shallow injection 
wells from an AWT system. Treated effluent would still contain some nutrients 
under conditions 
that meet the 2010 standards. However, by removing the septic and cesspool 
systems, the overall 
nutrient and pathogen inputs to the shallow groundwater of the island would be 
substantially 
reduced, and overall local groundwater quality would improve. These improvements 
would be 
on the order of 92 and 86 percent reductions in TN and TP loadings, respectively 
(refer to 
Appendix D [Water Quality Improvement Analysis] of the PEA).

3.2.2	Inland, Nearshore, and Offshore Waters
Affected Environment
Surface water resources of the project area 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 San Pedro Lake, human-made canals, and boat 
basins as 
described in PEA Section 3.2.3.1.1 (Inland Waters). Five boat harbors and 
numerous canals are 
scattered throughout PKC and North Plantation Key. San Pedro Lake is a 33-acre 
water body 
located immediately south of Plantation Key Elementary School and is connected 
to Florida Bay 
via a human-made canal.

Canals and other confined water bodies showing signs of eutrophication during a 
review of 
Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) in the Florida Keys were listed as "hot spots" 
(see PEA 
Appendix C [Hot Spot Locations]). Monroe County (2000) ranked North Plantation 
Key as the 
sixth and fourteenth most critical "hot spots" believed to contribute to water 
quality degradation 
in the Upper 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 Founders' Park water quality monitoring station in the Village (MM 
87.0), located 
about 2.8 miles southwest of the proposed project areas. It is the closest 
monitoring station to the 
proposed project sites. Since August 2002, four 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. organisms per 100 ml of marine water or 400 or greater fecal 
coliform 
organisms per 100 ml of marine water. A poor rating requires resampling before 
issuing a health 
advisory.  A moderate rating is measured as 35 to 103 Enterococcus sp. organisms 
per 100 ml of 
marine water. On four occasions between August 2002 and February 2003, water at 
this site 
received a moderate water quality rating. However, no trends were observed 
correlating poor or 
moderate water quality ratings with a particular time of year for either fecal 
coliforms or 
Enterococcus sp. categories.

The Water Quality Monitoring Project for the Florida Keys National Marine 
Sanctuary's Water 
Quality Protection Program maintains a monitoring station (Station 226, 
Tavernier Harbor) in the 
vicinity of Tavernier, northeast of the proposed project sites. Established by 
the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1995, the goal of the Project is to 
characterize status 
and trends in water quality of the Florida Keys. Station 226 is sited about 
three miles west of the 
project area in Hawk Channel (SERC, 2003). Surface levels of total nitrogen 
recorded at Station 
226 average at 0.2318 ppm; these levels are higher (33.5 percent more) than the 
average total 
nitrogen (TN) reading taken from all monitoring stations, Keys-wide (0.1756 
ppm). Total 
phosphorus (TP) loadings recorded at Station 226 average at 0.0067 ppm; these 
levels are 
comparable to the Keys-wide average (0.0069 ppm). Over time, TN and TP are only 
slightly 
increasing.  It is difficult to  correlate these trends directly with nutrient 
loads from Plantation 
Key due to the distance from Station 226 to Plantation Key due to potential 
influences from other 
nutrient sources on Windley and Upper Matecumbe Keys as well as Florida Bay. 

3.2.2.3	Stormwater
Although few data exist, Monroe County has represented US-1 as the topographic 
divide for 
each island, whereby lands to the bayside of US-1 drain mainly toward Florida 
Bay, and lands to 
the ocean side of US-1 drain toward the Florida Straits (Monroe County, 2000). 
In August 2001, 
Monroe County released a Stormwater Management Master Plan (SMMP), an integrated 
approach for addressing stormwater management throughout the Keys that includes 
proposed 
management alternatives (Monroe County, 2001). The Village is planning two 
projects to 
improve stormwater management in the area (refer to Figure 3-6 [Stormwater 
Retrofit and 
Rehabilitation Projects] in the PEA). Stormwater improvement projects have not 
been conducted 
within the project area. In the Keys, stormwater runoff from roadways, bridges, 
driveways and 
yards, rooftops, and shopping center parking lots contribute stormwater loading 
to nearshore 
waters.

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, impacts on surface water quality in the 
vicinity of North 
Plantation Key and Plantation Key Colony would likely continue due to nutrient 
and pathogen 
inputs from onsite systems on the island. Under this alternative FEMA would not 
provide funds 
for wastewater management projects. North Plantation Key/Plantation Key Colony 
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.

The 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 (Inland, 
Nearshore and Offshore Waters, Environmental Consequences). Treated effluent 
would still 
contain some nutrients under conditions that meet the 2010 Advanced Wastewater 
Treatment 
Standards. However, by removing the septic and cesspool systems, the overall 
nutrient and 
pathogen inputs to inland and nearshore waters via shallow groundwater of the 
island would be 
substantially reduced, and the service area's inland and nearshore water quality 
would improve. 
These improvements would be on the order of 92 and 86 percent reductions in TN 
and TP 
loadings, respectively (refer to Appendix D [Water Quality Improvement Analysis] 
of the PEA).
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 into 
nearshore surface 
waters include, but are not limited to, silt dams, barriers, and straw bales 
placed at the foot of 
sloped surfaces. 

If wastewater reuse is implemented with Alternatives 2 and 3, it is estimated 
that a land area of 
about 10.2 acres, using a Phase I plus IA flow of 79,100 gpd, would be required 
to fully reuse the 
plant effluent. The application method and effluent treatment standards would be 
based on State 
regulations. Effluent may be reused over the 24-acre Islamorada Founder's Park 
on Plantation 
Key (MM 87). Other uses of this reclaimed water that may be considered by the 
Village, in 
general, include:
* Preservation of various freshwater hammocks and rejuvenation of desirable 
species of 
native plant life, in addition to re-planting areas where native plant life has 
disappeared;
* Public access reuse at various schools, government buildings, parks, golf 
courses, and 
marinas;
* Private residence irrigation water; and
* Reuse at the treatment plant including: flushing water, chlorination system 
make-up 
water, and hose connections for washdown water.

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. Application of the Eight-
Step Decision-
Making Process, per 44 CFR Part 9, is required to ensure that Federally funded 
projects are 
consistent with EO 11988 objectives. By its very nature, the NEPA compliance 
process involves 
the same basic decision-making methods to meet its objectives as the Eight-Step 
Decision-
Making Process. Therefore, the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process has been 
applied through 
the implementation of the NEPA process. 

The majority (86 percent) of North Plantation Key is located within the 
designated 100-year 
floodplain (Figure 3-2; FIRM panel 12087C1131G). According to the National Flood 
Insurance 
Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), about 444.5 acres of North 
Plantation Key 
are located within the 100-year floodplain in Zones AE and VE. (See Section 
3.2.4.1.1 
[Floodplains] of the PEA for description of the Zones). Zone VE is located along 
the Plantation 
Key shoreline, on the ocean side and bayside, seaward of Zone AE. Central 
Plantation Key 
Colony, and portions of Kahiki Harbor and Plantation Shores, about 72.6 acres of 
the service 
area, are located in Zone X and Zone X500, both of which are outside the 100-
year floodplain.
 
[Figure 3-2.	Project Area Floodplains (FEMA, 1999)
Figure 3-2 is the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the project area. The map shows 
that the 
majority of North Plantation Key is located within the designated 100-year 
floodplain.]

3.2.3.2	Wetlands
Wetland communities are discussed in PEA Section 3.2.4.1.2 (Wetlands, Affected 
Environment). 
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 same Eight-Step Decision-Making Process, 
required by 44 
CFR Part 9, to meet the requirements of EO 11990, as described above. Field 
investigations were 
conducted by two URS biologists on July 31, 2002, to identify  wetlands within 
the project area. 
Wetlands communities in the project area consist of mangroves, salt marshes, and 
salt pans. 
Marine seagrass meadows also fall under the definition of wetland communities. 
All sites were 
qualitatively assessed during the field investigations. No freshwater wetlands 
or jurisdictional 
wetlands were identified within the project sites (Figure 3-3).

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, impacts on floodplains or wetlands would likely 
be similar to 
Alternatives 2 or 3. Without FEMA funding, water quality degradation in the 
above described 
wetlands may continue, until existing systems are upgraded with another funding 
source. In the 
absence of federal funding, EO 11988 and 11990 would not apply; meaning 
wastewater system 
designs would only have to comply with the Village's Floodplain Ordinance (01-
04) and be 
protected to the 100-year flood level.  Specific floodplain ordinance provisions 
are further 
described in PEA Section 3.2.4.2.1 (No Action Alternative). 

No notable effects on floodplains associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 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 
and considered a 
critical facility,  the plant and its critical operating components would be 
protected to the 500-
year flood, through elevation or floodproofing,  to protect the federal 
investment from flood 
damages, per EO11988 (44 CFR Part 9.11).  Because much of the Keys are in the 
100-year 
floodplain, there are no practicable alternatives to siting this facility 
outside the floodplain. 
For Alternatives 2 and 3, no direct impacts on wetlands are anticipated on North 
Plantation Key 
since no wetlands occur at the proposed and alternate WWTP sites or along 
service area roads. 
Jurisdictional wetlands would not be impacted by construction activities.  
Specific effects to 
mangrove, salt marsh, salt pan, and seagrass meadows wetlands are described in 
Section 3.3 
below; and are expected to be minimal.

There is public concern that the proposed WWTP would lead to further development 
in the 
floodplain within the service area by introducing key infrastructure, which is 
often linked to 
additional development. However, development within the  Village of Islamorada 
is not 
controlled by addition of key infrastructure, but instead by a Building Permit 
Allocation System 
(BPAS).  The BPAS regulates both residential and non-residential growth through 
the year 2020.  
During the period from 2001 to 2020 the BPAS allows a total of 302 residential 
units, an average 
of 15 per year. The construction of new wastewater treatment systems 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 any of the above alternative, it 
is a function of 
established Village planning and is not directly related to  wastewater 
management 
improvements. Given the above points, neither of the action alternatives are 
expected to cause  
secondary adverse effects from increased growth on floodplains.

As stated in PEA Section 3.2.3.2 (Inland, Nearshore and Offshore Waters, 
Environmental 
Consequences) the use of appropriate BMPs and development and full 
implementation of an 
FDEP/SFWDM-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.

3.3	BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As in much of the Keys, humans have significantly altered the land within the 
project area 
through urban development activities, including clearing, grading, 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 Ecosystems, Affected Environment), three types 
(tropical 
hardwood hammocks, mangroves, and salt marsh) occur within the project area. Two 
of the four 
marine communities that occur in the Keys (seagrasses and sandy bottom) are 
found near the 
project area. Limited areas of hardbottom/seagrass are also present. Coral reefs 
and hardbottom 
areas are not present near the project area. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems 
are discussed 
separately in the following two sections. The existing ecosystems on a region-
wide basis are 
described in PEA Section 3.3 (Biological Resources).

Field investigations were conducted by two URS biologists on July 31, 2002. The 
purpose of the 
investigation was to verify preliminary terrestrial community type boundaries 
established in 
office literature reviews and during photo interpretation. A composite list of 
plant species 
observed and identified at the sites for Alternatives 2 and 3 is included in 
Tables 3-2 and 3-3, 
respectively. Section 3.3.3 describes the potential for special status species 
to occur in the project 
area. Photo-documentation obtained from the field investigation is provided in 
Appendix C (Site 
Photographs).

[Table 3-2.	Observed Plant Species at the Preferred Site (Alternative 2) 
(URS site visit; July 31, 2002)
Common Name			Scientific Name
Yellow joyweed			Alternanthera flavescens
Beggarticks			Bidens alba var. radiata
Gumbo limbo			Bursera simaruba
Australian pine			Casuarina equisetifolia
Madagascar periwinkle		Catharanthus roseus
Hyssopleaf sandmat		Chamaesyce hyssopifolia
Snowberry			Chiococca alba
Pigeon plum			Coccoloba diversifolia
Golden pothos			Epipremnum pinnatum
White stopper			Eugenia axillaries
Spanish stopper			Eugenia foetida
Strangler fig			Ficus aurea
Chewstick			Gouania lupuloides
Scorpionstail			Heliotropium angiospermum
Bladdermallow			Herissantia crispa
Oceanblue morningglory		Ipomoea indica
White leadtree			Leucaena leucocephala
False tamarind			Lysiloma latisiliqua
Wild bushbean			Macroptilium lathyroides
Snow squarestem			Melanthera nivea
Poisonwood			Metopium toxiferum
Redgal				Morinda royoc
Lancewood			Ocotea (=Nectandra) coriacea
Virginia creeper		Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Jamaican dogwood		Piscidia piscipula
Paintedleaf			Poinsettia cyathophora
Wild coffee			Psychotria nervosa
Brazilian pepper		Schinus terebinthifolius
Everglades greenbrier		Smilax havanensis
Potatotree			Solanum erianthum
Wedelia				Sphagneticola trilobata
Shrubby false buttonweed	Spermacoce verticillata
Blue porterweed			Stachytarpheta jamaicensis
St. Augustine grass		Stenotaphrum secundatum
Cheesytoes			Stylosanthes hamata
West Indian mahogany		Swietenia mahagoni
Florida thatch palm		Thrinax radiate
Muscadine			Vitis rotundifolia
Wild lime			Zanthoxylum fagara]

[Table 3-3. Observed Plant Species at the Alternate Site (Alternative 3)
(URS site visit; July 31, 2002)
Common Name			Scientific Name
Barbed-wire cactus		Acanthocereus tetragonus
Yellow joyweed			Alternanthera flavescens
Beggarticks			Bidens alba var. radiata
Gumbo limbo			Bursera simaruba
Snowberry			Chiococca alba
Pigeon plum			Coccoloba diversifolia
White stopper			Eugenia axillaries
Spanish stopper			Eugenia foetida
Strangler fig			Ficus aurea
Chewstick			Gouania lupuloides
Firebush			Hamelia patens
Scorpionstail			Heliotropium angiospermum
Bladdermallow			Herissantia crispa
Black ironwood			Krugiodendron ferreum
Smallcane			Lasiacis divaricata
White leadtree			Leucaena leucocephala
False tamarind			Lysiloma latisiliqua
Poisonwood			Metopium toxiferum
Redgal				Morinda royoc
Lancewood			Ocotea (=Nectandra) coriacea
Monk orchid			Oeceoclades maculata
Jamaican dogwood		Piscidia piscipula
Wild coffee			Psychotria nervosa
Brazilian pepper		Schinus terebinthifolius
Willow bustic			Sideroxylon salicifolium
Shrubby false buttonweed	Spermacoce verticillata
Blue porterweed			Stachytarpheta jamaicensis
West Indian mahogany		Swietenia mahagoni
West Indian almond		Terminalia catappa
Wild lime			Zanthoxylum fagara]

Affected Environment
3.3.1	Terrestrial Ecosystems
Little native vegetation remains on North Plantation 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, canals, and other surface 
waters, 
hammocks, mangroves (McNeese, 1998; Figure 3-3; Table 3-4).

[Table 3-4. Existing Vegetation in the Service Area (McNeese 1998)
Habitat Type				Acres
Developed				378.7
Canals and other surface waters		94.0
Tropical hardwood hammock		19.6
Mangroves and Salt Marsh		10.3
Exotics					0.5
Total					503.1*
* - Difference (13.9 acres) due to data manipulation]

[Figure 3-3.	Project Area Vegetation (McNeese, 1998)
Figure 3-3 shows vegetative communities located in the project area. The project 
area is 
dominated by developed and/or filled land, canals and other surface waters, 
hammocks, and mangroves.]

Alternative 2, the preferred site is located on the bayside of US-1 at about MM 
89.8 on 
Plantation Key (Figure 2-3). This roughly L-shaped, 0.8-acre site is located 
between US-1 to the 
east and Gardenia Street to the west. Existing vegetation at this site can 
largely be characterized 
as a degraded hardwood hammock impacted by habitat fragmentation and infestation 
by 
invasive, non-indigenous plant species. Between the proposed WWTP site and Woods 
Avenue to 
the north are undeveloped forested parcels comprised of similar vegetation 
although with a lesser 
occurrence of Brazilian pepper. Residences and undeveloped parcels to the south, 
between the 
proposed WWTP site and the driveway to Plantation Key Elementary School, are 
dominated by 
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Australian pine (Casuarina 
equisetifolia).
During the field investigations, Eurasian collared doves (Streptopelia decaocto) 
and Mourning 
doves (Zenaida macroura) were observed near the preferred site. No other birds 
were observed 
during the site visit. However, unidentified bird species were heard calling or 
singing near the 
Alternative 2 site.

Brown anoles (Anolis sagrei) were observed near the Alternative 2 site. Several 
land crab 
(Cardisoma guanhumi) burrows were observed and four giant swallowtail 
butterflies (Papilio 
cresphontes) were observed near the wild lime plants (Zanthoxylum fagara). No 
other reptiles, 
amphibians, or mammals were observed during the field investigation. No nests, 
burrows, or 
other roosting means were observed on or near the Alternative 2 site.

The Alternative 3, site is located on the ocean side of US-1 at approximate MM 
89.7 on 
Plantation Key (Figure 2-5). The Alternative 3 site is rectangular, about one 
acre in size, and is 
bounded by US-1 to the west, Old State Road 4A to the east, Plantation Shores 
Drive to the 
north, and High street to the south. Existing vegetation at this site appears to 
be a higher quality 
hardwood hammock community in which the occurrence of exotic plant species has 
been largely 
excluded from the interior and that has been impacted to a lesser extent by 
habitat fragmentation. 
The presence of vegetated lands north and south of this site has resulted in a 
narrow, contiguous 
corridor of hammock habitat that extends along the ocean side of US-1 in North 
Plantation Key.
During the site investigations, Eurasian collared doves and Mourning doves were 
observed near 
the alternate site. No other birds were observed during the site visit. However, 
unidentified bird 
species were heard calling or singing near the Alternative 3 site. 

Brown anoles were observed near the Alternative 3 site. No other reptiles, 
amphibians, or 
mammals were observed during the field investigations. No nests, burrows, or 
other roosting 
means were observed on or near the Alternative 3 site.

A discussion of individual habitat types is provided below.

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. Remnants of hammocks are present at the preferred site 
and the 
alternate site, and throughout the service area (Figure 3-3). Pine rocklands 
habitat is not present 
at the Alternative 2 and 3 sites.

The Alternative 2 site contains isolated and degraded hardwood hammock habitat 
heavily 
infested by invasive, non-indigenous plants. Native species common in the canopy 
at this site 
include false tamarind (Lysiloma latisiliqua), poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum), 
Jamaican 
dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba), and pigeon plum 
(Coccoloba 
diversifolia). Smaller individuals of the canopy species, and Spanish stopper 
(Eugenia foetida), 
are common in the understory at the site. Snowberry (Chiococca alba) is very 
common on the 
periphery of the wooded area. Ground cover at the site is comprised almost 
exclusively of redgal 
(Morinda royoc). Exotic species such as Brazilian pepper and Australian pine 
have invaded this 
hardwood hammock community. Brazilian pepper is the dominant canopy species in 
the western 
and southern portions of the site; Australian pine is the dominant canopy 
species along the 
eastern property boundary.

Three Florida thatch palm (Thrinax radiata) seedlings, listed by the State of 
Florida as 
Threatened, were noted in the southwestern portion of the site near Gardenia 
Street. A few 
individuals of West Indian mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni), state-listed 
Endangered, were 
observed in the central and northern portions of the site. No federally listed 
plant or animal 
species were observed.

The Alternative 3 site consists of tropical hardwood hammock relatively free of 
invasive, non-
indigenous species infestation. Exotic plant intrusions at the site, by species 
such as Brazilian 
pepper and white lead tree (Leucaena leucocephala), are generally limited to 
roadside margins 
and the property immediately north of the site. Canopy vegetation at this site 
consists of 
hammock species such as West Indian mahogany, false tamarind, gumbo limbo, 
pigeon plum, 
poisonwood, and Jamaican dogwood. In addition to smaller individuals comprising 
the canopy, 
important components of the subcanopy include black ironwood (Krugiodendron 
ferreum), 
Spanish stopper, white stopper (Eugenia axillaris), and lancewood (Ocotea 
coriacea). The floor 
of this community is relatively free of ground cover with a moderate leaf litter 
development. 
Snowberry is very common on the periphery of the forested area.

A small population of barbed-wire cactus (Acanthocereus tetragonus), listed by 
the State of 
Florida as Threatened, were noted in the west central portion of the site near 
US-1. Several large 
individuals of mahogany, a state-listed Endangered species, were observed at the 
site as well as a 
number of large individuals of gumbo limbo, strangler fig (Ficus aurea), and 
wild tamarind. No 
federally listed plant or animal species were observed.

3.3.1.2	Mangrove Forests and Salt Marshes
Throughout the Keys, mangroves form the predominant coastal vegetation 
community. 
Mangroves are found along the edges of shorelines, bays and lagoons and on over 
wash areas 
throughout the Keys. Mangroves and salt marshes are discussed in PEA Section 
3.3.1.1.2 
(Mangrove Forests and Salt Marshes).

Fringing mangroves dominate shorelines near the project area. Three mangrove 
tree species, red 
mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and white 
mangrove 
(Laguncularia racemosa), are the dominant components. About 10.3 acres of 
mangrove habitat 
are present in the service area, including a large mangrove forest in the 
northwest portion of the 
service area (Figure 3-3). West of PKC and San Pedro Lake, outside the service 
area is a second 
large mangrove forest. 

Salt marshes, which are not well developed in most of the Keys, usually consist 
of largely 
monospecific (single species) stands of black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) 
and salt marsh 
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). Other common salt marsh species in the Keys 
include marsh 
elder (Iva frutescens), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia), seaside goldenrod 
(Solidago 
sempervirens), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), sea purslane (Sesuvium 
portulacastrum), and 
mangroves. Sand or limerock areas at the upper end of the tidal range may have 
sea ox-eye 
(Borrichia arborescens), saltwort (Batis maritima), seablight (Suaeda linearis), 
and sea lavender 
(Argusia gnaphalodes). About 1.2 acres of salt marsh habitat is present in the 
North Plantation 
Key Sub-service area, east of US-1 and north of Coral Shores High School.

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 sites (Figure 3-3).

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 sites (Figure 3-3).

3.3.2	Aquatic Ecosystems
Marine habitats are present within the human-made canals and marine waters 
surrounding North 
Plantation Key. Seagrasses and hardbottom communities dominate marine habitats 
near the 
project area. Areas of bare substrate and hardbottom/seagrass are also present 
(Figure 3-4). A 
discussion of individual marine community types is provided below.

[Figure 3-4.	Project Area Benthic Habitats (FMRI, 1992)
Figure 3-4 is a map of benthic habitats in the project area. Seagrass 
communities dominate 
the ocean side and bayside nearshore areas surrounding North Plantation Key. ]

As described in PEA Section 3.3.3 (Special Status Species), essential fish 
habitat (EFH) present 
near the project area consists of estuarine seagrass, marine live/hard bottom, 
mangrove 
communities, and the marine water column. In the Keys, federally-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.

Two of the four marine communities that occur in the Keys (e.g., seagrasses and 
sandy bottom) 
are found near the project area. Limited areas of hardbottom/seagrass are also 
present. Coral 
reefs and hardbottom areas are not present near the project area.

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). 

Near the project sites, seagrass communities dominate the ocean side and bayside 
nearshore 
areas surrounding North Plantation Key (Figure 3-4). This community type also 
exists on the 
north and northeast sides of the island 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 presence of fewer channels for water to flow through and impede coral growth 
have resulted 
in better developed outer reefs in the Upper Keys. The outer coral reefs in the 
Upper Keys are 
somewhat removed from bay and nearshore influence. Nearshore coral reefs are not 
present near 
the project sites.

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 three to 16 feet (Chiappone and Sullivan, 
1996). 
Near the project sites, seagrass/hardbottom communities are present on the north 
and northeast 
sides of North Plantation Key (Figure 3-4). The affected environment for 
hardbottom 
communities is described in PEA Section 3.3.1.2.3 (Hardbottom).

3.3.2.4	Sandy Bottom
Bare bottom communities, over either calcareous muds or calcareous sand, are 
devoid of 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 sites, sandy bottom communities exist in limited patches on the 
bayside of North 
Plantation Key and throughout the artificial waterways in the project area 
(Figure 3-4). The 
affected environment for sandy bottom communities is 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 
wastewater management improvements consistent with the Florida Statutory 
Treatment 
Standards of 2010 would reduce nutrient loading in nearshore marine waters and 
result in a 
corresponding improvement to their long-term ecological health. However, without 
FEMA 
funding, the Village or homeowners may need to identify alternate financing 
options, delaying 
wastewater treatment improvements. As discussed in PEA section 3.3.2.1 (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 habitats 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 - Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant on Bayside 
Site
Under this alternative, no direct effects on marine biological resources are 
anticipated as a result 
of construction of the collection system and treatment plant. Construction 
activities are proposed 
along the roads in front of the residences and businesses in the service area 
and therefore would 
not notably impact biological resources. Individual homeowners may encounter 
minor, 
temporary, indirect impacts on landscaped plants and vegetation during 
connection of individual 
residences.

The WWTP site is heavily vegetated and project construction would directly 
affect about 
0.8 acre of hardwood hammock habitat . The hardwood hammock habitat at this site 
is isolated, 
degraded, and heavily infested with Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. The 
site would be 
cleared and grubbed in preparation for construction. No additional areas would 
be cleared. The 
purchase and protection of hardwood hammock habitat at a 2:1 ratio would provide 
adequate 
mitigation for these impacts (Appendix G). Construction activities would require 
authorization in 
the form of two Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs): one from the Florida 
Department of 
Environmental Protection (FDEP) for stormwater-related facilities, and one from 
the Monroe 
County Growth Management Division.

Although there are no direct effects on marine resources, wastewater treatment 
improvements 
would indirectly affect the nearshore marine waters near North Plantation Key. 
Improvements to 
nearshore marine water quality on the order of 92 and 86 percent reductions in 
wastewater 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 
have a higher level of nutrients than ambient concentrations (SERC 2003). There 
is little 
available research that specifically assesses the impact of effluent treated to 
AWT standards on 
biological resources; however, reducing nutrient loading in nearshore marine 
waters is expected 
to cause a corresponding improvement to long-term ecological health.

In general, as discussed in PEA Section 3.3.2.1 (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 - Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant on Oceanside
Under Alternative 3, effects on terrestrial and marine biological resources 
would be similar to 
those in Alternative 2. Individual homeowner impacts are described in 
Alternative 2, as the 
service area is the same. Direct impacts to the alternate WWTP site would occur 
to about 
0.8 acre of hardwood hammock as a result of site preparation and  construction. 
Hardwood 
hammock habitat at this site is relatively free of invasive, non-indigenous 
species infestation, 
with exotic plant intrusions limited to the roadside margins. No additional 
areas would be 
cleared. The purchase and protection of hardwood hammock habitat at a 2:1 ratio 
would mitigate 
these effects. As in Alternative 2, construction activities would require 
authorization in the form 
of two Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs): one from the Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection (FDEP) for stormwater-related facilities and one from 
the Monroe 
County Growth Management Division.

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, 
per 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).

Two URS biologists conducted a site visit on July 31, 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. Very little 
habitat was observed 
that could support Federally listed terrestrial threatened and endangered 
species that potentially 
occur in this portion of the Florida Keys. Although potential habitat for the 
Shaus' swallowtail 
exists onsite, the butterfly is rarely observed outside of Key Largo, and the 
only documented 
sighting of the butterfly in the project vicinity occurred on Upper Matecumbe 
Key in 1986.
State-listed terrestrial threatened and endangered plant species were observed 
at both sites. Three 
Florida thatch palm (Thrinax radiata) seedlings, listed by the State of Florida 
as Threatened, 
were noted in the southwestern portion of the preferred site, near Gardenia 
Street. Individuals of 
West Indian mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni), state-listed Endangered, were 
observed in the 
central and northern portions of the site. A small population of barbed-wire 
cactus 
(Acanthocereus tetragonus), listed by the State of Florida as Threatened, were 
noted in the west 
central portion of the alternate site near US-1. Several large mahogany trees 
were also observed 
at the alternate site.

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA funds would not be used for wastewater 
management 
improvements. As such, FEMA would not be required to undertake activities 
related to 
compliance with Section 7 of ESA and EFH. North Plantation Key and Plantation 
Key Colony 
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 have the potential to effect but would not likely 
adversely effect 
special status species. In a letter dated, February 18, 2003, FEMA notified both 
USFWS and 
NMFS of their finding determination, requested concurrence, and initiated 
informal consultation. 
USFWS coordinated with URS regarding possible mitigation measure for the 
proposed project 
that included restoration of scarified lands, acquisition of hammock habitat, 
and transplantation 
of state-listed species to suitable publicly owned recipient sites. Prior to 
construction, the Village 
would prepare a Tree Relocation Plan and submit a copy to the USFWS for review 
and approval. 
Based on the information provided, the USFWS stated in their response on April 
22, 2003 that 
they concurred with the "not likely to adversely 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 March 17, 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.

The three state-listed threatened and endangered species, Florida thatch palm, 
West Indian 
mahogany, and barbed-wire cactus would be directly impacted by construction of 
Alternatives 2 
and 3.  Without mitigation measures, land clearing activities would result in 
the loss of these 
species from the site.  As a result of coordination with the USFWS, these 
species would be 
covered in the Tree Relocation Plan that would be developed by the Village in 
coordination with 
the USFWS prior to construction.  A letter dated January 31, 2003, was sent to 
the Florida Fish 
and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) concerning state listed species and 
they have 
not responded. Another letter was sent to FFWCC on July 24, 2003 affording the 
agency an 
opportunity to review the Draft SEA; no comments have been received.  Agency 
coordination 
letters for this SEA are included in Appendix B.

3.4	AIR QUALITY
Affected Environment
Air pollution within the project area 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, which means 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, the Village would not receive FEMA funds for 
wastewater 
management improvements. North Plantation Key and Plantation Key Colony 
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 Alternatives 2 and 3, minor temporary adverse effects on air quality would 
occur during 
construction as a result of increased exhaust pollutants and fugitive dust. 
These temporary 
impacts would 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 PEA Section 3.4.2.2 (Centralized 
Wastewater Treatment 
Plant).

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. Odor control would be provided at the headworks of the treatment plant, 
where the 
screens and screenings press would be located, to eliminate odors. Therefore, no 
notable 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 for Alternatives 2 and 3 differ, and are described in Sections 2.2 and 
2.3 respectively. 
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.
A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted in the service area by a URS 
archaeologist on 
July 31, 2002. The purpose of the assessment was to assist FEMA's project 
planning, ensure 
compliance with NEPA and the NHPA, and provide the Florida SHPO with information 
on 
possible impacts on cultural resources pursuant to Section 106. Activities 
conducted for the 
assessment included records search at the Florida Master Site File SHPO and 100 
percent of the 
pedestrian reconnaissance survey of the APEs.

Background archaeological site records research was conducted on July 29 and 30, 
2002, at the 
Florida Master Site File System, Florida SHPO, to gather information on 
previously identified 
archaeological sites and historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in 
the NRHP. A review 
of cultural resource management reports for previous projects in Monroe County 
and the project 
area vicinity was also conducted.

Archaeological site investigations were conducted on July 31, 2002. Pedestrian 
surveys of the 
project sites consisted of a visual inspection of exposed surfaces along 
transects spaced 10 feet 
apart. Inspection of tree falls and animal burrows was also conducted. No 
subsurface testing was 
conducted during these investigations.

Site files located at the Florida SHPO listed no historic standing structures or 
archaeological sites 
within or adjacent to the project sites, or within one mile of each project 
sites' boundary. 
Pedestrian surveys confirmed the project areas were previously cleared and 
contain secondary 
growth forest. The field reconnaissance did not identify any artifacts or 
cultural features in the 
project sites. There are no standing structures in the preferred and alternate 
project sites, but 
there are nearby structures on adjacent parcels. However, no structure appeared 
to be 50 years 
old or older. No above-ground cultural resources were observed that might 
potentially be eligible 
for the NRHP. The results of the assessment indicate a low potential for 
significant 
archaeological remains to be present within the project sites and no additional 
archaeological 
investigations were recommended (see Appendix H, Cultural Resources Assessment 
Survey)
Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funds for wastewater 
management 
improvements. North Plantation Key and Plantation Key Colony residents would 
still need to 
comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated 
that effects on 
cultural resources, once funding is secured, would be similar to those under 
Alternatives 2 and 3.
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 on February 
26, 2003 
(Appendices B and H).  The final report was considered sufficient based on the 
criteria specified 
in Chapter 1A-46.001(2), Florida Administrative Code,  and in a letter dated May 
8, 2003 the 
SHPO concurred with FEMA's findings of "no effect." 

Should any unanticipated historic or archeological materials be discovered 
during project work, 
all activities on the site shall be halted immediately and the Village 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 Plantation Key are concentrated along the US-1 corridor 
and include three 
restaurants, three dive centers, two motels, a fish factory, gas station, bank, 
supermarket, coin 
laundry, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), and 25 other small 
businesses (Table 
3-5). According to the U.S. Census results (2000), 36 percent of the housing 
units in the Village 
(including Plantation Key, Windley Key, Upper Matecumbe, and Lower Matecumbe) 
are 
seasonal residences, rentals or other occasional use. Tourist populations are 
distributed 
throughout the project area, further south in the Village, and north in Key 
Largo.

[Table 3-5.	Commercial Businesses in the Service Area (PBSJ, 2002)
Business Name:						Location:

Amoco Gas Station / Kuts Korner Store			90270 Overseas Hwy. 
Tavernier

Bensons Camera of the Florida Keys			90240 Overseas Hwy. Tavernier

Cingular Wireless					90250 Overseas Hwy. Tavernier

Coral Shores Coin Laundry				90071 Overseas Hwy. Tavernier

Craig's Restaurant					90154 Overseas Hwy. Tavernier

Dolphin Storage						90575 Old Hwy. Tavernier

Fish Factory 						90775 Overseas Hwy. Tavernier

Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority				Address not provided

Florida House of Representatives			90311 Overseas Hwy., Suite A, 
Tavernier

Florida Keys Dive Center				90500 US-1, Tavernier

Hershoff, Lupino & Mulick, LLP				90130 Old Hwy. Tavernier

Island Auto Electric					90010 US-1, Tavernier

Islands in the Sun Nursery				MM 90, Tavernier

John A. Jabro (Attorney and Counselor at Law)		90311 Overseas Hwy., Suite 
B, Tavernier

John G. Abbott, Jr. Certified Public Accountant		Address not provided

Old Tavernier Restaurant-Lounge				90311 Overseas Hwy. 
Tavernier

Payfair Supermarket					90164 Overseas Hwy. Plantation 
Key

Pegan Insurance Agency, Inc.				90144 Overseas Hwy. Plantation 
Key

Perdue- Dean Cellular, Inc.				90152 Overseas Hwy. Plantation 
Key

Port O'Palms Apartments					90341 Overseas Hwy.

Raveson Upholstering					90511 Overseas Hwy.

Republic Bank Plantation Key Office			90184 Overseas Hwy. Tavernier

Sea Gulls Condo						100 Wrenn St.

Storage Solutions					90080 Overseas Hwy. Tavernier

Sun Key Imports 					103 Sunshine Blvd. Tavernier

Tavernier Boat Tops					90507 US-1, Tavernier

Tavernier Dive Center					90791 Overseas Hwy. Tavernier

Tavernier Harbor					90311 Overseas Hwy. Tavernier

The Keys Motel						90611 Old Hwy. Tavernier

Treasure Gallery					Address not provided

Tropic Vista Motel					90701 Old Hwy. Tavernier

Tropical Café						90691 Old Hwy. Tavernier

Turek Building						90290 Overseas Hwy. Tavernier

Undeveloped lot next to Tavernier Creek Marina		MM 90 1/2, Tavernier

Unknown							90515 Overseas Hwy.

Unknown business next to FKAA				Address not provided

Unknown business next to Upper Keys Dive and Sport 
Center and Fish Factory					Address not provided

Upper Keys Dive and Sport Center			90701 Old Hwy. Tavernier

Vic's Auto Tech, Inc.					90575 Old Hwy. Tavernier]

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA funding would not be applied to wastewater 
management alternatives. Under this scenario, wastewater treatment projects 
would likely be 
funded by local sources, which could increase local taxes. This could be passed 
on to tourists 
through higher hotel costs, food costs, and other purchases in North Plantation 
Key. In addition, 
economic losses associated with decreased water quality, beach closures, and 
other infrastructure 
impacts during and after storms would continue until wastewater improvements 
were 
implemented.  It is anticipated that once funding is secured, effects on tourism 
would be similar 
to those under Alternatives 2 or 3

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, adverse impacts on tourist enjoyment of North 
Plantation Key from 
temporary construction activities would be short-term and minimal. Installation 
of the collection 
system would temporarily hinder, but not obstruct, traffic movement throughout 
the residential 
neighborhood of PKC and North Plantation Key. Collection service laterals would 
be placed at 
the rear of the property for most of the commercial businesses along US-1. One 
collection main 
would traverse US-1 at the location of the treatment plant site. Installation of 
this collection main 
would not interfere with traffic along US-1. Appropriate signage and traffic 
management (as 
described in 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 (No Action Alternative). 
Additionally, improved water quality would incrementally benefit the tourism 
industry by 
increasing tourist enjoyment of activities listed in the PEA Section 3.6.1.1 
(Tourism, Affected 
Environment).

3.6.2	Fishing Industry
Affected Environment
The Village of Islamorada  has been referred to as the Sportfishing Capital of 
the World. It hosts 
numerous fishing tournaments and has many charter boats with captains and guides 
for 
recreational fishing in the Straits of Florida, Florida Bay, and Everglades 
National Park. 
Recreational gamefish commonly caught offshore Islamorada include sailfish, 
tuna, dolphin, 
wahoo, and kingfish. Reef fish species caught offshore near the Village include, 
yellowtail 
snapper, mutton snapper, and numerous species of grouper and sharks. Fish 
species such as 
permit, tarpon, and bonefish are caught in the flats on the bayside of 
Islamorada. Charter boats 
may also fish further north into the Everglades National Park for snook, tarpon, 
redfish, sea trout, 
cobia, and Spanish mackerel.  Regulated commercial species which may be 
harvested in the 
Islamorada area are included in Appendix F.  Plantation Key has 28 commercial 
fishing 
businesses (Islamorada Chamber of Commerce, 2003)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, the Village would not receive FEMA funds for 
wastewater 
management improvements. North Plantation Key and Plantation Key Colony 
residents would 
still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is 
anticipated that 
effects on the fishing industry, once funding is secured, would be similar to 
those under 
Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, FEMA would provide funding for construction of a 
treatment plant 
and wastewater transmission system. The project is expected to improve nearshore 
water quality, 
which would, in turn, benefit recreational and commercial species currently 
being adversely 
affected by poor water quality in the Plantation Key area. Beneficial effects on 
commercial 
fishing are described in PEA Section 3.6.2.2 (No Action Alternative). FEMA 
consulted the 
NMFS regarding the potential impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3. The NMFS stated in 
their 
response on March 17, 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).
At the time of publication, the Village of Islamorada has identified two 
potential service areas 
within Plantation Key in which to provide wastewater service using FEMA grant 
funding.  The 
two service areas under consideration both include the Phase 1 area (discussed 
in Section 2.2 
above) but each also includes additional residences from Phase 2, which have yet 
to be 
designated. At this time, only residences will be served by the proposed WWTPs 
discussed as 
Alternatives 2 & 3.

Existing Wastewater Management Costs in the Plantation 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.  In addition, the 
term Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) is used to indicate a wastewater service 
recipient that generates approximately 167 gallons per day of wastewater.  For 
the 
purpose of this SEA, a single family home is assumed to be one EDU, while 
businesses can be more than one EDU.

Five basic types of wastewater systems are presently used in Monroe County: 
cesspits, septic 
tanks, onsite aerobic treatment units (ATUs), onsite wastewater nutrient 
reduction systems 
(OWNRS), and centralized WWTPs. 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. 

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not fund the Plantation Key 
Colony/North 
Plantation Key wastewater management projects. To achieve compliance with 
Florida Statutory 
Treatment Standards, residents 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. Although the Village already has 
other State 
grant funding available to it for this service area, based upon information in 
PEA Section 
3.6.3.2.1 (No Action Alternative), the No Action Alternative may result in 
higher wastewater 
management costs for Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation Key residences than 
would be 
expected from either FEMA-funded Alternatives 2 or 3.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, FEMA funds and funds from a number of other sources 
identified by 
the Village would be used to offset the cost of the WWTP to the service 
recipients.  The Village 
is currently considering two service recipient cost options under both 
Alternatives 2 & 3; Option 
1 being a service recipient share of 17.5% of the total project costs and Option 
2 being a service 
recipient share of 35% of the total project costs.    The Village has decided 
that instead of 
charging service recipients a one-time fee to cover system capital costs, they 
will charge a 
monthly capital cost fee (which will include a small amount towards debt 
service) and spread the 
cost over 30 years, at an interest rate near 6% (Lawson, Pers. Comm., 2003).  

Under Option 1, the new wastewater system would serve about 523 EDUs and service 
recipients 
would pay a monthly O&M fee of $39 and a monthly capital cost fee of $15, for a 
total of $54 
per month. Under Option 2, the new wastewater system would serve about 670 EDUs 
and 
service recipients would pay a monthly O&M fee of $34 and a monthly capital cost 
of $30, for a 
total of $64 per month (Village of Islamorada, 2003).

These cost options were designed in consideration of potential future wastewater 
grant funds 
from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).  Those grants would require a 35% 
project cost 
match.  This would be satisfied by the capital cost fee charged to service 
recipients would make 
up the match and the State could also provide match.  

With either Alternative, and either user cost option, 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 onsite system and 
the amount of 
work needed to remove or abandon the system.

Under both Alternatives 2 and 3 and with user cost options 1 or 2, wastewater 
costs, after grant 
funding has been applied, would fall at or below the affordability threshold of 
near 2% of 
Median Household Income and within the O&M ($30 to $60 per month) and system 
capital cost 
($3,000 to $4,500, as spread over a 30 year term) ranges set forth in PEA 
Section 3.6.3 (Local 
Fees and Taxes).  With the use of FEMA grant funding towards the costs of 
wastewater 
treatment for Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation 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 have been collected since August 2002 by the Florida DOH from the 
Islamorada Founders' 
Park monitoring station on Plantation Key (MM 87.0). On four separate occasions, 
these data 
indicated elevated levels of fecal coliform and Enterococcus sp. near the 
monitoring station that 
could potentially pose a health risk. However, the levels recorded by the DOH 
did not result in 
the issuance of a health advisory. The Islamorada Founders' Park monitoring 
station, located 
about 2.8 miles southwest, 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 similar to Alternatives 2 or 3, but the 
rate of improvement 
would be dependent on finding alternate 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 (Public 
Health, 
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 assumed that public 
health risks exist 
and would continue under this alternative.

Under Alternatives 2 or 3, improved wastewater treatment facilities would 
benefit service area 
residents by reducing the public health risk from existing wastewater management 
practices. The 
environmental consequences of Alternative 2 are discussed further in PEA Section 
3.6.4.2.2 
(Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative).

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
Plantation Key, encompassing the service area of Plantation Key Colony/North 
Plantation Key, 
is a moderately sized area with over 500 residences and over 50 businesses. U.S. 
2000 Census 
results were obtained for the Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation Key area, 
which is in 
Census Tract 9708 but encompasses two census Block Groups.  A Block Group is a 
geographically delineated statistical entity, defined for each decennial census 
according to 
Census Bureau guidelines. The two Block Groups that cover Plantation Key 
Colony/North 
Plantation Key do not match with the delineations of Phase I and Phase II of the 
wastewater 
service plan (as described in section 2 of this document).  While Phase I 
service recipients are all 
within Block Group 1, Phase Ia and Phase II service recipients are in both Block 
Group 1 and 
Block Group 2 (U.S. Census, 2000). 

3.7.2	Income and Poverty
U.S. Census (2000) data for Block Groups 1 and 2 indicate that in combination, 
about 26% of 
families had incomes less than $35,000 per year and about 23% had incomes 
between $35,000 
and $59,999 per year. The remaining 51% had incomes greater than $60,000 per 
year. 
As discussed in PEA Section 3.6 (Socioeconomic Resources), a common indicator of 
income 
level used by government agencies is the county-specific estimated Median Family 
Income 
(MFI).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 was 
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, 
$15,260 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 
3-6 below shows HUD's FY 2003 low and very low-income levels for various family 
sizes in 
Monroe County.

[Table 3-6. Fiscal Year 2003 – HUD's Low-Income and Very Low-Income Limits, 
Monroe County, Florida – Median Family Income = $56,500

Number of People in Household

		 1	 2	 3	 4	 5	 6	 7	 8 
Low-Income	 $31,650 $36,150 $40,700 $45,200 $48,800 $52,450 $56,050 $59,650
Very Low-Income	 $19,800 $22,600 $25,450 $28,250 $30,000 $32,750 $35,050 
$37,300

http://204.29.171.80/framer/navigation.asp?charset=utf-
8&cc=US&frameid=1565&lc=en-
us&providerid=112&realname=HUD&uid=2318084&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hud.gov%2F
Published by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development annually. 
MFI figures are projected from the most recent county level census.]

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 Plantation Key 
Colony/North 
Plantation Key wastewater management projects. To comply with Florida Statutory 
Treatment 
Standards of 2010, residents and businesses would have to use other funding for 
improvements. 
Although the Village already has other State grant funding available for this 
service area, as 
described in PEA Section 3.6.3.2.1 (No Action Alternative), the No Action 
Alternative may 
result in higher wastewater management costs for Plantation Key Colony/North 
Plantation 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 (Wastewater Management 
Costs and 
Affordability for Florida Keys Residents), 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.
Implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 would equally benefit, through 
improved water 
quality, the various demographic groups in the Plantation Key service area.  
Siting the WWTP at 
either the Alternative 2 or 3 site will not highly disproportionately and 
adversely affect minority 
or low income populations because no concentration of these demographic groups 
exists 
immediately adjacent to the sites.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, FEMA funds and funds from a number of other sources 
identified by 
the Village would be used to offset the cost of the WWTP to the service 
recipients.  The Village 
is currently considering two user cost options under both Alternatives 2 & 3, as 
outlined in 
Section 3.6.

To reduce costs to low-income and very low-income service recipients in 
compliance with EO 
12898, financial assistance guidelines have been developed that go beyond the 
basic level FEMA 
grant funding that would be applied to each EDU.  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 3-7. 
Once the per EDU cost, after applying grant funding, has been established; low-
income property 
owners would receive additional assistance with at least 70% of these system 
capital cost; and 
70% of their existing system abandonment and lateral costs, up to $3,000. 
Similarly, 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 Alternatives 2 & 3, for low-income property owners, the estimated 
resulting monthly cost 
after assistance would be about $45 under Option 1 ($39 for O&M and 30% of $15 
for capital 
costs) and about $44 under Option 2 ($34 for O&M and 30% of $30 for capital 
costs). For very 
low-income property owners, the estimated resulting monthly cost after 
assistance would be 
about $40.50 under Option 1 ($39 for O&M and 10% of $15 for capital costs) and 
about $37 
under Option 2 ($39 for O&M and 10% of $30 for capital costs). 

[Table 3-7. Alternatives 2 & 3 Low-Income and Very Low-Income Funding Assistance 
for the System Capital Cost

		  Amount of Assistance –	Estimated Monthly		Estimated 
Monthly
		  % of Connection Fee 		Cost After Assistance:		Cost 
After Assistance:
		  Covered			Option 1			Option 2

Low-Income 
Qualified Family 	70%			$45.00				$44.00

Very Low-Income 
Qualified Family	90%			$40.50				$37.00]

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 
FEMA mandated 
assistance program. Nevertheless, the assistance program would cover at least 
70% of this cost 
for low-income property owners (up to $3,000 total) and at least 90% of this 
cost for very 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. 

The assistance guidelines presented above represent a minimum goal and would be 
required 
during project implementation in order for the Village to receive FEMA grant 
funding.  Costs to 
low-income service recipients may be further offset at the applicant's 
discretion.  At the time of 
publication, the Village is considering its own assistance program with 
abandonment and lateral 
costs for homeowners and property owners who provide rentals to qualified 
beneficiaries.  This 
program (see Appendix E, Community Development Block Grant Program Overview), if 
implemented, would go beyond the FEMA mandated assistance program outlined 
above.  The 
program under consideration would cover 100% assistance to the neediest 60 or so 
residents in 
the service area (an approximate figure).  Those with the greatest need would be 
prioritized by 
using the scoring system in Table 3-5 below (Williams, Pers. Comm., 2003).

[Table 3-8. The Village of Islamorada – Abandonment and Lateral Costs Assistance 
Program 
Priority Scoring System

Priority					Points
Elderly (one owner greater than 62 yrs.)	10
Disabled household member			10
Documented Housing Code violation		10
Very Low Income					5
Children in household (greater than 2)		5
Length of Ownership (greater than 15 yrs.)	5
Single Parent household				5]

The FEMA 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 Village proposed assistance 
program. 
With the implementation of the FEMA assistance program and the use of FEMA grant 
funding, 
no disproportionately high or adverse affects would be felt by low-income or 
very-low income 
property owners.  

3.8	WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Affected Environment
Nutting Environmental, Inc. performed a Phase I Environmental Property 
Assessment of the 
preferred WWTP site (Alternative 2)  in November 2002, in accordance with 
American Society 
of Testing and Materials Practice (ASTM) E-1527. The assessment was performed on 
10 vacant 
lots near Woods Avenue and US-1, in the Village. The project area consisted of 
an about 1.32-
acre (57,500 square foot), irregularly shaped vacant and undeveloped parcel 
compromised of ten 
separate lots designated as Lots 1-6, and 17-20 in Block 1 of Lake Harbor 
Estates and included 
the preferred site. The area is bounded by Woods Avenue and single family 
residences to the 
north; vacant land and single family residences to the south; Gardenia Street 
and single family 
residences to the west; and US-1 to the east.
Results of the Phase I assessment indicate that the project area is visibly 
overgrown with dense 
vegetation. No areas of distressed or discolored vegetation, which would be 
attributed to obvious 
discharge of environmental contaminants, were noted. Based on a review of the 
information 
collected during the investigation, it was determined that the subject property 
was historically 
vacant and vegetated land prior to 1964 until the present date. The results of 
the Phase I 
assessment indicated no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) 
in connection 
with the property.

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, impacts related to wastes and hazardous 
materials  are 
expected to be similar to Alternatives 2 or 3 described below. Wastewater sludge 
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 Alternatives 2 and 3, wastewater would be treated as described in Section 
2.2.3.4 of this 
document (Effluent Disposal). Additional environmental consequences of this 
alternative are 
discussed in PEA Section 3.8.2.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant 
Alternative). For 
Alternative 2, based on the results of the above described Phase I ESA, no 
notable environmental 
effects or hazardous materials abatement are anticipated for construction at 
this site. Alternative 
3 is adjacent to Alternative 2, on the opposite side of US Route 1, and is 
within the records 
review search radius that was conducted as part of the above described Phase I 
ESA for 
Alternative 2.  This records search returned no known records associated with 
this site.  
However, in the event Alternative 3 was selected, a Phase I Environmental 
Property Assessment 
would be conducted in accordance with ASTM E-1527.

The most common hazardous materials that enter the wastewater systems are grease 
and typical 
household cleaning products (Rios, Pers. Comm., 2001). The effects of an 
inadvertent disposal of 
hazardous wastes into wastewater effluent is more likely to affect smaller 
plants like the 
Plantation 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 could  kill the biological 
component that treats 
the wastewater.  Such material would have to be pumped out and sent to a larger 
treatment plant 
for reprocessing. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 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 the 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.

3.9	 INFRASTRUCTURE
3.9.1	Traffic and Circulation
Affected Environment
Traffic capacity limitations are found along four segments of US-1. As discussed 
in PEA Section 
3.9.1.1 (Traffic and Circulation, Affected Environment), the conditions of the 
roadway are based 
on levels of service (LOS). This is defined by the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual 
as a 
qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, 
and their perception 
of motorists. Roadway LOS is ranked from A (the best) to F (the worst), with C 
being the 
average. Plantation, Upper Matecumbe Key, Lower Matecumbe Key, and Big Pine Key 
do not 
meet LOS C and are considered to be critical growth constraints. 
Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA funds would not be used for wastewater 
management 
projects in North Plantation Key. North Plantation Key and Plantation Key Colony 
residents 
would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. 
It is anticipated 
that effects on traffic and circulation, once funding is secured, 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 near the proposed facility and would be expected to last up to 16 
months, i.e., the 
duration of construction. Construction would not interrupt vehicular traffic or 
scheduled 
transportation services on US-1. Installation of a collection system would 
temporarily hinder, but 
not obstruct, traffic throughout the service area. Installation and operation of 
the treatment plant 
would temporarily increase traffic to each facility depending on capacity and 
operations.
Public service disruptions from construction are expected to be infrequent and 
brief. 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 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 area are detailed 
in PEA Section 

3.9.2.1 (Utilities and Services, Affected Environment). The main types of 
wastewater treatment 
within the project area include septic tanks and cesspools. Six package 
wastewater treatment 
plants service the remainder of the area (Table 3-9).

[Table 3-9.	Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Village of Islamorada 
(PBSJ, 2002)
Name				Address/Location
Plantation Key Elementary	100 Lake Street
Coral Shores High School	MM 90, Bayside
Sea Gulls Condominium		100 Wrenn Street
Turek Building			MM 90.5, Bayside
Tavernier Harbor		90311 Overseas Highway
Tropic Vista Motel		90701 Overseas Highway]

The Village Public Works Division (Division) maintains 51 miles of ROWs and four 
parks 
(Islamorada, 2003). The Division has overall management of all construction 
projects involving 
roadways, storm water drainage, sidewalks, bike paths, vegetation clearing, and 
roadway 
marking, and manages executed contracts for all new construction of Village 
facilities and 
infrastructure. 

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, the Village would not receive FEMA funds for 
wastewater 
management projects. North Plantation Key and Plantation Key Colony residents 
would still 
need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is 
anticipated that effects 
utilities and service, once funding is secured, would be similar to those under 
Alternatives 2 
and 3. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there would likely be temporary adverse effects on 
utilities and 
services during the construction phase. Plantation Key is fully developed and 
currently receives 
all services, which are supportive of the proposed wastewater improvement 
alternatives. The 
Village would contact the diggers/excavation utility hotline at the Sunshine 
State One-Call 
Center at least two business days prior to construction. Short-term adverse 
impacts would occur 
as residents and businesses hook up to the new wastewater system. Long-term 
adverse effects on 
utilities and services are not expected provided that proper utility 
notification and construction 
practices are observed. Long-term positive effects would occur as current 
wastewater methods 
are switched out and operated accordingly. The existing six package plants may 
be 
decommissioned, and connect to the new WWTP.

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. No 
interruptions to 
water service are expected.

3.10	LAND USE AND PLANNING
Affected Environment
Plantation Key is part of the Village of Islamorada, located in Monroe County. 
The preferred site 
is zoned suburban commercial (SC) and the alternate site is zoned suburban 
residential (SR) 
(Figure 3-5; First American Real Estate, 1999). Plantation Key Colony is a high 
density 
residential area, whereas the remainder of the service area is medium to low 
density residential. 
The affected environment for land use and planning is further discussed in PEA 
Section 3.10.1 
(Land Use and Planning, Affected Environment).

State-identified Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) present on the ocean 
side and 
bayside of the service area is the Lake San Pedro Hammock. No other conservation 
lands are 
present on North Plantation Key. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 
surrounds the 
island seaward from the mean high water line; the Key Largo National Marine 
Sanctuary is 
located on the ocean side of Plantation Key, seaward from the mean high water 
line. Plantation 
Key is not located within a Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) unit.
 
[Figure 3-5.	Current Land Uses of the Service Area
(Monroe County Property Appraiser's Database, 2001)
Figure 3-5 is a land use map of the service area. The map shows that the 
preferred site is zoned 
suburban commercial and the alternate site is zoned suburban residential.]


Under Alternative 3, the treatment plant for would be located on land currently 
owned by the 
Monroe County Land Authority, as part of the CARL program.

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA funds would not be used for wastewater 
management 
projects in North Plantation Key. North Plantation Key and Plantation Key Colony 
residents 
would still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. 
It is anticipated 
that effects on land use and planning, once funding is secured, would be similar 
to those under 
Alternatives 2 or 3. 

Impacts on land use and planning are similar for Alternatives 2 and 3 and are 
discussed in PEA 
Section 3.10.2.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative). Under 
Alternative 2, the 
proposed WWTP would be located on property currently owned by the Village. 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 either Suburban Commercial, or Suburban Residential (Jerry 
Buckley, Pers. 
Comm., 2003). This was made applicable to the Village through Ordinance No. 98-
13, wherein the 
Village adopted the Monroe County Code until superseded by action of the Village 
Council. 
Under Alternative 3, the WWTP would be located on land currently owned by the 
Monroe 
County Land Authority, as part of the CARL program. If the Village should select 
Alternative 3, 
the Village would then enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the 
Monroe County 
Land Authority to mitigate with land of similar habitat quality.

As described in PEA Section 3.10.1.1 (Future Land Use and Planning), development 
within the 
Keys is not controlled by addition of key infrastructure, but instead by a 
Building Permit 
Allocation System (BPAS).  The BPAS regulated both residential and non-
residential growth 
through the year 2020.  During the period from 2001 to 2020 the BPAS allows a 
total of 302 
residential units, an average of 15 per year (PEA 2002).. The construction of 
new wastewater 
treatment infrastructure in the 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 these alternatives, it is a 
function of established 
Village planning and is not directly related to proposed projects for wastewater 
management 
improvements. 

Construction of the collection system would not impact the Lake San Pedro 
Hammock. Direct 
impacts on other conservation lands or CBRS units would not occur since these 
are not 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 April 4, 
2003, that based on 
the information provided, 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 area 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 area were documented by URS on August 1, 2002. 
The proposed site, to be used under Alternative 2, consists of dense remnant 
tropical hardwood 
hammock. The lots located north of Alternative 2 are vegetated and provide a 
level of buffering 
for noise to the north. Two commercial businesses and about 100 feet of forested 
natural land 
occur between the site and the Plantation Key Elementary School to the south and 
west, 
providing a good level of buffering for noise. No other natural or artificial 
noise buffers were 
observed between the project sites and the sensitive noise receptors identified.
This forested natural site may be considered a mixed urban 
commercial/residential area along a 
major roadway. As discussed in PEA Section 3.11.1 (Noise, Affected Environment), 
the overall 
noise level for this type of classification is moderately loud. The current 
generation of noise is 
associated primarily with the following:
* General vehicle operation along US-1;
* Activities associated with nearby commercial businesses along US-1 and 
Gardenia Street, 
e.g., Sundance Construction Company;
* Activities associated with the operation of Plantation Elementary School about 
300 feet south 
of the site; and
* Activities associated with the renovation and operation of the Coral Shores 
High School 
located about 500 feet northeast of the site.
Observed noise receptors near the project sites include:
* Occupied single-family residential homes; the closest home is located about 
100 feet west of 
the plant site;
* Plantation Elementary School located about 300 feet south of the site; and
* Coral Shores High School located about 500 feet northeast of the site.
The Alternative 3 site consists of dense remnant tropical hardwood hammock. The 
southern edge 
of the site borders with a continuous hardwood hammock providing a level of 
buffering for noise 
to the south. A small fringe of landscaped vegetation exists along the edge of 
the nearby homes 
to the east providing minimal buffering for noise. No other natural or 
artificial noise buffers were 
observed between the project sites and the sensitive noise receptors identified. 
It may be 
considered a commercial area along a major roadway. As discussed in PEA Section 
3.11.1 
(Noise, Affected Environment), the overall noise level for this type of 
classification is 
moderately loud. The current generation of noise is associated primarily with 
the following:
* General vehicle operation along US-1;
* Activities associated with nearby commercial businesses along US-1;
* Activities associated with the operation of Plantation Elementary School about 
250 feet 
southwest; and
* Activities associated with the renovation and operation of the Coral Shores 
High School 
located about 200 feet northeast of the site.
Observed noise receptors near the project sites include:
* Occupied single-family residential homes, the closest home is located about 50 
feet east of 
the plant site;
* Plantation Elementary School located about 250 feet southwest; and
* Coral Shores High School located about 200 feet northeast of the site.
No other noise receptors were identified in the project area.

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, the Village would not receive FEMA funds for 
wastewater 
management projects. North Plantation Key and Plantation Key Colony residents 
would still 
need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is 
anticipated that effects 
on noise levels, once funding is secured, would be similar to those under 
Alternatives 2 or 3.
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 area would be 
similar and are 
discussed in PEA Section 3.11.1.2 (Noise, Environmental Consequences). An 
increase in 
localized noise levels would occur at various locations throughout the duration 
of construction 
for about 16 months (PBSJ, 2002). Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation Key 
residents may 
endure annoying and disruptive noises during allowable construction work hours, 
as cited in the 
applicable noise ordinance. However, the potential for the population to 
experience hearing 
damage or loss due to construction noises is considered low.

To mitigate noise impacts on residents, vegetative barriers may be constructed 
around 
construction areas. Construction personnel would observe the Village's Noise 
Ordinance (03-06) 
to reduce annoying and disruptive noises to adjacent areas. 

To mitigate noise impacts on laborers, workers would 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 
affects on 
workers should occur.

3.11.2	Visual Resources
Affected Environment
As discussed in PEA Section 3.11.2.1 (Visual Resources, Affected Environment), 
visual 
resources refer to the landscape character (i.e., what is seen), visual 
sensitivity (i.e., human 
preferences and values regarding what is seen), scenic integrity (i.e., degree 
of intactness and 
wholeness of landscape character), and landscape visibility (i.e., relative 
distances of seen areas) 
of a geographically defined viewshed. A visual resources assessment was 
conducted for the 
project area by URS on August 1, 2002.

The Alternative 2 site is a forested natural site that can be considered a mixed 
urban 
commercial/residential area along a major roadway. The site consists of a dense 
remnant tropical 
hardwood hammock. The existing vegetation acts as an aesthetic buffer for the 
residential homes 
and businesses along Gardenia Street, west of US-1. Lots north of the site are 
vegetated, 
providing a level of buffering for aesthetics. No other natural aesthetic 
buffers exist between the 
site and adjacent lands. Dominant features of the project viewshed include:
* US-1;
* Residential homes and yard landscaping;
* Vacant land consisting of tropical hardwood hammock;
* Commercial structures;
* Plantation Elementary School; and
* Coral Shores High School

The Alternative 3 site is a forested natural site that can be considered a 
commercial area along a 
major roadway. The site consists of a dense remnant tropical hardwood hammock 
that is an 
aesthetic buffer from US-1 for the residential homes located east of the site. 
No natural aesthetic 
buffers exist between the project sites and adjacent lands. Visual resources are 
similar to those 
identified for Alternative 2. 

Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, the Village would not receive FEMA funds for 
wastewater 
improvements projects. North Plantation Key and Plantation Key Colony residents 
would still 
need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is 
anticipated that effects 
on visual resources, once funding is secured, would be similar to those under 
Alternatives 2 
and 3. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, construction of a WWTP would not adversely affect 
the scenic 
quality of the service area because the immediate vicinity has no unique natural 
communities, 
high quality and unique views, or natural areas. The facility may cause an 
aesthetic impact onto 
the nearby residences. To mitigate these effects, the areas surrounding the WWTP 
may be 
landscaped with vegetative screens to obscure views from nearby residences and 
US-1.

Section 4 Cumulative Impacts
Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to the Village 
for 
wastewater management improvements. Thus, the county (Monroe County, cities, 
private 
wastewater utility operators, business owners, and homeowners) would have to 
locate alternate 
funding sources to finance the large capital costs to improve their wastewater 
treatment systems 
to meet the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. Communities that 
currently use 
onsite systems, such as cesspools and septic systems, to manage wastes would 
have to construct 
either community or regional WWTPs, install onsite 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, 
eventually, and are discussed below. Cumulative effects under the no action 
alternative may be 
delayed.  Currently there are no proposed projects planned or underway in the 
Plantation Key 
area that would contribute to environmental impacts within the WWTP project area 
(Sheahan, 
Pers. Comm., 2003).

4.1	TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY
Implementation of new wastewater treatment services on North Plantation Key 
would 
cumulatively increase the Village's impervious surface area due to the 
construction of 
wastewater treatment systems; however, the actual land area required for these 
activities is small 
relative to the extent of the surface area of North Plantation Key. Soils would 
be temporarily 
disturbed during construction; however, the implementation of BMPs would 
decrease the 
potential for long-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 surface waters and 
jurisdictional wetlands, and 
water quality for the Florida Keys are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.2 (Water 
Resources and 
Water Quality).  The Monroe County School Board has undertaken a redevelopment 
of Coral 
Shores High School, located near Alternatives 2 and 3.  This project involves 
replacement of a 
majority of the school, as well as drainage improvements and upgrades to the on 
site package 
plant.  This project is being undertaken in accordance with appropriate water 
quality controls and 
would result in long term improvements to water quality.   In addition, an 
upgrade to the 
Plantation Key Elementary School is planned for the future.  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 species status 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
Potential cumulative effects on air quality are expected to be minimal and  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 State 
Historic 
Preservation Office would minimize the effects on cultural resources from 
ground-disturbing 
activities associated with wastewater projects. 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 
in 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. 
Water quality improvements would also benefit commercial and recreational 
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
The siting of wastewater facilities is not expected to have any cumulative 
adverse effects on 
minority and/or low-income populations. Although the implementation of any of 
the alternatives 
would generally result in an increase in the cost of wastewater disposal for 
service recipients; 
these costs would be substantially reduced for qualifying low-income homeowners 
through 
implementation of the  PEA and Village assistance provisions.  The FEMA mandated 
provisions 
would not be required for the No Action alternative, consequently economic 
impacts to low-
income homeowners would depend on the chosen wastewater system and Village's 
rate 
structure.   Cumulative adverse economic effects are not expected from 
Alternatives 2 or 3, and 
are further discussed in PEA Section 4.2.7 (Demographics and Environmental 
Justice).

4.8	WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potential cumulative effects from wastes and hazardous materials are not 
expected and are 
discussed in PEA Section 4.2.8 (Hazardous Materials).

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 Village's 
existing growth pattern. Since Alternative 2 is located outside of conservation, 
CARL lands and 
CBRS units, adverse cumulative effects on these special status lands are not 
anticipated.   The 
site for Alternative 3 is owned by the Monroe County Land Authority as part of 
the CARL 
Program.  Use of the Alternative 3 project area would require the Village to 
enter into an MOA 
with the Monroe County Land Authority and mitigate the loss with lands of 
similar habitat 
quality, minimizing the cumulative effect on CARL lands  In addition,  the CARL 
program plans 
on adding more lands. PEA Section 4.2.10 (Land Use and Planning) further 
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 and  are 
further discussed in PEA Section 4.2.11 (Noise and Visual Resources).

Section 5 Public Participation
FEMA's public involvement activities related to the proposed Plantation Key 
wastewater 
projects began with the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) (Appendix D) to 
prepare this 
SEA. 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. The Draft SEA 
was released 
on July 7, 2003 for a 15-day public comment period. It was made available at the 
Monroe 
County Branch Library in Islamorada and on FEMA's web page www.fema.gov/ehp/.  
The Draft 
SEA was sent on July 25, 2003 for a 30-day intergovernmental review period. 
Specifically, it 
was sent to the agencies listed in Appendix B. FEMA held a public meeting on the 
proposed 
project on July 16, 2003 at the Village Council Chamber at Founder's Park, 87000 
Overseas 
Hwy, Islamorada, Florida. The public meeting was advertised on July 9, 2003 in 
the Key West 
Keynoter and The Miami Herald, Keys Edition (Appendix D). Although the public 
meeting was 
well advertised by both FEMA and the Village of Islamorada, there was a lack of 
attendance. In 
addition, FEMA received no comments as a part of the public review period and 
received two 
letters from government agencies as a result of the intergovernmental review 
period. Those 
letters are included in Appendix B. Prior to FEMA's public involvement process, 
the Village of 
Islamorada had undertaken several efforts to provide information on this project 
to the 
community and to seek comment and input through the Village Council and the 
Village's Water 
Quality Committee.

Section 6 Mitigation Measures and Permits

6.1	MITIGATION
To mitigate impacts from the preferred alternative, the project applicant would 
be required to:
* Implement appropriate best management practices (BMPs) during construction;
* Develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;
* Use conventional site preparation techniques prior to and during construction;
* Construct vegetative barriers around the WWTP site to reduce construction 
noise and 
obscure views from US-1 and adjacent residences;
* Ensure that construction personnel would observe the established noise 
ordinance, 
comply with applicable occupational safety regulations and implement appropriate 
noise 
control measures;
* Purchase and protect hammock habitat, of similar quality to the selected site, 
at a two to 
one ratio, near the service area (Appendix G);
* Design the WWTP to minimize construction affects to the hammock, including 
transplanting key tree species and replanting 75% natives species in site 
landscaping 
(Appendix B – USFWS 4/22/03 letter);
* Ensure that residential service recipients will not be charged system capital 
costs beyond 
those presented in PEA Section 3.6.3.2.2 ([Centralized Wastewater Treatment 
Plant 
Alternative] $4,500 per EDU after grant funding has been applied); and
* Provide wastewater service (inclusive of any amortized system capital costs) 
at a cost that 
falls below or near the affordability threshold described in PEA Section 
3.6.3.2.2 
([Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant] $75/month); and 
* Implement financial assistance for qualifying low-income and very low-income 
service 
recipients for system capital costs and decommissioning and lateral hook-up 
costs, 
consistent with  guidelines and definitions as described in PEA Section 3.7.1.5 
(Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative).

6.2	PERMITS AND LICENSES
Permits required for the construction and operation of the Plantation Key 
Wastewater Treatment 
System are listed in Appendix E of the PEA (Applicable Permit Information). 
These permits may 
include an Application for a Domestic Wastewater Facility; Application to 
Construct/Operate/Abandon Class V Injection well Systems; a 
Construction/Clearance Permit 
for Class V Well; a Certification of Class V Well Construction Completion; an 
Authorization for 
Class V Well Use; an Application for Class V Well Plugging and Abandonment 
Permit; a 
Notification to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection of Class V 
Well 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.  Siting the wastewater treatment system in the 100-year 
floodplain will 
require compliance with the Village's Floodplain Ordinance.  Moreover, because 
it is considered 
a critical action under EO 11988,  the plant and its critical operating 
components must be 
protected to the 500-year flood elevation (44 CFR Part 9.11).

Section 7 Conclusions
Construction and operation of either the Alternative 2 or 3 wastewater project, 
as outlined, would 
have some limited adverse impacts and long-term positive impacts on the human 
environment.  
The majority of adverse impacts would be short-term and construction-related.  
Effects on 
topography, soils, and geology; floodplains and wetlands; biological resources; 
air quality; 
hazardous materials and wastes; infrastructure; land use and planning; and noise 
and visual 
resources are expected to be minimal; with implementation of appropriate 
mitigation measures.  
Effects on tourism, the fishing industry, and cultural resources are expected to 
be negligible.  
Positive effects on water resources; including inland, nearshore, and offshore 
waters; are 
expected from better water quality because of incremental improvements in 
wastewater 
treatment.  Similarly, improved water quality will benefit public health from 
reduced nutrient 
and pathogen release in the wastewater discharge. Increased wastewater 
management costs 
would have limited adverse economic effects on wastewater service recipients, 
particularly for 
those who have cesspits or septic systems.  Implementation of either outlined 
Village rate option 
and compliance with the PEA established service and system capital cost 
affordability criteria 
will mitigate this adverse economic effect, and wastewater costs would be 
considered affordable.  
Moreover, this potential disproportionately high and adverse effect on low-
income service 
recipients will be further reduced through compliance with the PEA outlined and 
Village low-
income assistance provisions.   Implementation of prescribed adverse affect 
minimization/mitigation measures outlined in this SEA, along  with applicable 
permit 
compliance; impacts to the human environment are expected to be less than 
significant for 
Alternatives 2 or 3.  

For the No Action alternative, environmental effects from wastewater system 
construction and 
operation would generally be similar those described above.  Environmental 
benefits may be 
delayed pending Village receipt of alternative funding.  Adverse economic 
effects on service 
recipients could be significant, particularly on low-income residents.  The 
severity of this effect 
would depend on the chosen wastewater system and level of Village financial 
assistance.  
Consequently, the significance of human environment impacts for the No Action 
alternative 
would depend on the Village's implementation choices.   
These conclusions are based on the analyses, conditions, and assumptions 
contained in the PEA 
and SEA.  

Section 8 References

Buckley, Jerry. 2003. Monroe County Planning Department. Personal communication 
with Laura Cherney, URS Group, Inc.
Caffry, W. 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.
Chiappone, M. and K. M. Sullivan. 1996. Functional ecology and ecosystem 
trophodynamics. In: Site Characterization for the Florida Keys National Marine 
Sanctuary and Environs, Volume 8. The Preserver, Zenda, Wisconsin.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Water Quality Protection Program 
for 
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Phase II Report. Final report 
submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency under Work Assignment 1, 
Contract No. 68-C2-0134. Continental Shelf Assoc., Inc., Jupiter, FL and 
Battelle 
Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA. February.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1999. National Flood Insurance 
Program, Consolidated CBRA Q3 Electronic Flood Hazard Data. Diskette 4. 
Florida and Georgia.
First American Real Estate Solutions. 1999. Realty Atlas. Monroe County, 
Florida.
Florida Keys Keynoter, 2003. Florida Keys Fishing Tournaments. 
http://www.keynoter.com/ffk/tourneys.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 
Florida Marine Research Institute (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.
Greyhound Lines, Inc. 2002. Service Locations. 
http://www.greyhound.com/misc/states/index.shtml
Islamorada Chamber of Commerce, 2003. http://www.islamoradachamber.com/
Islamorada Fishing Club, 2003. http://www.islamoradafishingclub.com/home.html
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.
McNeese, P. 1998. Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) Project 
Technical Summary Document.
Monroe County Property Appraiser's Database. 2001.
Monroe County. 2001. Stormwater Management Master Plan. Prepared by Camp, 
Dresser and McKee, Inc., Keith & Schnars, P.A. 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. 2000. Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. Volume 1. 
Submitted by CH2MHILL. June.
Monroe County. 1995. Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Technical 
Document. Monroe County Planning Department. Key West, FL.
Nutting Engineers of Florida, Inc., 2003. Report of Geotechnical Exploration, 
Village of 
Islamorada, Proposed Sewer Line, Islamorada, Florida.
Paul, J.P., J.B. Rose, S. Jiang, X. Zhou, P. Cochran, C. Kellogg, J. Kang, D. 
Griffin, S. 
Farrah, and J. Lukasik. 1997. Evidence for groundwater and marine water 
contamination by waste disposal wells in the Florida Keys. Water Research 
31:1448-1454.
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan (PBSJ). 2002. Plantation Key Colony / North 
Plantation Key Wastewater Treatment System. Submitted to the Village of 
Islamorada, July 2002. 
Rios, Gus. 2001. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Marathon 
District. 
Personal communication with Sonya Krogh, URS. September 10.
Southeast Environmental Research Center (SERC). 2003. Water Quality Monitoring 
Project for the Water Quality Protection Program of the Florida Keys National 
Marine Sanctuary. http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/FKNMS-
CD/Sites/226_files/Site226.htm
State of Florida, Department of Health (DOH). 2003. 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.
Tindle, Greg. 2003. Deputy Village Manager, Village of Islamorada. Personal 
Communication with Laura Cherney, URS Group, Inc.
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. 72p.
URS Group (URS). 2003. Islamorada Archaeology Report. Prepared for Federal 
Emergency Management Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
URS. 2002. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment on Wastewater Management 
Improvements in the Florida Keys. Prepared for Federal Emergency Management 
Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
Village of Islamorada. 2003. Public Works Division. 
http://www.islamorada.fl.us/newsite/public_works/default.asp
Village of Islamorada. 2002. Village of Islands, Design and Construction of 
Plantation 
Key Colony/North Plantation Key Wastewater Treatment and Collection Systems 
Project, RFP No 02-1001.


Section 9 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.

Stephen Carruth, M.S., Project Environmental Scientist.  Document peer reviewer.

Angela Chaisson, NEPA Group Leader. Document peer reviewer.

Science Kilner, M.S., FEMA Region IV Lead Environmental-Historic 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
APE		Area of Potential Effect
ASTM		American Society of Testing and Materials

BAT		Best available technology
BFE		Base flood elevation
BMPs		Best management practices
bls		below land surface
BOD		Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CARL		Conservation and Recreation Lands
CBRS		Coastal Barrier Resource System
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		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
FIRM		Flood Insurance Rate Map
FKAA		Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
FMRI		Florida Marine Research Institute

gpd		gallons per day
GMFMC		Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

HDPE		high-density polyethylene
Hg		mercury

IFC		Islamorada Fishing Club

LOS		level of service

MCSWMP		Monroe County Stormwater Master Plan
mg/l		milligrams per liter
ml		milliliters
MM		Mile marker
MOA		Memorandum of Agreement
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
NRHP		National Register of Historic Places

OFW		Outstanding Florida Waters
OWNRS		Onsite wastewater nutrient reduction systems

PBSJ		Post Buckley Shuh and Jernigan
PEA		Programmatic Environmental Assessment
PKC		Plantation Key Colony
Plan		Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
ppm		parts per million
PVC		polyvinyl chloride

REC		recognized environmental condition
RFP		Request for Proposals
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 Species
TN		Total Nitrogen
TP		Total Phosphorus
TSS		Total Suspended Solids

URS		URS Group, Inc.
US-1		U.S. Route 1
USDA		U. S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS		U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Village		Village of Islamorada

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


For copies of agency coordination letters, please contact:
Ms. Science Kilner, Lead Environmental Specialist
FEMA Region IV
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, Georgia  30341
Fax: (770) 330-5440
science.kilner@dhs.gov


Appendix C
Site Photographs

Photo 1:  View of proposed Plantation Key WWTP site bordering Gardenia Street - 
facing north (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 2:  View of proposed Plantation Key WWTP site bordering Gardenia Street - 
adjacent residence in background - facing south (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 3:  Plantation Key Elementary School, on Gardenia Street Plantation Key 
(bayside) in the vicinity of the proposed Plantation Key WWTP site - facing 
southwest (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 4:  Interior of southeastern portion of proposed Plantation Key WWTP site 
Brazillian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) in foreground - facing southeast 
(URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 5:  Interior of eastern portion of proposed Plantation Key WWTP site - 
Australian Pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) in foreground - facing east (URS site 
visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 6:  Interior of proposed Plantation Key WWTP site - Strangler Fig (Ficus 
aurea) in foreground- facing north (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 7:  Interior of proposed Plantation Key WWTP site - facing north (URS site 
visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 8:  Eastern boundary of proposed Plantation Key WWTP site adjacent to US-1 
- facing north (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 9:  Eastern boundary of proposed Plantation Key WWTP site adjacent to US-1 
- facing northwest (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 10:  Eastern boundary of alternate Plantation Key WWTP site adjacent to 
Old State Road 4A - facing south (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 11:  Eastern boundary of alternate Plantation Key WWTP site adjacent to 
Old State Road 4A - facing north (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 12:  Interior of alternate Plantation Key WWTP site - hardwood hammock 
habitat - facing west (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 13:  Interior of alternate Plantation Key WWTP site - hardwood hammock 
habitat - facing north (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 14:  Interior of alternate Plantation Key WWTP site - hardwood hammock 
habitat-facing south (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 15:  Interior of alternate Plantation Key WWTP site - barbed-wire cactus 
(Acanthocereus tetragonus), listed as threatened by the State of Florida, in 
foreground - facing north (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)

Photo 16:  Western boundary of alternate Plantation Key WWTP site - adjacent to 
US-1 - facing south (URS site visit, July 31, 2002)



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
ISLAMORADA, VILLAGE OF ISLANDS 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 Plantation Key 
Colony/North Plantation 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 Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation 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 Plantation 
Key Colony/North Plantation 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 Plantation 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 Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation 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 (Preferred):  FEMA/FDEM grant funding would be applied 
towards the 
construction of a community wastewater collection system and treatment plant 
serving  Plantation Key 
Colony/North Plantation Key ; with the plant sited on the bayside between US 1 
and Gardenia Street at 
Mile Marker 89.8 just north of Plantation Key Elementary School;  
3) Action Alternative 2:  FEMA/FDEM grant funding would be applied as described 
under alternative 2, 
but the treatment plant would be sited on the Oceanside between US 1 and Old 
State Road 4A near Mile 
Marker 89.7 just southwest of Coral Shores High School.

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 Plantation 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

FEMA PUBLIC NOTICE
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED ISLAMORADA, VILLAGE OF ISLANDS WASTEWATER PROJECT
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has received a grant application 
from Islamorada, Village of 
Islands to fund construction of a wastewater treatment system to serve 
Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation 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 (FDEM) and the Village of Islamorada. 
The purpose of the project is to 
improve the Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation Key service area's wastewater 
treatment; consistent with the 
Village adopted, Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan and to meet State 
requirements (Chapter 99-395 
Laws of Florida) by 2010.

FEMA has completed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Wastewater 
Management 
Improvements in the Keys, for various wastewater projects including Plantation 
Key. A Draft Supplemental 
Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the proposed action on Plantation Key is now 
complete, which focuses on 
site/project specific issues. These documents were prepared 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 the Presidential Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management); 
as implemented in 44 CFR Part 
9. 
Project Alternatives: 
Alternatives to be considered in the SEA include:
* No Action Alternative:  No FEMA/FDEM grant funding would be applied to the 
Plantation Key Colony/North 
Plantation Key service area, which would continue to use its existing wastewater 
treatment systems, and 
funding would have to be obtained from other sources to meet the State 2010 
requirements and deadline;
* Action Alternative 1 (preferred):  FEMA/FDEM grant funding is applied towards 
construction of a wastewater 
collection system serving  Plantation Key Colony, and construction of a 
community wastewater treatment plant 
serving Plantation Key Colony and North Plantation Key; with the plant sited on 
the bayside between US 1 and 
Gardenia Street at Mile Marker 89.8 just north of Plantation Key Elementary 
School;  
* Action Alternative 2:  FEMA/FDEM grant funding is applied as under Alternative 
2, but the treatment plant 
would be sited on the oceanside between US 1 and Old State Road 4A near Mile 
Marker 89.7 just southwest of 
Coral Shores High School.
Notice of Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment Available for Comment:
The DSEA addresses the purpose and need of the proposed project, project 
alternatives considered, the affected 
environment, project and site-specific environmental consequences, and impact 
mitigation measures. Comments to 
the DSEA 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 Plantation Key project 
alternatives on the physical, biological, and social/built environment. Comments 
should be made in writing and sent 
to the FEMA official listed below or given at the public meeting. Comments will 
be accepted no later than July 25, 
2003. The DSEA may be accessed as indicated below; the PEA and FONSI may also be 
accessed at these locations, 
however the public comment period for the latter two documents has passed.
* The DSEA may be viewed and downloaded at the following website:  
http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm
* A copy of the DSEA will be available for viewing at the following public 
repository
Helen Wadley Branch Library, Mile Marker 81.5 Overseas Highway, Islamorada
Public Meeting Notice:
A public meeting has been scheduled for the DSEA. The purpose of the meeting is 
to present the DSEA, discuss the 
issues and gather information, and receive public comments.
* JULY 16TH 6:30 to 9:30pm – Village Council Chambers, Founder's Park, 87000 
Overseas Highway, Islamorada
Point of Contact:
Ms. Science Kilner, Lead Environmental Specialist
FEMA Region IV
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
Fax: (770) 220-5440

Appendix E
Community Development Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program Overview

For a copy of the Community Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program Overview, 
please 
contact:
Ms. Science Kilner, Lead Environmental Specialist
FEMA Region IV
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, Georgia  30341
Fax: (770) 330-5440
science.kilner@dhs.gov

Appendix F
Regulated Fisheries Species in the Keys


[TABLE
Species Common Name		Scientific Name			Managed By
Almaco Jack			Seriola rivoliana		SAFMC, GMFMC
Albacore			Thunnus alalunga		GMFMC
Anchor Tilefish			Caulolatilus intermedius	GMFMC
Atlantic Angel shark		Squatina dumeril		GMFMC
Atlantic Bonito			Sarda sarda			GMFMC
Atlantic Sharpnose		Rhizoprionodon terraenovae	GMFMC
Banded Rudderfish		Seriola zonata			SAFMC, GMFMC
Bank Sea Bass			Centropristis ocyurus		SAFMC
Basking Shark			Cetorhinus maximus		GMFMC
Bigeye Sixgill Shark		Hexanchus nakamurai		GMFMC
Bigeye Sand Tiger Shark		Odontaspis noronhai		GMFMC
Bigeye Tresher			Alopias superciliosus		GMFMC
Bigeye Tuna			Thunnus obesus			GMFMC
Bignose Shark			Carcharhinus altimus		GMFMC
Black Grouper			Mycteroperca bonaci		SAFMC, GMFMC
Black Margate			Anisotremus surinamensis	SAFMC
Black Snapper			Apsilus dentatus		SAFMC
Black Sea Bass			Centropristis striatus		SAFMC
Blackfin Snapper		Lutjanus buccanella		SAFMC, GMFMC
Blackfin Tuna			Thunnus attanticus		GMFMC 
Blackline Tilefish		Caulolatilus cyanops		GMFMC
Blue Marlin			Makaira nigicans		GMFMC
Bluefin Tilefish		Caulolatilus microps		SAFMC
Bluefin Tuna			Thunnus orientalis		GMFMC
Blueline Tilefish		Caulotatilus microps		GMFMC
Blue Stripe Grunt		Haemulon sciurus		SAFMC
Carribean Reef Shark		Carcharhinus perezi		GMFMC
Carribean Sharpnose Shark	Rhizoprionodon porosus		GMFMC
Cero				Scomberomorus regalis		SAFMC
Cobia				Rachycentron canadum		SAFMC, GMFMC
Coney				Epinephelus fulvus		SAFMC
Cubera Snapper			Lutjanus cyanopterus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Dog Snapper			Lutjanus jocu			SAFMC, GMFMC
Dolphin Fish			Coryphaena hippurus		SAFMC
Dusky Shark			Carcharhinus obscurus		GMFMC
French grunt			Haemulon flavolineatum		SAFMC
Gag				Mycteroperca microlepis		SAFMC, GMFMC
Galapagos shark			Carcharhinus galapagensis	GMFMC
Golden Crab			Chaceon fenneri			SAFMC
Golden Tilefish			Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps	SAFMC
Goliath Grouper			Epinephelus itajara		SAFMC
Goldface Tilefish		Caulolatilus chrysops		SAFMC
Graysby				Epinephelus cruentatus		SAFMC
Gray Snapper			Lutjanus griseus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Gray Triggerfish		Balistes capriscus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Greater Amberjack		Seriola dummerili		SAFMC, GMFMC
Hogfish				Lachnolaimus maximus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Jewfish Grouper			Epinephelus itajara		GMFMC
Jolthead Porgy			Calamus bajonado		SAFMC
King Mackerel			Scomberomorus cavalla		SAFMC, GMFMC
Knobbed Porgy			Calamus nodosus			SAFMC
Lane Snapper			Lutjanus synagris		SAFMC, GMFMC
Lesser Amberjack		Seriola fasciata		SAFMC, GMFMC
Longbill Spearfish		Tetrapturus pfluegeri		GMFMC
Little Tunny			Euthynnus alletteratus		SAFMC
Mahogany Snapper		Lutjanus mahogoni		SAFMC, GMFMC
Margate				Haemulon album			SAFMC
Misty Grouper			Epinephelus mystacinus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Mutton Snapper			Lutjanus analis			SAFMC, GMFMC
Narrowtooth Shark		Carcharhinus brachyurus		GMFMC
Nassau Grouper			Epinephelus striatus		SAFMC
Night Shark			Carcharhinus signatus		GMFMC
Ocean Triggerfish		Canthidermis sufflamen		SAFMC
Penaeid Shrimp			Penaeus sp.			SAFMC
Queen Snapper			Etelis oculatus			SAFMC, GMFMC
Queen Triggerfish		Balistes vetula			SAFMC
Red Drum			Sciaenops ocellatus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Red Grouper			Epinephelus morio		SAFMC, GMFMC
Red Hind			Epinephelus guttatus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Red Porgy			Pagrus pagrus			SAFMC
Red Snapper			Lutjanus campechanus		SAFMC
Rock Hind			Epinephelus adscensionis	SAFMC, GMFMC
Rock Sea Bass			Centropristis philadelphicus	SAFMC
Rock Shrimp			Sicyonia brevirostris		SAFMC
Sailfish			Istiophorus playpteras		GMFMC
Sand Tiger Shark		Carcharhinus taurus		GMFMC
Sevengill Shark			Notorynchus cepedianus		GMFMC
Sixgill Shark			Hexanchus griseus		GMFMC
Smalltail Shark			Carcharhinus porosus		GMFMC
Saucereye Porgy			Calamus calamus			SAFMC
Scamp				Mycteroperca phenax		SAFMC, GMFMC
Schoolmaster			Lutjanus apodus			SAFMC, GMFMC
Scup 				Stenotomus chrysops		SAFMC
Sheepshead			Archosargus probatocephalus	SAFMC
Silk Snapper			Lutjanus vivanus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Skipjack Tuna			Katsuwonus pelamis		GMFMC
Snowy Grouper			Epinephelus niveatus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Spadefish			Chaetodipterus faber		SAFMC
Spanish Mackerel		Scomberomorus maculatus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Speckled Hind			Epinephelus drummondhayi	SAFMC, GMFMC
Spiny Lobster			Panulirus argus			SAFMC, GMFMC
Swordfish			Xiphas gladius			GMFMC
Tiger Grouper			Mycteroperca tigris		SAFMC
Tilefish			Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps	GMFMC
Tomtate				Haemulon aurolineatum		SAFMC
Vermilion Snapper		Rhomboplites aurorubens		SAFMC, GMFMC
Wahoo				Acanthocybium solanderi		SAFMC
Warsaw Grouper			Epinephelus nigritus		SAFMC, GMFMC
Wenchman Snapper		Pristipomoides aquilonaris	GMFMC
Whale Shark			Rhincodon typus			GMFMC
Whitebone Porgy			Calamus leucosteus		SAFMC
White Grunt			Haemulon plumieri		SAFMC
White Marlin			Tetrpturus albidus		GMFMC
White Shark			Alosa sapidissima		GMFMC
Wreckfish			Polyprion americanus		SAFMC
Yellowedge Grouper		Epinephelus flavolimbatus	GMFMC
Yellowfin Grouper		Mycteroperca venenosa		SAFMC, GMFMC
Yellowfin Tuna			Thunnus albacares		GMFMC
Yellowmouth Grouper		Mycteroperca interstilitialis	SAFMC, GMFMC
Yellowtail Snapper		Ocyrus 	chrysurus		SAFMC, GMFMC]

Appendix G
Land Protection Agreement between DCA and the Village

For a copy of the Land Protection Agreement between DCA and the Village, please 
contact:
Ms. Science Kilner, Lead Environmental Specialist
FEMA Region IV
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, Georgia  30341
Fax: (770) 330-5440
science.kilner@dhs.gov

Appendix H
Plantation Key Cultural Resources Assessment Survey Report

For a copy of the Plantation Key Cultural Resources Assessment Survey Report, 
please contact:
Ms. Science Kilner, Lead Environmental Specialist
FEMA Region IV
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, Georgia  30341
Fax: (770) 330-5440
science.kilner@dhs.gov