+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Draft SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Conch Key Wastewater System                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Monroe County, Florida                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Prepared for*                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| The Federal Emergency Management Agency                               |
|                                                                       |
| Region IV                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| 3003 Chamblee-Tucker Rd.                                              |
|                                                                       |
| Atlanta, GA 30341                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| June 26, 2003                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| URS Group, Inc.                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Gaithersburg, MD 20878                                                |
|                                                                       |
| 700 South Royal Poinciana Blvd. Suite 1000                            |
|                                                                       |
| Miami Springs, FL 33166                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Abstract iv

Section 1 - Introduction [1-1](#section-1-1-introduction)

> 1.1 Project Authority [1-1](#project-authority)
>
> 1.2 Related Environmental Documents
> [1-1](#related-environmental-documents)
>
> 1.3 Project Location [1-1](#project-location)
>
> 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action [1-3](#purpose-and-need-for-action)

Section 2 - Alternatives Analysis
[2-1](#section-2-2-alternatives-analysis)

> 2.1 Alternative 1 -- No Action Alternative
> [2-1](#alternative-1-no-action-alternative-1)
>
> 2.2 Alternative 2 -- New Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction
> [2-1](#alternative-2-new-wastewater-treatment-plant-construction)
>
> 2.2.1 Wastewater Collection System
> [2-2](#wastewater-collection-system)
>
> 2.2.1.1 Option 1: Vacuum Sewer System
> [2-4](#option-1-vacuum-sewer-system)
>
> 2.2.1.2 Option 2: Gravity Sewer System
> [2-4](#option-2-gravity-sewer-system)
>
> 2.2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant [2-5](#wastewater-treatment-plant)
>
> 2.3 Alternative 3 -- New Wastewater Transmission System Construction
> [2-8](#alternative-3-new-wastewater-transmission-system-construction)
>
> 2.3.1 Wastewater Collection System
> [2-9](#wastewater-collection-system-1)
>
> 2.3.2 Vacuum Pump Station [2-9](#vacuum-pump-station)
>
> 2.3.3 Wastewater Transmission System
> [2-10](#wastewater-transmission-system)
>
> 2.3.4 Hawk's Cay Wastewater Treatment Plant
> [2-11](#hawks-cay-wastewater-treatment-plant)
>
> 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration
> [2-12](#alternatives-considered-but-eliminated-from-further-consideration)

SECTion 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
[3-1](#ion-3-3-affected-environment-and-environmental-consequences)

> 3.1 Topography, Soils, and Geology
> [3-1](#topography-soils-and-geology)
>
> 3.1.1 Topography [3-1](#topography)
>
> 3.1.2 Soils [3-1](#soils)
>
> 3.1.3 Geology [3-3](#geology)
>
> 3.2 Water Resources and Water Quality
> [3-4](#water-resources-and-water-quality)
>
> 3.2.1 Groundwater [3-4](#groundwater)
>
> 3.2.2 Inland, Nearshore, and Offshore Waters
> [3-5](#inland-nearshore-and-offshore-waters)
>
> 3.2.2.1 Inland Waters [3-5](#inland-waters)
>
> 3.2.2.2 Nearshore and Offshore Marine Waters
> [3-5](#nearshore-and-offshore-marine-waters)
>
> 3.2.2.3 Stormwater [3-6](#stormwater)
>
> 3.2.3 Floodplains and Wetlands [3-7](#floodplains-and-wetlands)
>
> 3.2.3.1 Floodplains [3-7](#floodplains)
>
> 3.2.3.2 Wetlands [3-8](#wetlands)
>
> 3.3 Biological Resources [3-10](#biological-resources)
>
> 3.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems [3-11](#terrestrial-ecosystems)
>
> 3.3.1.1 Pine Rocklands and Tropical Hardwood Hammocks
> [3-13](#pine-rocklands-and-tropical-hardwood-hammocks)
>
> 3.3.1.2 Mangrove Forests and Salt Marshes
> [3-13](#mangrove-forests-and-salt-marshes)
>
> 3.3.1.3 Freshwater Systems [3-13](#freshwater-systems)
>
> 3.3.1.4 Dunes and Coastal Ridges [3-13](#dunes-and-coastal-ridges)
>
> 3.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystems [3-13](#aquatic-ecosystems)
>
> 3.3.2.1 Seagrass Beds and Sand Flats
> [3-14](#seagrass-beds-and-sand-flats)
>
> 3.3.2.2 Coral Reefs [3-14](#coral-reefs)
>
> 3.3.2.3 Hardbottom [3-14](#hardbottom)
>
> 3.3.2.4 Sandy Bottom [3-15](#sandy-bottom)
>
> 3.3.2.5 Alternative 1 -- No Action Alternative
> [3-15](#alternative-1-no-action-alternative-2)
>
> 3.3.2.6 Alternative 2 -- New Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction
> [3-15](#alternative-2-new-wastewater-treatment-plant-construction-1)
>
> 3.3.2.7 Alternative 3 -- New Wastewater Transmission System
> Construction
> [3-16](#alternative-3-new-wastewater-transmission-system-construction-1)
>
> 3.3.3 Special Status Species [3-17](#special-status-species)
>
> 3.4 Air Quality [3-18](#air-quality)
>
> 3.5 Cultural Resources [3-19](#cultural-resources)
>
> 3.6 Socioeconomic Resources [3-21](#socioeconomic-resources)
>
> 3.6.1 Tourism [3-21](#tourism)
>
> 3.6.2 Fishing Industry [3-22](#fishing-industry)
>
> 3.6.3 Local Fees and Taxes [3-23](#local-fees-and-taxes)
>
> 3.6.3.1 Existing Wastewater Management Costs in the Conch Key Service
> Area
> [3-23](#existing-wastewater-management-costs-in-the-conch-key-service-area)
>
> 3.6.4 Public Health [3-26](#public-health)
>
> 3.7 Demographics and Environmental Justice
> [3-26](#demographics-and-environmental-justice)
>
> 3.7.1 Population and Race [3-27](#population-and-race)
>
> 3.7.2 Income and Poverty [3-27](#income-and-poverty)
>
> 3.7.3 Wastewater Fees and Affordability for Keys Low-income Residents
> [3-28](#wastewater-fees-and-affordability-for-keys-low-income-residents)
>
> 3.8 Hazardous Materials and Wastes
> [3-30](#hazardous-materials-and-wastes)
>
> 3.9 Infrastructure [3-31](#infrastructure)
>
> 3.9.1 Traffic and Circulation [3-31](#traffic-and-circulation)
>
> 3.9.2 Utilities and Services [3-32](#utilities-and-services)
>
> 3.10 Land Use and Planning [3-33](#land-use-and-planning)
>
> 3.11 Noise and Visual Resources [3-34](#noise-and-visual-resources)
>
> 3.11.1 Noise [3-34](#noise)
>
> 3.11.2 Visual Resources [3-36](#visual-resources)

Section 4 - Cumulative Effects [4-1](#section-4-4-cumulative-effects)

> 4.1 Topography, Soils, and Geology
> [4-1](#topography-soils-and-geology-1)
>
> 4.2 Water Resources and Water Quality
> [4-1](#water-resources-and-water-quality-1)
>
> 4.3 Biological Resources [4-1](#biological-resources-1)
>
> 4.4 Air Quality [4-1](#air-quality-1)
>
> 4.5 Cultural Resources [4-1](#cultural-resources-1)
>
> 4.6 Socioeconomics [4-2](#socioeconomics)
>
> 4.7 Demographics and Environmental Justice
> [4-2](#demographics-and-environmental-justice-1)
>
> 4.8 Hazardous Materials and wastes
> [4-2](#hazardous-materials-and-wastes-1)
>
> 4.9 Infrastructure [4-2](#infrastructure-1)
>
> 4.10 Land Use and Planning [4-3](#land-use-and-planning-1)
>
> 4.11 Noise and Visual Resources [4-3](#noise-and-visual-resources-1)

Section 5 - Public Participation
[5-1](#section-5-5-public-participation)

Section 6 - Mitigation Measures and Permits
[6-1](#section-6-6-mitigation-measures-and-permits)

> 6.1 Mitigation [6-1](#mitigation)
>
> 6.2 Permits and Licenses [6-1](#permits-and-licenses)

Section 7 - Consultations and References
[7-1](#section-7-7-consultations-and-references)

> 7.1 References [7-1](#references)

Section 8 - List of Preparers [8-1](#section-8-8-list-of-preparers)

Tables

Table 1-1 Residences and Commercial Businesses in the Service Area

Table 2-1 Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Consideration

Table 3-1 FDEP Forms Required for Injection Wells

Table 3-2 Observed Plant Species

Table 3-3 Project Areas Businesses

Table 3-4 Fiscal Year 2002 - HUD's *Low-Income* and *Very Low-Income
Limits*, Monroe County, Florida

Table 3-5 Alternative 2 - *Low-Income* and *Very Low-Income* Funding
Assistance for the System Capital Cost

Figures

Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map

Figure 2-1 Proposed Conch Key New Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Site
Location Map

Figure 2-2 Typical Building Connection

Figure 2-3 Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Site

Figure 2-4 Proposed Conch Key WWTP Preliminary Drawings

Figure 2-5 Proposed Conch Key Wastewater Transmission System Site
Location Map

Figure 2-6 Vacuum Pump Station Preliminary Drawings

Figure 2-7 Hawk's Cay WWTP Connection Preliminary Drawings

Figure 3-1 Project Area Soils

Figure 3-2 Project Area Vegetation

Figure 3-3 Walker's Cay Entrance Road Jurisdictional Wetland

Figure 3-4 Project Area Benthic Habitats

Figure 3-5 Lift Station B, Duck Key

Appendices

Appendix A Acronyms and Abbreviations

Appendix B Agency Coordination Letters

Appendix C Site Photographs

Appendix D Public Notice

Appendix E Public Comments

Appendix F Regulated Fisheries Species in the Keys

Appendix G Conch Key Cultural Resources Assessment Report

In response to Hurricane Georges damages and losses in 1998, Congress
enacted Public Law 106-31, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 1999, to fund long-term disaster recovery projects in
Florida counties whose needs were unmet through primary disaster relief
funds. Monroe County was included among the counties eligible for "Unmet
Needs" funding and requested that wastewater management improvement
projects be considered for this funding since many existing wastewater
facilities in the county are not storm-resistant.

Since then, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has received
a grant application from the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA)
requesting Federal assistance to construct a new wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) to service Conch Key and Walker's Cay in the Middle Keys.
FEMA prepared this draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to
address the likely effects of implementing three alternatives proposed
in Conch Key. The alternatives evaluated in this document include:

### Alternative 1 -- No Action Alternative {#alternative-1-no-action-alternative .ES-H3 .unnumbered}

FEMA would not fund a wastewater treatment project in Conch Key.
Alternate funding sources would need to be located to finance the large
capital costs of constructing a wastewater treatment system to meet the
Florida Statutory Treatment Standards by 2010. Until alternate funding
is secured, environmental degradation would continue. Depending on the
amount of alternative funding secured, increased wastewater management
costs and the potential for significant economic impacts would be
likely, particularly to service recipients that currently have cesspits
or septic systems. The likely increase in wastewater management costs
could cause a disproportionately high and adverse economic effect on
low-income service recipients.

### Alternative 2 -- Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant on Bay Side Alternative {#alternative-2-centralized-wastewater-treatment-plant-on-bay-side-alternative .ES-H3 .unnumbered}

FKAA, with FEMA funding, would construct a new community WWTP on the bay
side of U.S. Route 1 (US-1) at about Mile Marker (MM) 62.8. Wastewater
effluent would be collected through either vacuum pumping or a
low-pressure grinder pump system. Following tertiary treatment,
wastewater effluent would be disposed of through two shallow injection
wells. FKAA would be responsible for facility construction, operation,
and maintenance.

### Alternative 3 -- Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant on Ocean Side Alternative {#alternative-3-centralized-wastewater-treatment-plant-on-ocean-side-alternative .ES-H3 .unnumbered}

FKAA would use FEMA funding to construct a wastewater collection system
and vacuum pump station on Conch Key. Under this alternative, a new
wastewater transmission system (WTS) would be constructed to convey
wastewater to the existing Hawk's Cay WWTP on Duck Key, at about MM 61.
Following tertiary treatment, wastewater effluent would be disposed of
either through on-site irrigation or through six existing shallow
injection wells.

**Alternatives 2 and 3**

For both Alternatives 2 and 3, potential project effects on topography,
soils, and geology; hazardous materials; infrastructure; land use and
planning; and noise and visual resources within the project area are
expected to be minimal. Appropriate mitigation measures would reduce any
potential adverse effects of the project alternatives on these
resources. Effects on water resources and water quality are anticipated
to be beneficial. Effects on air quality and cultural resources would be
negligible. Potential effects on biological resources resulting from
site development are expected to be minimal. Effects on socioeconomic
resources of the area would be minimal. Effects on minority populations
and low-income populations in the area would be minimal and would be
mitigated by the implementation of an assistance program. Socioeconomic
effects would be mitigated with the use of FEMA grant funding, and
capital costs associated with Alternative 2 & 3 would be affordable to
service recipients. Implementation of the proposed wastewater projects
would equally benefit, through improved water quality, the various
demographic groups in the Keys. FEMA has imposed assistance guidelines
that will further lower the capital costs and the lateral and
abandonment costs in order to mitigate any disproportionately high and
adverse economic effects on low-income service recipients. The levels of
assistance are based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) *very-low* and *low* family income levels.

# Section 1 1 Introduction

## Project Authority

In 1998, after Hurricane Georges, Congress enacted Public Law 106-31,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, to
provide additional monies for long-term disaster recovery projects in
the State of Florida. The funds were allocated to assist counties whose
needs were yet unmet through allocation of primary disaster relief
funds. This Unmet Needs money was earmarked for the counties most
impacted by Hurricane Georges, including Monroe County. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), State of Florida, and the impacted
counties determined funding priorities.

Monroe County requested that wastewater management improvement projects
be considered for disaster funding, since many existing wastewater
facilities in Monroe County are not storm-resistant, do not provide
adequate wastewater treatment, and contribute to degraded water quality
in the Keys. Since then, FEMA has received a grant application from the
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) requesting Federal assistance for
construction of wastewater treatment systems for several areas in Monroe
County, including one in Conch Key, which would improve wastewater
treatment and ultimately water quality in the Florida Keys, as well as
assist residents in meeting State mandated wastewater discharge targets
as set forth in the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. The
*Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan* requires these Standards be
met in Monroe County by 2010. Specifically, wastewater treatment systems
must treat discharge to advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) levels or
best available technology (BAT). For facilities that treat over 100,000
gallons per day (gpd), the AWT standards are 5 mg/L Biological Oxygen
Demand (BOD), 5 mg/L Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 3 mg/L Total Nitrogen
(TN), 1 mg/L Total Phosphorus (TP); and for facilities treating less
than 100,000 gpd the BAT standards are 10, 10, 10, 1 respectively.

## Related Environmental Documents

A Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) was prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of
Federal Regulations \[CFR\] 1500-1508), and FEMA regulations (44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Considerations). These laws and regulations
require FEMA to take into account environmental considerations when
funding any Federal actions. The PEA, finalized on December 23, 2002,
provides a framework to address impacts of a range of wastewater
treatment projects in the Florida Keys. Section 1.7 (Water Quality
Protection Measures at the Local, State, and Federal Levels) of the PEA
provides a complete discussion of water quality protection measures at
Federal, State, and local levels.

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) tiers from the PEA for
Wastewater Management Improvements in the Florida Keys (URS, 2002a) as
proposed by FEMA and hereby incorporates the PEA by reference, in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28.

## Project Location

The project areas encompass Conch Key, Walker's Cay, and Duck Key, all
of which are located in the central portion of the Florida Keys chain,
known as the Middle Keys. Conch Key covers about 35 acres and is located
at about Mile Marker (MM) 62.8, immediately northeast of Duck Key (MM
61.0) and Walker's Cay (MM 62.3), within Section 15, Township 66 South,
Range 34 East, Monroe County (Figure 1-1). U.S. Route 1 (US-1), the main
thoroughfare in the Keys, bisects Conch Key into the ocean side and bay
side. Ocena side is the aide of the land mass adjacent to the Atlantic
Ocean and bay side is adjacent to the Florida Bay, as divided by U.S.
Route 1. Although human-made waterways have been constructed on both
sides of the island, most of the land is on the bay side (refer to
Figure 1-1). Both Walker's Cay and Duck Key are ocean side of US-1.
Walker's Cay, also known as Walker's Island or Little Conch Key, is
about 8.5 acres in area. Duck Key, located in Sections 20 and 21,
Township 65 South, and Range 34 East, is a 300-acre natural island,
composed of five smaller islands (Yacht Club Island, Center Island,
Harbor Island, Plantation Island, and Indies Island) that are all
connected by bridges. Conch Key and Walker's Cay are connected to Duck
Key via the Tom's Harbor Cut Bridge. Duck Key connects to US-1 via the
Duck Key Bridge. The historic Flagler Bridge runs parallel to the ocean
side of US-1 throughout the project areas.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.2375in" height="4.518055555555556in"}

Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity Map

The wastewater service area would include Conch Key and Walker's Cay,
and would serve about 2,000 people.

## Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need for action is described in PEA Section 1.9 (Purpose
and Need for Action). In particular, the purpose of the FKAA project is
to reduce wastewater nutrient loading at selected Monroe
County-identified "hot spots," thereby improving water quality. These
"hot spots" are believed to contribute to water quality degradation. The
Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (MCSWMP) ranked Conch Key
as the second most critical "hot spot" in the Middle Keys, and the tenth
most critical "hot spot" Keys-wide (PEA Appendix C \[Hot Spot
Locations\]). The "hot spot" ranking is linked to the use of cesspools
and septic systems as Conch Key and Walker's Cay's main wastewater
treatment systems.

# Section 2 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. Alternatives identified
in the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (2000) and in the
PEA are evaluated for the proposed Conch Key Wastewater System. In the
following sections, three alternatives are considered and evaluated in
detail: No Action, New Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction, and New
Wastewater Transmission System Construction.

## Alternative 1 -- No Action Alternative

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

## Alternative 2 -- New Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction

Alternative 2 is described in PEA Section 2.3.2 (Centralized Wastewater
Treatment Plant Alternative). FKAA would apply FEMA funding to the
construction of a wastewater collection system, vacuum pump station, and
WWTP) that would be located on Conch Key (Figure 2-1). The proposed WWTP
would be designed to meet the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of
2010 for effluent disposal to shallow injection wells. The new system
would serve about 2,000 people within the service area.

The design parameters for this alternative were calculated using
wastewater flows and peaking factors for the service area (Boyle, 2002).
Wastewater flow data for residences and businesses were used to estimate
the number of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs), as summarized below.

-   Number of Residences 158 residences (1 EDU)

-   Annual average daily flow 167 gallons per day (gpd) per residence

-   Number of Commercial buildings 3 buildings (3 EDUs)

-   Annual average daily flow 501 gpd per building

-   Maximum daily flow 72 gallons per minute (gpm)

Based on the estimated number of EDUs, at 167 gpd per EDU, the total
estimated annual average daily flow (AADF) for the service area would be
27,889 gpd; estimated AADF for the treatment plant would be 30,000 gpd
(FKAA, 2002).

About 107 cesspools and septic systems currently utilized by property
owners on Conch Key and Walker's Cay would be removed. Pursuant to the
Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements, each property owner
would be responsible for decommissioning and abandonment of their
existing on-site system.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="4.656944444444444in"
height="3.4006944444444445in"}

Figure 2-1. Proposed Conch Key Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

Site Location Map\*

\*Arrows represent direction of wastewater flow.

### Wastewater Collection System

Wastewater collection mains would be installed within existing portions
of the rights-of-way (ROWs), or easements, along the service area roads
in front of the residences and businesses to be served. The streets and
ROWs on the bay side service area of Conch Key consist of paved roads
with ROW widths of about 40 feet. On the ocean side of Conch Key,
collection mains would be aligned within a utility easement overlaying
the existing private roads in the Coral Key Village Mobile Home
community. Service areas on both the ocean side and bay side would be
served by separate collection systems that would connect at the
treatment plant. The ocean side collection system would cross under US-1
to connect to the bay side collection system at the WWTP site (Figure
2-1). A separate collection main would be routed from the treatment
plant west along US-1 through an existing abandoned FKAA 18-inch water
main to Walker's Cay. The abandoned pipeline would act as a casing or
sleeve pipe for the Walker's Cay force main.

Service laterals, for connection to the collection system by the
property owner, would be provided up to the ROW line for bay side
residences, and up to the service connection for ocean side residents
(Figure 2-2). Residents on Walker's Cay would need to install a 2-inch
force main to connect those properties to the sliplined force main at
the intersection of the island's entrance road and US-1. Connection to
the collection system would be the responsibility of the property owner.
Special plumbing fixtures or electrical connections would not be
required at houses or mobile homes, since the current fittings are
adequate. About 50 cubic yards of soil material would be excavated for
the installation of vacuum sewer mains, vacuum pits, buffer tanks, and
gravity service laterals for the entire system. The majority of the
excess excavated material would be used for backfill and the remainder
would be disposed of offsite in approved locations.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="4.048611111111111in"
height="3.4006944444444445in"}

Figure 2-2a. Plan View Typical Building Connection (FKAA, 2002)

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="4.111111111111111in"
height="3.402083333333333in"}

Figure 2-2b. Profile Detail Typical Building Connection (FKAA, 2002)

The proposed collection system would either consist of a vacuum sewer
system with a vacuum pump station (VPS) or a gravity sewer system with
multiple grinder pump stations. A description of both sewer systems
follows.

#### Option 1: Vacuum Sewer System

The vacuum sewer system would be composed of gravity collection mains
and/or service laterals, sewage holding sumps and vacuum valve pits,
vacuum collection mains and a vacuum pump station building, as described
in PEA Section 2.3.2.1.1 (Vacuum Pumping). Ssewage would flow by gravity
into a vacuum valve pit, the lower portion of which is a fiberglass
holding sump, and the upper portion of which includes a vacuum valve.
Two or more homes would be serviced by one vacuum valve pit. When
wastewater in the holding sump rises to a preset level, a sensor
extending from the valve chamber into the holding sump detects the
liquid level in the sump, and the vacuum interface valve is
pneumatically opened. Differential air pressure propels the sewage from
the sump through the valve and into 3-inch or larger polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) vacuum wastewater collection mains. Vacuum mains would be
constructed 3 feet below existing grade throughout the service area.
Sewage would then be transported from the collection mains to the
wastewater collection tank at the vacuum pump station by the
introduction of air into the collection main from successive open/close
cycles of the vacuum valves in the system.

A vacuum pump station, located within the treatment plant site, would be
required to generate the negative pressure necessary on the vacuum
collection mains. The station would draw raw sewage through the
collection mains and pump it to the treatment plant. The station would
consists of an about 40-foot by 30-foot slab-on-grade building
containing air blowers, discharge pumps, a collection tank, and an
emergency generator. Discharge pumps connected to the vacuum collection
tank would transfer sewage to the treatment plant. A separate concrete
pad external to the station would accommodate odor control equipment
(either a vapor phase activated carbon filter or a biological filter)
for the treatment of air discharged from the collection tank by the
vacuum pump station blowers. A small pump station would also be
installed at the Walker's Cay entrance road to transport wastewater from
the island to the treatment plant.

#### Option 2: Gravity Sewer System

The gravity sewer system would consist of gravity service laterals,
gravity collection mains, lift stations with submersible grinder-type
pumps and pressure force mains, as described in Section 2.3.2.1.2
(Low-Pressure Grinder Pump Sewer System). Sewage would flow by gravity
from each service connection to a main gravity sewer pipe. The main
sewer pipe would be sloped to provide flow velocity adequate to
transport solids and to prevent settling in the pipes and manholes. When
the main gravity sewer pipe reaches the maximum practicable construction
depth, a lift station would pump the sewage from the gravity main to
either another lift station or the treatment plant.

Lift stations would consist of a wet well made of concrete or
fiberglass, submersible-type centrifugal grinder pumps or progressive
cavity pumps, discharge pumping, control valves, and an electrical
control panel containing electrical and instrumentation equipment. The
wet well would store sewage collected from the gravity mains until
wastewater rises to preset levels, the pumps are automatically
activated, and the sewage is drawn out of the well and into the
discharge force main.

Three small lift stations would be placed on the ocean side of Conch Key
and three small stations would operate on the bay side. One grinder-type
lift station would also be installed at the Walker's Cay entrance road
to transport wastewater from the island to the treatment plant.
Discharge pump motors would be sized to provide a force main flow
velocity between 2.0 and 2.5 feet per second to minimize flow surges to
the treatment plant and provide operational stability to the treatment
process.

### Wastewater Treatment Plant

The WWTP would be located on currently vacant, Monroe County lands,
immediately northeast of the existing Monroe County Fire Rescue Station
on the bay side of Conch Key (Figure 2-3). The proposed plant site is a
50-foot wide by 110-foot long, open space that contains landscaped
plants, and grass and sand ground cover. It is bordered to the northeast
by North Conch Avenue, to the northwest by South Conch Avenue, and to
the southeast by US-1. Private residences and the aforementioned Fire
Rescue Station are located north and west of the site, respectively. The
closest water body to the treatment plant site is Florida Bay, about 150
feet southwest of the site. Conch Key Harbor is located 250 feet north
of the site.

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="4.533333333333333in" height="3.40625in"}

Figure 2-3. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Site

(URS site visit; August 1, 2002)

The WWTP would provide primary treatment, biological treatment, solids
removal, phosphorus removal, filtration, effluent disinfection, and
disposal to shallow injection wells (Figure 2-4). Effluent discharged
would meet the 2010 Florida Statutory Treatment Standards for BAT of 10
mg/L BOD, 10 mg/L TSS, 10 mg/L TN, 1 mg/L TP. Raw sewage flow from the
collection system into the treatment plant would be measured, recorded,
and totaled by an in-line magnetic flow meter. Automatic screening,
using either a mechanical bar screen or rotary screen, of the influent
wastewater would remove large particulate matter. Pretreatment
screenings would be discharged to a collection hopper or trash
receptacle for collection and hauling to a Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) permitted sanitary landfill facility for
disposal (FKAA, 2002). If necessary, the pH of the influent wastewater
would also be buffered using sodium hydroxide. The buffering process
would utilize all the available sodium hydroxide; no excess would be
discharged into the environment because the sodium hydroxide would
immediately dissolve and be consumed and no longer be an active compound
in the environment (Garcia, Pers. Comm., 2003). Components of the sodium
hydroxide feed system would include storage drums, metering pumps, small
diameter PVC piping and valves, and a small containment area with a
concrete slab and curb, electrical power and controls.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="5.252777777777778in"
height="3.3930555555555557in"}

Figure 2-4. Proposed Conch Key WWTP Preliminary Drawings (FKAA, 2002)

Wastewater would likely be treated using the upflow sludge blanket
filter process with filtration. This is a modification of the sequencing
batch reactor process and is well suited for small areas and flows of
500,000 gpd or less (FKAA, 2002). Other possible methods of treatment
include the modified Ludzak-Ettinger process, Bardenpho process,
immersed membrane bioreactor, and the sequencing batch reactor process.
Two parallel process trains, each with two equally sized biological
reactor systems, would be used so that if one system was out of service
the remaining train would be capable of treating the system design flow.

Additional treatment would include the addition of metal salts, such as
aluminum sulfate (alum), sodium aluminate, ferric chloride, ferrous
chloride, ferric sulfate, or ferrous sulfate to reduce the total
phosphorus of the wastewater to 1 milligram per liter (mg/L). The alum
would be utilized to coagulate excess phosphorus and would be disposed
with the decanted sludge (Garcia, Pers. Comm., 2003). Sludge would be
disposed of at landfills or applied to designated lands in compliance
with local, state, and federal laws. Components of a liquid metal salt
feed system would include storage drums, metering pumps, small diameter
PVC piping and valves, a containment area with a concrete slab and curb,
electrical power and controls. Filtration may also be needed to produce
effluent with TSS of not more than 10 mg/L, remove soluble effluent
phosphorus concentrations in excess of 1 mg/L, and remove unsettled
phosphorus precipitate discharged from the settling tank. Two automatic
backwashing filter units would be needed. The units would be sized such
that with one filter out of service the remaining unit would have
sufficient capacity to receive flow equal to not less than 75% of the
design capacity of the treatment plant.

Effluent disinfection would occur in a disinfection contact tank using
one of three methods: calcium hypochlorite tablets or briquettes,
commercial grade or on-site generated sodium hypochlorite, or
ultraviolet radiation. Calcium hypochlorite and sodium hypochlorite
would be dissolved in the effluent stream to render potential biological
pathogens harmless. The fate of this material would be in the form of
dissolved hypochlorite, sodium, and calcium ions in the effluent stream.
Ultraviolet radiation disinfection is a passive treatment means and
would not result in the addition of materials to the effluent. Effluent
would be disposed by gravity flow into two 8-inch diameter shallow
disposal wells, cased and grouted to 60 feet below land surface (bls),
with a gravel-packed open hole section from 60 feet to 90 feet bls (PEA
Section 2.3.2.2 \[Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal
Options\]). Shallow wells would be constructed as part of this
alternative and would have a capacity of 100 gpm each. One 3-inch
groundwater monitoring well, 10 feet bls cased depth and 30 feet bls
total depth, would also be constructed. Recycle flows, including filter
backwash and digester decant, would be directed back to the head of the
treatment plant for processing.

Stabilization of residual bio-solids would occur via the aerobic
digestion process. The aerobic digester would be equipped with an
aeration system used to mix and aerate the residual bio-solids. Decanted
sludge residuals would be returned to the plant for treatment; settled
solids would be removed from the digester and loaded into a tank truck
through a draw-off pipe located near the base of the tank. The fill
station would be located to be easily accessed by tanker trucks.
Decanted sludge would be temporarily stored in an aerated holding tank
on-site, and the liquid sludge would be hauled by truck to one of the
three Monroe County Solid Waste Transfer Stations. Several neighboring
municipalities have the capacity to accommodate the expanded waste
quantity from Monroe County (e.g., Miami-Dade South District WWTP,
Florida City, etc.). FKAA would enter into an agreement with the
accepting municipality prior WWTP start-up (Shimokubo, Pers. Comm.,
2003). Based on the estimated volume of bio-solids generated by the
wastewater treatment process and a maximum thickened sludge
concentration of 2.0% in the aerobic digester, sludge hauling is
estimated to be required once per month using a 4,000-gallon capacity
tanker truck.

In addition to the new treatment plant, other design elements at the
site would include parking and paved access roads, as well as storage
space for maintenance equipment, treatment chemicals, and other
operations materials; no additional buildings would be necessary. The
finish floor elevation of buildings subject to occupancy and structures
containing electrical equipment or process equipment would be
constructed above the 100-year flood level. Clean, suitable fill would
be brought in to increase grade by about three feet in the footprint of
the proposed building. The facility would be operated on a permanent
basis and would be automated based on pre-set vacuum and collection tank
levels. Station controls would be made resistant to fire, wind, and
flood.

The length of time required for construction, including sewer line
placement, would be about eight months. Construction equipment would
likely include a backhoe, trenching machine, bulldozer, crane, pile
driver, drilling rig, front-end loader, street sweeper, and boring
machine. Trucks would also be used to transport equipment and materials
to and from the project sites. The lifespan of the treatment plant would
be between 30 and 50 years.

## Alternative 3 -- New Wastewater Transmission System Construction

Alternative 3, construction of a new transmission system, is described
in Section 2.3.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative).
FKAA would apply FEMA funding to the construction of a wastewater
collection system and vacuum pump station on Conch Key, and a wastewater
transmission system (WTS) extending from the vacuum pump station on
Conch Key to the existing Hawk's Cay Wastewater Treatment Plant on Duck
Key, between MM 61 and MM 63 (Figure 2-5).

The basis of design for this alternative is similar to that used for
Alternative 2. The total estimated AADF for the service area would be
27,889 gpd and the estimated peak hour flow (PHF) would be 110,220 gpd
(FKAA, 2002). Upgrades to the existing WWTP on Duck Key would not be
required to accommodate the increased flow from the service area. As in
Alternative 2, about 107 cesspools and septic systems currently utilized
by property owners on Conch Key and Walker's Cay would be removed.
Pursuant to the Florida DOH requirements, each property owner would be
responsible for decommissioning and abandonment of their existing
on-site system.

The time needed for construction of the new wastewater transmission
system, including sewer line placement, would be about eight months.
Construction equipment needed would include a backhoe, trenching
machine, bulldozer, crane, pile driver, drilling rig, front-end loader,
and street sweeper. Trucks would be used to transport equipment and
materials to and from work sites.

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="4.582638888888889in"
height="3.3965277777777776in"}

Figure 2-5. Proposed Conch Key Wastewater Transmission System

Site Location Map\*

\*Arrows represent direction of wastewater flow.

### Wastewater Collection System

The collection system would be similar to the one described in Section
2.2.1. The service areas on both the bay side and ocean side would be
served by separate collection systems. Use of a vacuum sewer system
would require construction of a pump station on Conch Key. This facility
would be located at the proposed Alternative 2 treatment plant site, and
is described further in Section 2.3.2. The ocean side collection main
would traverse under US-1, beneath the existing FKAA water mains, and
connect to the pump station. Service laterals, for connection to the
collection system by the resident, would be provided up to the
right-of-way line for bay side residences, and up to the service
connection of ocean side residents (Figure 2-2). Walker's Cay residents
would need to install a 2-inch force main to connect those properties to
the sliplined force main at the intersection of the island's entrance
road and US-1. As in Alternative 2, connection to the collection system
would be the responsibility of the property owner; special plumbing
fixtures or electrical connections would not be required since the
current fittings are adequate.

### Vacuum Pump Station

The vacuum pump station would be located at the treatment plant site as
described in Alternative 2 (Section 2.2; Figure 2-5). Design elements at
the site would include the new pump station, influent vacuum mains, and
discharge yard piping, site access, parking, and landscaping. Equipment
housed in the vacuum pump station would include two vacuum blowers, a
vacuum collection tank, two wastewater pumps and an emergency generator
(Figure 2-6). Vacuum blowers would create a vacuum of about 16 to 20
inches of mercury or 0.53 to 0.67 atmospheres, capable of extracting
wastewater from the vacuum valve pits, through the collection mains into
the tank. The tank would provide adequate storage to allow the sewage
pumps to operate.

The vacuum pump station would be required to generate the negative
pressure necessary on the vacuum collection mains. The station would
draw raw sewage through the collection mains and pump it through a force
main to the Hawk's Cay wastewater collection system. The station would
be an about 40-foot by 30-foot slab-on-grade building containing air
blowers, discharge pumps, a collection tank and an emergency generator.
Discharge pumps connected to the vacuum collection tank would transfer
sewage to the Hawk's Cay collection system. A separate concrete pad
external to the station would accommodate odor control equipment for the
treatment of air discharged from the collection tank by the vacuum pump
station blowers.

Wastewater discharge pumps would direct flow accumulated in the vacuum
collection tank to the force main transmission system and ultimately to
the Hawk's Cay WWTP on Duck Key. Each pump would be capable of about 72
gpm peak hour wastewater flow. Since the pumps would be susceptible to
inundation, submersible units would be utilized. One wastewater pump and
one vacuum blower would be operational while an additional wastewater
pump and an additional vacuum blower would provide backup. To minimize
odors, air discharged from the blower exhaust at the vacuum pump station
would run through a filter such as an in-ground wood chip bed or
packaged iron filings bed before emission.

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="4.660416666666666in"
height="3.3993055555555554in"}

Figure 2-6. Vacuum Pump Station Preliminary Drawings (Boyle, 2002)

The vacuum pump station facility that would permanently house the vacuum
pump station would consist of a fixed structure slab-on-grade building.
The finish floor elevation of buildings subject to occupancy and
structures containing electrical equipment or process equipment would be
constructed above the 100-year floodplain level. Fill would be brought
in to increase grade by about three feet in the footprint of the
proposed building. The facility would be operated on a permanent basis
and would be automated based on pre-set vacuum and collection tank
levels. Station controls would be made weatherproof against fire, wind,
and flood. A small pump station would also be installed at the Walker's
Cay entrance road to transport wastewater from the island to the force
main transmission system.

### Wastewater Transmission System

The transmission main would commence at the pump station and be routed
west along US-1 through an existing abandoned FKAA 18-inch water main
ultimately to the Hawk's Cay WWTP (refer to Figure 2-5). The abandoned
pipeline would act as a casing or sleeve pipe for the Conch Key force
main. The 4-inch proposed force main would be slip-lined inside the
abandoned 18-inch pipeline at the most favorable locations (i.e.,
straight portions of pipeline). The transmission system would extend to
the pipeline's existing terminus at MM 62, which coincides with the
bridge crossing at Tom's Harbor Cut. The force main would be attached to
the US-1 bridge for a distance of about 1,250 feet (0.23 miles)
extending across Tom's Harbor Cut. The force main would be fed into the
18-inch pipeline beginning from the west side of the bridge crossing to
the intersection of US-1 and the Duck Key Bridge. The lengths of the
force main would be butt-fusion welded at 50-foot intervals while being
slip-lined into the 18-inch pipeline, and the pipeline would be sealed
at the beginning and end of each extension to prevent infiltration of
water and soil.

The 4-inch force main would proceed south to Hawk's Cay along the Duck
Key Bridge and Duck Key Drive and tie into the Hawk's Cay wastewater
system at an existing gravity collection system manhole (MH B-3) located
about 850 feet south of US-1 on Duck Key. The force main would be
trenched from the Duck Key Bridge to the manhole. The total length of
the transmission system from the vacuum pump station to the Hawk's Cay
gravity collection system would be about 10,500 linear feet (about two
miles). Installation of the force main within the existing 18-inch FKAA
abandoned pipeline would require construction of several access points
along the transmission system route. Each access point would require
temporarily clearing a 4-foot-by-4-foot area for manhole construction.

### Hawk's Cay Wastewater Treatment Plant

From the existing manhole (MH B-3), raw sewage would flow to an existing
lift station (Lift Station B; LS-B), located about 600 feet south along
Hawk's Cay Drive, which would pump to a downstream gravity system
through manhole six (MH M-6) to Lift Station F (LS-F) (Figure 2-7). Lift
Station F is an existing master lift station that would pump the
wastewater from Conch Key to the Hawk's Cay WWTP. The Hawk's Cay
wastewater system facilities affected by the additional flow from Conch
Key include LS-B and LS-F and the interconnecting force mains. In the
event that either of these two lift stations would need to be upgraded,
a 25-foot-by-25-foot temporary work area would be required around each
lift station.

The Hawk's Cay WWTP is currently permitted to 20/20 (TSS/BOD in mg/L)
effluent disposal requirements. Effluent at the WWTP is treated to
advanced secondary standards with high-level disinfection
(irrigation-quality water with TSS of 5 mg/L or less and fecal coliform
values below detectable limits per 100 milliliters \[ml\] of sample) in
accordance with the 62-600 Florida Administrative Code \[F.A.C.\]
(Regulations of Domestic Wastewater Facilities). With the addition of
wastewater from Conch Key, the Hawk's Cay WWTP would be treating about
110,000gpd and would therefore be required to be in compliance with
Florida Statutory Treatment Standards for AWT of 5 mg/L BOD, 5 mg/L TSS,
3 mg/L TN, 1 mg/L TP by 2010.

The irrigation-quality treated effluent currently flows by gravity into
a 60-ft by 50-ft open-lined holding pond. Sludge from the Hawk's Cay
WWTP would continue to be transported out of the Keys to the Florida
mainland for disposal at an appropriately permitted facility. Six
existing shallow injection wells are currently used to dispose of
effluent that cannot be used for irrigation purposes. The shallow
injection wells are 90 feet deep and cased to 60 feet. Upon final
design, lift stations LS-B and LS-F would need to be inspected to
determine the impact of the additional flow on the existing facilities.
Existing wastewater flows to the WWTP are estimated to be about 80,000
gpd with peaks to 120,000 gpd. Capacity of the Hawk's Cay WWTP is
sufficient for the anticipated additional average day wastewater flow
from Conch Key (estimated at 27,555 gpd or 16 gpm) (FKAA 2002).

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="3.872916666666667in"
height="6.147916666666666in"}

Figure 2-7. Hawk's Cay WWTP Connection Preliminary

Drawings (Boyle, 2002)

## Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration

Given the limited size of Conch Key and the lack of available land for
development, very few alternative sites were considered feasible. One
alternative site was considered but eliminated from consideration as a
result of unsuccessful lease negotiations with the Coral Key Village
Mobile Home community. The installation of clustered on-site wastewater
nutrient reduction systems (OWNRS) was considered but dismissed due to
the limited amount of available land. Additional information related to
technology alternatives that were considered but eliminated from further
consideration are contained in Section 2.4 (Alternatives Considered but
Dismissed).

# ion 3 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This section describes environmental consequences of the No Action
Alternative and the two action alternatives, and details the potential
effects on physical, natural, and socioeconomic resources within the
project area. Discussion in this document includes direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects.

## Topography, Soils, and Geology

### Topography

Affected Environment

The existing environment is similar to that described in Section 3.1.1.1
(Topography). Conch Key bay side elevations are often 2.0 feet to 4.0
feet above mean sea level (amsl) National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD), whereas ocean side elevations are around 5.0 feet amsl NGVD. The
elevation of US-1 is about 12.0 feet amsl NGVD (Boyle, 2002). Elevations
decrease with increasing distance from US-1. Slope throughout the
proposed WWTP site is relatively flat.

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for
wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply
with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated
that once funding is secured, effects on topography would be similar to
those under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Topographic impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 would be limited to
temporary surface disturbances during construction of the wastewater
collection system and transmission system. The WWTP site would require
site clearing, grubbing, and an increase in surface elevation by about
three feet of clean, suitable fill in the footprint of the proposed
building. Grading requirements would permanently change the surface
topographic elevation of the subject properties, but this impact is
minor because it would not significantly alter the flat surface
topography of Conch Key.

### Soils

Affected Environment

The existing soil conditions are similar to those described in Section
3.1.2.1 (Soils). The project sites' soil type is the Udorthents-Urban
Land Complex, a moderately well-drained soil consisting mostly of
crushed oolitic limestone or coral bedrock (Figure 3-1). This soil type
is generally found in constructed upland areas next to water bodies
throughout the Keys (USDA, 1995). The seasonal high water table is at a
depth of two to four feet during the wet periods of most years and the
soil permeability is variable. Houses and other urban structures cover
most areas with this soil type. Other soil types present in the project
area include Urban Lands and Islamorada Muck Tidal; neither of these
soil types are present within the project sites.

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="4.4215277777777775in"
height="3.3979166666666667in"}

Figure 3-1. Project Area Soils (USDA, 1995)

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for
wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply
with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated
that once funding is secured, effects on soils would be similar to those
under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, soils would be disturbed during
construction. About three feet of clean, suitable fill would be used to
achieve the final elevation at the proposed WWTP site. Fill would
consist of fine sand, free of rubble, organics, clay, debris, and any
other unsuitable material. In addition, about 50 cubic yards of soil
material would be excavated to install sewer mains, vacuum pits, buffer
tanks, gravity service laterals and lift stations. Most of the excess
excavated material would be used for backfill and the remainder would be
disposed of offsite.

Implementation of appropriate best management practices (BMPs),
development of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and use of
conventional site preparation techniques is recommended prior to and
during construction to protect area water bodies and canals. Planned
measures to control sediment from discharge to nearshore surface waters
may include, but are not limited to, silt dams, barriers, and straw
bales placed at the foot of sloped surfaces. Planned measures to control
soil erosion may include, but are not limited to, grassing, mulching,
watering, and seeding of on-site surfaces. Site preparation may include
grubbing of vegetative roots, topsoil materials, followed by surface
compaction and fill placement to attain the required construction
elevation.

Applying BMPs and appropriate erosion mitigation measures would limit
adverse soil impacts during construction of the treatment system. The
Udorthents-Urban Land Complex is well suited for urban development, and
losses of soil productivity or fertility are not of concern because this
soil type generally does not support vegetation. Overall, no long-term
adverse effects on soils are anticipated if site soil excavation,
disposal, and erosion potential are managed in accordance to State
standards and applicable BMP and erosion control guidelines.

### Geology

Affected Environment

The existing geologic environment is similar to what is described in
Section 3.1.3.1 (Geology). At the project areas, the upper stratum of
bedrock is Miami Oolite, a very porous, solution riddled, carbonate
rock. Results of geotechnical test borings conducted at the proposed
WWTP site revealed a surface layer of medium dense sand with limestone
fragments in the upper three feet, underlain by hard to very hard
limestone and coralline rock with sand and shell lenses to a depth of 25
feet (Nutting Engineers, 2002). In two soil borings, a layer of gray
silt to silty sand was encountered between two and three feet below land
surface.

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for
wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply
with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated
that once funding is secured, effects on geology would be similar to
those under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Alternative 2, new WWTP construction, would have minor impacts on
geology. Excavation would be done to install the sewer mains at
elevation 1-foot to 2-feet amsl NGVD along service area roads, and to
remove cesspits and septic systems.

WWTP construction would require installation of one groundwater
monitoring well and two shallow wells to dispose of treated wastewater
effluent. The shallow injection wells would be cased and grouted to 60
feet below land surface (bls), with a gravel-packed open hole section
from 60 feet to 90 feet bls (Section 2.3.2.2 \[Wastewater Treatment
Plant Effluent Disposal Options\] of the PEA). The shallow wells'
effects on project site geology are expected to be minor and are
discussed in Section 3.1.3.2.2 (Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant
Alternative). The applicant is responsible for obtaining all applicable
FDEP permits for Class V shallow injection wells (Table 3-1).

+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| **Table 3-1. FDEP Forms Required for Injection Wells**    |          |
+===========================================================+==========+
| ::: Definition-Term                                       | **Form   |
| **Form Title**                                            | Number** |
| :::                                                       |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| ::: Definition-Term                                       | 62-52    |
| Application to Construct/Operate/Abandon Class I, III, or | 8.900(1) |
| V Injection well Systems                                  |          |
| :::                                                       |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Certification of Plugging Completion Class I, III, or V   | 62-52    |
| Well                                                      | 8.900(2) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Construction/Clearance Permit Application for Class V     | 62-52    |
| Well                                                      | 8.900(3) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Certification of Class V Well Construction Completion     | 62-52    |
|                                                           | 8.900(4) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Authorization for Class V Well Use                        | 62-52    |
|                                                           | 8.900(5) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Application for Class V Well Plugging and Abandonment     | 62-52    |
| Permit                                                    | 8.900(6) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| General Permit Form for Closed-Loop Air Conditioning      | 62-52    |
| Return Flow Class V Injection well                        | 8.900(7) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Notification to the Florida Department of Environmental   | 62-52    |
| Protection of Class V Well Ownership                      | 8.900(8) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Certification of Monitor Well Completion                  | 62-528   |
|                                                           | .900(10) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+

As discussed in PEA Section 3.1.3.2.2 (Alternative 2), aside from the
potential impacts from injection well use, WWTP construction is not
expected to adversely affect the project site geology. The environmental
consequences to the geologic environment with shallow injection well use
are expected to be limited to the effects of injection of relatively
fresh effluent into brackish to saline water aquifers, which could
affect the rate of limestone solution (dissolving). In mainland Florida,
sinkhole development, especially in areas of declining water tables, has
been a severe engineering problem. However, on Conch Key, the water
table is two and a half feet below the ground surface, and water tables
have not been declining. Therefore, new and/or expanded sinkholes are
not likely to result from this alternative.

Alternative 3 would have minor geological impacts from construction of
the collection system and the removal of cesspits and septic systems, as
discussed in Alternative 2 above. Construction of shallow wells for
effluent disposal would not occur because effluent from Conch Key would
be transported to the Duck Key WWTP for treatment and disposal.
Therefore, no long-term geological effects are anticipated under
Alternative 3.

## Water Resources and Water Quality

### Groundwater

Affected Environment

The affected environment for groundwater is described in PEA Section
3.2.2.1 (Groundwater). Throughout the project areas, the water of the
Biscayne Aquifer ranges from brackish to saline and is of little
potential utility except as input for desalination systems. Freshwater
lenses have not been documented for Conch Key, Walker's Cay, or Duck
Key. Groundwater levels at the treatment plant site are about two and a
half feet below the existing grade (Nutting Engineers, 2002).

Six shallow Class V injection wells are located in the project areas.
All shallow Class V wells are sited on Duck Key at the Hawk's Cay WWTP
and are 90 feet deep and cased with cement and steel to 60 feet (Bergin,
Pers. Comm., 2002). The wells discharge up to 0.05 mgd of relatively
fresh water and effluent into the Biscayne Aquifer.

Environmental Consequences

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

Under Alternative 2, a new WWTP would be designed and constructed to
meet Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 effluent requirements
for disposal to shallow injection wells. Treated effluent would still
contain limited nutrients even under conditions that meet the Florida
Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. However, by removing the septic
and cesspool systems, the overall nutrient and pathogen inputs to the
shallow groundwater of the island would be reduced, and overall local
groundwater quality would improve. Replacement of existing wastewater
systems with wastewater management systems that meet Florida Statutory
Treatment Standards would result in 92% reduction in TN input to
groundwater and 86% reduction in TP input to groundwater (refer to
Appendix D \[Water Quality Improvements Analysis\] of the PEA).

Under Alternative 3, septic and cesspool systems would be removed, and a
collection system, pump station and transmission system would be
constructed to collect and transport wastewater to the Hawk's Cay WWTP
for treatment and disposal. The Hawk's Cay WWTP is currently permitted
to 20/20 (TSS/BOD in mg/L) effluent disposal requirements; effluent is
treated to high-level disinfection (water with fecal coliform values
below detectable limits per 100 ml of sample) in accordance with 62-600
F.A.C., Regulations of Domestic Wastewater Facilities. TN and TP
concentration data in discharge at the Hawk's Cay facility was not
available. By 2010, the Hawk's Cay WWTP would be required to upgrade to
meet AWT Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. Near term effects on
groundwater from construction would be similar to those described under
Alternative 2. Significant improvement in treated effluent would be
delayed until the Hawk's Cay WWTP is in compliance with the Florida
Treatment Statutory Standards of 2010.

### Inland, Nearshore, and Offshore Waters

Affected Environment

Surface water resources of the project areas include: (1) canals for
boat access to marinas and residential developments; (2) stormwater
runoff to ditches and drainage systems in developed areas; and (3)
nearshore and offshore marine waters.

#### Inland Waters

Project area inland waters include human-made canals and enclosed
waterbodies, as described in PEA Section 3.2.3.1.1 (Inland Waters).
About ten human-made waterbodies are present within the project areas.
Two canals and a boat basin are located on Conch Key. South of Conch
Key, Walker's Cay is connected to US-1 by two causeways, which have
created an enclosed waterbody or human-made salina. About 23,000 square
feet (0.5 acres) of canals were dredged on Duck Key during the 1950's
prior to residential development activities.

Canals and other confined water bodies exhibiting signs of
eutrophication during a review of Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) in
the Florida Keys were listed as "Hot Spots" (refer to Appendix C \[Hot
Spot Locations\] of the PEA). Monroe County (2000) ranked Conch Key, as
the second and tenth most critical "hot spot" believed to contribute to
water quality degradation in the Middle Keys and Florida Keys,
respectively. Duck Key was ranked sixth and fortieth relative to water
quality degradation in the Middle Keys and Florida Keys, respectively.

#### Nearshore and Offshore Marine Waters

Kruczynski (1999) and Szmant and Forrester (1996) determined that in
general, nutrient pollution emanating from the Keys has greater
nearshore effects than offshore effects due to dilution by tides and
currents. Offshore areas in the Middle Keys that had higher nutrient
levels than offshore areas in the Upper Keys were attributed to the
relatively high nutrient-content of Florida Bay (Kruczynski 1999; Szmant
and Forrester, 1996).

Project area nearshore and offshore marine waters are described in PEA
Section 3.2.3.1.2 (Nearshore and Offshore Marine Waters). The Florida
DOH collects beach water quality data from the Curry Hammock State Park
water quality monitoring station on Crawl Key (MM 56). Located about 6.5
miles south of Conch Key, it is the closest monitoring station to the
proposed project areas. Since August 2000, three health
advisories/warnings have been issued (State of Florida, DOH, 2003).
Health advisories are issued by DOH when sampling results indicate that
contact with the water at that site may pose increased risk of
infectious disease, particularly for susceptible individuals. A poor
rating is measured as 104 or greater of *Enterococcus* sp. or 800 or
greater fecal coliform organisms per 100 ml of marine water. A poor
rating requires resampling before issuing a health advisory. On four
other occasions between August 2000 and April 2003, water at this site
received a poor water quality rating although a health advisory was not
issued. However, no trends were observed regarding correlation with a
particular time of year, or with poor water quality ratings for either
fecal coliforms or *Enterococcus* sp. categories.

The Water Quality Monitoring Project for the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary's Water Protection Program maintains a monitoring
station (Station 244) between Conch Key and Long Key, about four miles
to the northeast of Conch Key, offshore on the ocean side of US-1 (SERC,
2002). Established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
1995, the objective of this project is to characterize water quality
status and trends in the Florida Keys. Levels of total organic nitrogen
recorded at Station 244 average at 0.22 ppm. Surface levels of total
nitrogen recorded at Station 244 average at 0.22 ppm; these levels are
higher (22.2 percent more) than the average total nitrogen reading taken
from all monitoring stations, Keys-wide (0.18 ppm). Total phosphorus
loadings recorded at Station 244 average 0.006 ppm; these levels are
comparable to the Keys-wide average (0.007 ppm). Over time, both TN and
TP are only slightly increasing. It is difficult to correlate these
trends directly with higher nutrient loads from Conch Key because of the
distance of Station 244 from Conch Key. In addition, the Middle Keys
receive greater nutrient inputs from Florida Bay (PEA Section 3.2.3.1.2)
which may affect water quality at Station 244.

#### Stormwater

Although few data exist, Monroe County has represented US-1 as the
topographic divide for each island, whereby lands on the bay side of
US-1 drain mainly toward Florida Bay and lands on the ocean side of US-1
drain toward the Florida Straits (Monroe County, 2001). Stormwater
improvement projects have not been conducted within the project areas.

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA funding would not be available for
the wastewater management projects. Effects on surface water quality in
the vicinity of Conch Key would likely continue in the near term due to
nutrient and pathogen inputs from on-site systems on the island.
However, by 2010, Conch Key residents would be required to upgrade to
meet Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. Conch Key residents would
still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatments Standards of
2010. It is anticipated that once funding is secured, effects on surface
waters would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3; although
delayed because of later implementation.

Stormwater runoff from roadways, bridges, driveways and yards, rooftops,
and parking lots contribute stormwater loading to nearshore waters. As
described in PEA Section 3.2.2.2.1, improvements to water quality under
Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to reduce TN and TP loadings on the
order of 92 and 86%, respectively. Both Alternative 2 and 3 eliminate
the nutrient pollution and fecal contamination of canal and nearshore
waters caused by overflowing on-site wastewater treatment systems during
storm events. Other effects on inland, nearshore, and offshore water
quality are similar for Alternatives 2 and 3. These effects are expected
to be beneficial and are discussed in PEA Section 3.2.3.2.2
(Environmental Consequences; Inland, Nearshore and Offshore Waters).

Implementation of either alternative would not adversely affect
stormwater flows or quality, and are expected to result in generally
positive effects on the water quality of stormwater flows. Use of
appropriate BMPs and development and full implementation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan, under FDEP National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, would be needed before and
during construction to protect area water bodies and surrounding areas.
Planned measures to control sediment from discharge to nearshore surface
waters include, but are not limited to, silt dams, barriers, and straw
bales placed at the foot of sloped surfaces.

### Floodplains and Wetlands

Affected Environment

#### Floodplains

Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal
agencies to take action to minimize occupancy and modification of
floodplains. Furthermore, EO 11988 requires that Federal agencies
proposing to site a project in the 100-year floodplain consider
alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in
the floodplain. Application of the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process,
as required by 44 CFR Part 9, ensures that Federally funded projects are
consistent with EO 11988 objectives. These objectives ensure avoiding
the support of development in a floodplain when practicable alternatives
exist. By its nature, the NEPA compliance process involves the same
basic decision-making methods to meet its objectives as does the
Eight-Step Decision-Making Process. Therefore, the Eight-Step
Decision-Making Process has been applied through the implementation of
the NEPA process.

PEA Section 3.2.4.1.1 (Floodplains) of the PEA describes the affected
environment related to floodplains. According to the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Conch Key,
Walker's Cay, and Duck Key are located entirely within the 100-year
floodplain (FIRM panel 12087C1293H). Conch and Duck Keys are located in
a FEMA-designated Zone AE whereas Walker's Cay is in Zone VE (a
storm-surge hazard zone). The highest elevation within the project areas
is the centerline of US-1; the remainder of the land is at elevations
less than 10 feet NGVD.

#### Wetlands

Wetland communities are discussed in PEA Section 3.2.4.1.2 (Affected
Environment, Wetlands). Under EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), Federal
agencies are required to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation
of wetlands and preserve and enhance their natural and beneficial
values. FEMA applies the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process, required by
44 CFR Part 9, to meet the requirements of EO 11990.

Field investigations were conducted by two URS biologists on August 1,
2002, to identify jurisdictional wetlands within the project areas. No
freshwater wetlands were identified within the project areas (Figure
3-2), although jurisdictional wetlands were identified on both sides of
the entrance road to Walker's Cay (Figure 3-3). Further, a narrow
mangrove fringe is located along the south margin of the periodically
mowed US-1 ROW. Dominant species comprising the mangrove fringe include
Brazilian pepper (*Schinus terebinthifolius*), red mangrove (*Rhizophora
mangle*), black mangrove (*Avicennia germinans*), white mangrove
(*Laguncularia racemosa*), buttonwood (*Conocarpus erectus*), and bushy
seaside oxeye (*Borrichia frutescens*). Photo-documentation obtained
from the field investigation is provided in Appendix C.

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts on floodplains or
jurisdictional wetlands would be similar to Alternative 2 and 3.
However, without FEMA funding water quality degradation would likely
continue, until systems are upgraded with another funding source.

No notable effects on floodplains associated with Alternative 2 are
anticipated; these are further described in PEA Section 3.2.4.2.2
(Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternative). Since the
treatment plant would be constructed in the floodplain, it would be
elevated with fill as described in PEA Section 2.2.2 (Alternative 2,
Wastewater Treatment Plant) to prevent storm and flood damages. As
specified in 44 CFR Part 9, structures must be elevated such that the
lowest floor of the structures is at or above the level of the base
flood elevation (BFE).

No direct impacts on jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated on Conch
Key since there are no wetlands at the proposed WWTP site or along
service area roads. Installation of the force main within the existing
18-inch FKAA abandoned pipeline would require construction of one
sliplining work area and a small pump station or lift station at the
entrance road to Walker's Cay. This would require temporarily clearing a
4-foot by 4-foot area for access to the pipe and would be located
outside any jurisdictional wetlands (see Section 2.3.3 of this
document). No additional work space would be necessary and upland
vegetation would be allowed to naturally revegetate the cleared area.
Jurisdictional wetlands would not be impacted by construction
activities.

There is public concern that the proposed WWTP would lead to further
development in the floodplain within the project area by introducing key
infrastructure, which is often linked to additional development.
However, development within the Keys is not controlled by addition of
key infrastructure, but instead by Monroe County's Rate of Growth
Ordinance (ROGO) permit allocation system, as described further in PEA
Section 3.10 (Land Use and Planning). The construction of new wastewater
treatment in the Keys is for the purpose of effectively treating
existing wastewater flows, and is not proposed as a way to introduce or
support increased development. Therefore, if growth and development in
the floodplain occurs following implementation of this alternative, it
is a function of established county planning and is not directly related
to proposed projects for wastewater management improvements. Given the
above points, an evaluation of secondary effects on floodplains with
regard to the potential for increased development under the alternatives
was not conducted. It should be noted that the Conch Key service area
has already been substantially built out so additional development is
unlikely.

As stated in PEA Section 3.2.2.2 (Environmental Consequences; Inland,
Nearshore and Offshore Waters) the use of appropriate BMPs and
development and full implementation of an FDEP-approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan is recommended prior to and during construction to
protect area water bodies and wetlands. Planned measures to control
sediment from discharge to nearshore surface waters include, but are not
limited to, silt dams, barriers, and hay bales placed at the foot of
sloped surfaces.

Under Alternative 3, though the collection system, pump station, and
transmission system would be built within the floodplain and next to
mangrove wetlands, construction is not expected to notably affect any
wetlands or floodplains. Sliplining work areas would be constructed
outside of jurisdictional wetlands using appropriate BMPs and an Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan, as stated in Alternative 2, to ensure no
impacts on wetland resources.

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="4.486805555555556in"
height="3.4090277777777778in"}

Figure 3-2. Project Area Vegetation (McNeese, 1998)

![](media/image12.jpeg){width="4.450694444444444in"
height="3.4006944444444445in"}

Figure 3-3. Walker's Cay Entrance Road Jurisdictional Wetlands

## Biological Resources

As in much of the Keys, humans have significantly altered the lands and
waters within the project area through urban development activities,
including clearing, grading, dredging, and filling. Of the six major
native terrestrial communities (pine rocklands, tropical hardwood
hammocks, mangroves, salt marsh, freshwater systems and dunes/coastal
ridges) that are Keys-wide and further described in PEA Section 3.3.1.1
(Terrestrial Environment) of the PEA, only one type (mangroves) occurs
within the project sites. Three of the four marine communities that
occur in the Keys (seagrasses, coral reefs, hardbottom, and sandy
bottom) are found within the vicinity of the project areas; coral reefs
are not present in the project vicinities. Terrestrial and aquatic
environments are discussed in Section 3.3.1 of this document, and in PEA
Section 3.3 (Biological Resources).

A preliminary field investigation was conducted by two URS project
biologists on March 19, 2002. The purpose of the investigation was to
field verify preliminary terrestrial community type boundaries
established in office literature reviews and during photo
interpretation. Photo-documentation obtained from the field
investigation is provided in Appendix C, Site Photographs.

A supplementary field investigation was conducted by two URS project
biologists on August 1, 2002. During this investigation, existing
vegetation within the project areas was characterized as developed
lands, containing highly disturbed ruderal and artificially landscaped
habitats with varying degrees of bare rock and/or gravel coverage. A
composite list of plant species observed and identified within the
project sites is provided in Table 3-2.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 3-2. Observed Plant Species 
  (URS site visit; August 1, 2002)**  
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Common Name**                     **Scientific Name**

  Yellow joyweed                      *Alternanthera flavescens*

  Black mangrove                      *Avicennia germinans*

  Beggarticks                         *Bidens alba* var. *radiata*

  Bushy seaside oxeye                 *Borrichia frutescens*

  Coastal sandbur                     *Cenchrus spinifex*

  Hyssopleaf sandmat                  *Chamaesyce hyssopifolia*

  Seagrape                            *Coccoloba uvifera*

  Coconut palm                        *Cocos nucifera*

  Latherleaf                          *Colubrina asiatica*

  Buttonwood                          *Conocarpus erectus*

  Bermuda grass                       *Cynodon dactylon*

  Crowfoot grass                      *Dactyloctenium aegyptium*

  Pinewoods fingergrass               *Eustachys petraea*

  Scorpionstail                       *Heliotropium angiospermum*

  Spiderlily                          *Hymenocallis latifolia*

  Oceanblue morningglory              *Ipomoea indica*

  Railroad vine                       *Ipomoea pes-caprae*

  White mangrove                      *Laguncularia racemosa*

  White leadtree                      *Leucaena leucocephala*

  Wild bushbean                       *Macroptilium lathyroides*

  Paintedleaf                         *Poinsettia cyathophora*

  Red mangrove                        *Rhizophora mangle*

  Brazilian pepper                    *Schinus terebinthifolius*

  Indian hemp                         *Sida rhombifolia*

  False buttonweed                    *Spermacoce verticillata*

  West Indian dropseed                *Sporobolus indicus* var.
                                      *pyramidalis*

  Blue porterweed                     *Stachytarpheta jamaicensis*

  St. Augustine grass                 *Stenotaphrum secundatum*

  Puncture vine                       *Tribulus cistoides*
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Environment

### Terrestrial Ecosystems

Little to no native vegetation remains on Conch Key; natural vegetation
has largely been replaced by planted ornamental species and exotic
species. Existing vegetation within the project area, as characterized
by the Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) mapping
project, is dominated by developed and/or filled land and bordered by
fringe mangroves (McNeese 1998; Figure 3-2).

The proposed construction sites for the WWTP (Alternative 2) and
proposed vacuum pump station (Alternative 3), located north of US-1,
mostly consist of a gravel and sand parking area that transitions to a
periodically mowed area along the southern edge, adjacent to US-1
(Figure 2-3). Vegetation here is mostly ruderal plant species typical of
disturbed sites, and includes West Indian dropseed (*Sporobolus
indicus*), false buttonweed (*Spermacoce verticillata*), Indian hemp
(*Sida rhombifolia*), crowfootgrass (*Dactyloctenium aegyptium*),
morningglory (*Ipomoea indica*), hyssopleaf sandmat (*Chamaesyce
hyssopifolia*), sandbur (*Cenchrus spinifex*), and beggarticks (*Bidens
alba* var. *radiate*). Additionally, several coconut palms (*Cocos
nucifera*) are scattered along the edge of the US-1 roadway right-of-way
(ROW).

Upland areas within the periodically mowed and maintained US-1 ROW
between Conch Key, Walker's Cay and Duck Key have herbaceous ruderal
species typical of roadways and disturbed areas in the Florida Keys.
Vegetation in the areas next to the Conch Key Cottages Resort Road
include West Indian dropseed, false buttonweed, St. Augustine grass
(*Stenotaphrum secundatum*), Indian hemp, beggarticks, crowfoot grass,
scorpionstail (*Heliotropium angiospermum*), and fingergrass (*Eustachys
petraea*). A few scattered spiderlily (*Hymenocallis latifolia*) occur
in the lower portions of the US-1 ROW, west of the Walker's Cay entrance
road.

The vegetated areas next to the east end of Tom's Harbor Cut Bridge,
along the south side of US-1, have ruderal and exotic plant species.
This area consists of a gravel parking area and a mowed vegetated area
that gently slopes down to a seawall at the base of the raised bridge
approach. A narrow band of buttonwood (*Conocarpus erectus*) is located
along the top of the seawall. Dominant vegetation located in the portion
of the work area between the gravel parking area and the seawall
consists of ruderal and exotic species such as white leadtree (*Leucaena
leucocephala*), yellow joyweed (*Alternanthera flavescens*),
beggarticks, false buttonweed, Indian hemp, blue porterweed
(*Stachytarpheta jamaicensis*), railroad vine (*Ipomoea pes-caprae*),
burrnut (*Tribulus cistoides*), painted leaf (*Poinsettia cyathophora*),
West Indian dropseed, wild bushbean (*Macroptilium lathyroides*),
crowfootgrass, scorpionstail, and fingergrass.

Vegetated areas next to the west end of Tom's Harbor Cut Bridge, along
the south side of US-1, have ruderal and exotic plant species. The site
consists of a bare gravel parking area on the south side of US-1 with a
mowed area that slopes southward to a low gravel parking area by the
shoreline. The slope between the two parking areas is vegetated with
regularly mowed ruderal grasses and forbs.

The roadway entrance to Duck Key is located at the southeast corner of
the intersection of Duck Key Drive and US-1. Landscaping at the
entranceway includes ornamentals such as coconut palm, other ornamental
palms, silver buttonwood, and bougainvillea, as well as a Duck Key
entranceway sign. Behind and south of the entrance sign, the ground
slopes down to a rocky shoreline with large boulders. The sloped
substrate behind the wall is vegetated with ruderal species such as
beggarticks, yellow joyweed, and puncture vine.

During the site investigations, mockingbirds (*Mimus polyglottos*) and
Eurasian collared doves (*Streptopelia decaocto*) were observed near the
proposed construction sites. Mourning doves (*Zenaida macroura*) were
observed near one proposed Conch Key construction sites. Turkey vultures
(*Cathartes aura*) were observed soaring above two proposed Conch Key
construction sites. Other than common sea birds often seen flying aloft
(e.g., gulls, terns, cormorants, pelicans, etc.), no other birds were
observed during the site visits. However, unidentified bird species were
heard calling or singing in the vicinity of the proposed construction
sites.

Brown anoles (*Anolis sagrei*) were observed at the Duck Key connection
site. No other reptiles, amphibians, or mammals were observed during the
field investigations. No nests, burrows, or other roosting means were
observed in the vicinity of the proposed work or construction sites.

A discussion of several habitat types follows.

#### Pine Rocklands and Tropical Hardwood Hammocks

Pine rocklands and tropical hardwood hammocks are limited in
distribution throughout the Upper and Middle Keys and are not present
within the project areas (Figure 3-2).

#### Mangrove Forests and Salt Marshes

Throughout the Keys, mangroves dominate most coastal vegetation
communities. Mangroves are found along the edges of shorelines, bays and
lagoons and on over wash areas throughout the Keys. Mangroves are
discussed in PEA Section 3.3.1.1.2 (Mangroves).

Mangroves near the project sites are limited to shrubby, fringing
mangroves located along the shoreline between Conch Key, Walker's Cay
and Duck Key, and parallel to US-1 (Figure 3-2). The narrow mangrove
fringe located on both sides of the Walker's Cay entrance road is
comprised of dominant species including Brazilian pepper (*Schinus
terebinthifolius*), red mangrove, black mangrove, white mangrove,
buttonwood (*Conocarpus erectus*), and bushy seaside oxeye (*Borrichia
frutescens*). The invasive exotic species latherleaf (*Colubrina
asiatica*) has intensively invaded this mangrove fringe.

#### Freshwater Systems

Freshwater wetlands are restricted to areas landward of the seasonal
high tide level and are primarily restricted to portions of the Lower
Keys underlain by freshwater lenses (McNeese, 1998). There are no
freshwater wetlands in the project areas (refer to Figure 3-2).

#### Dunes and Coastal Ridges

Dune systems form along sandy beaches where wind and wave-borne sand is
trapped and accumulated by extremely salt-tolerant low-lying beach
vegetation. Dunes and coastal ridges are not present within the project
areas (refer to Figure 3-2).

### Aquatic Ecosystems

Marine habitats are present within the human-made canals and marine
waters around Conch Key. Seagrasses and hardbottom communities dominate
marine habitats near the project sites; areas of hardbottom/seagrass are
also present (Figure 3-4). A discussion of individual marine community
types is provided below.

As described in PEA Section 3.3.3.1 (Special Status Species), essential
fish habitat (EFH) present in the vicinity of the project sites consists
of estuarine seagrass, marine live/hard bottom, mangrove communities,
and the marine water column. In the Keys, regulated fisheries are
managed through the Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC) and South Atlantic (SAFMC)
Fishery Management Councils. A compiled list of the fishery species
under GMFMC and SAFMC management is included in Appendix F.

![](media/image13.jpeg){width="4.4215277777777775in"
height="3.3979166666666667in"}

Figure 3-4. Project Area Benthic Habitats (FMRI, 1992)

#### Seagrass Beds and Sand Flats

Seagrass communities are the most abundant sea bottom community type in
the Keys. Distribution of seagrass communities is influenced by the
interaction of factors such as water quality, water depth, sediment
depth, and current velocity (FMRI, 2000). Seagrass communities are
dominated by turtle-grass (*Thalassia testudinum*) and manatee-grass
(*Syringodium filiforme*), with shoal-grass (*Halodule wrightii*)
becoming dominant in more eutrophic areas (Fonseca et al., 1998).

Within the vicinity of the project areas, seagrass communities dominate
the northern, bay side of the islands (Figure 3-4). This community type
also occurs on the ocean side alone or in combination with hardbottom
communities. The affected environment for seagrass beds and sand flats
is described in PEA Section 3.3.1.2.1 (Seagrass Beds and Sand Flats).

#### Coral Reefs

The Middle Keys, which are relatively small in size and are separated by
numerous wide channels connecting with Florida Bay, have limited reef
development, largely due to a lack of protection from the variations in
temperature, salinity and clarity of water coming from the Gulf of
Mexico and Florida Bay (FMRI, 2000). Coral reefs are not present near
the project areas.

#### Hardbottom 

Hardbottom habitats are solid, flat, low-relief, rock substrate composed
of rock or rubble that is exposed or covered with a thin layer of
sediment (FMRI, 2000). Nearshore hardbottom is the dominant ecological
community throughout the Keys. Low-relief hardbottom communities are
characterized by their proximity to shore, shallow depth, and visual
dominance of octocorals (Chiappone and Sullivan, 1994). These
communities occur within 1.25 miles of shore on either side of the Keys
at depths of about 3 to 16 feet (Chiappone and Sullivan, 1996).

Within the vicinity of the project sites, hardbottom habitat is
interspersed with seagrass communities on the ocean side of the islands
(Figure 3-4). Areas of hardbottom are located at the east side of Conch
Key and in Tom's Harbor Cut, between Walker's Cay and Duck Key. The
affected environment for hardbottom communities is described in see PEA
Section 3.3.1.2.3 (Hardbottom).

#### Sandy Bottom

Bare bottom communities, over either calcareous muds and/or sands, have
no algae and seagrasses. The flora and fauna is sparse and is typically
dominated by sponges, small corals, and calcareous algae (Chiappone,
1996).

Near the project areas, sandy bottom communities exist in limited
patches on the southeast side of Conch Key and throughout the artificial
waterways on Conch and Duck Keys (refer to Figure 3-3). The affected
sandy bottom communities are described in PEA Section 3.3.1.2.4 (Sandy
Bottom).

Environmental Consequences

#### Alternative 1 -- No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, improved wastewater management
activities would be implemented to meet the new Florida Statutory
Treatment Standards of 2010. Implementation of a WWTP that meets Florida
Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 would reduce nutrient loading in
nearshore marine waters and result in a corresponding improvement to
long-term ecological health. However, without FEMA funding, the project
applicants would need to identify additional financing options, delaying
wastewater treatment improvements. As discussed in PEA Section 3.3.2.1
(Alternative 1 -- No Action Alternative), while mangrove swamps could
benefit slightly from higher TP concentrations, coral reefs prefer
nutrient-poor environments with clear waters and low turbidity. Adverse
effects on nearshore marine ecosystems would continue as a result of
septic tank and cesspools effluents, which can lead to increased
eutrophication of nearshore marine waters. Therefore, area reefs may
continue to be adversely affected by high nutrient levels by encouraging
algal blooms that reduces water clarity and decreases coral growth or by
favoring the growth of macroaglae that can out compete and shade corals
causing shading and eventual death.

#### Alternative 2 -- New Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction

Under this alternative, no direct impacts on terrestrial or marine
biological resources are anticipated as a result of construction of the
collection system and treatment plant. Construction activities on Conch
Key are proposed along the roads in front of the residences and
businesses in the service area and therefore would not impact biological
resources. Individual homeowners may encounter temporary, indirect
impacts on landscaped plants and vegetation during connection of
individual residences. However, these impacts are outside of the scope
of this assessment.

Since the proposed treatment plant site is largely devoid of significant
vegetation, no impacts on terrestrial communities would result from
construction of the plant. Installation of the force main within the
existing 18-inch FKAA abandoned pipeline would require construction of
one sliplining work area and a small pump station or lift station at the
entrance road to Walker's Cay. This would require temporarily clearing a
4-foot by 4-foot area for access to the pipe in an area vegetated with
St. Augustine grass. No additional work space would be necessary and the
grass would be allowed to naturally revegetate the cleared area.

Although no direct effects on marine resources are anticipated under
Alternative 2 or 3, wastewater treatment improvements would indirectly
affect the nearshore marine waters in the vicinity of Conch Key.
Improvements to nearshore marine water quality on the order of 92 and 86
percent reductions in TN and TP loadings, respectively, would occur due
to increased treatment and as a result of meeting Florida Statutory
Treatment Standards (see Appendix D \[Water Quality Improvement
Analysis\] of the PEA). Although treated to Florida Statutory Treatment
Standards of 2010, effluent would still have a higher level of nutrients
than ambient concentrations (SERC 2002). There is little available
research that specifically assesses the impact of effluent treated to
BAT or AWT standards on biological resources; however, reducing nutrient
loading in nearshore marine waters is expected to cause a corresponding
improvement in long-term ecological health.

In general, as discussed in PEA Section 3.3.2.1 (Alternative 1 -- No
Action Alternative), while mangrove swamps could benefit slightly from
high TP levels, coral reefs prefer oligotrophic environments with clear
waters and low turbidity and therefore can be adversely affected by high
nutrient levels by encouraging algal blooms that reduces water clarity
and decreases coral growth or by favoring the growth of macroaglae that
can out compete and shade corals causing shading and eventual death.
Implementation of the wastewater treatment plant that meets Florida
Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 would reduce nutrient loading in
nearshore marine waters and result in a corresponding improvement to
long-term ecological health.

#### Alternative 3 -- New Wastewater Transmission System Construction

Under Alternative 3, effects on terrestrial and marine biological
resources would be similar to those in Alternative 2. Individual
homeowner impacts may be similar to Alternative 2, as discussed above.
Trenching activities from the Duck Key Bridge to LS-B would occur in the
mowed grass areas adjacent to Duck Key Drive. Trenched areas would be
allowed to revegetate naturally following completion of construction. No
additional improvements to the Hawk's Cay WWTP would be required;
therefore, there would not be any notable aquatic ecosystem impacts from
this part of the alternative. However, reduction of TN and TP loadings
would be delayed until the Hawk's Cay WWTP is upgraded to meet the
Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. Under Alternative 3,
long-term aquatic habitat health would be similar to those for
Alternative 2, as discussed in PEA Section 3.3.2.2 (Biological
Resources).

Both LS-B and LS-F may need to be upgraded. LS-B is located along Golf
Course Drive, in the southeast corner of the Duck Key Plaza. The plaza
is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Duck Key Drive
and Golf Course Drive. LS-F is located within the
administratively/resort owned parts of Duck Key, near Harbor Drive,
Pebble Beach Lane, Duck Key Drive and Greenbriar Circle. No notable
aquatic habitat impacts would be associated with upgrading the lift
stations.

![](media/image14.jpeg){width="4.524305555555555in" height="3.4in"}

Figure 3-5. Lift Station B, Duck Key

### Special Status Species

Affected Environment

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 requires Federal agencies to
consider impacts of their actions on threatened and endangered species
and their habitats, and take steps to conserve and protect these
species. Additionally, Federal agencies must also comply with the 1996
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) that requires the identification of
EFH for Federally managed fishery species and the implementation of
measures to conserve and enhance this habitat and the Sustainable
Fisheries Act (SFA) Public Law 104-297. Special status species are
described in PEA Section 3.3.3.1 (Special Status Species, Affected
Environment).

A URS biologist conducted site visits on August 1, 2002, concurrently
with vegetation and wildlife investigations, to investigate the
potential presence of Federally protected species and suitable habitat
for these species in the project area and sites.

No State- or Federally-listed species were observed in any of the
proposed construction sites. Vegetated portions of the proposed
construction sites consist of disturbed ruderal and landscape plants;
therefore no portions of the proposed construction sites are likely to
provide nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat for any special status
species that could occur in this portion of the Florida Keys.
Additionally, due to the relatively small size of Conch Key and Duck
Key, their isolation from large contiguous vegetated tracts of land and
the lack of native vegetation cover, none of the proposed construction
sites are unlikely to provide nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat for
migratory birds or other transient species.

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA funds would not be used for
wastewater management improvements in the Keys. As such, FEMA would not
be required to undertake activities for compliance with Section 7 of ESA
and EFH. Conch Key residents would still need to comply with Florida
Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated that effects on
special status species, once funding is secured, would be similar to
those under Alternatives 2 and 3.

FEMA consulted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the potential impacts
of Alternatives 2 and 3. URS biologists conducted site-specific surveys
and, based on information collected, determined that the proposed
alternatives would not have an effect on special status species. In a
letter dated, February 7, 2003, FEMA notified both FWS and NMFS of their
finding determination, requested concurrence, and initiated informal
consultation. Based on the information provided, the USFWS stated in
their response on February 27, 2003, that they concurred with the no
effect finding for Federally-listed species or their critical habitat.
Therefore, no further action is required under Section 7(a)(2) of the
ESA. The NMFS stated in their response on February 27, 2003 that neither
alternative would be likely to affect EFH; therefore no further action
is required under the MSA and the SFA.

No state special status species are known to occur at the project sites.
A letter dated January 31, 2003, was sent to the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission concerning state listed species and
they have not responded. The project would not affect state special
status species. Agency coordination letters for this SEA are included in
Appendix B.

## Air Quality

Affected Environment

Air pollution within the project areas has not been extensively
documented; however motor vehicles are the main source of emissions. The
FDEP has designated Monroe County as an air quality attainment area,
meaning that air quality standards set by both FDEP and the EPA are
maintained county-wide (Monroe County, 1995). Air quality in the Florida
Keys is generally excellent, and data from FDEP's two ambient air
monitoring stations in Key West and Marathon indicate that particulate
matter concentrations remain well below the State's standards. The
affected environment for air quality is similar to that described in PEA
Section 3.4.1 (Air Quality, Affected Environment).

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for
wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply
with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated
that effects on air quality, once funding is secured, would be similar
to those under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Under Alternative 2, minor temporary adverse effects on air quality
would occur during construction from increased exhaust pollutants and
fugitive dust. These temporary impacts could be mitigated through
standard construction practices including a decrease in idle time, and
watering down of construction areas. Operational effects of the WWTP on
air quality would be similar to those discussed in Section 3.4.2.2
(Environmental Consequences, Alternative 2 -- Centralized Wastewater
Treatment Plant). The pump station aerates odors by allowing air into
the pump system behind wastewater that has accumulated in holding tanks.
The only release of air occurs from the blower exhaust at the pump
station, which passes through a biofilter before emission. In addition,
an odor control system, such as an in-ground wood chip bed, or packaged
iron fillings bed, would be utilized to minimize odors. No long-term
effects on air quality are anticipated.

Under Alternative 3, minor temporary adverse effects on air quality
would occur during construction from increased exhaust pollutants and
fugitive dust and mitigation measures similar to those described in
Alternative 2 would be implemented. During operation, atmospheric air
used for transport within the collection system would enter through the
4-inch screened air intake on the gravity line. It is unlikely that odor
would emanate from this air inlet due to the small volume of sewage (10
gallons) and short detention times in the sump. An odor control system,
as detailed in Alternative 2, would be used to eliminate odors at the
pump station. Therefore, no long-term adverse effects on air quality are
anticipated.

## Cultural Resources

***Affected Environment***

PEA Section 3.5.1 (Cultural Resources, Affected Environment) provides an
overview of Monroe County's cultural history. In addition to review
under NEPA, consideration of impacts on cultural resources is mandated
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as
amended, and implemented by 36 CFR Part 800. Requirements include
identification of significant historic properties that may be affected
by the proposed project. For the purposes of Section 106, historic
properties are defined as archaeological sites, buildings, structures,
districts, or sites that are listed in or are eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 60.4).

As defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), the Area of Potential Effect (APE)
"is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may
directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic
properties, if any such properties exist." The APE is identical for
Alternatives 2 and 3, and consists of the proposed construction site of
the WWTP and VPS, and the entrance to Conch Key Cottages Walker's Cay
and 50-feet on either side of the entrance in the US-1 ROW (Figure 2-1)

In addition to identifying historic properties that may exist in the
proposed project's APE, the Federal agency must also determine, in
consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), what effect, if any, the action would have on historic
properties. Moreover, if the project would have an adverse effect to
these properties, the Federal agency must consult with the SHPO on ways
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect.

Historic resources identified near the project sites include the
Overseas Highway and Flagler Railway Bridges (NRHP, 2002). Portions of
these bridges are listed in the NRHP (1979-08-13) and include the
section between Long and Conch Keys (MM 63.0 to 65.5). Although the
historic Flagler railroad bridge located between Conch Key and Duck Key,
across Tom's Harbor Cut, is not currently listed in the NRHP, it is
considered a historic resource potentially eligible for listing in the
NRHP (Edwards, Pers. Comm., 2002). A third resource is an underwater
archaeological site located within one mile of Conch Key. Due to a
paucity of information in the archaeological site report, this resource
is considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP.

A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted by a URS archaeologist on
August 1, 2002. The purpose of the assessment was to assist FEMA's
project planning, ensure NEPA and NHPA compliance, and provide the
Florida SHPO with information on potential cultural resource impacts.
The assessment included an in-person records search at the Florida
Master Site File Preservation Office, and a 100 percent pedestrian
reconnaissance survey of the APEs.

Site files located at the Florida SHPO listed no historic standing
structures or archaeological sites within or adjacent to the APEs.
However, one underwater archaeological site (8MO132), one historic
bridge (Long Key Bridge) listed in the NRHP (8MO1131a), and one historic
bridge (across Tom's Harbor cut) eligible for listing in the NRHP were
within a one-mile radius of each project area. These resources will not
be affected by the proposed action. Archaeological pedestrian surveys
found that the project area soils consisted of disturbed soils or a thin
1- to 2-inch layer of soil overlying limestone bedrock. Both the topsoil
and bedrock were previously disturbed from mechanical grading. No
artifacts or cultural features were observed in the APEs. No
above-ground cultural resources were observed in the APE or within the
viewshed that might potentially be eligible for the NRHP. The results of
the assessment indicate that there are no archaeological resources
present within the APEs and no further assessments were recommended
(Appendix G; Conch Key Cultural Resources Assessment Report).

***Environmental Consequences***

Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for
wastewater management. Conch Key residents would still need to comply
with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010. It is anticipated
that once funding is secured, effects on Cultural Resources would be
similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3. If Conch Key obtains
funding through nonfederal entities to comply with Florida Statutory
Treatment Standards the locality would not be required to comply with
Section 106 of the NHPR.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, no effects on historic, archaeological, or
cultural resources are anticipated because none were identified within
the APE. A Cultural Resources Assessment summarizing these findings was
prepared and submitted to the SHPO with a letter dated February 26, 2003
(Appendices B and F). The SHPO stated in their response dated March 13,
2003 (received March 27, 2003), that it was the determination of the
SHPO that the Cultural Resources Assessment was complete. However, in
order for the final report to be considered sufficient based on the
criteria specified in Chapter 1A-46.001(2), Florida Administrative Code,
it required some additional information. The revised Cultural Resources
Assessment was submitted to SHPO on \[date\]. In a letter dated
\[date\], the SHPO accepted FEMA's revision to the Cultural Resources
Assessment, and concurred with FEMA's findings of no effect. However,
should any unanticipated historic or archeological materials be
discovered during project work, all activities on the site shall be
halted immediately and the FKAA shall consult with FEMA, SHPO and other
appropriate agencies for further guidance. In addition, if a human
burial is discovered, Florida's unmarked human burial law will be
implemented (Florida Statute Title XLVI, 872.05 Unmarked human burials).
Specifically:

> "When an unmarked human burial is discovered ... all activity that may
> disturb the unmarked human burial shall cease immediately, and the
> district medical examiner shall be notified. Such activity shall not
> resume unless specifically authorized by the district medical examiner
> or the State Archaeologist. If the district medical examiner finds
> that the unmarked human burial may be involved in a legal
> investigation or represents the burial of an individual who has been
> dead less than 75 years, the district medical examiner shall assume
> jurisdiction over and responsibility for such unmarked human burial,
> and no other provisions of this section shall apply. The district
> medical examiner shall have 30 days after notification of the unmarked
> human burial to determine if he or she shall maintain jurisdiction or
> refer the matter to the State Archaeologist. If the district medical
> examiner finds that the unmarked human burial is not involved in a
> legal investigation and represents the burial of an individual who has
> been dead 75 years or more, he or she shall notify the State
> Archaeologist, and the division may assume jurisdiction over and
> responsibility for the unmarked human burial pursuant to subsection
> (6) \[of Florida Statute 872.05\]. When the division assumes
> jurisdiction over an unmarked human burial, the State Archaeologist
> shall consult a human skeletal analyst who shall report within 15 days
> as to the cultural and biological characteristics of the human
> skeletal remains and where such burial or remains should be held prior
> to a final disposition \[Florida Statute Title XLVI, Chapter
> 872.05\]."

## Socioeconomic Resources

### Tourism

Affected Environment

Tourist facilities on Conch Key are located on the bay side and include
a dive shop, inn, marina and boat ramp, and seafood market. There are
several vacation homes and apartments. Tourist facilities are not
present on the ocean side of Conch Key, which is occupied entirely by
the Conch Key Mobile Home Community. Tourist populations in the vicinity
of the project sites are concentrated south of Conch Key, on Walker's
Cay, and Indies Island in Duck Key. Table 3-3 lists all commercial
businesses located within the project area businesses.

  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Table 3-3. Project Areas             
  Businesses**                           

  **Business Name**                      **Location**

  Bayview Inn Marina                     Conch Key

  Nichols Seafood                        Conch Key

  Conch Key Cottages Resort              Walker's Cay
  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not fund the proposed
project. Wastewater treatment projects would be locally funded, which
could increase local taxes. This could be passed to tourists through
higher costs for hotels, food, and other goods and services. In addition
tourism impacts from decrease water quality, beach closures and storm
infrastructure impacts would continue until wastewater improvements were
implemented. Under this scenario, wastewater treatment projects would be
funded by local sources, which could potentially increase local taxes.
Tax increases in turn could be passed down to the tourist, through
higher costs for hotels, food, and similar merchandise in Conch Key. In
addition, impacts on tourism associated with decreased water quality,
beach closures and other infrastructure impacts during storm events
would continue until wastewater improvements were implemented.

Under Alternative 2, adverse construction impacts Conch Key tourism
would be short-term and minimal. Installation of the collection system
would temporarily hinder, but not obstruct, traffic movement to and from
the seafood market and several vacation rentals located along North
Conch Avenue and Sea View Avenue, and resort traffic on Walker's Cay.
Appropriate signage and traffic management (as described in PEA Section
3.9.1, Traffic and Circulation) would reduce the degree of this impact.
Installation and operation of the treatment plant is not expected to
impact tourism beyond those effects described in PEA Section 3.6.1.2.1
(Tourism, Environmental Consequences, No Action Alternative). The
Bayview Inn Marina is the closest business to the proposed treatment
plant site; the treatment plant would be clearly visible from the
Bayview Inn Marina. To mitigate these effects, the applicant should be
required to install vegetative screens on the areas surrounding the
treatment plant to obscure views from marina customers.

Additionally, improved water quality may benefit the tourism industry by
increasing tourist enjoyment of activities listed in PEA Section 3.6.1.1
(Tourism, Affected Environment).

Under Alternative 3, tourism would not be adversely affected. Both
negative and positive effects on tourism are similar to those described
for Alternative 2. Pipeline trenching activities for transmission system
construction and upgrades to lift stations on Duck Key would not
obstruct the access roads to Duck Key and visitors' enjoyment of the
island. Temporary construction activities associated with wastewater
treatment improvements would be short-term and minimal.

### Fishing Industry

Affected Environment

Conch Key contains a small commercial fishing community. Nichols Seafood
on Conch Key employs over 40 family-operated commercial fishing
businesses. Species commercially harvested by Nichols Seafood include
spiny lobster, yellowtail snapper, dolphin, mangrove snapper, mutton
snapper, black grouper, red grouper, kingfish, stone crab, Key West pink
shrimp, and St. Augustine white shrimp (Florida Internet Group, Inc.,
1997).

The Florida Keys Fishing Club is also located on Conch Key and has three
fishing charter boats for recreational fishing trips (Florida Keys
Fishing Club, 2000). Species recreationally harvested around Conch Key
include tarpon, bonefish, kingfish, dolphin, sailfish, wahoo, snapper,
grouper, shark, and barracuda. The affected environment for the fishing
industry is described further in PEA Section 3.6.2.1 (Fishing Industry,
Affected Environment).

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, Conch Key would not receive FEMA funds
for wastewater management. Overall environmental benefits to the fishing
industry would be delayed until funding was obtained for wastewater
improvements on Conch Key (as described in PEA Section 3.6.2.2.1, \[No
Action Alternative\]).

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, FEMA would provide funding for projects to
aid in the construction of a WTTP or WTS, respectively. These projects
are expected to improve nearshore water quality which would, in turn,
benefit nearshore commercial species currently being adversely affected
by poor water quality in the Conch Key area. Beneficial effects on
commercial fishing are described in PEA Section 3.6.2.2 (Environmental
Consequences). FEMA consulted the NMFS regarding the potential impacts
of Alternatives 2 and 3 on fisheries resources. The NMFS stated in their
response on February 27, 2003 that neither alternative would be likely
to affect EFH; therefore, no further action is required under the MSA
and the SFA. Agency coordination letters for this SEA are included in
Appendix B.

### 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).

#### Existing Wastewater Management Costs in the Conch Key Service Area

For the purpose of this SEA, wastewater management cost discussions
include reference to: 1) **system capital costs,** which include
expenses associated with planning, designing, engineering, purchasing,
building, and installing a wastewater treatment system, and the required
wastewater conveyance piping in public ROWs and selected effluent
disposal method; 2) **abandonment and lateral costs,** which include the
expenses associated with removal and disposal of the existing wastewater
treatment system and piping on service recipients' property for
connection to a new system; and 3) **operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs** for the new system.

Five basic types of wastewater systems are presently used in Monroe
County: cesspits, septic tanks, on-site aerobic treatment units (ATUs),
on-site wastewater nutrient reduction systems (OWNRS), and centralized
WWTPs. On Conch Key and Walker's Cay, approximately 107 cesspools and
septic systems are currently utilized by property owners. Septic systems
collect sewage in a tank and allow the liquid waste to filter through
the drainfield into shallow soils and subsurface limestone. For septic
systems in working condition, pumping to remove solid waste is needed
only about every 6 to 10 years (D and D Enterprises, Inc., Pers. Comm.,
2001). The cost to pump a standard 1,000-gallon septic tank, presently
about \$300, would average about \$38 a year or a little over \$3 a
month if pumped once every 8 years.

Almost all Keys' cesspits are at residences built before 1970. From
discussions with wastewater service companies in the Keys, it was found
that "properly" functioning cesspits (i.e., those that drain and leach
out effluent into the surrounding soil and subsurface limestone) do not
need to be pumped out, and consequently, have little or no associated
operation and maintenance costs. As most of them were installed more
than 30 years ago, there are also currently no associated system capital
costs. Cesspits are currently illegal to install in Monroe County, and
are being removed as part of the Monroe Cesspit Identification and
Elimination Grant Program (discussed in detail in PEA Section 3.6.3.2.1
\[Local Fees and Taxes, Environmental Consequences\]).

For comparison, the average monthly wastewater rates for customers that
currently use non-compliant WWTP systems in other parts of Monroe County
are \$56, \$64, and \$55 per month for customers of Key Haven Utilities,
Ocean Reef Club, and K W Resort Utilities, respectively.

There are three businesses on Conch Key and Walker's Cay. Two of them
(seafood store and inn/marina) currently use septic systems (Line,
Nichols Pers. Comm., 2003); the third business is a resort that is
located on its own 2.5 acre island and has 12 guest cottages. This
business is currently using an ATU that is not in compliance with
Florida Statutory Treatment Standards. The owners purchased their system
less than 10 years ago and in addition to O&M costs, are still paying
capital costs (Wilson, Pers. Comm., 2003).

Additional information related to local fees and taxes is in PEA Section
3.6.3 (Local Fees and Taxes).

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not fund the Conch Key
wastewater management projects. To achieve compliance with Florida
Statutory Treatment Standards, residents and businesses would have to
use other funding for improvements.

Economic effects of the No Action Alternative on local wastewater fees
or taxes are difficult to quantify, as they will depend on the final
costs of the 2010-compliant systems chosen, the amount of State and
Federal grants and contributions, and the details of the chosen
financing options, including applicable repayment terms. Based upon
information in PEA Section 3.6.3.3, the No Action Alternative may result
in higher wastewater management costs for Conch Key residents and
businesses than would be expected from either FEMA-funded Alternative 2
or 3.

Under Alternative 2, the estimated system capital cost to service
recipients, after grant funding has been applied, would be about
\$4,255, per EDU. In addition, property owners would pay for their
abandonment and lateral costs. The estimated monthly service operation
and maintenance fee for continuing operation and maintenance of the WWTP
would be about \$59 per EDU, with no capital cost applied to the monthly
service fee (Shelby, Pers. Comm., 2003). All costs estimated for
Alternative 2 are associated with the gravity sewer system.

Under Alternative 3, costs to Conch Key service recipients are expected
to be comparable to those under Alternative 2. At the present time,
formal engineering cost estimates of system capital costs and monthly
operation and maintenance fees associated with service from the Hawk's
Cay WWTP have not been completed. As with Alternative 2, these cost
estimates will be made in association with a gravity sewer system.
Because the Hawk's Cay WWTP does not currently meet 2010 treatment
standards, the plant will need to be upgraded in the next few years.
Estimates of potential increased costs to Conch Key service recipients
for the upgrade of the Hawk's Cay WWTP have not yet been made (Teague,
Pers. Comm., 2003). Like Alternative 2, under Alternative 3 property
owners would pay for their abandonment and lateral costs.

Abandonment and lateral costs are estimated to range between \$1,500 and
\$5,000 per EDU, depending on the type of existing on-site system and
the amount of work needed to remove or abandon the system.

Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, businesses in the service area would be
assessed wastewater fees in the same manner as residential service
recipients, with system capital costs following the rates outlined above
and monthly service operation and maintenance fees following a
flow-based rate structure. The flow-based rate structure would follow
the same per EDU cost as residential service recipients, with one EDU
worth of flow being equivalent to 167 gallons per day. Businesses that
used more than one EDU worth of water would be charged accordingly. As
an example, under Alternative 2, a business that generated 417 gallons
of wastewater per day would be charged \$162.50 or 2.5 times the
residential rate of \$65, because 417 gallons per day is 2.5 times the
1-EDU flow of 167 gallons per day (Shimokubo, Pers. Comm., 2003). Those
businesses that do not generate as much wastewater as they use clean
water (e.g. those that make ice and ship it out) will have the option to
petition for a wastewater flow analysis to determine wastewater
generation.

The one business in the service area that currently has an ATU system is
being analyzed by FKAA for the cost-effectiveness of its hookup to a
centralized system (under both Alternatives 2 and 3). If it is concluded
by FKAA and the county that it is not cost effective to connect it to a
centralized system, the business will be responsible for upgrading its
ATU to Florida Statutory Standards (Wilson, Pers. Comm., 2003).

Also, under both Alternatives 2 and 3, property owners unable to pay
their system capital cost in full at the time of availability of service
would be able to make amortized annual payments of principal plus
interest (currently estimated at 5.5%) under a 20-year, non-ad valorem
special assessment, which would be included on their annual property
taxes (FKAA, 2002). Under Alternative 2, this would be about \$334.72 a
year for 20 years.

Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, wastewater costs would be required to
fall at or below the affordability threshold of approximately 2% of
Median Household Income and within the cost ranges set forth in PEA
Section 3.6.3. Alternative 2 is currently within this range. The Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners has adopted resolution 306-2002,
indicating that a connection fee of \$2,700 for capital costs is
reasonable. At the time of publication, Monroe County has not taken any
further action with respect to achieving these initial guidelines.

With the use of FEMA grant funding towards the costs of wastewater
treatment for Conch Key, no significant economic impacts to service
recipients are expected.

### Public Health

Affected Environment

As mentioned in Section 3.2.2.2 (Nearshore and Offshore Marine Waters),
beach water quality data has been collected since August 2000 by Florida
DOH from the Curry Hammock State Park monitoring station on Crawl Key
(MM 56). On seven separate occasions, these data indicated elevated
levels of fecal coliform and *Enterococcus* sp. in the vicinity of the
monitoring station that could potentially pose a health risk.
Consequently the DOH issued three health advisories/warnings (State of
Florida, DOH, 2003). The Curry Hammock State Park monitoring station is
6.5 miles south of Conch Key and is the closest monitoring station to
the service area. Public health consequences from contaminated water are
described further in PEA Section 3.6.4.1 (Public Health, Affected
Environment).

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, it is likely that nearshore and
offshore water quality conditions affecting public health would improve,
but the rate of improvement would be dependent on local, State, and
Federal funding sources to implement wastewater improvements. The
available data do not conclusively demonstrate instances of infection or
health problems specifically related to groundwater or offshore
contamination caused by current sewage treatment practices. However, as
described in PEA Section 3.6.4.1 (Affected Environment), the presence of
enteric microbes in canals and nearshore marine waters can pose a health
risk if ingested while swimming or eating contaminated seafood (Paul et
al., 1995; Caffry, Pers. Comm., 2001). Therefore, it may be reasonably
assumed that public health risks exist and would continue under this
alternative.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, project area residents would benefit from
implementation of improved wastewater treatment facilities because they
would reduce public health risks. The environmental consequences of
Alternative 2 are discussed further in PEA Section 3.6.4.2.2
(Alternative 2 -- Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant).

## 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

### Population and Race

Conch Key is a small, moderate- to low-income residential area with 158
residences. Walker's Cay has 3 residences. Conch Key has under 400
residents. U.S. 2000 Census results were obtained for the Conch Key
area, also referred to as the Duck Key census designated place (CDP).
The Duck Key CDP is a statistical entity, defined for each decennial
census according to Census Bureau guidelines, a dense population that is
not within an incorporated place, but is locally identified by a name.
CDP's are delineated cooperatively by State and local officials and the
U.S. Census Bureau, following Bureau guidelines. The Duck Key CDP
includes Conch Key, Walker's Cay and Duck Key. "Whites" were 99 percent
of the Duck Key CDP population. Three percent of those were Hispanic.
(U.S. Census, 2000).

### Income and Poverty

As discussed in PEA Section 3.7 (Socioeconomics), a common indicator of
income level used by government agencies is the county-specific
estimated Median Family Income (MFI). U.S. Census (2000) data for the
Duck Key CDP indicates that about 46% of families had MFIs less than
\$35,000 per year and about 30% had MFIs between \$35,000 and \$59,999
per year. The remaining 24% had MFIs greater than \$60,000. The
corresponding average family size for the Duck Key CDP was 2.46 people.

In 2003, the annual MFI for Monroe County was estimated at \$56,500
(U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development \[HUD\], see citation below
Table 3-3.). The indicator known as the "poverty threshold" is set for
the entire nation and, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii, is not
adjusted for local cost-of living differences. For the year 2003, the
poverty threshold is set at an annual income of \$15,260 for a household
of three people (U.S. Census, 2003). In areas like the Keys, where the
cost of living is higher than the national average, \$14,480
consequently buys less, effectively making a household near the poverty
threshold in the Keys poorer than similar households in areas where the
cost of living is lower. The Monroe County Housing Authority currently
uses the first two tiers of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD's) MFI-based income levels to administer its
*low-income* assistance programs. To administer their programs fairly,
HUD makes annual projections of MFI by county and adjusts for family
size. The first two tiers of *low-* and *very low-income* levels are set
as percentages of the county MFI. In 2003, the income limits for a
family of three in Monroe County were \$40,700 for the *low-income*
level and \$25,450 for the *very low-income* level. Table 3-4 below
shows HUD's FY 2003 *low* and *very low-income* levels for various
family sizes in Monroe County.

  -------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **Table 3-4.                                                                                
  Fiscal Year                                                                                 
  2002 -- HUD's                                                                               
  *Low-Income*                                                                                
  and *Very                                                                                   
  Low-Income*                                                                                 
  Limits, Monroe                                                                              
  County,                                                                                     
  Florida --                                                                                  
  Median Family                                                                               
  Income =                                                                                    
  \$55,100**                                                                                  

  **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           \$19,800   \$22,600   \$25,450   \$28,250   \$30,000   \$32,750   \$35,050   \$37,300
  Low-Income                                                                                  
  -------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

<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 data.

Based on the above statistics, the FKAA estimates that up to 25% of
homestead exempt property owners within the service area may be
considered *low-* and *very low-income* (Note: A homestead exemption is
a 3% annual limit on property tax increases, available to those property
owners who are year-round county residents \[FKAA, 2002\]). As described
in PEA Section 3.7, it has been determined that *low*- and *very
low-income* service recipients would incur a financial hardship if their
wastewater management costs increased.

### Wastewater Fees and Affordability for Keys Low-income Residents

The installation of systems that meet Florida Statutory Treatment
Standards, under any of the alternatives, would improve water quality in
shallow aquifers, canals, and nearshore marine waters, and to a lesser
extent, off-shore marine waters as well. The resulting reduced fecal
contamination and nutrient pollution would likely reduce adverse effects
on public health. *Low-income* and minority populations are expected to
benefit from these wastewater management improvements to the same degree
as other Keys demographic populations.

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not fund the Conch Key
wastewater management projects. To comply with Florida Statutory
Treatment Standards of 2010, residents and businesses would have to use
other funding for improvements. As described in PEA Section 3.6.3 (Local
Fees and Taxes), the No Action Alternative may result in higher
wastewater management costs for Conch Key residents and businesses than
would be expected with the benefit of FEMA funding. No
disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority populations are
expected, unless they are also *low-income*.

Under the No Action Alternative, households at or below the *low-income*
level would incur financial hardship if their wastewater management
costs increase to levels that approximate the affordability threshold
cited in PEA Section 3.6.3.1.2, of near 2% of Median Household Income
(approximately \$75/month). Unmitigated, increased wastewater management
costs would disproportionately and adversely affect *low-income*
populations, as the increased financial burden would represent a higher
percentage of their discretionary income.

Under Alternative 2, the estimated system capital cost to service
recipients, after grant funding has been applied, would be about
\$4,255, per EDU. In addition, property owners would pay for their
abandonment and lateral costs, estimated to be between \$1,500 and
\$5,000 per residence. The estimated monthly service operation and
maintenance fee for continuing operation and maintenance of the WWTP
would be about \$59 per EDU, with no capital cost applied to the monthly
service fee (Shelby, Pers. Comm., 2003).

Under Alternative 3, costs to Conch Key service recipients are expected
to be comparable to those under Alternative 2. At the present time,
formal engineering cost estimates of system capital costs and monthly
operation and maintenance fees associated with service from the Hawk's
Cay WWTP have not been completed. In addition, because the Hawk's Cay
WWTP does not currently meet 2010 treatment standards, it will need to
be upgraded before the year 2010. Estimates of potential increased costs
to Conch Key service recipients for the upgrade of the Hawk's Cay WWTP
have not yet been made. Like Alternative 2, under Alternative 3 property
owners would pay for their abandonment and lateral costs.

To reduce costs to *low-income* and *very low-income* service recipients
in compliance with EO 12898, financial assistance guidelines have been
developed. As described in PEA Section 3.7, the estimated amount of
assistance available to cover the system capital costs for
homestead-exempt *low-* and *very low-income* property owners under
Alternatives 2 and 3 is shown in Table 3-5. *Low-income* property owners
would receive assistance with at least 70% of their system capital cost;
and 70% of their existing system abandonment and lateral costs, up to
\$3,000. *Very low-income* property owners would receive assistance with
at least 90% of their system capital cost, and 90% of their existing
system abandonment and lateral costs, up to \$3,000.

Under Alternative 2, for *low-income* property owners, the estimated
resulting system capital cost after assistance would be about \$1,200 in
one payment or about \$100.42 a year for 20 years (about \$2,008.40
total). For *very low-income* property owners, the estimated resulting
system capital cost after assistance would be about \$400 in one
payment, or about \$33.47 a year for 20 years (about \$669.40 total).
Costs to *low-income* property owners and *very low-income* property
owners under Alternative 3 have yet to be determined but are expected to
approximate those under Alternative 2.

**Table 3-5. Alternative 2 - *Low-Income* and *Very Low-Income***
Funding Assistance for the System Capital Cost

  ------------------------ ----------------- -------------- ---------------
                           **Amount of       **Estimated    **Estimated
                           Assistance -\     System Capital Annual Payment
                           % of Connection\  Cost After     Assessed with
                           Fee Covered**     Assistance**   Property
                                                            Tax\***

  Low-Income Qualified     70%               \$1,200.00     \$100.42
  Family                                                    

  Very Low-Income          90%               \$400.00       \$33.47
  Qualified Family                                          

  \*Amortized annual                                        
  payment of principal                                      
  plus interest at 5.5%                                     
  under a 20-year non-ad                                    
  valorem special                                           
  assessment                                                
  ------------------------ ----------------- -------------- ---------------

Because the property owner's total cost for abandonment and lateral
costs will vary from one property to the next, it is not possible to
estimate the final cost with the assistance program. Nevertheless, the
assistance program would cover at least 90% of this cost for *very
low-income* property owners (up to \$3,000 total) and at least 70% of
this cost for *low-income* property owners (up to \$3,000 total).

At this time, no programs would be available to help *low-* and *very
low-income* populations with the payment of monthly operation and
maintenance fees.

Under both Alternative 2 and 3, property owners unable to pay their
system capital cost in full at the time of availability of service would
be able to make amortized annual payments of principal plus interest (at
5.5%) under a 20-year, non-ad valorem special assessment, which would be
included on their annual property taxes (FKAA, 2002).

The assistance guidelines presented above represent a minimum goal and
will be required during project implementation in order for the FKAA to
receive FEMA grant funding. Costs to low-income service recipients may
be further offset at the applicant's discretion. Further assistance
could come from State grant funding made available from Community
Development Block Grants, the State Housing Initiative Partnership
Program, and/or a project contingency made available from existing State
and Federal grant funding. At the time of publication, Monroe County has
identified a little over half a million dollars in CDBG funds available
to help low-income wastewater service recipients throughout the county.
Low-income service recipients on Conch Key have been identified as a
high priority for receipt of a portion of these funds, although the
final amount to be allocated has yet to be determined.

The assistance program set forth under Alternatives 2 and 3 is designed
to address the needs of *low-income* and *very low-income* property
owners. Although FEMA does not have specific requirements under EO 12898
to assist *low-income* renters, renters may seek assistance through
local assistance programs, such as the Monroe County Housing Authority.

With the implementation of the FEMA assistance program and the use of
FEMA grant funding, no highly disproportionate or adverse affects would
be felt by *low-income* or *very-low income* property owners.

## Hazardous Materials and Wastes

Affected Environment

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Environmental
Consulting & Technology, Inc. to evaluate the potential for hazardous
materials and wastes to occur at the project sites (ECT, 2002). Phase I
results indicated that the area is covered with limerock gravel with
little to no vegetation. Small areas of surficial soil discoloration,
attributed to normal automobile operations, were noted. No areas of
distressed or discolored vegetation, which could be evidence of
discharges of environmental contaminants, were observed. Based on a
review of the information collected during the investigation, it was
determined that the subject property was vacant prior to 1964, and
landscaped with vegetation after this time.

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts related to hazardous materials
and wastes are expected to be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 described
below. Wastewater sludge waste from the Keys would continue to be hauled
to a transfer facility and taken to a wastewater treatment facility in
Miami-Dade County for treatment.

Under Alternative 2, wastewater would be treated as described in Section
2.2.2 of this document (Wastewater Treatment Plant). Decanted sludge
would be temporarily stored in an aerated holding tank on-site, and the
liquid sludge would be hauled by truck to one of the three Monroe County
Solid Waste Transfer Stations. Miami-Dade has committed to accepting
increased loads and has the capacity to accommodate the expanded waste
quantity from Monroe County (Williams, Pers. Comm., 2001). Additional
environmental consequences of this alternative are discussed in PEA
Section 3.7.2.2 (Alternative 2 -- Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant
Alternative).

The most common hazardous materials that enter the wastewater systems
are grease and typical household cleaning products (Rios, Pers. Comm.,
2001). Each incident of inadvertent disposal of hazardous wastes to
wastewater effluent is more likely to affect smaller plants like the
Conch Key WWTP than larger plants, because the materials are usually
more diluted in the larger plants. However, the frequency of these
incidents at a smaller facility should be correspondingly lower so there
would likely be no net increase in potential concern. Hazardous
materials that would enter the WWTP may kill the biological component
that treats the wastewater, and would have to be pumped out and sent to
a larger treatment plant for reprocessing.

Treatment chemicals would be added at various points in the treatment
process. The pH of influent wastewater may be adjusted with the addition
sodium hydroxide, a buffering agent. The sodium hydroxide would
immediately dissolve and be consumed in a reaction which raises
wastewater pH and would no longer be an active compound. In order to
remove phosphorus from the wastewater, metal salts may be added to
coagulate the excess phosphorus. The resultant sludge would be collected
and disposed as previously described. The metal salts would be disposed
with this material and not released to the aquatic environment.
Disinfectants, such as sodium hypochlorite or calcium hypochlorite may
be added as the wastewater effluent is release to the environment to
kill remaining biologic pathogens. These materials would be dissolved
and be consumed in disinfecting reactions with organic materials.

Under Alternative 3, wastewater would be treated as described in Section
2.3.4 of this document (Hawk's Cay Wastewater Treatment Plant).
Additional environmental consequences of this alternative are discussed
in Alternative 2.

## Infrastructure

### Traffic and Circulation

Affected Environment

Conch Key is a small residential area with only seven local roads as
well as US-1. There are no traffic lights on US-1 within the project
area. The project area falls within the Duck Key Highway capacity
segment (MM 60.5 to MM 63.0). The 2001 level of service (LOS) for US-1
in the project area is Class B, classified as "adequate," with a travel
speed criteria of 48 mph to 50.9 mph; median speed through the segment
was 54 mph (URS, 2002b). This LOS is above the LOS C standard (45.0 mph
to 47.9 mph) adopted for Monroe County. County roads are subject to a
lower standard (LOS D) than US-1. Based on the analysis found in the
Technical Document of the Monroe County Year 2001 Comprehensive Plan,
all County roads are operating at or above LOS D (Monroe County, 2002)

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not fund Conch Key
wastewater management projects. Therefore traffic and circulation
effects would be delayed until funding for systems needed to meet the
Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010 is secured. Once funding
is obtained, it is anticipated that effects would be similar to those
under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, construction traffic would temporarily
increase during the implementation of wastewater management projects.
Temporary construction traffic would increase in the vicinity of the
proposed facility and would be expected to last for about eight months
from the start of construction. Construction activities are not expected
to interrupt vehicular traffic on US-1. Installation of a collection
system would temporarily hinder, but not obstruct, traffic movement to
and from the seafood market and several vacation rentals located along
North Conch Avenue and Sea View Avenue. Installation and operation of
the treatment plant or pump station would temporarily increase traffic
to each facility depending on road capacity and operations. Under
Alternative 3, pipeline trenching activities for construction of the
transmission system would not obstruct the access roads to Duck Key.

Public service disruptions from construction are expected to be brief
and infrequent. During construction, minor detours may be needed to
allow homeowners access to their property (FKAA, 2002). A traffic
control plan would be developed and implemented as required by funding
and/or permitting agencies. This plan would include specific information
about temporary traffic control, alternate routes, staging area
locations, and optimal working times to minimize traffic disruption.
Construction activities in the roadways ROW would not be subject to
Monroe County Land Development Regulations since development, as defined
by the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Monroe County, 1995), excludes
roads.

### Utilities and Services

Affected Environment

Electricity, gas, and potable water services for the project areas are
detailed in PEA Section 3.9.2.1 (Public Utilities and Services, Affected
Environment). The main types of wastewater treatment within the project
sites are septic tanks and cesspools. Of the Conch Key bay side
properties, 53 have septic tanks, five parcels currently utilize
cesspools, and 13 parcels do not have a wastewater treatment method
listed (Monroe County Property Appraiser database, 2001). Wastewater
collection methods for Conch Key ocean side properties are not listed
(Monroe County Property Appraiser\'s database, 2001). A Monroe County
Fire Rescue Station is located on South Conch Avenue, Conch Key.

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for
wastewater management. However, Conch Key residents would still be
required to comply with the Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of
2010. Once a funding source has been identified, it is anticipated that
effects on services and utilities would be similar to those under
Alternatives 2 and 3.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there could be temporary adverse effects on
utilities and services during construction. Conch Key is fully developed
and receives all services, which support the proposed wastewater
improvement alternatives. The FKAA would contact the diggers/excavation
utility hotline at the Sunshine State One Call Center at least two
business days before construction to ensure minimal disruptions to
services during construction of wastewater improvement projects.
Short-term adverse impacts on wastewater utilities could occur as
residents and businesses connect to the new wastewater system. If proper
utility notification and construction practices are observed, adverse
long-term effects on utilities and services are not expected. Long-term
beneficial effects would occur as current wastewater methods are
switched out and operated accordingly. Regular maintenance of Conch
Key's utilities and services would help ensure standards were
maintained.

For both Alternatives 2 and 3, sewer collection mains would be installed
with a 10-foot horizontal separation from the existing FKAA water system
as required by the FDEP. Proposed rule changes may require the
separation of water and vacuum sewer collection mains to change to a
3-foot horizontal separation and a 12-inch vertical separation. However,
the current, applicable rule requirements would be applied at the time
of construction. In addition, the ocean side collection main would cross
beneath US-1, under the existing FKAA water mains, one of which is a
30-inch main currently in use and the other is the 18-inch abandoned
pipeline. No interruptions to water service are expected. Installation
of the force main within the abandoned FKAA water main would not impact
utilities since the FKAA pipeline is no longer in use.

Under Alternative 3, the existing lift stations, LS-B and LS-F, on Duck
Key would need to be inspected to determine the impact of the additional
flow on the existing facilities. The existing lift stations would be
able to handle the increased flows until such time as they could be
upgraded, at which time, there would be a brief interruption in service.
This interruption would not affect residents in the service area or on
Duck Key. Existing flows to the existing Hawk's Cay WWTP are estimated
to be about 80,000 gpd with peaks to 120,000 gpd. Capacity of the Hawk's
Cay WWTP is sufficient for the anticipated additional average day
wastewater flow from Conch Key (estimated at 27,555 gpd or 16 gpm).

## Land Use and Planning

Affected Environment

Conch Key is part of unincorporated Monroe County and is zoned
Commercial Fishing District 16. Permitted land uses for the island
include mobile homes, detached dwellings, vacation rentals, and
commercial fishing uses. No State-identified Conservation and Recreation
Lands (CARL) or other conservation lands are present on Conch Key. The
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary surrounds the island seaward from
the mean high water line. Conch Key and Walker's Cay are not located
within a Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) unit (CBRA Zone).

Four of the five islands (Yacht Club Island, Center Island, Plantation
Island, and Harbor Island) that compose Duck Key are zoned Residential
and one, Indies Island, is zoned Commercial. Indies Island contains the
Hawk\'s Cay Resort and Village, Hawk's Cay WWTP, waterfront villas and
small condominiums. Walker's Cay is zoned Mixed Use District. The
affected environment for land use and planning is further discussed in
PEA Section 3.10.1 (Land Use and Planning, Affected Environment).

Duck Key, Walker's Cay and Conch Key are all contained within Planning
Area Enumeration District (PAED) 10 (about located from MM 61 to MM 64;
Monroe County, 2002).

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, Monroe County Applicants would not
receive FEMA funds for wastewater management. Conch Key residents would
still need to comply with Florida Statutory Treatment Standards of 2010.
It is anticipated that once funding is secured, effects on land use and
planning would be similar to those under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Impacts on land use and planning are similar for Alternatives 2 and 3
and are further discussed in PEA Section 3.10.2.2 (Land Use and
Planning, Environmental Consequences). The proposed treatment plant and
pump station would be located on surplus US-1 ROW owned by the Monroe
County Land Authority. In accordance with the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan (Sections 9.5-257.4 and 9.5-257.5), the construction
of a new treatment plant or pump station would not require amendments to
the land uses permitted in Commercial Fishing Special District 16 (Jerry
Buckley, Pers. Comm., 2003).

As described in PEA Section 3.10 (Land Use and Planning), development
within the Keys is not controlled by addition of key infrastructure, but
instead by Monroe County's Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) permit
allocation system. The construction of new wastewater treatment
infrastructure in the Florida Keys is essential to effectively treat
existing wastewater flows, and is not proposed as a way to introduce or
support increased development. Therefore, if growth and development
occurs following implementation of this alternative, it would be the
result of established county planning and is not directly related to
proposed projects for wastewater management improvements. It should be
noted that the Conch Key service area has already been substantially
built out so additional development is unlikely.

Direct impacts on CARL lands, conservation lands or CBRS units would not
occur since none are located in the project area.

FEMA consulted the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
regarding the potential impacts of this project. The Florida DCA stated
in their response on February 25, 2003 that water quality improvement in
the Keys was an agency priority and that it supports the proposed
projects. In a letter dated April 4, 2003, the Florida Office of
Intergovernmental Programs stated, on behalf of DCA, FDEP, and the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, that Alternatives 2 and 3 are
consistent with the State's comprehensive coastal management program
(Appendix B).

## Noise and Visual Resources

### Noise

Affected Environment

Noise within the project areas has not been extensively documented but
is associated primarily with traffic. Sensitive noise receptors are
considered areas that sustain greater impacts from noise sources than
other areas (such as industrial areas). Sensitive receptors to noise
typically include churches, schools, residential areas and dwellings,
hospitals, and public facilities.

All potential noise receptors in the project areas were documented by
URS on August 1, 2002. As discussed in PEA Section 3.11.1.1 (Noise),
Conch Key is an urban residential area along a major roadway, therefore
the overall noise level for this type of classification is moderately
loud. The current generation of noise is associated primarily with the
following:

-   Normal traffic along US-1, which is about 50 feet south of the
    proposed treatment plant site;

-   Emergency response vehicle sirens from the Monroe County Fire Rescue
    Station, north of US-1, about 150 feet west of the proposed WWTP
    site; and

-   Marine fishing/trapping business activities located on the south
    side of US-1, about 300 feet southeast of the proposed WWTP site.

Observed sensitive noise receptors near the proposed WWTP site include:

-   Occupied mobile homes in the Conch Trailer Court directly north of
    the site. The closest mobile home is about 60 feet north of the
    site; and

-   Occupied mobile homes in the Coral Key Village Mobile Home
    community, south of US-1. The closest mobile home is about 300 feet
    south of the site.

No other noise receptors were identified. No natural or artificial noise
buffers were observed between the proposed treatment plant site and the
noise receptors.

The proposed transmission system route can be considered a natural
vegetated area along a major roadway. The overall noise level for this
type of classification is moderately loud. Current noise generation is
associated primarily with general vehicle operation along US-1. No noise
receptors were observed within close proximity to the proposed
transmission system route.

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, FKAA would not receive FEMA funds for
wastewater management. Therefore impacts on ambient noise conditions
would not occur under this alternative. Eventually wastewater
improvements would occur and impacts on sensitive noise receptors would
likely be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 described below.

Given that the activities for Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve a range
of construction activities, the impacts related to construction and
noise within the project sites would be similar and are discussed in
Section 3.11.1.2 (Environmental Consequences). The analysis of noise and
treatment plant operations pertains only to Alternative 2 -- New WWTP
Construction. An increase in localized noise levels would occur at
various locations throughout the approximate 8 month duration of
construction (Teague, Pers. Comm., 2001). Conch Key residents may
experience disruptive noises during allowable construction work hours,
but these are permissible under current Monroe County Code (Article III,
Sections 13-51 to 13-55). However, the potential for residents to
experience hearing damage or loss due to construction noises is
considered low.

To mitigate for construction-related noise impacts on residents, the
applicant would be required to construct vegetative buffers around the
project areas (Shimokubo, Pers. Comm., 2003). Construction personnel
would be required to observe the established noise ordinance of Monroe
County Code in order to reduce disruptive noises to adjacent areas.

To mitigate noise impacts on laborers, workers would be required to
comply with applicable occupational safety regulations and implement
appropriate noise control measures, such as wearing hearing protection
(e.g., ear plugs, ear muffs, a helmet, or canal caps) and limiting
exposure times. If these measures are implemented during construction
and operations, no adverse noise affects on workers are anticipated.

### Visual Resources

Affected Environment

Conch Key is a medium density residential area along a major roadway.
The island is 95 percent developed (i.e., 150 developed lots out of 158
lots total) and is dominated by residences, roadways, canals, and a few
commercial structures. Vegetation on Conch Key contains some native
plant species, but is largely artificially created. There is a mangrove
fringe along both sides of US-1 from Conch Key southwest to Tom's Harbor
Cut. Views of the nearshore waters may be seen from the bridge crossing
Tom's Harbor Cut and along US-1 from the bridge, south to Duck Key.
Natural areas of mangrove forests, salt marshes, tropical hardwood
hammocks, pine rockland communities and beaches are not present in the
project sites.

Visual assessments of the project sites were conducted by URS on August
1, 2002. The proposed WWTP site has mowed grasses with a few landscape
trees and shrubs, and no natural aesthetic buffers. Dominant features of
the project site viewshed include:

-   US-1;

-   Canals and marine waters;

-   Commercial structures;

-   Monroe County Fire Rescue Station; and

-   Natural coastal communities, including mangroves.

The area along the proposed transmission system route is a natural
vegetated area along a major roadway. Vegetation along either side of
US-1 consists of mowed grasses, coastal mangroves and salt marsh.
Dominant features of the project site viewshed include:

-   US-1;

-   Marine waters;

-   Tom's Harbor Cut bridges (US-1 and the historic Flagler Railroad
    bridges);

-   Landscaping (along the entranceway to Duck Key); and

-   Natural coastal communities including mangroves.

Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, Monroe County applicants would not
receive FEMA funds for wastewater improvements. However, at some point,
construction similar to that proposed in the alternatives, would occur.
As such, effects on visual resources would be similar to Alternatives 2
and 3 described below.

Under Alternative 2, construction of a WWTP would not adversely affect
the viewshed on Conch Key, since the island is mostly developed and does
not contain unique natural communities, high quality and unique views,
or natural areas. The treatment facility may cause an aesthetic impact
to the nearby residents. To mitigate these effects, the areas
surrounding the WWTP would be landscaped with vegetative screens to
obscure views from nearby residents and traffic on US-1.

Under Alternative 3, visual effects from construction of a vacuum pump
station would be similar to those from Alternative 2. Visual effects may
be mitigated through use of vegetative screens, to obscure views of the
pump station from nearby residents and traffic on US-1. Most of the
transmission system would be underground; therefore, no impacts on the
existing aesthetics are expected along those portions. The new force
main would be exposed along the south side of the US-1 bridge as it
crosses Tom's Harbor Cut; however, the pipe will be placed along side
the existing water main and should not have a notable aesthetic impact.

# Section 4 4 Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to the
FKAA for wastewater management improvements. Thus, Conch Key, private
wastewater utility operators, business owners, and homeowners would have
to get alternate funding for the large capital costs to improve their
wastewater treatment systems to meet the Florida Statutory Treatment
Standards of 2010. Conch Key residents that currently use on-site
systems, such as cesspools and septic systems, to manage wastes would
have to construct either community or regional WWTPs, suitable on-site
wastewater nutrient reduction systems (OWNRS), and/or upgrade or rebuild
existing WWTPs. As a result, the cumulative effects on physical,
biological and socioeconomic resources would be similar across all
alternatives, and are discussed below. Currently there are no
infrastructure projects under construction or planned near the project
area (Buckley, pers. comm. 2003).

## Topography, Soils, and Geology

Implementation of proposed new wastewater treatment services on Conch
Key would cumulatively increase the island's impervious surface area due
to the construction of wastewater treatment systems. However, the total
additional impervious surface would be a relatively small part of Conch
Key's surface area. Soils would be temporarily disturbed during
construction; however, the implementation of BMPs would decrease the
potential for short-term surface soil erosion. No cumulative effects are
anticipated for topography and geology.

## Water Resources and Water Quality

Cumulative effects on water resources, including jurisdictional
wetlands, groundwater, surface waters, marine waters, and water quality
for the Florida Keys are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.2. Considering
Keys-wide wastewater and stormwater management activities and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP), cumulative water
quality improvements are expected in the service area, in the canals and
nearshore marine waters, and to a lesser extent, also in offshore marine
waters.

## Biological Resources

Cumulative effects on biological resources and special status species
are expected to be beneficial due to improved groundwater, surface
waters, and marine water quality. Cumulative effects on biological
resources are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.3 (Biological Resources).

## Air Quality

Cumulative effects on air quality are expected to be minimal. Cumulative
effects on air quality are discussed in PEA Section 4.2.4 (Air Quality).

## Cultural Resources

Since wastewater projects under the No Action Alternative would not be
subject to Section 106 review for potential effects on cultural
resources, potential cumulative effects on historic and cultural
resources may occur. Coordination and project review with the SHPO and
Monroe County Historic Preservation Society would minimize the effects
on cultural resources from ground disturbing activities associated with
wastewater projects. No cumulative impacts on cultural resources are
anticipated. Cumulative effects on cultural resources are discussed in
PEA Section 4.2.5 (Cultural Resources).

## Socioeconomics

The implementation of wastewater services would cumulatively improve
ground and nearshore water quality and presumably reduce or eliminate
the number of health advisories for beaches and canals in the Keys. This
would likely increase the number of visitors to beaches that formerly
posted advisories and/or reduce visitor pressure on alternate beaches
and recreational activities, consequently having a positive effect on
tourism. The cumulative effects of a strong tourism sector on the
economy of the Keys would be positive, with greater demand for goods and
services resulting. Water quality improvements would also benefit
commercial fisheries to the extent they are currently being adversely
impacted by nutrient pollution. Generally, it may be predicted that
harvested species that occur in nearshore waters such as spiny lobster,
white mullet, gray snapper, various flounder, shrimp, and stone crab
would benefit from improved water quality. Benefits may range from
relatively insignificant to potentially substantial improvements in
harvest rates, thus benefiting the fishing industry. With the use of
FEMA grant funding towards the costs of wastewater treatment for
Plantation Key Colony/North Plantation Key, no significant cumulative
economic impacts to service recipients are expected

## Demographics and Environmental Justice

Although the implementation of any of the alternatives would generally
result in an increase in the cost of wastewater disposal for residents,
the siting of wastewater facilities under Alternatives 2 or 3 is not
expected to cause cumulative adverse effects on minority and/or
low-income populations. This is due to the mitigation measures of
financial assistance to low-income property owners discussed in Section
3.7.2 above. Though the No Action Alternative has the potential to cause
cumulative adverse affects to minority and/or low-income populations,
this will depend on the final costs of 2010-compliant system chosen, the
amount of State and Federal grants and contributions, and the details of
the chosen financing options, including applicable repayment terms.
Cumulative effects on demographics and environmental justice are
discussed in PEA Section 4.2.7 (Demographics and Environmental Justice).

## Hazardous Materials and wastes

Potential cumulative effects from hazardous materials an wastes are not
expected. Cumulative effects from hazardous materials are discussed in
PEA Section 4.2.8 (Hazardous Materials and Wastes).

## 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.

## Land Use and Planning

The installation of new wastewater facilities is not expected to cause
changes to the County's existing growth pattern. Since the proposed
facilities are sited outside of conservation, CARL lands, and CBRS
units, adverse cumulative effects on these special status lands are not
anticipated. The Florida Keys Tidal Restoration Project, a component of
the CERP, is located south of Duck Key; therefore no cumulative impacts
on this project would occur. PEA Section 4.2.10 discusses the cumulative
effects of the alternatives on land use and planning.

## Noise and Visual Resources

Potential cumulative effects on noise and visual resources are expected
to be minimal. Cumulative effects on noise and visual resources are
discussed in PEA Section 4.2.11 (Noise and Visual Resources).

# Section 5 5 Public Participation

FEMA's public involvement activities related to the proposed Conch Key
wastewater project began with the publication of a Notice of Intent
(NOI) to prepare this Draft SEA (Appendix D), in view of providing the
public an opportunity to give early comments. The NOI was published in
The Reporter on January 24, 2003; the Key West Keynoter on January 25,
2003; and in the Key West Citizen on January 26, 2003. It was sent to
the agencies and organizations listed in Appendix B. The Draft SEA is
being released on July 7, 2003 for a 15-day intergovernmental review and
public comment period. It will be made available to the public at the
Marathon Branch of the Monroe County Public Library (3251 Overseas
Highway, Marathon, FL 33050) and on the FEMA Web page at
http://www.fema.gov/ehp/. FEMA will be holding a public meeting on the
proposed projects on July 15, 2003 at Emergency Operations Center at

the Marathon Government Center 2798 Overseas Hwy, Marathon, Florida. As
part of its NEPA process, FEMA will review comments submitted by the
public and government agencies and address these comments in the Final
SEA.

In addition to FEMA's public involvement activities, FKAA has held
project-specific meetings in Conch Key. FKAA\'s public meeting for the
Conch Key project was held on December 3, 2002 at the Monroe County Fire
Station on Conch Key. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting.
Prior to this meeting, Monroe County held a series of public meetings
throughout the Keys during the development of the MCSWMP as described in
PEA Section 5 (Public Involvement).

# Section 6 6 Mitigation Measures and Permits

## Mitigation

In order to mitigate impacts on the preferred alternative, the project
applicant would be required to:

-   Develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;

-   Implement appropriate best management practices (BMPs) during
    construction;

-   Construct vegetative barriers around the treatment plant site to
    reduce construction noise and obscure views from US-1 and adjacent
    residences;

-   Implement low income assistance program as described in Section
    3.7.3 of this SEA and Section 3.7.1.5;

-   Ensure residential service recipients would not be charged hook-up
    costs beyond those presented in the PEA;

-   Develop and fully implement of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
    Plan, under FDEP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
    (NPDES) requirements; and

-   Perform sliplining work in accordance with Section 62-604.400,
    Florida Administrative Code.

-   Provide wastewater service at a cost that falls below the
    affordability threshold described in the PEA.

-   Implement financial assistance for *low-income* and *very
    low-income* residents, consistent with FEMA's guidelines and
    definitions as described in the PEA;

## Permits and Licenses

Permits required for the construction and operation of the Conch Key
Wastewater Treatment System are listed in PEA Appendix E (Applicable
Permit Information). These permits may include an Application to
Construct/Operate/Abandon Class V Injection well Systems; a
Construction/Clearance Permit; a Certification of Construction
Completion; an Authorization for Use; an Application for Plugging and
Abandonment Permit; a Notification to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection of Ownership; and a Certification of Monitor
Well Completion. Construction activities would also require
authorization in the form of two Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs);
one from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and
one from the Monroe County Growth Management Division.

# Section 7 7 Consultations and References

## References

Bergin, Tim. 2002. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. Personal
communication with Amy Lecours, URS Group, Inc.

Boyle Engineering Corporation. 2002. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
Conch Key Wastewater System, Preliminary Design Report. Contract No.
FW-F76-303-00.

Buckley, Jerry. 2003. Monroe County Planning Department. Personal
communication with Laura Cherney, URS Group, Inc.

Caffry, Wendy. 2001. Medical Technologist, Lower Keys Medical Center.
Personal communication with Jonathan Randall, URS Group, Inc.

Chiappone, M. 1996. Marine Benthic Communities of the Florida Keys. In:
Site Characterization for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and
Environs, Volume 4. The Preserver, Zenda, Wisconsin.

Chiappone, M. and K. M. Sullivan. 1994. Ecological structure and
dynamics of nearshore hard-bottom communities in the Florida Keys.
Bulletin of Marine Science 54(3):747-756.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1996. Functional ecology and ecosystem trophodynamics.
In: Site Characterization for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
and Environs, Volume 8. The Preserver, Zenda, Wisconsin.

D and D Enterprises, Inc. 2001. Personal communication with Joyce
Friedenberg, URS Group, Inc.

Edwards, Scott. 2002. Personal communication with Amy Lecours, URS
Group, Inc.

Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT). 2002. Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Report, Conch Key Property. ECT No.
02-0987-0100 C.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1999. National Flood
Insurance Program, Consolidated CBRA Q3 Electronic Flood Hazard Data.
Diskette 4. Florida and Georgia.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2002. Final Programmatic
Environmental Assessment Wastewater Management Improvements in the
Florida Keys.

Florida Internet Group, Inc. 1997. Nichols Seafood of Conch Key.
<http://www.upperkeys.com/nichols/>.

Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA). 2002. Wastewater Management
System for Conch Key, Monroe County, Florida. Basis of Conceptual Design
Report.

Florida Keys Fishing Club, 2000. Sunset Villas of the Florida Keys.
[www.sunsetvillas.com/fishing.htm](http://www.sunsetvillas.com/fishing.htm).

Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) Technical Report TR-4. 2000.
Benthic Habitats of the Florida Keys. In association with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission.

FMRI. 1992. Benthic Habitats of the Florida Keys CD-ROM, ARC\\INFO
Coverage. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Fonseca, A.S., W. J. Kenworthy and G.W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the
conservation and restoration of seagrasses in the United States and
adjacent waters. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No.
12. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 222 pp.

Garcia, Carlos, 2003. Senior Hazardous Waste Specialist, URS Group, Inc.
Personal Communication with Ramon Mendieta, URS Group, Inc.

Kruczynski, W. 1999. Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources
Effects, and Solutions. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water
Quality Protection Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

Line, 2003. Personal correspondence with Mrs. Nichols, Owner of Bayview
Inn Marina, 4/10/2003.

McNeese, P. 1998. Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID)
Project Technical Summary Document.

Monroe County. 2002. Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Report, Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. July.

Monroe County. 2000. Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan.
Volume 1. Submitted by CH2MHILL. June.

Monroe County Property Appraiser database. 2001.

Monroe County. 2001. Stormwater Management Master Plan. Prepared by
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., Keith and Associates, Inc. in association
with Environmental Consulting Systems, Glen Boe and Associates, Mote
Marine Laboratories, The Market Share Company, and Valerie Settles, Esq.
Vol. 1 (February), 2 (August).

Monroe County. 1995. Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Technical Document. Monroe County Planning Department. Key West, FL.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 2002. National Register
Information System database, Park Net, National Park Service.
<http://www.nr.nps.gov/>.

Nichols, Kelly, 2003. Daughter of owner of Nichols Seafood, Personal
correspondence with URS, 4/10/2003.

Nutting Engineers, Inc. 2002. Report of Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration. Wastewater Treatment Plant & Vacuum Pump Station, Conch
Key, Florida.

Paul, J.P., J.B. Rose, J. Brown, E.A. Shinn, S. Miller and S.R. Farrah.
1995. Viral tracer studies indicate contamination of marine waters by
sewage disposal practices in Key Largo, Florida. Appl. Environ.
Mircobiol. 61:2230-2234.

Shimokubo, Ray, 2003. Wastewater Engineer, FKAA. Personal Communication
with Ramon Mendieta, URS Group, Inc.

Southeast Environmental Research Center (SERC)-Florida International
University (FIU) Water Quality Monitoring Network, as supported by South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/SERC Cooperative Agreements
#C-10244 and #C-13178 as well as EPA Agreement #X994621-94-0. March
1995 - Present. <http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/FKNMS-CD/2001FKNMS.pdf>,
<http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/FKNMS-CD/DataDL.htm>.

State of Florida, Department of Health (DOH). 2002. Florida Healthy
Beaches Program.
<http://apps3.doh.state.fl.us/env/beach/webout/default.cfm>.

Szmant, A.M. and A. Forrester. 1996. Water column and sediment Nitrogen
and Phosphorus distribution patterns in the Florida Keys. Coral Reefs.
15: 21-41.

Teague, Jack 2001. Wastewater Programs Administrator, Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority. Personal communication with Sonya Krogh and Jonathan
Randall, URS Group, Inc.

U.S. Census, 2003 citation:
<http://www.cms.gov/medicaid/eligibility/pov0103.pdf>

U.S. Census. 2002. U.S. Poverty Threshold Statistics for Fiscal Year
2002. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/ threshld/thresh02.html

U.S. Census. 2000. DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics.
Geographic Area: Duck Key CDP, Florida.
[[www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet.]{.underline}](http://www.factfinder.census.gov/)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1995. Soil Survey of Monroe
County, Keys Area, Florida. United States Department of
Agriculture/National Resources Conservation Division in cooperation with
the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and Soil and Water Science Department;
and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 72 pp.

URS Corporation. 2002a. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment on
Wastewater Management Improvements in the Florida Keys. Prepared for
Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA.

URS Corporation. 2002b. Arterial and Travel Time/Delay Study. Prepared
for Monroe County.

Williams, Zully, 2001. Project Manager, Village of Islamorada. Personal
communication with Sonya Krogh, URS Group, Inc.

Wilson, Ron, 2003. Owner of Conch Key Cottages Resort Personal
correspondence URS, 4/14/2003.

# Section 8 8 List of Preparers

**[Project Management and Technical Research]{.underline}**

**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]{.underline}**

**Roger Gunther, M.S., Ecological Services Program Director.** Document
peer reviewer.

**Angela Chaisson, Senior Ecologist and NEPA Group Leader.** Document
peer reviewer.

**[FEMA Technical and Editorial Review]{.underline}**

**Science Kilner, M.S., Region IV Lead Environmental and Historical
Preservation Specialist**. Document peer reviewer.

**William Straw, Ph.D., FEMA Region IV Environmental Officer**. Document
peer reviewer.

Appendix A

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AADF Annual average daily wastewater flow

ADID Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands

amsl above mean sea level

alum aluminum sulfate

APE Area of Potential Effect

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials

AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment

BAT Best available technology

BFE base flood elevation

bls below land surface

BMPs Best management practices

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CARL Conservation and Recreation Lands

CBRS Coastal Barrier Resource System

CDP Census designated place

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program

CFR Code of Federal regulations

DCA Department of Community Affairs

DOH Department of Health

EDU Equivalent dwelling unit

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERP Environmental Resource Permit

ESA Endangered Species Act

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FMRI Florida Marine Research Institute

Ft Foot

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

LOS level of service

LS-B Lift Station B

LS-F Lift Station F

MCSWMP Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan

mg/L milligrams per liter

MH manhole

ml milliliters

MM Mile marker

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OFW Outstanding Florida Waters

OWNRS On-site wastewater nutrient reduction systems

PAED Planning Area Enumeration District

PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment

PHF peak hour flow

ppm parts per million

PVC polyvinyl chloride

ROGO Rate-of-Growth Ordinance

ROW Right-of-way

SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment

SERC Southeast Environmental Research Center

SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

T&E Threatened and endangered

TN Total Nitrogen

TP Total Phosphorus

TSS Total Suspended Solids

µm micromoles

URS URS Corporation

US-1 U.S. Route 1

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VPS Vacuum pump station

WTS Wastewater transmission system

WWTP Wastewater treatment plant

Appendix B

Agency Coordination Letters

**List of Agencies Contacted**

Jay Slack, Field Supervisor

USFWS

South Florida Ecological Services Office

1339 20^th^ Street

Vero Beach, FL 32960

cc: Phil Frank, Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Winn-Dixie Plaza

Big Pine Key, FL 33043

Georgia Cranmore, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator

NMFS, Southeast Region

Protective Resources Division

9721 Executive Center Drive North

St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Jocelyn Karazsia, Fishery Biologist

National Marine Fisheries Service

11420 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 103

Miami, FL 33176

cc: Rickey N. Ruebsamen, Acting Assistant

Regional Administrator

NMFS, Southeast Region

Habitat Conservation Division

9721 Executive Center Drive North, Suite 201

St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Dr. Janet Matthews, Director

State Historic Preservation Officer

Division of Historical Resources

R.A. Gray Building, Room 305

500 South Bronough Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250

cc: Laura Kammerer, Section Administrator

Compliance and Review Section

Florida State Clearinghouse\
Department of Community Affairs\
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard\
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Mark Robson, Regional Director

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

South Region

8535 North Lake Blvd.

West Palm Beach, FL 33412

Gus Rios, Branch Manager

FDEP, South District - Marathon Branch

2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 221

Marathon, FL 33050

cc: Richard Cantrell, South District Director

FDEP -- South District Office

2295 Victoria Avenue, Suite 364\
Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2549

Cecilia Weaver, Acting Director

South Florida Water Management District

Florida Keys Service Center

80431 Old Hwy.\
Islamorada, FL 33036

John Studt, South Permits Branch Chief

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Regulatory Permits Division

4400 PGA Blvd., Suite 500

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

cc: Vic Anderson

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Marathon Regulatory Office

2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 221

Marathon, FL 33050-4276

Heinz J. Mueller, Chief

US EPA, Region 4

Office of Environmental Assessment

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Gerald Briggs, Chief

Florida Department of Health

Bureau of Onsite Sewage, HSES

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin #A08

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1713

Bart Bibler, Chief

Florida Department of Health

Bureau of Water Programs, HSEW

4042 Bald Cypress Way

Tallahassee, FL 32311

Teresa Tinker, Policy Coordinator

Growth Management and Strategic Planning

Office of the Governor

1501 Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

Miles Anderson

Division of Emergency Management

Florida Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumand Oak Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

Rebecca Jetton

Planning Manager

Marathon Regional Service Center

2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212

Marathon, FL 33050

Bill Causey, Superintendent

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

P.O. Box 500368

Marathon, FL 33050

Tim McGarry

Monroe County Growth Management Director

2798 Overseas Highway

Marathon, FL 33052

TO OBTAIN COPIES OF AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE, PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Carruth

URS Group, Inc.

200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

tel: 301-670-5478

fax: 301-309-1579

stephen_carruth@urscorp.com

Appendix C

Site Photographs

Appendix D

Public Notice

FEMA 1) NOTICE OF FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,

2\) NOTICE OF PROGRAMMATIC FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT,

AND 3) NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED

*CONCH KEY* WASTEWATER PROJECT

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has received a grant
application from the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) to fund
construction of a wastewater treatment system to serve Conch Key,
Florida. The proposed project would be funded through FEMA 1249-DR Post
Disaster - Unmet Needs funds, as noticed on August 6, 1999, in Vol. 64
No. 151 of the *Federal Register*. Matching funds will be provided
through the Florida Division of Emergency Management and the FKAA. The
purpose of the project is to improve the Conch Key service area's
wastewater treatment to meet State requirements (Chapter 99-395 Laws of
Florida) by 2010, per the *Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.*

FEMA has completed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for
Wastewater Management Improvements in the Keys, for various wastewater
projects including Conch Key; and hereby publishes notice of
availability of the Final PEA. A Programmatic Finding of No Significant
Impact has been issued for the PEA. These documents can be obtained by
writing to the point of contact below or may be viewed and downloaded at
the following website: <http://www.fema.gov/ep/assess.shtm>.

Furthermore, FEMA hereby publishes its notice of intent to prepare a
Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the proposed action
serving Conch Key, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (PL
91-190) and associated environmental statutes, as implemented by FEMA's
regulations 44 CFR Part 10; and in accordance with Presidential
Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management); as implemented in 44 CFR
Part 9. This SEA will address the purpose and need of the proposed
project, project alternatives considered, the affected environment,
project and site-specific environmental consequences, and impact
mitigation measures. Once completed, the Draft SEA will be available for
public review and comment; and a public meeting will be scheduled.

**Project Alternatives:**

Alternatives to be considered in the SEA include:

1\) No Action Alternative: The Conch Key service area continues to use
its existing wastewater treatment systems and obtains funding from other
sources to meet the State 2010 requirements and the *Comprehensive Plan*
deadline;

2\) Action Alternative 1: Implement the Monroe County Sanitary
Wastewater Master Plan recommendation of building a community wastewater
collection system and treatment plant of Conch Key;

3\) Action Alternative 2: Install a wastewater collection system on
Conch Key to convey wastewater to the existing Hawk's Cay Wastewater
Treatment Plant located on Duck Key, subject to Monroe County acquiring
ownership or beneficial use of the existing treatment plant from its
current private owner.

**Comment Period:**

Comments will be accepted from the affected public; local, state and
federal agencies; and other interested parties in order to consider and
appropriately scope and evaluate the likely effects of the proposed
Conch Key project alternatives on the physical, biological, and
social/built environment. Comments should be in writing, sent to the
FEMA point of contact listed below, and postmarked no later than 15 days
of this notice.

**Point of Contact:**

Ms. Science Kilner, Lead Environmental Specialist

FEMA Region IV

3003 Chamblee Tucker Road

Atlanta, Georgia 30341

Fax: (770) 220-5440

science.kilner@fema.gov

Appendix E

Public Comments

Public Comments resulting from the public comment period and public
meeting will be summarized in the Final Supplemental Environmental
Assessment.

Appendix F

Regulated Fisheries Species in the Keys

+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > [Species Common        | > [Scientific            | > [Managed     |
| > Name]{.underline}      | > Name]{.underline}      | > B            |
|                          |                          | y]{.underline} |
+==========================+==========================+================+
| > Almaco Jack            | > *Seriola rivoliana*    | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Albacore               | > *Thunnus alalunga*     | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Anchor Tilefish        | > *Caulolatilus          | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > intermedius*           |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Atlantic Angel shark   | > *Squatina dumeril*     | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Atlantic Bonito        | > *Sarda sarda*          | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Atlantic Sharpnose     | > *Rhizoprionodon        | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > terraenovae*           |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Banded Rudderfish      | > *Seriola zonata*       | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Bank Sea Bass          | > *Centropristis         | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > ocyurus*               |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Basking Shark          | > *Cetorhinus maximus*   | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Bigeye Sixgill Shark   | > *Hexanchus nakamurai*  | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Bigeye Sand Tiger      | > *Odontaspis noronhai*  | > GMFMC        |
| > Shark                  |                          |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Bigeye Tresher         | > *Alopias               | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > superciliosus*         |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Bigeye Tuna            | > *Thunnus obesus*       | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Bignose Shark          | > *Carcharhinus altimus* | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Black Grouper          | > *Mycteroperca bonaci*  | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Black Margate          | > *Anisotremus           | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > surinamensis*          |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Black Snapper          | > *Apsilus dentatus*     | > SAFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Black Sea Bass         | > *Centropristis         | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > striatus*              |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > 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    | > *Rhizoprionodon        | > GMFMC        |
| > Shark                  | > porosus*               |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Cero                   | > *Scomberomorus         | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > regalis*               |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > 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          | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > obscurus*              |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > French grunt           | > *Haemulon              | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > flavolineatum*         |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Gag                    | > *Mycteroperca          | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
|                          | > microlepis*            |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Galapagos shark        | > *Carcharhinus          | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > galapagensis*          |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Golden Crab            | > *Chaceon fenneri*      | > SAFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Golden Tilefish        | > *Lopholatilus          | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > chamaeleonticeps*      |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Goliath Grouper        | > *Epinephelus itajara*  | > SAFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Goldface Tilefish      | > *Caulolatilus          | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > chrysops*              |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Graysby                | > *Epinephelus           | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > cruentatus*            |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > 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         | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
|                          | > cavalla*               |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Knobbed Porgy          | > *Calamus nodosus*      | > SAFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Lane Snapper           | > *Lutjanus synagris*    | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Lesser Amberjack       | > *Seriola fasciata*     | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Longbill Spearfish     | > *Tetrapturus           | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > pfluegeri*             |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Little Tunny           | > *Euthynnus             | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > alletteratus*          |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Mahogany Snapper       | > *Lutjanus mahogoni*    | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Margate                | > *Haemulon album*       | > SAFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Misty Grouper          | > *Epinephelus           | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
|                          | > mystacinus*            |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Mutton Snapper         | > *Lutjanus analis*      | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Narrowtooth Shark      | > *Carcharhinus          | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > brachyurus*            |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Nassau Grouper         | > *Epinephelus striatus* | > SAFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Night Shark            | > *Carcharhinus          | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > signatus*              |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Ocean Triggerfish      | > *Canthidermis          | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > sufflamen*             |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > 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           | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
|                          | > adscensionis*          |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Rock Sea Bass          | > *Centropristis         | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > philadelphicus*        |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Rock Shrimp            | > *Sicyonia              | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > brevirostris*          |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Sailfish               | > *Istiophorus           | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > playpteras*            |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Sand Tiger Shark       | > *Carcharhinus taurus*  | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Sevengill Shark        | > *Notorynchus           | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > cepedianus*            |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > 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           | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > probatocephalus*       |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Silk Snapper           | > *Lutjanus vivanus*     | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Skipjack Tuna          | > *Katsuwonus pelamis*   | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Snowy Grouper          | > *Epinephelus niveatus* | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Spadefish              | > *Chaetodipterus faber* | > SAFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Spanish Mackerel       | > *Scomberomorus         | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
|                          | > maculatus*             |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Speckled Hind          | > *Epinephelus           | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
|                          | > drummondhayi*          |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Spiny Lobster          | > *Panulirus argus*      | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Swordfish              | > *Xiphas gladius*       | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Tiger Grouper          | > *Mycteroperca tigris*  | > SAFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Tilefish               | > *Lopholatilus          | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > chamaeleonticeps*      |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Tomtate                | > *Haemulon              | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > aurolineatum*          |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Vermilion Snapper      | > *Rhomboplites          | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
|                          | > aurorubens*            |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Wahoo                  | > *Acanthocybium         | > SAFMC        |
|                          | > solanderi*             |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Warsaw Grouper         | > *Epinephelus nigritus* | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Wenchman Snapper       | > *Pristipomoides        | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > aquilonaris*           |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > 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           | > GMFMC        |
|                          | > flavolimbatus*         |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Yellowfin Grouper      | > *Mycteroperca          | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
|                          | > venenosa*              |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Yellowfin Tuna         | > *Thunnus albacares*    | > GMFMC        |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Yellowmouth Grouper    | > *Mycteroperca          | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
|                          | > interstilitialis*      |                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| > Yellowtail Snapper     | > *Ocyrus chrysurus*     | > SAFMC, GMFMC |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+----------------+

Appendix G

Conch Key Cultural Resources Assessment Report