1975 EPA Study  Extensive construction in 1950s -1970s  Poor canal flushing results in “stagnation, putrification, and excessive nutrient enrichment in water column”  Canals > 4 -5’ deep violated O2 criteria  Septic tanks leach untreated wastewater into canals and nearshore waters  Water quality decreased inward of canal mouth

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STUDY  No canal development in wetland areas  As part of the permitting process, designate a person responsible for maintenance of water quality standards  Canal depths should not be governed by fill requirements (no deeper than 6 feet)  Remove septic tanks, implement centralized wastewater treatment  Development patterns should be designed with swales to minimize runoff (stormwater)  Canal design: eliminate sills, orientation should be considered when designing canals, eliminate dead-in features

FKNMS Water Quality Protection Program  Included in the FKNMS Act 1990/1992  recommend corrective actions and compliance schedules to address point and nonpoint pollution to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Sanctuary, including restoration and maintenance of a balanced, indigenous population of corals, shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities in and on the water  Called for: adoption of WQS; adoption of enforceable pollution control measures (including WQ base effluent limits and BMPs); development of comprehensive monitoring programs; public participation; and identification of funding

Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources, Effects and Solutions, EPA, 1999, Dr. Bill Kruczynski  The water column of many canals over six feet deep is stratified and bottom waters are usually in violation of Florida's Class 3 Surface Water Quality Standard (WQS) for dissolved oxygen. Because they usually violate Class 3 WQSs, canals were excluded from the Outstanding Florida Waters designation in 1985  Canal systems and basins with poor water quality are a potential source of nutrients and other contaminants to nearshore waters  Seagrass beds located near the mouths of some degraded canal systems exhibit signs of eutrophication, such as increased epiphyte load and growth of benthic algae nearshore waters.  Canal water quality was not considered for the carrying capacity model despite the fact that “canal water quality is an important issue for near-shore environments and is a major public concern” FKCCS, 2002

Florida Keys Condition Report 2011  Transport of nutrients from canals pose a threat to seagrass and reef communities  Water quality in most residential canals is poor when compared to nearshore and oceanic, thus swimming in residential canal water may pose risks to human health  Hydrogen sulfide gas is toxic and residences near heavily polluted canals may be at risk. NOAA, 2011

Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document (FKRAD), 2008  A regulatory alternative to Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)  On a case-by-case basis, EPA may allow the State to exclude listing a known waterbody on their 303(d) list based on ongoing restoration activities  Monroe County/local stakeholders approached EPA with a proposal to develop a plan to address water quality issues in the Keys  Developed a plan (FKRAD) in 2008 that focused primarily on wastewater and stormwater pollution control measures  It was recognized at the time that these measures alone would not fully restore canals (ten canals were modeled to evaluate nutrient reductions)  Approved by the State in 2012 and subsequently accepted by EPA  Revised in acknowledged that some canals may not achieve Class 3 DO standards after completion of wastewater projects

What is a Reasonable Assurance Document? (1) problem statement – low oxygen and excessive nutrients in nearshore/canal waters (2) description of pollution controls/management activities to achieve water quality standards – pollution control measures focused on wastewater and stormwater improvements (3) an estimate of time when WQS will be met – 2020 (4) schedule for implementing pollution controls – 2015 (5) monitoring plan to track effectiveness of pollution controls and report progress – State and WQPP monitoring (6) A commitment to revise the implementation strategy and pollution controls if progress towards meeting WQS is not being shown – adaptive management

What constitutes acceptable “pollution control requirements”?  Because of specific nature of water quality impairments, determinations are case- by-case  Evaluate commitment by local/state authority to implement necessary controls  Availability of funding for implementation  Implementation in a “reasonable period of time” “reasonable”- depends on severity of impairment, size and complexity, technology availability, funding...  EPA acknowledges that the level of rigor necessary will vary depending on the complexity of the water quality impairments and corresponding implementation strategies

TMDL Considerations (Chesapeake Bay example)  TMDL is State/EPA driven  Federal agencies determine and assign milestone/timelines  Identifies all pollution sources and assigns reduction numbers to regulated point and non-regulated nonpoint sources  Expand coverage of NPDES permits to sources that are currently unregulated  Increase oversight of state-issued NPDES permits  Require additional pollution reductions from federally regulated sources/point sources  Increase federal enforcement and compliance  Prohibiting new or expanded pollution discharges  Conditioning or redirecting EPA grants  Revising water quality standards  Discounting “progress” if jurisdiction cannot verify proper installation and management of controls

Recommendations  Update/revise the RAD to include a plan to implement canal restoration projects  Implement corrective actions/water quality improvement projects at the local level. Local government establishes goals/targets/funding/timelines  Explore and identify state-of-the-art technologies to bring canals back into compliance with water quality criteria  Additional monitoring for canal systems