Item N5BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: March 20 2013 Division: Countv A ' dministrator
Bulk Item: Yes No Department: Count Administrator
P muustrator
Staff Contact /Phone #: Rhonda Haaa. 292--4482
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction regarding the continuation of the canal restoration
program to provide County funding for the selection, design and construction of up to five demonstration
projects on County canals.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Guidance is requested to determine whether the BOCC desires to proceed with the
selection and funding of up to five demonstration projects, using County funds. The objectives of the
demonstration projects are to implement various restoration techniques to verify the applicability, feasibility,
effectiveness and costs in real time of the techniques on the canals. The results will assist in modifying the
restoration designs and will provide costs that can be utilized for future restoration planning and provide more
accurate grant application submissions.
The county has received $100,000 in grant funds from EPA and DEP each to develop Phase 1 and II of the
Comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan, plus a third $100 000 fro
m om DEP for bathymetric surveys of
the canals. These projects are already in progress.
If approved in concept, staff will submit future items for: (1) the selection of a consultant to select up to 15
canals for demonstration projects, to be narrowed to 5 by the BOCC; (2) approval to solicit for the design and
administration of the 5 selected projects and (3) approval to solicit for the construction and implementation of
the 5 projects.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On March 21, 2012 the BOCC granted approval and authorized
execution of Item 6 Grant Agreement from FDEP for a Grant to fund Phase 1
roved the ant a • On June 20, 2012, the BOCC
approved grant application submitted to EPA, which requested $100,000 in ant funds an '
� d specified a
$10,000 match of in -kind services. On September 19, 2012, the BOCC approved the revenue -producing ant
agreement from EPA that will fund this Task Order with P g � AMEC. On February 20, 2013 the BOCC approved
FDEP Grant S0640 providing $100,000 of funding of work to perform bath
P ymetrYc surveys and also approved a
Task Order with AMEC to perform the work.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: BOCC direction to staff
TOTAL COST: Up to $5 million INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED. •
Yes �No X
DRENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: NIA
COST TO COUNTY: Up to $5 million SOURCE OF S. •
TjD
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT �T PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: Count Att � •
Y Y OMB/Purchasing � Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM # CAD #
�1Lll�''
Monroe County
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
Phase 1 Summary Report
KI
Prepared by:
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure
Prepared for:
Monroe County
and the
WQPP Steering Committee and Canal Subcommittee
June 21, 2012
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 4
Task 1.1 Summary of available information.......................................................................... 6
Task 1.2. Data deficiencies in the project geodatabase......................................................25
Task1.3. C M M P objectives....................................................................................................25
Task 3. Management goals for priority issues.....................................................................27
Task 4. Priority sites for restoration.....................................................................................28
Task 5. Initial short-list of restoration projects....................................................................36
Task 6. Adaptive management process...............................................................................57
APPENDIXA............................................................................................................................64
APPENDIXB............................................................................................................................65
APPENDIXC............................................................................................................................66
APPENDIXD............................................................................................................................67
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Attributes of numerical models recommended for use in analyzing water quality
conditions marinas and other manmade waterways by US EPA(2001)....................................22
Table 4.1 Group 1 (SFWMD 1996) canals evaluated using site visits during Task 4.................29
Table 4.2. Group 2 (elevated weed wrack) canals evaluated using site visits during Task 4 .....30
Table 4.3 Canals ranked in priority order in Task 4...................................................................32
Table 5.1. Task 5 Canal prioritization list...................................................................................38
List of Figures
Figure 6.1. Adaptive management framework..........................................................................58
1
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Executive Summary
i
Construction of residential canals in the Florida Keys was initiated in the mid-20t" century,
before resource managers fully understood their impacts on local water quality and broader
coastal ecosystems. Many of the more than 500 canal systems currently present in the Keys
were excavated to depths of fifteen feet or more in order to maximize production of fill material.
Most were designed as long, multi -segmented, dead-end canal networks which maximize
waterfront property but provide little or no tidal flushing and accumulate nutrients and
decomposing organic material.
Water quality issues involving manmade canals have been evaluated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (Kruczynski 1999), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS
2007), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2008). As summarized
in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (2011), these issues include anthropogenic pollutant
loadings from on -site sewage disposal and stormwater runoff, and accumulation of non-
anthropogenic materials such as senescent seagrass leaves and other organic flotsam ("weed
wrack"), leading to elevated levels of nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand, hydrogen sulfide,
and bacteriological water quality indicators such as fecal coliforms and enterococci.
Improvements in wastewater treatment and stormwater management practices are currently
being implemented in many areas of the Keys. These improvements are an essential first step,
but will not solve all the water quality problems in existing canals. Although many of these
problems are linked to wastewater and stormwater discharges, others are due to the physical
structure, depth, and orientation of canals, which can contribute to low flushing and the build-up
of organic flotsam.
Recognizing these points, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS 2007)
developed a canal water quality improvement strategy that includes the following steps:
1. Evaluate and revise the existing `hot spot' list of water quality problem areas;
2. Inventory and characterize canals, identifying those whose water quality problems are
attributable mainly to physical structure, flushing rates and orientation;
3. Develop and evaluate improvement strategies;
4. Identify and compile a list of water quality improvement technologies;
5. Develop a community education and involvement program;
6. Conduct a canal system restoration pilot project; and
7. Implement improvement strategies in canals identified as `hot spots'.
The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2MHILL 2000) and Monroe County
Stormwater Master Plan (CDM 2001) have addressed item 1 of this strategy, and work on items
2 and 4 was initiated through the Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment
project, which provided an inventory of existing canals and a broad overview of potential
treatment technologies (MACTEC 2003). Additional work on items 2 and 4, and the
development of a conceptual framework for a comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan
(CMMP) addressing items 3, 6 and 7, are the subjects of this report.
2
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
i
In March, 2012, the Canal Subcommittee of the FKNMS Water Quality Steering Committee
initiated work on Phase 1 of the CMMP, using Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) funds
provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Because these funds
were available for only a short time (from March through June, 2012), the timeline of Phase 1
was compressed and its scope was limited to two objectives:
• develop a basic conceptual framework for canal restoration and management that is
comparable to the frameworks used in the County's existing wastewater and stormwater
master plans; and
• identify a short-list of high -priority canal restoration projects which can be implemented
by the County and other WQPP participants over the next several years.
The work involved the following tasks:
• Task 1: Collate available information and summarize CMMP objectives;
• Task 2: Identify priority management issues;
• Task 3: Establish consensus -based goals for each priority issue;
• Task 4: Identify the highest -priority canals for potential implementation of restoration
options;
• Task 5: Develop an initial short-list of restoration projects;
• Task 6: Establish an adaptive management process; and
• Task 7: Prepare the Phase 1 CMMP document.
This report represents the deliverable for Task 7 of the project, and provides a summary of the
work conducted during Phase 1 of the CMMP development process.
3
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Introduction
i
Construction of residential canals in the Florida Keys was initiated in the mid-20t" century,
before resource managers fully understood their impacts on local water quality and broader
coastal ecosystems. Many of the more than 500 canal systems currently present in the Keys
were excavated to depths of fifteen feet or more in order to maximize production of fill material.
Most were designed as long, multi -segmented, dead-end canal networks which maximize
waterfront property but provide little or no tidal flushing and accumulate nutrients and
decomposing organic material.
Water quality issues involving manmade canals have been evaluated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (Kruczynski 1999), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS
2007), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2008). As summarized
in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (2011), these issues include anthropogenic pollutant
loadings from on -site sewage disposal and stormwater runoff, and accumulation of non-
anthropogenic materials such as senescent seagrass leaves and other organic flotsam ("weed
wrack"), leading to elevated levels of nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand, hydrogen sulfide,
and bacteriological water quality indicators such as fecal coliforms and enterococci.
Kruczynski (1999) provided the following summary of water quality issues related to existing
Keys canals:
the water column of many canals over six feet deep is stratified and bottom waters are
oxygen deficient;
because they usually violate Class III Surface Water Quality Standards, canals were
excluded from the State's previous Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) designations;
canal systems and basins with poor water quality are a potential source of nutrients and
other contaminants to other nearshore waters;
• improving flushing of degraded canal systems may improve the water quality within the
canal, but may also result in adding additional nutrients to the adjacent waters; and
Seagrass beds located near the mouths of some degraded canal systems exhibit signs
of undesirable nutrient enrichment and eutrophication, such as increased epiphyte load
and growth of benthic algae.
Improvements in wastewater treatment and stormwater management practices are currently
being implemented in many areas of the Keys. These improvements are an essential first step,
but will not solve all the water quality problems in existing canals. Although many of these
problems are linked to wastewater and stormwater discharges, others are due to the physical
structure, depth, and orientation of canals, which can contribute to low flushing and the build-up
of organic flotsam.
11
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012 aillre,d
Recognizing these points, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS 2007)
developed a canal water quality improvement strategy that includes the following steps:
1. Evaluate and revise the existing `hot spot' list of water quality problem areas;
2. Inventory and characterize canals, identifying those whose water quality problems are
attributable mainly to physical structure, flushing rates and orientation;
3. Develop and evaluate improvement strategies;
4. Identify and compile a list of water quality improvement technologies;
5. Develop a community education and involvement program;
6. Conduct a canal system restoration pilot project; and
7. Implement improvement strategies in canals identified as `hot spots'.
The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2MHILL 2000) and Monroe County
Stormwater Master Plan (CDM 2001) have addressed item 1 of this strategy, and work on items
2 and 4 was initiated through the Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment
project, which provided an inventory of existing canals and a broad overview of potential
treatment technologies (MACTEC 2003). Additional work on items 2 and 4, and the
development of a conceptual framework for a comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan
(CMMP) addressing items 3, 6 and 7, are the subjects of this report.
Phase 1 of the Canal Management Master Plan
In March, 2012, the Canal Subcommittee of the FKNMS Water Quality Steering Committee
initiated work on Phase 1 of the CMMP, using Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) funds
provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Because these funds
were available for only a short time (from March through June, 2012), the timeline of Phase 1
was compressed and its scope was limited to two objectives:
• develop a basic conceptual framework for canal restoration and management that is
comparable to the frameworks used in the County's existing wastewater and stormwater
master plans; and
• identify a short-list of high -priority canal restoration projects which can be implemented
by the County and other WQPP participants over the next several years.
The work involved the following tasks:
Task 1: Collate available information and summarize CMMP objectives;
Task 2: Identify priority management issues;
5
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Task 3: Establish consensus -based goals for each priority issue;
i
Task 4: Identify the highest -priority canals for potential implementation of restoration
options;
Task 5: Develop an initial short-list of restoration projects;
Task 6: Establish an adaptive management process; and
Task 7: Prepare the Phase 1 CMMP document.
This report represents the deliverable for Task 7 of the project, and provides a summary of the
work conducted during Phase 1 of the CMMP development process.
Task 1.1 Summary of available information
As summarized in the Literature Cited section below, a total of 17 publications, and several
Florida Department of Environmental Protection permitting files, were obtained from local, state
and federal agencies, searches of online databases, and other sources. The documents were
disseminated to the appropriate members of the AMEC project team for review, based on the
subject material and team members' areas of expertise.
The available documents addressed three primary topic areas that are relevant to the
development of a canal management master plan (CIVIMP) for the Florida Keys:
1) Background information on the water quality impairments that currently exist in canal
systems and nearshore waters of the Keys, and steps that are being planned or
undertaken to address them;
2) Overviews of the current state -of -the -science regarding water quality protection and
restoration in manmade canals and other artificial basins; and
3) Best management practices (BMPs) and other management actions that have been
used in other areas, and can be evaluated for potential use to protect and improve water
quality in Keys canal systems.
Brief summaries of these topic areas are provided in the following sections.
Background Information
Information on the water quality impairments that currently exist in the project area, and steps
that are being taken to address them, is provided in several of the documents listed above:
• As noted above, Kruczynski (1999) provided the following background information on a
number of water quality issues and potential management actions in the canals and
nearshore waters of the Keys:
6
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
o Water quality problems due to on -site sewage disposal practices and stormwater
runoff have been documented in residential canals. Water quality parameters
that are degraded include nutrient enrichment, fecal coliform contamination, and
biochemical oxygen demand.
o Long, dead-end canal systems, deep canals of any length, and poorly flushed
basins accumulate weed wrack and other particulate matter.
o The water column of many canals over six feet deep is stratified and bottom
waters are oxygen deficient. Because they usually violate Class III Surface
Water Quality Standards, canals were excluded from Outstanding Florida Waters
(OFW) designation.
o Artificial aeration of canals does not eliminate the sources of excessive nutrients
in canal waters but may result in better mixing which may facilitate nitrogen
cycling.
o Improving flushing of degraded canal systems may improve the water quality
within the canal, but will also result in adding additional nutrients to the adjacent
waters.
o Canal systems and basins with poor water quality are a potential source of
nutrients and other contaminants to other nearshore waters.
o 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.
o Vessel generated turbidity (re -suspended sediments) is a growing concern in
many areas with high boat traffic including canals and open waters.
o There are no definitive studies on the geographic extent of the impact of
human -caused nutrient enrichment. Scientists agree that canal and other
nearshore waters are affected by human -derived nutrients from sewage.
Improved sewage treatment practices are needed to improve canal and other
nearshore waters. Impacts further from shore that may be due to human -derived
nutrients may be reduced or eliminated by cleaning up nearshore waters.
Kruczynski (1999) also provided an overview of an earlier project that was conducted by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate water quality conditions in finger
fill canals located in Florida and North Carolina (EPA 1975). The 1975 study found that,
during the rainy season, canals with poor flushing characteristics often exhibited
pronounced density stratification, with a deep layer of high -salinity water essentially
trapped beneath an upper, lower -salinity layer. The resulting stagnation of the lower
portion of the water column was found to encourage oxygen depletion and the release of
nutrients from canal -bottom sediments. The study reported that canals greater than four
to five feet deep regularly experienced violations of State water quality standards for
dissolved oxygen (<4 mg/I).
7
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
• In 1999 Monroe County evaluated a group of stormwater-related water quality problem
areas, which were summarized by CDM (2001) as part of the Monroe County
Stormwater Master Plan. CDM (2001) identified the following eight locations as high -
priority stormwater management problem areas, based on information from earlier
surveys and site visits by trained personnel:
o Campbell's Marina, Key Largo
o Marathon Marina, Vaca Key
o Boot Key Harbor drainage, Vaca Key
o Alex's Junkyard, Stock Island
o Oceanside Marina, Stock Island
o Safe Harbor Area, Stock Island
o Garrison Bight Marina, Key West, and
o Key West Bight, Key West.
Ten medium -priority stormwater management problem areas, and ten "other" problem
areas were also identified in the CDM (2001) report.
CH2MHILL (2000) provided an additional summary of known water -quality problem
areas, focusing on wastewater -related sources and based on information from three
earlier reports: a 1992 Phase I Report of the FKNMS Water Quality Protection Plan, a
modified list of problem areas proposed by the South Florida Water Management District
in 1996, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) developed between Monroe
County and FDEP in 1997 regarding future wastewater permitting practices and the
elimination of existing cesspits. The CH2MHILL (2000) report identified and prioritized a
total of 45 high priority water quality "hot spots", or problem areas that would be
addressed in the near future by the installation of central community wastewater
systems as part of the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan.
• As one component of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, which was funded by
US Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, URS
(2001) developed a Canal Impact Assessment Module (CIAM) which provides a
comparative tool for evaluating the relative impacts of wastewater and stormwater
discharges into tidally -flushed dead-end canals, and for assessing the relative impacts of
wastewater and stormwater management decisions on nutrient concentrations in
representative canals. (Pathogens and fecal coliforms were not included in the module,
due to a lack of relevant data.) The CIAM was part of a larger carrying capacity analysis
model (CCAM) that was developed to assist state and local jurisdictions to determine the
ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem to withstand the potential impacts of additional land
development activities.
8
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
ame,d
The CIAM is based on a steady-state, spreadsheet -based tidal flushing algorithm that
estimates pollutant concentrations in canals based on pollutant loads from stormwater
and wastewater discharges and tidal fluxes from nearshore waters. To develop the
algorithm, data acquisition efforts targeted previous canal water quality studies,
nearshore water quality data, and the magnitude of tidal fluctuations. The module was
applied to ten canal systems that were selected based on the availability of water quality
data and the presence of representative sources of wastewater and stormwater pollutant
loadings, including residential and commercial sources. Only canals with one opening
were considered; plugged canals (with no openings) and canals with multiple openings
were not evaluated.
The URS (2001) report provides the following overview of the strengths and limitations of
the assessment module:
"The CIAM is set up as a canal -specific spreadsheet model. It assumes a long-
term steady-state influx of pollutant loads and volumes. It does not include or
account for a number of variables that may have a significant impact on observed
canal water quality. Some of these potential factors include:
Sea level rise;
Water column stratification;
• Wind effects;
• Thermal gradients;
Surge tides associated with tropical storms or hurricanes;
• Interactions between the benthic/sediment zone and the active water
column;
• Nutrient uptake/release by marine plants
Washed in seagrasses and similar sources;
• Direct input of water volumes and pollutant loads attributable to
precipitation or atmospheric dryfall deposition;
• Water volume losses attributable to evaporation or transpiration; and
• Direct pollutant inputs related to marine vessel discharges and illicit
discharges.
Based on the wastewater and stormwater management systems that existed at the time
the CIAM was constructed, the module estimated that wastewater represented about
80% of the nutrient (TN and TP) load, 50% of the BOD load, and 25% of the TSS load
entering the canal systems it evaluated. In terms of hydrologic inputs, wastewater
represented about 25% with the remainder coming from stormwater.
Under a future "Smart Growth" scenario that was also evaluated using the CIAM tool,
much of the onsite wastewater sources were assumed to be eliminated and the bulk of
the pollutant loads to the canals became stormwater based. Under this scenario the
wastewater portion of projected nutrient load fell to about 10% of the total, while BOD,
TSS, and hydrologic loads were reduced to 5% or less of the total. On average, nutrient
concentrations were approximately 50% lower in the Smart Growth scenario, BOD
9
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
concentrations were reduced by about a quarter, and TSS concentrations showed a
minor reduction (6%).
Loads discharged from the canals to nearshore waters were also projected to be
reduced in the Smart Growth scenario, but to a lesser extent. Exported nutrient loads
were projected to fall by about 45%, BOD by about 20%, and TSS less than 5%. For all
canals, model results predicted that pollutant concentrations would tend to be highest in
their interior sections, located farthest from the canal mouth.
• Because of the unprecedented (for Florida) scope of the Carrying Capacity project, the
project's co-sponsors requested the National Research Council (NRC) to provide a
critical review of several of the project's draft work products. The NRC (2002) committee
report did not address the canal assessment module. It did, however, provide the
following broad overview of the Carrying Capacity project:
"The contractors did an admirable job of working with the data available.
Time and money constraints aside, however, the task was perhaps too ambitious
an undertaking for the data and level of knowledge that currently exist for Florida
Keys ecosystems. In its present stage of development, the CCAM is not ready to
`determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem ... to withstand all impacts
of additional land development activities' as mandated by Florida Administration
Commission Rule 28.20-100. Significant improvement of the CCAM is required
in several key aspects if it is to be useful as an impact assessment tool.
Endeavors such as the CCAM tend to obscure significant scientific uncertainty
and project an unrealistic understanding of complicated environmental issues.
What is needed and what the committee would like to express in this review, are
expert opinion, common sense, and stakeholder consensus. The CCAM has
important information to bring to the table, particularly where its modules have
been based upon good and reliable scientific data. In the end, however, the
decision to be made will be social not scientific. Once management has been
implemented, science can make further progress toward understanding the
natural system through modeling endeavors such as this one. "
Regarding canal -related issues, the report noted that "canal water quality is an important
issue for near -shore environments and is a major public concern" (NRC 2002). It also
noted that "little detailed information is available concerning the depth and cross-section
characteristics of canals, their flushing characteristics, or ambient water quality data."
While these comments do not provide guidance on technical aspects of the CIAM, they
do provide a valuable viewpoint on the importance of stakeholder consensus and social
decision -making in the overall resource management process.
• The importance of stakeholder consensus and social decision -making have been
emphasized further by the development and implementation of County -wide master
plans for the management of wastewater and stormwater discharges in the Keys.
Documents prepared by CH21VIHILL (2000) and CDM (2001) have summarized these
plans, which are now being implemented in a number of the highest -priority water quality
10
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
problem areas. As noted by URS (2001), the pollutant load reductions that will be
achieved by the continued implementation of these plans are projected to lead to
substantial water quality improvements in the existing canal systems.
• The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS 2007) published a seven -step
canal management strategy, focused on reducing water quality problems in canals and
reducing nutrient loading to other surface waters from canal systems, as part of its
overall sanctuary management plan. The strategy notes that while many water quality
problems in canals are linked to local stormwater and wastewater discharges, others can
be due to a canal's structure and orientation. These physical features can lead to low
flushing and the buildup of weed wrack, which consumes oxygen and releases nutrients
as it decays. The FKNMS (2007) strategy proposes to inventory and characterize
canals and investigate technologies to determine whether it would be worthwhile to
implement corrective actions, such as weed gates and aeration systems, to improve
water quality. It notes that plans for implementing improvements in canal circulation and
flushing would have to be developed in coordination with plans for dealing with
stormwater and wastewater pollution from cesspits and septic tanks.
• More recently, FDEP has funded the development of Reasonable Assurance (RA) plans
for the surface waters of the Keys, as an alternative to the development of Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). RA plans were developed for the Upper, Middle and
Lower Keys by CDM and URS (2008a, b, c), and an overall update was prepared by
CDM (2011). The RA plans note that "halo zone" waters surround the Keys out to 500
meters offshore, and "nearshore" waters extend from 500 meters out to 12,100 meters
offshore. These are classified as Class III waters (whose beneficial uses include
recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well balanced population
of fish and wildlife) and Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). The primary pollutants of
concern for these waters are nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), and Florida water
quality standards require that "in no case shall nutrient concentrations of a water body
be altered so as to cause an imbalance of natural populations of flora and fauna." The
reports note that, because far -field sources dominate the nutrient concentrations in
nearshore waters, the recommended water quality target in the nearshore area is
defined to be an insignificant increase in nutrient concentrations above natural
background levels at 500 meters from shore. "Insignificant" in this case is defined as
less than 10 pg/I for total nitrogen and less than 2 pg/I for total phosphorus, and
background is defined as the Halo Zone condition in the absence of anthropogenic
loads. Another recommended water quality target is that the nearshore ambient nutrient
concentrations at 500 meters should average less than the ambient concentrations
measured at the time of OFW designation. These water quality goals are relevant to the
canal management process because canal management efforts are expected to support
their achievement.
• The Little Venice neighborhood on Marathon Key was selected in the Monroe County
Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan as the first phase of wastewater improvements for the
Marathon area because of its high development density, inadequate cesspool and septic
systems, and known water quality problems in the canals. Briceno and Boyer (2009)
conducted the Little Venice water quality monitoring project, with funding support from
EPA and FDEP, to detect changes in water quality as a function of the remediation
11
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
activities. The project included two phases. Phase 1 was executed prior to remediation,
from May 2001 to December 2003. Phase 2 began in June 2005, when construction of
the wastewater collection system was mostly completed, and lasted until to May 2009.
A "Before —After Control -Impact" (BACI) experimental design was used to assess
changes due to remediation. Observations and sampling were performed in three
remedied canals (112th St., 100th St. and, 97th St. canals), in one control (reference)
canal lacking remedial actions (91st St. canal) and a near shore site for comparison
purposes (Bricen"o and Boyer 2009).
Water samples were collected weekly for bacteriological analysis including enumeration
of fecal coliforms (until November 2007) and enterococci. Weekly field parameters
measured at both the surface and bottom of the water column at each station included:
salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO). Weekly water samples from each
station were analyzed for total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and chlorophyll a
(CHLA). Additionally, monthly grab samples were analyzed for ammonium, nitrate,
nitrite, soluble reactive phosphate, silicate, and total organic carbon (Bricen"o and Boyer
2009).
Non -parametric Mann -Whitney tests indicated statistically significant (p<0.05) declines in
TN and increases in TP, surface and bottom DO, and CHLA in almost all sites. These
changes were partially related to region wide variability as well as local condition and/or
remediation actions. State of Florida Rule 62-302.530, for Class III marine waters,
specifies that DO "shall never be less than 4.0 mg/I". Prior to remediation, this threshold
was exceeded in 57% and 67% of sampling events for surface and bottom water
samples respectively. For Phase 2, the benchmark was exceeded 45% and 54% for
surface and bottom DO, respectively. In spite of this improvement, low DO
concentrations continue to be an issue of concern in Little Venice waters (Bricen"o and
Boyer 2009).
The Florida impaired water rule states that an estuary is impaired if the annual mean
CHLA concentration is greater than 11 fag/I. Using this as a benchmark, annual mean
CHLA concentrations for all canals and the offshore site were well below State
standards during both Phase 1 (1.33 pg/I) and Phase 2 (2.14 pg/I). The overall increase
during Phase 2 was statistically significant (Bricen"o and Boyer 2009), presumably due to
regional factors unrelated to the remediation effort.
The Florida State standard for single counts of fecal coliforms in Class III -Marine waters
is 800 CFU per 100 ml; the EPA recommended standard for Enterococci is 104 CFU per
100 ml. During Phase 1, 0.4% of fecal coliform observations exceeded the State
standard, and 6% of Enterococci counts exceeded the recommended EPA level. Fecal
coliform analyses in Phase 2 indicated that 1 % of observations exceeded the FL State
standard. After 4 years into remediation (Phase 2), 4% of Enterococci counts exceeded
the recommended EPA level, suggesting a slight improvement in water quality (Bricen"o
and Boyer 2009).
Bacterial count distribution along the year corresponded to both climatic conditions and
site location. Higher counts occurred in the rainy season. In addition, the heads of the
canals, having longer residence times, had significantly greater bacterial numbers than
12
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012 aillre,d
did the mouths. Stations in worse condition in Phase 1 experienced greater
improvements following remediation, a result emphasized by Briceno and Boyer (2009)
as having potentially important implications for other canal remediation projects.
Overall, Briceno and Boyer (2009) interpreted the water quality monitoring results as
providing encouraging signs of improvement in water quality in Little Venice as an
outcome of remedial actions advocated by the Monroe County, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the
community of Marathon.
Current State -of -the Science and Recommended BMPs
A review of existing Monroe County Florida Keys site specific canal restorations included FDEP
Permitting files: 15 permits related to installation of weed gates/barriers or aerators (list
attached), Jolly Rogers Culvert Construction ERP #44-2694015, and Breezeswept Beach
Estates Culvert Project ERP #44-0143157. Crane Point Hammock 1 acre pond suction dredge
project is also of relevance. Several backfilling projects included: Indigo Reef, Sunset Acres,
and Carrysfort. These restorations will be included in the GIS database.
The most recent national guidance on water quality protection and restoration in marinas and
other manmade waterways involving recreational boating uses was provided by the US EPA
(2001). Although it was not prepared specifically for canal systems, the management issues
and BMPs covered in the document are highly applicable to manmade canals.
The guidance document is divided into sections that address the following topics:
• Sources of nonpoint source pollution and identification of pollutants of concern;
• Overview of management measures, BMPs, and the use of combinations of BMPs (BMP
systems) to address water quality issues,
• Specific management measures for marinas and other manmade waterways; and
• Models that can be used to determine the dynamics of water flow and water quality
variations in these systems.
The management measures discussed in the guidance document are considered by EPA to
represent the best available, economically achievable practices or combinations of practices
that can be used to address pollution sources related to marinas and other artificial waterways
that are used for recreational boating. The BMPs recommended in the document are activities
that can be used, alone or in combination, to achieve the management measures. The
management measures address the following issues that are applicable to canal management
in the Keys:
• Circulation and Flushing — site and design marinas and other manmade waterways such
that tides and/or currents will aid in flushing of the site or renew its water regularly;
13
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
• Water Quality and Habitat Assessments — assess water quality as part of the siting,
design and water quality management processes. Use siting and design features to
protect against adverse effects on shellfish resources, wetlands, submerged aquatic
vegetation, or other important riparian and aquatic habitat areas as designed by local,
state, or federal governments;
• Shoreline Stabilization — where shoreline or streambank erosion is a nonpoint source
pollution problem, shorelines and streambanks should be stabilized. Vegetative methods
are strongly preferred unless structural methods are more cost-effective, considering the
severity of wave and wind erosion, offshore bathymetry, and the potential adverse
impact on other shorelines, streambanks, and offshore areas.
• Storm Water Runoff — implement effective runoff control strategies that include the use
of pollution prevention and the proper design of areas that may generate stormwater-
related pollutant loads;
• Fueling Station Design and Petroleum Control — design fueling stations to allow for ease
in cleanup of spills. Reduce the amount of fuel and oil from boat bilges and fuel tank air
vents entering surface waters.
• Liquid Material Management — provide and maintain appropriate storage, transfer,
containment, and disposal facilities for liquid material such as oil, harmful solvents and
paints, and encourage recycling of these materials;
• Solid Waste Management — properly dispose of solid wastes to limit their entry into
surface waters
• Fish Waste Management — promote sound fish waste management through a
combination of fish -cleaning restrictions, public education, and proper disposal of fish
waste
• Sewage Facility Management and Maintenance — install pumpout, dump station, and
adequate restroom facilities at marinas and other public use areas to reduce the release
of sewage to surface waters. Design these facilities to allow ease of access, and post
signage to promote use by the public. Ensure that sewage pumpout facilities are
maintained in operational condition and encourage their use
• Boat Cleaning and Operation —for boats that are in the water, perform cleaning
operations to minimize, to the extent practicable, the release to surface waters of (a)
harmful cleaners and solvents and (b) paint from in -water hull cleaning. Manage boating
activities where necessary to decrease turbidity and physical destruction of shallow
water habitat
• Public Education — public education, outreach, and training programs should be
instituted for to prevent improper disposal of polluting material.
14
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
BMPs recommended to address these issues include:
• Circulation and flushing:
o Ensure that the bottom of the manmade waterway and its entrance channels are
not deeper than adjacent natural waters or navigable channels
o Consider design alternatives in poorly flushed waterbodies to enhance flushing
o Use as few enclosed water sections or separated basins as possible to promote
circulation within the entire basin
o Consider the value of entrance channels in promoting flushing when designing or
reconfiguring a manmade system
o Establish two openings (rather than a single opening) at the most appropriate
locations to promote flow -through currents
o Consider mechanical aerators to improve flushing and water quality where basin
and entrance channel configuration cannot provide adequate flushing
Water Quality and Habitat Assessments
o Use water quality sampling and/or monitoring to measure water quality conditions
o Use a water quality modeling methodology to predict future water quality
conditions.
o Monitor water quality using indicators and/or rapid bioassessment techniques
o Establish a volunteer monitoring program.
o Conduct habitat surveys and characterize sites, including identifying any exotic or
invasive species
o Assess habitat function (e.g., spawning area, nursery area, feeding area) to
minimize indirect effects.
o Create new habitats or expand habitats in the waterway
o Minimize disturbance of riparian areas
o Where feasible, use dry stack boat storage
• Shoreline Stabilization
o Use vegetative plantings, wetlands, beaches, and natural shorelines where
space allows
15
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
o Where shorelines need structural stabilization and where space and use allow,
riprap revetment is preferable to a solid vertical bulkhead.
o Where reflected waves will not endanger shorelines or habitats and where space
is limited, protect shorelines with structural features such as vertical bulkheads.
o At boat ramps, retain natural shoreline features to the extent feasible and protect
disturbed areas from erosion.
• Stormwater Runoff Management for Marina Areas
o Sweep or vacuum around hull maintenance areas, roads, and driveways
frequently
o Sweep parking lots regularly
o Plant turf or other vegetative cover between impervious areas and manmade
basins
o Construct new or restore former wetlands where feasible and practical.
o Use porous pavement where feasible
o Install oil/grit separators and/or vertical media filters to capture pollutants in runoff
o Use catch basins where stormwater discharges enter a basin in large pulses
o Add filters to storm drains that are located near work areas
o Place absorbents in drain inlets
o Use chemical and filtration treatment systems only where necessary
• Fueling Station Design and Petroleum Control
o Use automatic shutoffs on fuel lines and at hose nozzles to reduce fuel loss
o Remove old-style fuel nozzle triggers that are used to hold the nozzle open
without being held
o Install personal watercraft (PWC) floats at fuel docks to help drivers refuel
without spilling
o Regularly inspect, maintain, and replace fuel hoses, pipes, and tanks
o Install a spill monitoring system
16
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
o Train fuel dock staff in spill prevention, containment, and cleanup procedures
o Install easy -to -read signs on the fuel dock that explain proper fueling, spill
prevention, and spill reporting procedures
o Locate and design boat fueling stations so that spills can be contained, such as
with a floating boom, and cleaned up easily
o Write and implement a fuel spill recovery plan
o Have spill containment equipment storage, such as a locker attached or adjacent
to the fuel dock, easily accessible and clearly marked
o Promote the installation and use of fuel/air separators on air vents or tank stems
of inboard fuel tanks to reduce the amount of fuel spilled into surface waters
during fueling
o Avoid overfilling fuel tanks
o Provide "doughnuts" or small petroleum absorption pads to patrons to use while
fueling to catch splashback and the last drops when the nozzle is transferred
back from the boat to the fuel dock
o Routinely check for engine fuel leaks and use a drip pan under engines
o Avoid pumping any bilge water that is oily or has a sheen. Promote the use of
materials that capture or digest oil in bilges. Examine these materials frequently
and replace as necessary
o Extract used oil from absorption pads if possible, or dispose of it in accordance
with petroleum disposal guidelines
o Prohibit the use of detergents and emulsifiers on fuel spills
• Liquid Material Management
o Build curbs, berms, or other barriers around areas used for liquid material
storage to contain spills
o Store liquid materials under cover on a surface that is impervious to the type of
material stored
o Store minimal quantities of hazardous materials
o Provide clearly labeled, separate containers for the disposal of waste oils, fuels,
and other liquid wastes
o Recycle liquid materials where possible
17
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
ame,d
o Change engine oil using nonspill vacuum -type systems to perform spill -proof oil
changes or to suction oily water from bilges
o Where possible, use low -toxicity or nontoxic materials (such as water -based
paints and solvents) in place of more toxic products
o Follow manufacturer's directions and use nontoxic or low -toxicity pesticides
o Prepare a hazardous materials spill recovery plan and update it as necessary
o Keep adequate spill response equipment where liquid materials are stored
• Solid Waste Management
o Avoid performing hull maintenance while boats are in the water, and use a
reusable blasting medium
o At boat ramps and other public use sites, place trash receptacles in convenient
locations for patrons. Require patrons to clean up pet wastes and provide a
specific dog walking area
o Provide facilities for collecting recyclable materials
o Encourage fishing line collection, recycling or disposal
o Provide boaters with trash bags
• Fish Waste Management
o Install fish cleaning stations at marinas and boat launch sites
o Compost fish waste where appropriate
o Freeze fish parts and reuse them as bait or chum on the next fishing trip
o Encourage catch and release fishing, which does not kill the fish and produces
no fish waste
Sewage Facility Management and Maintenance
o Install pumpout facilities and dump stations, using systems compatible with local
needs
o Provide pumpout service at convenient times and at a reasonable cost
18
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
o Keep pumpout stations clean and easily accessible, and consider having staff
perform pumpouts
o Provide portable toilet dump stations near small slips and launch ramps
o Establish practices and post signs to control pet waste problems
o Avoid feeding wild birds in the marina
o Establish no discharge zones to prevent boat sewage from entering boating
waters
o Regularly inspect and maintain pumpout stations and other sewage facilities
o Disinfect the suction connection of a pumpout station (stationary or portable) by
dipping it into or spraying it with disinfectant
o Maintain convenient, clean, dry, and pleasant restroom facilities in public use
areas
o Maintain a dedicated fund and issue a contract for pumpout and dump station
repair and maintenance
• Boat Cleaning and Operation
o Wash boat hulls above the waterline by hand. Where feasible, remove boats
from the water and clean them where debris can be captured and properly
disposed of
o Attempt to wash boats frequently enough that the use of cleansers will not be
necessary.
o If using cleansers, buy and use ones that will have minimal impact on the aquatic
environment
o Switch to long-lasting and low -toxicity or nontoxic antifouling paints
o Avoid in -the -water hull scraping or any abrasive process done underwater that
could remove paint from the boat hull
o Ensure that adequate precautions have been taken to minimize the spread of
exotic and invasive species when boats are transferred from one waterbody to
another
o Minimize the impacts of wastewater from pressure washing
o Restrict boater traffic in shallow -water areas
19
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
o Establish and enforce no wake zones to decrease turbidity, shore erosion, and
shoreline damage
• Public Education
o Use signs to inform waterfront property owners and marina patrons of
appropriate clean boating practices
o Establish bulletin boards for environmental messages and idea sharing
o Promote recycling and trash reduction programs
o Hand out pamphlets or flyers, send newsletters, and add inserts to bill mailings
with information about how recreational boaters can protect the environment and
have clean boating waters
o Organize and present enjoyable environmental education meetings,
presentations, and demonstrations and consider integrating them into ongoing
programs
o Educate and train marina staff to do their jobs in an environmentally conscious
manner and to be good role models for marina patrons
o Insert language into facility contracts that promotes tenants' using certain areas
and clean boating techniques when maintaining their boats. Use a contract that
ensures that tenants will comply with the marina's best management practices
o Have a clearly written environmental best management practices agreement for
outside contractors to sign as a precondition to working on any boat in the marina
o Participate with an organization that promotes clean boating practices
o Provide MARPOL placards
o Paint educational signs on storm drains
o Establish and educate marina patrons and other boaters about good fish
cleaning practices
o Provide information on local waste collection and recycling programs
o Teach boaters how to fuel boats to minimize fuel spills
o Stock phosphate -free, nontoxic cleaners and other environmentally friendly
products
o Place signs in the water and label charts to alert boaters about sensitive habitat
areas
20
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
o Educate boaters to thoroughly clean their boats before boating in other
waterbodies
• Numerical Analyses and Models
The EPA (2001) guidance document also includes brief reviews of, and suggestions on the
use of, a variety of numerical models to address issues such as circulation, flushing and
water quality dynamics in manmade waterways.
The models were selected based on the following criteria:
o They are in the public domain.
o They are available at a minimal cost from various public agencies
o They are supported to a varying extent by federal or state agencies. The form of
support is usually telephone contact with a staff of engineers and programmers who
have experience with the model and can provide guidance (usually free of charge).
o They have been used extensively for various purposes and are generally accepted
within the modeling profession.
o Together they form a sequence of increasingly more technically complex models,
taking additional phenomena into account in a more detailed manner.
The guidance notes that selection from among these models should be made on the basis of
the model capabilities needed, which are summarized in Table I.I.
21
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012 aillre,d
Table 1.1 Attributes of numerical models recommended for use in analyzing water quality
conditions marinas and other manmade waterways by US EPA (2001).
Relative
Model
Source
Complexity
Cost to
Water quality
Implement
issues addressed
Tidal Prism
US EPA Region 4
Simple
Low
DO, fecal coliform
Analysis
bacteria
Tidal Prism
Virginia Institute of
Mid -Range
Medium
DO, BOD, nutrients,
Model
Marine Science
phytoplankton, fecal
coliforms
NCDEM DO
North Carolina
Mid -Range
Medium
DO
Dept. of Environ.
Health and Natural
Resources
WASP
US EPA Region 4
Complex
High
DO, BOD, nutrients,
phytoplankton, toxics
fecal coliforms
EFDC
Virginia Institute of
Complex
High
DO, BOD, temperature,
Hydrodynamic
Marine Science
salinity, nutrients,
sediment, finfish,
phytoplankton, shellfish,
toxics, fecal coliforms,
eutrophication
Additional information on numerical models that can be used to evaluate the circulation and
flushing characteristics of manmade canal systems was provided by Goodwin (1991), who used
a one-dimensional hydrodynamic model to evaluate the potential effects of installing tide gates
in two dead-end canal systems located on the southwest coast of Florida. Flow simulations
were carried out using abranched-network flow model (BRANCH) developed by the USGS.
The model results indicated that tidal water -level differences between the two canal systems
could be used to increase water circulation through the installation of one-way tide gate
interconnections. Computations showed that construction of one to four tide gates would
provide several beneficial water quality effects including reduced density stratification and
associated dissolved oxygen depletion in canal bottom waters, increased localized rearation,
and more efficient discharge of stormwater runoff entering the canals (Goodwin 1991).
22
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
References Cited
;
Briceno, H.O., and J.N. Boyer. 2009. Little Venice water quality monitoring project final report.
USEPA, Atlanta, GA and FDEP, Ft. Myers, FL. 81 p.
CDM. 2001. Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan. Monroe County. Key
West, FL. 304 p.
CDM. 2011. Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Documentation Update. FDEP. Tallahassee,
FL. 52 p.
CDM and URS. 2008. Central Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation. FDEP.
Tallahassee, FL. 149 p.
CDM and URS. 2008b. Northern Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation. FDEP.
Tallahassee, FL. 136 p.
CDM and URS. 2008c. South -Central Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation.
FDEP. Tallahassee, FL. 126 p.
CH2MHILL. 2000. Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, Vols. 1 and 2. Monroe
County. Key West, FL. 219 p.
FDEP. 2011. Site -Specific Information in Support of Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for
Florida Bay — Draft. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. 52 p.
FKNMS. 2007. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Revised Management Plan. FKNMS.
Marathon, FL. 382 p.
Goodwin, C.R. 1991. Simulation of the effects of proposed tide gates on circulation, flushing
and water quality in residential canals, Cape Coral, Florida. U.S.G.S. Open -File Report 91-237
Kruczynski, W.L. 1999. Water quality concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources, effects and
solutions. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Water Quality Protection Program.
Marathon, FL, 65 p.
National Research Council. 2002. A Review of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study.
National Academies Press. Washington, DC. 180 p.
URS. 2001. Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, Canal Impact Assessment Module. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL and Florida Department of Community Affairs,
Tallahassee, FL. 173 p.
USACE and SFWMD. 2004. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement - Florida
Keys Water Quality Improvements Program. USACE, Jacksonville, FL and SFWMD, West
Palm Beach, FL. 214 p.
23
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
USACE and SFWMD. 2006. Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program: Program
Management Plan (Final). USACE, Jacksonville, FL and SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL. 114
P.
USEPA. 1975. Finger -fill canal studies: Florida and North Carolina (EPA 904/9-76-017).
USEPA, Washington, DC. 232 p.
USEPA. 2001. National Management Measures Guidance to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution
from Marinas and Recreational Boating (EPA 841-B-01-005) USEPA, Washington, DC. 209 p.
24
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Task 1.2. Data deficiencies in the project geodatabase
i
The purpose of this section is to review the existing 2003 Monroe County Residential Canal
Inventory and Assessment GIS database currently being updated by AMEC to determine if
there are data deficiencies that will affect other work on Phase 1 of CMMP development. The
purpose of identifying these data gaps is to make stakeholders aware of potential difficulties in
canal technology selection/design elements and to assist in determining future data acquisition
needs.
The identified data gaps in the existing updated GIS database for the Monroe County Canals
are as follows:
1. Depth information for the canals — The attribute field for canal depth in the existing GIS
database was based upon limited permit information, not actual as -built values. Actual canals
depths are required to adequately evaluate if backfilling is an applicable restoration method and
are required to accurately estimate backfilling costs. The depth data will also be necessary to
evaluate circulation effectiveness for canal flushing alternatives.
2. Sediment/organic material thickness in canals —There currently are no available data
sources concerning the thickness of accumulated sediment and/or organic material in the
bottom of canals. This information is needed to evaluate if this accumulated material is
contributing to degrading the water quality in the canals, to estimate the quantities that may
require removal, and to determine the most cost effective restoration option(s). A qualitative
evaluation of the weed rack accumulation may be performed for each canal by performing an
inspection of the high definition aerials to describe the visible amount of weed rack in each
canal. This approach will provide limited information that could be cross referenced against the
known accumulation depths (if available) and then extrapolated for each canal. This approach
may be more accurate than approximate methods based on energy and orientation of the canal
mouth due to the complex and variable nature of ocean currents.
3. Canal specific water quality data — There is limited canal specific water quality data
available in the Keys. The existing GIS database includes all currently available information, but
it is limited to only a fraction of the canals (52/518). Also many sampled canals are only
characterized by one event. Quantification of canal water quality improvements, especially
related to restoration efforts, will be hard to document without canal specific water quality data.
Task 1.3. CMMP objectives
On April 13, 2012, the Canal Subcommittee met to initiate work on the Monroe County Canal
Management Master Plan (CMMP) project. As part of that meeting, the subcommittee
discussed Task 1.3, the development of an overall objectives statement for the CCMP.
The purpose of the objectives statement is to provide a very brief summary of the overarching
goals of the canal management effort, capturing its overall intent in a few sentences that will be
readily understandable to policymakers, resource managers and the interested public.
25
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012 ame,d
A draft objectives statement, which was taken with minor modification from the 2000 Monroe
County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, was used as the starting point. After some
discussion of wording changes that would make the statement more applicable to canal
management issues, the subcommittee adopted the following objectives statement for the
CMMP:
"The objective of the CMMP is to provide an ecologically sound and economically feasible
funding and implementation strategy for improving and managing the environmental quality of
canal systems in the Florida Keys. The plan will provide flexible and cost-effective solutions that
improve canal management practices throughout the Keys and satisfy the existing and future
needs of the community. It must address affordability and equity issues, reflect key stakeholder
concerns, and satisfy environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines."
Task 2: Priority management issues
As noted above, because of the short timeline associated with this first phase of the CMMP
project, it is anticipated that this initial issues list will be a preliminary one. The objective is to
identify a small group of high -priority canal management and restoration issues that will be
sufficient to guide work during the first phase of CMMP development. It is anticipated that a
more comprehensive priorities list, appropriate for inclusion in a broader plan whose scope
would be comparable to the existing Sanitary Wastewater and Stormwater Master Plans, will be
developed in a future phase of the project, if funding is available to support that larger work
effort.
Based upon reviews of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County Sanitary
Wastewater Master Plan, Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan, Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary Management Plans, Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance
Documents (FKRADs), and other sources, the following management and restoration issues
were identified as potential priorities:
• Water quality — nutrient loading, nutrient enrichment and eutrophication
• Water quality — dissolved oxygen/hypoxia
• Water quality — organic matter (e.g., weed wrack)
• Water quality — human pathogen levels
• Water quality — compliance with regulatory requirements (e.g., WQ criteria; WBID
impairments; TMDL/Reasonable Assurance process; NNC when adopted)
• Sediment quality — anoxia; sulfides; sediment contaminants (TEL/PEL exceedances)
• Habitat quality — benthic community; intertidal community; shoreline stability and
vegetation
• Physical characteristics — maximum depth; bathymetry; geometry; orientation
• Physical characteristics — circulation and flushing
• Physical characteristics — effects on local hydrology
• Public involvement in the canal management process
26
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012 aillre,d
Following discussion of these items during an April 27, 2012, meeting with the Canal
Subcommittee of the Water Quality Steering Committee, the following issues were identified as
priorities for the first phase of the CMMP project:
• Water Quality — restore and maintain water quality conditions in canal systems to levels
that are consistent with the State water quality criteria. Class III criteria are applicable
which include fish consumption; recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy
well balanced population of fish and wildlife.
• Water Quality — Organic Material — reduce the entry and accumulation of seagrass
leaves and other `weed wrack' in affected canals.
• Sediment Quality — improve anoxia, sulfide levels, and concentrations of potentially toxic
anthropogenic sediment contaminants in canals.
• Habitat Quality improve habitat for benthic and intertidal communities, and maintain
adequate shoreline stability and vegetation.
• Public involvement in the canal management process.
It was agreed at the April 27, 2012 meeting that the physical characteristics of canals are
important but they are more a cause of water quality problems and that improvement in
circulation and flushing is a restoration technique. These issues were therefore not included in
the final management issue list.
The possibility of ranking of the management issues was discussed; however, it was concluded
that all of the selected issues were of equally high priority.
The above priority management issues will guide work on Tasks 3, 4 and 5 of the approved
CMMP scope of work.
Task 3. Management goals for priority issues
As with the management issues identified in Task 2, because of the short timeline associated
with Phase 1 of CMMP development, the management goals identified in this task are
preliminary ones. Their purpose is to provide initial goal statements sufficient to guide work on
Task 4 (which will identify priority canals for the potential implementation of restoration options)
and Task 5 (which will develop an initial short-list of restoration projects). It is anticipated that
more comprehensive goal statements may be developed in a future phase of the project, if
funding is available to support that larger work effort.
Based on discussion with the Canals Subcommittee during the meeting held on April 27, 2012,
the following initial goals were identified for the five priority management issues selected in Task
2. The goals are intended to be protective of living resources, technically defensible,
quantifiable (where possible), readily measurable, and challenging but achievable.
27
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
• Issue 1. Water quality — Eutrophication and DO -Related Issues
i
Goal: Restore and maintain water quality conditions in canal systems to levels that are
consistent with the State's current water quality criteria for Class III waters, whose
designated uses include human recreation as well as the propagation and maintenance of a
healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. The State water quality standards are
detailed in Florida Administrative Code 62-302.
• Issue 2. Water quality —Organic Matter (e.g., Weed Wrack)
Goal: In canal systems whose location make them susceptible to receiving large inputs of
seagrass leaves and other `weed wrack' from nearshore waters, install cost-effective
barriers to prevent or substantially reduce those inputs to levels that do not contribute to
eutrophication, hypoxia, or other water and sediment quality issues within the canals.
• Issue 3. Sediment quality
Goal: Reduce the incidence of anoxia, problematic sulfide levels and sediment toxicity in
canals where these issues are present, and prevent these issues from developing in canal
systems where they are not yet present.
• Issue 4. Habitat quality
Goal: Protect aquatic and benthic canal habitats that currently support native flora and
fauna, and improve water and sediment quality in other areas to levels that are capable of
supporting them.
• Issue 5. Public Involvement in the Canal Management Process
Goal: Create and maintain a constituency of informed, involved citizens who understand the
environmental and economic issues involved in managing manmade canal systems
Task 4. Priority sites for restoration
An initial list of potential project sites and site -specific restoration concepts were developed
using the information collated and evaluated in Task 1, as well as site visits that included visual
inspections of canals and spot -collection of depth information and hydrographic (e.g., DO, water
temperature, pH, and conductivity) data.
Two groups of canals were selected for site visits:
1. Canals in subdivisions that were identified as water quality problem areas by a working
group convened by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in 1996; and
2. Canals identified as having water quality problems associated with weed wrack that were
located in geographic areas not included in the SFWMD list.
28
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
The SFWMD priority list of water quality problem areas was identified by subdivision (not canal)
and was included in the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan Technical
Memorandum No. 4. For Group 1 it was necessary to determine which canal(s) in each of the
subdivision are likely to have the most serious water quality problems, due to poor designs that
limit circulation and flushing. This was accomplished by examining aerial photographs and
information from the project geodatabase. A site visit was then performed to confirm that the
most problematic canals within each subdivision had been identified. For group 2, aerial
photographs taken during the winter of 2006 were examined to identify canals with significant
weed wrack coverage at the water surface. A subset of these canals was then selected to
provide additional geographic coverage across all of the keys. The canal systems that were
evaluated using site visits are summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
Table 4.1 Group 1 (SFWMD 1996) canals evaluated using site visits during Task 4.
Subdivision Identified as Priority
Water Quality Problem Area by
SFWMD (1996) Working Group
Priority Canal Identified
During Site Visit
LAKE SURPRISE/SEXTON COVE
241 KEY LARGO
CROSS KEY ESTATES
45 KEY LARGO
WYNKEN, BLYNKEN AND NOD
78 ROCK HARBOR
HAMMER POINT PARK
93 TAVERNIER
CONCH KEY
164 CONCH KEY
LITTLE VENICE
196 MARATHON
LITTLE VENICE
200 MARATHON
PORT PINE HEIGHTS
238 BIG PINE KEY
BOOT KEY HARBOUR
243 MARATHON
KNIGHT'S KEY CAMPGROUND
252 MARATHON
DOCTOR'S ARM
258 BIG PINE KEY
DOCTOR'S ARM
266 BIG PINE KEY
TROPICAL BAY
277 BIG PINE KEY
EDEN PINES COLONY
278 BIG PINE KEY
SANDS SUBDIVISION
286 BIG PINE KEY
CUDJOE GARDENS
329 CUDJOE KEY
BAYPOINT SUBDIVISION
433 SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
GULFREST PARK
437 BIG COPPITT
Note: 1 Canal ID number from project geodatabase
29
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
ame,d
Table 4.2. Group 2 (elevated weed wrack) canals evaluated using site visits during Task
4.
Canal ID
1631 LONG KEY/LAYTON
223 MARATHON
261 NO NAME KEY
307 SUGARLOAF KEY
471 KEY HAVEN
Note: ' Canal ID number from project geodatabase
These potential project sites were then evaluated as a group and scored relative to one another
using the following criteria.
1. Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to
10.
2. Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection within
the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that
would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
3. Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
4. Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have
negative effects on users.
5. Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
30
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
ame,d
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to
+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6. Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0
to +10)
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. Scoring
ranges from 0 to +10, representing 0% to 100% likelihood of being eligible and
competitive for external funding support.
7. Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0
to +10)
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
8. Project "implementability" (scored from 0 to +10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of
access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
At the time the scoring was done, sufficient information was not yet available to score criteria 3,
57 6 or 7. A score of zero was assigned for this initial ranking. (Information to score these
criteria was gathered during Task 5, and utilized to develop the initial short-list of restoration
projects.) To meet the requirements of Task 4, the remaining criteria were scored using the
following methods:
Severity of the problem :
DO
Hydrogen Sulfide
Site Score
Minimum DO > 4 mg/L
No hydrogen sulfide issue
0
Minimum DO >2 mg/L, <4 mg/L
No to slight hydrogen sulfide issue
5
Minimum DO <2 mg/L
Hydrogen sulfide issue
10
Note: Overall site score is based on either the DO or hydrogen sulfide score, whichever is
larger. Scores between 0 and 5 or between 5 and 10 can be given depending on severity of
DO or hydrogen sulfide issues observed at site.
31
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Potential to provide improvement:
change in DO or hydrogen sulfide score
Site Score
-Anticipated
Small to no effect
0
Moderate effect + or -
+57 -5
-Large effect + or -
+107 -10
Public benefit (with number of affected users estimated using aerial photography):
number of users affected
Site Score
-Anticipated
Minimum(positively or negatively)
0
Median (positively or negatively)
+57 -5
Maximum (positively or negatively)
+107 -10
Note: 2Numbers of affected users were estimated based on the numbers of waterfront lots
present on the canals listed in Tables 1 and 2. From that sample of canals, the one with the
minimum number of lots was given a score of zero and the one with the maximum number
was given a score of 10. Scores for other remaining canals were interpolated using
percentiles (i.e., 10t" percentile=1, 25t" percentile=2.5, 50t" percentile=5.0, etc.). In addition,
two canals in areas with large numbers of recreational users (the Boot Key Harbor and
Knights Key canals) were given scores of 10 to reflect their heavy recreational use.
Project "implementability":
difficulty of implementation
Site Score
-Anticipated
difficult
0
-Significant
Moderate difficult
5
Low difficulty
10
The prioritized list of canals that resulted from this process, and an initial set of potential
restoration technologies that may be appropriate for each canal based on currently -available
information, are shown in Table 4.3. The canals are listed in descending order, with higher
priority locations (canals with higher overall site scores) located at the top of the table and the
lower priority locations at the bottom.
Table 4.3. Canals ranked in priority order in Task 4 (higher overall score =higher
priority).
Canal
Potential Restoration
Overall Score
Area Name
Number
Technologies
In Task 4
Tropical Bay Estates
p y
277
Weed wrack loading
32.2
prevention
32
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
;
Area Name
Canal
Potential Restoration
Overall Score
Number
Technologies
In Task 4
Doctors Arm
258
Weed wrack loading
31.5
prevention
Circulation pump (reduction in
Sands Subdivision
286
stormwater loading is
28.7
appropriate)
Cross KeyEstates
45
Backfilling and/or pumping to
28.6
increase circulation
Weed wrack loading
Knights Key
252
prevention primary treatment;
28
Campground
backfilling as a secondary
treatment
Weed wrack loading
No Name Key
261
prevention; maintenance of
27.4
existing culvert at canal ends
Doctors Arm
266
Weed wrack loading
27.4
prevention
Eden Pines
278
Culvert or pumping to increase
27.0
circluation
Weed wrack loading
Wynken, Blynken and
78
prevention primary treatment;
26.3
Nod
backfilling secondary
treatment
La ton/Lon Key
y g y
163
Backfilling or pumping to
24.2
increase circulation
Port Pine Heights
g
238
Pumping to increase
23.0
circulation
Bay Point
433
Culvert maintenance
22.8
Weed wrack loading reduction,
Sugarloaf
307
pumping to improve
22.2
circulation, backfilling
Conch Key
164
Culvert modification
22.2
33
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
;
Area Name
Canal
Potential Restoration
Overall Score
Number
Technologies
In Task 4
Weed wrack Loading
prevention primary technology;
Marathon
223
potential need for secondary
22.0
treatment of a circulation
pump.
Increase in circulation by
pumping or culvert. Depth
Boot Key Harbor
243
information will be required to
22.0
evaluate if backfilling is
appropriate.
Circulation pump (reduction in
Key Haven
471
stormwater loading is
21.8
appropriate)
Gulfrest Park
437
Circulation pump
21.0
Little Venice
200
Circulation pump
20.6
Little Venice
196
Backfilling
15.1
Lake Surprise -Sexton
24
Culvert to Lake Surprise
11.7
Cove
Hammer Point
93
Backfilling
10.8
Existing culverts provide
sufficient flushing; reduction in
Cudjoe Gardens
329
nutrient loading from future
4.6
VWVTP installation will
additionally improve quality.
The initial set of potential restoration technologies that appear applicable to these canals
include:
o Reductions in weed wrack loading (using bubble curtains, weed gates or other
methods);
o Enhanced circulation (using culverts, pumps, or other means) to reduce hydraulic
residence times and eliminate areas of water column stagnation;
34
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
o Removal of accumulated organic sediments, in areas where the sediments are
contributing to the development of phytoplankton blooms, bottom -water hypoxia and
excessive hydrogen sulfide production; and
o Backfilling to reduce canal depth, in areas where excessive depth is contributing to poor
circulation, bottom -water hypoxia, and other canal management issues.
35
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Task 5. Initial short-list of restoration projects
;
This is a key task of the Phase 1 CMMP, and is intended to provide a short-list of "early action"
project sites and restoration activities for which implementation funds will be sought during the
next one to two years. Items included in the deliverables for Task 5 include:
• A short-list of projects selected for immediate restoration implementation, potential sources
of grant funding that could be pursued for these projects, and the information that will be
needed to prepare those grant applications;
• A summary of each short-listed project, including information on the affected WBI D, water
quality impairments addressed by the project, a conceptual restoration design, estimated
improvements associated with the project, and a preliminary budget and scope of work;
• Information on canal depth that is currently available from local sources, if that information is
required for costing purposes;
• For each potential project, a checklist showing the grant application requirements that have
already been fulfilled and a list of additional items that will need to be completed before a
grant application can be submitted.
• A list of applicable state and federal grant opportunities and corresponding deadlines, along
with information on the application deadlines for the larger state and federal grant programs
during 2012 and 2013;
Refined Scoring Criteria
In order to develop the project short-list for Task 5, scoring criteria 3, 57 6 and 7 from Task 4
were reviewed and refined as follows:
• Criterion 3: Potential to provide impacts (positive or negative) within the halo or
nearshore zones:
change in net loads
Site Score
-Anticipated
Small to no effect
0
Moderate increase or decrease (+ or -)
+57 -5'
Large increase or decrease (+ or -)
+107 -10'
Note: ' A positive score will be given to projects likely to cause a net reduction in the
pollutant loads that are discharged to halo or nearshore zones. Negative scores to projects
likely to cause a net increase in loads discharged to those zones. Scoring based upon the
following: weed wrack prevention technologies = 0 (no net change); culverts and circulation
pumps = negative, magnitude based upon current impairment level of canal; backfilling =
positive, magnitude based upon potential improvement due to removal of sediments pre-
backfill or covering of sediments.
36
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
• Criterion 5: Public funding support
i
It was determined that this criterion should be removed from Phase I, because the potential
for public funding support would be equal for the canals included on the Task 5 short-list.
• Criterion 6: Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support
(scored from 0 to +10)
It appears likely that potential restoration sites would not be competitive for external grant
funds if they have not yet upgraded their wastewater treatment systems, since funding
agencies could be hesitant to approve grant funding for more advanced water quality
restoration work at sites where these basic water quality improvement steps have not yet
been taken. Therefore, canals were given a score of zero for this criterion, and eliminated
from the Task 5 rankings, if they are not yet connected to the wastewater treatment system.
Canals receiving direct, piped discharges of untreated stormwater (e.g., Key Haven 471)
were also given a score of zero, regardless of their wastewater treatment status. Canals
that are currently connected to the wastewater treatment system and had no visible
untreated stormwater outfalls were given a score of 10.
• Criterion 7: Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals
(scored from 0 to 10)
Current data availability (percentage of data
Site Score
necessary to prepare grant proposals, permit
applications, etc.)
Little or no data available
0
Approximately 50% of necessary data
+5
are currently available
Almost 100% of necessary data
+10
are currently available
Short -List of Potential Restoration Projects
The results of the Task 5 scoring process are summarized in Table 5.1. The scoring sheets for
each canal are included in Appendix A.
37
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
ame,d
Table 5.1. Task 5 Canal Prioritization List (higher overall score =higher priority).
Subdivision Name
GIS Canal
Potential Restoration
Overall
Number
Technologies
Task 5 Score
Wynken, Blynken and
Primary=weed wrack
Nod
7$
loading prevention;
45.3
secondary=backfilling
Backfilling and/or
Cross Key Estates
45
pumping to increase
41.6
circulation
Marathon
223
Weed wrack loading
39
prevention
Culvert maintenance
Bay Point
433
(plus evaluation of
37.8
adequate culvert size)
Little Venice
200
Circulation pump
35.6
Gulfrest Park
437
Circulation pump
32
Increase in circulation by
pumping or culvert.
Boot Key Harbor
243
Depth information will be
32
required to evaluate if
backfilling is appropriate.
Little Venice
196
Backfilling
30.1
Circulation pump
Key Haven
471
(reduction in stormwater
26.8
loading is also
appropriate)
Lake Surprise -Sexton
24
Culvert to Lake Surprise
26.7
Cove
Hammer Point
93
Backfilling
25.8
38
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
i
The sites ranked 1 through 3 in Table 5.1 were selected for engineering evaluation of
restoration options. These included:
1. Wynken, Blynken and Nod, Rock Harbor — GIS Canal Number 78
2. Cross Key Estates, Key Largo — GIS Canal Number 45
3. Marathon — GIS Canal Number 223
An attribute table from a portion of the GIS database, a site condition summary, and aerial
photographs for each these canals is included in Appendix B.
Restoration Project Summaries
Project Number: 1
Project Name: Wynken, Blynken and Nod (Canal ID: 78)
Project Type: Design, permitting, construction, construction management, and
monitoring for weed gate system and removal of organics
Description of Project Area
Canal 78 is located in the Wynken, Blynken &Nod neighborhood in Key Largo, Florida
immediately off of US-1 at Mile Marker 96. The canal is located within the halo zone of Water
Body Identification (WBID) 6006A. Halo Zone WBID 6006A is defined by the waters located
within 500 meters of the shoreline of Key Largo.
Impairments Addressed by the Project
The December 2008 Reasonable Assurance Document (RAD) developed for the Northern Keys
identified WBID 6006A as being impaired for nutrients, in particular total nitrogen and total
phosphorous. However, the December 2008 RAD also demonstrated that the WBID should be
classified as category 4b, indicating that the waterbody is impaired but that the implementation
of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is not required because it is expected that the
waterbody will achieve compliance with water quality criteria based on management activities
that have been undertaken. In the case of WBID 6006A, implementation of advanced
wastewater treatment throughout the watershed is expected to achieve the required water
quality criteria for nutrients. An update to the RAD that was prepared in December 2011
indicated that the WBID is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). The DO impairment was not
assigned a cause, since water quality monitoring did not identify concentrations of total nitrogen,
total phosphorous, or biochemical oxygen demand that exceededwater quality criteria.
The canal system within the Wynken, Blynken & Nod subdivision was assessed on May 9,
2012. Water quality was determined to be poor based on DO measurements collected just
below the water surface and at 11 feet below the water surface that exhibited concentrations of
2.3 mg/L and 3.3 mg/L, respectively. These values are below the FDEP standard for impaired
water bodies of 4.0 mg/L. The total canal depth was noted as approximately 22 feet. The canal
was also noted to be impacted by weed wrack which accumulated at the ends of the finger
canals. The decay of the accumulated organics in the weed wrack will utilize DO,potentially
leading to sediment anoxia and enhanced hydrogen sulfide production.
39
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012 ame,d
Remedial Technology Evaluation
The primary water quality issues within this system were identified as (1) prevention of
additional weed wrack from entering the canal; (2) removal of accumulated organic sediments;
and (3) reduction in canal depth to eliminate the deep stagnant water column. To keep
additional organics (weed wrack) from entering the canal a physical weed wrack gate in
conjunction with an air weed wrack gate would be added to the entrance of the canals. The
removal of existing accumulated organics was evaluated. The cost estimation for was based on
an assumed uniform canal depth of 22 feet, and an accumulated organics depth of 3 feet over
1/3 of the canal bottom. The organics are assumed to be non toxic. Specific canal profile data
and accumulated organics data are required for a more detailed cost estimate for this site.
Backfilling of the canals was also evaluated assuming backfilling to a depth of 6 feet. Backfill
material was assumed to be A-3 classified material and or clean construction debris from
approved contractors. Clean construction debris is currently unavailable; therefore cost
estimates for backfill only reflect purchased backfill. Depending on when the backfilling
recommendations are implemented potential future backfill maybe available from the Cudjoe
Key wastewater treatment plant.
Specific canal profile data and accumulated organics data are required for a more
detailed cost estimate for this site.
An existing aeration system is present in this canal system and engineering evaluation to
determine if it can be optimized to a recirculation system could also considered as a means to
improve water quality with less cost.
A conceptual schematic of the evaluated technologies is included in Appendix C along with
estimated costs for each technology. The costs were utilized to assist in final selection of a
preferred alternative.
Preferred Remedial Alternative
A weed wrack gate is proposed for this project which is intended to provide a barrier to prevent
floating or suspended organic material (weed wrack) from entering and accumulating within the
canal. The gate is designed to allow for navigational access during normal operation.
In addition to installation of a weed wrack gate, removal of organic material is also proposed for
this canal.
Description of Conceptual Schematic for Preferred Remedial Alternative:
• Two 10-foot stretches of physical weed wrack gate shall be constructed on either side of the
channel at the entrance of the canal.
• Each of the 10' physical weed wrack gate sections will be comprised of (2) wooded or
aluminum pilings that will be placed approximately 9' apart. High- Strength Fiberglass Panels
will be affixed to the pilings in order to block the flow of weed wrack. The fiberglass panels shall
be oriented such that as mean sea level 2.5' of fiberglass remains above the water and 2.5' of
.N
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
fiberglass remains below the water. Plastic netting shall be affixed to both sides of the fiberglass
and offer continued weed wrack guarding above and below the limits of the fiberglass.
-Plastkc Netting..
Mean Sea Level
Fiber gi3ss F3nels
Plastic Netting
11
Fibergi3ss
Mean Sea Level
11
• The area between the ends of the physical weed wrack gate shall contain a 36' wide air
weed wrack gate. Coarse bubble diffusers will be spaced at an interval of 2 feet. Diffuser
mounts will be used to affix the coarse bubble diffusers to the air weed wrack gate lateral.
The air weed wrack gate lateral line will rest approximately 1 foot above the bottom surface
to allow for maximum boating clearance.
• A 36 URAI pump in conjunction with a 5hp motor will provide air through 3" PVC pipe to the
air weed wrack gate. Calculations for determining these pump specifications were based on
an assumed diffuser depth of 9'. This estimate is subject to change based on detailed
design data.
• Removal of accumulated organics within the yellow shaded area of the Wynken, Blynken
and Nod Conceptual Schematic figure (refer to Appendix C) should be completed using
41
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
a jog#"# ec�
Hydraulic Dredge. The cost for the disposal of the removed organics is based upon off -
island disposal. Recycling options can be investigated.
Assumptions for Conceptual Schematic:
• Depth of accumulated organics: 3 feet over 1 /3 of the canal bottom
• The bottom of the canal is 22 feet below the surface of the water at low tide.
• The accumulated organics are non toxic and may be dewatered for transplant.
• Air weed wrack curtain lateral at a depth of 9 feet (or less, if canal backfilling is conducted).
• Pump efficiency = 80%
Wynken, Blynken and Nod Preferred Alternative Cost Estimate
Weed Wrack Gate
Item
#
UoM
Approx
Qty
Item
Unit Price
Cost
1
EA
1.0
Furnish and Install Air/
Physical Seaweed Gate
$
197462.00
$ 197462.00
Subtotal
$ 19, 462.00
Contingency
20%
$ 37892.00
Sub total
$ 239354.00
Construction
Administration
$ 57000.00
Final Design and
Permitting
$ 10, 000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 389354.00
42
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Organics Removal
Item
Unit of
Approx
#
Measure
Qty
Item
Unit Price
Cost
Removal of Organics-
1
LS
1.0
Mobilization
$ 507000.00
$
507000.00
Removal of Organics-
2
CY
37376.4*
Hydraulic Dredge
$ 10.00
$
337764.00
Removal of Organics-
3
CY
37376.4*
Dewatering
$ 13.00
$
437893.00
Transportation and
Disposal of
3
Ton
319.1 *
Accumulated Organics
$ 48.00
$
157315.00
Subtotal
$
1427972.00
Contingency
20%
$
287594.00
Sub total
$
1719566.00
Construction
Administration
$
257735.00
Final Design and
Permitting
$
427892.00
Total
TOTAL
$
2409193.00
Notes: * preliminary estimate only — value needs field verification
The approximate cost to operate the air gate is $280/month assuming diffuser discharge depth
of 9 feet.
Potential Benefits of Proposed Restoration Project
The proposed restoration project consisting of the construction of a weed wrack gate and
removal of the accumulated organics by hydraulic dredging in selected areas will help to
address the existing water quality impairments. The removal of the accumulated organics will
help increase the DO within the waterbody by reducing the sediment oxygen demand (SOD)
imposed by the accumulated organics. Given the highly organic nature of the sediment within
the waterbody, it is possible that the SOD could be as high as 20 g/m2/d (Davis 1950). Given
the area of the waterbody of 10,000 m2 and an assumed natural SOD of approximately 5 g/m2/d7
it is estimated that a reduction in oxygen consumption of 15,000 g/d (33 Ib/d) could be realized
from removing accumulated organic material and preventing additional accumulation through
the use of weed gates.
43
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012 aillre,d
The proposed weed wrack gate addresses the DO impairment in a twofold manner. The gate
will help to reduce future accumulations of organic sediments in the benthic zone of the
waterbody, resulting in a prevention of high SOD as previously described. The gate will also
help to aerate incoming and outgoing water. Therefore, the aeration induced by the air weed
wrack gate will help to increase the DO of both the waterbody and the nearshore waters.
Potential Grant Programs
The project identified above is expected to have a positive effect on water quality within the
canal and surrounding areas. Traditionally, water quality and habitat restoration efforts have
focused on restoration of natural ecosystems impacted by human activity. Grant programs are
typically geared toward these types of projects. For this reason, it will be critical to emphasize
that projects aimed at water quality improvements within Keys canal systems are likely to
provide equally significant improvements to the overall marine environment. By reducing areas
of stagnation and hypoxia, canal water quality improvement projects will help to minimize
nutrient releases from accumulations of decaying organic material and loss of suitable habitat
for aquatic species. The following grant opportunities have been identified as potential funding
sources for this project:
.
Required
Project
�
Required
Grant Program
Agency
Deadline*
Minimum
Objective
ective
Project
Match
Stage
g
Section 319
EPA/FDE
P
May2013
y'
40%
Reduce Non-
Conceptual
p
point pollution
TMDL
EPA/FDE
Mar/Jul/
50%
Reduce Non-
60% Design /
P
Nov
point pollution
Permitted
2012/2013
South Florida
USFWS
April,
ril 2013
0% required
Habitat
Conceptual
p
Coastal Program
Restoration
encouraged)
Community-
TNC /
April,
ril 2013
50%
Habitat
Conceptual
p
Based Matching
NOAA
Restoration
Grants Program
National Coastal
Habitat
Wetlands
USFWS
June, 2013
50%
Restoration
Conceptual
Conservation
Grant Program
Urban Waters
EPA
January,
$2 500
Water Quality
Conceptual
p
Small Grants**
2013
Improvement
Notes: * 2013 deadlines are estimated and programs resources are not guaranteed
** This grant applies only if project is considered a demonstration
EVE
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Grant Application Checklist
;
Many of the requirements for the above grant programs are similar, although each grant
application has its own format and should be reviewed and completed on an individual basis.
Grant application guidance for each program is available in Appendix D. The elements below
are provided as a quick reference to assist with assembling multiple applications:
❑ Applicant Contact Information
❑ Project Location Details
❑ Type of Project
❑ Project Objective
❑ Project Synopsis
❑ Project Description
❑ Expected Project Benefits
❑ Project Work Plan
❑ Project Monitoring Plan
❑ Project Budget
❑ Amount Requested
Information Necessary to Complete Applications
❑ Applicant Matching Amount
❑ Cooperating Partners/Match
❑ Benefits to Community
❑ Community Involvement
❑ Project Milestones
❑ Project Deliverables
❑ Project Team
❑ Required Forms
❑ Literature Cited
❑ Appendices
The project information in the checklist above can be obtained largely from the information
provided in the project descriptions provided in the preceding section. More detailed information
such as project milestones and deliverables will need to be developed from the available project
information, and specific formats vary by grant program. Detailed budget information will need
to be provided using the individual grant applications. Information on the project team will also
need to be assembled prior to submittal.
Items that are included with this submittal can be utilized to provide the following checklist items:
R1 Project Location Details
R1 Type of Project
R1 Project Objective
R1 Project Synopsis
R1 Project Description
R1 Expected Project Benefits
R1 Project Work Plan
R1 Project Budget
R1 Project Milestones
Items that will need additional information to complete include the following:
0
Applicant Contact Information
N
Community Involvement
0
Project Deliverables
N
Project Team
0
Amount Requested
N
Project Monitoring Plan
0
Applicant Matching Amount
N
Required Forms
0
Cooperating Partners/Match
0
Literature Cited
0
Benefits to Community
N
Appendices
IR
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012 aillre,d
The agency applying for the grant will need to determine the amount of matching funds and
cooperating partners available for the project. Requirements for funding match range from 0%
to 50%, and additional points may be awarded for providing more than the minimum amount.
Community involvement and benefit is also generally encouraged and will need to be
considered when completing the applications.
Most applications require only conceptual plans and a reasonably well -developed budget.
However, the TMDL grant program requires projects to be at the 60% design stage, permitted,
and ready for construction. The projects described herein would need to be developed
accordingly to meet the TMDL grant program requirements.
Specific forms are required for many of the applications and they provide specific details about
how the information must be formatted. Generally, however, the information requested is very
similar among grant programs.
Project Number: 2
Project Name: Cross Key Estates (Canal ID: 45)
Project Type: Further data collection and design evaluation
Description of Project Area
Canal No. 45 is located within the Cross Key Estates neighborhood in Key Largo at Mile Marker
106. The canal is located within the halo zone Water Body Identification (WBID) 6006A. Halo
Zone WBID 6006A is defined by the waters located within 500 meters of the shoreline of Key
Largo.
Impairments Addressed by the Project
The December 2008 Reasonable Assurance Document (RAD) developed for the Northern Keys
identified WBID 6006A as being impaired for nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus).
However, the December 2008 RAD demonstrated that the WBID should be classified as
category 4b; indicating that the waterbody is impaired but that the implementation of a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is not required because it is expected that the waterbody will
reach the water quality criteria based on management activities that have been undertaken. In
the case of WBID 6006A, the management strategy anticipated to allow the waterbody to meet
the water quality criteria is the implementation of advanced wastewater treatment throughout
the watershed. An update to the RAD that was prepared in December 2011 demonstrated that
the WBID is also impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). The DO impairment was not assigned an
anthropogenic cause, however, because water quality monitoring did not identify concentrations
of total nitrogen, total phosphorous, or biochemical oxygen demand that exceeded water quality
criteria.
During the May 9t"7 2012 assessment, water in the canal displayed no visible flow and had a
greenish tint indicating the presence of a phytoplankton bloom. Water quality was categorized
as fair to poor based on DO concentrations measured just below the water surface and at 8 feet
below the surface, which equaled 5.5 mg/L and 3.2 mg/L, respectively. The DO measurement
collected at 8 feet below the water surface is below the FDEP standard (4.0 mg/L) for impaired
we
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012 aillre,d
water bodies. The canal depth was noted to be greater than 20 feet. Weed wrack accumulation
was not identified as a water quality issue in this canal system. However, organic material was
noted in the sediment sample collected at the far end of the canal.
Remedial Technology Evaluation
The primary water quality management issues within this system were identified as (1) the need
to reduce canal depth to eliminate the deeper stagnant portions of the water column (2) removal
of accumulated organic sediments prior to backfilling; and (3) pumping to increase circulation.
Removal of accumulated organic sediments and backfilling the canals to a low tide depth of 6
feet would help to improve water quality. Other potential restoration technologies for the ends of
the finger canals would include enhanced water circulation through pumping.
Backfilling was evaluated as the technology to reduce the canal depth. Any accumulated
organics should be removed prior to backfilling. Cost estimation for removal of accumulated
organics and backfilling for the Cross Key Estates canal system is based on an assumed
uniform canal depth of 20 feet, backfilling to a depth of 6 feet and an assumed depth of
accumulated organics of 3 feet over 1 /3 of the canal bottom. The organic muck is assumed to
be non toxic. Backfill material will consist of A-3 classified material and or clean construction
debris from approved contractors. Clean construction debris is currently unavailable; therefore a
conservative cost estimate for backfill reflects only purchased backfill. Depending on when the
backfilling recommendations are implemented potential future backfill maybe available from the
Cudjoe Key wastewater treatment plant. Specific canal profile data and accumulated
organics data are required for a more detailed cost estimate for this site.
Due to the long length (820 meters) and large number of finger canals (10) in this canal system,
additional technologies may be necessary to increase circulation in the most inland portions of
the canals. Installation of pumps at the end of each finger canal was selected for a preliminary
cost estimate. Further engineering evaluation is required to determine if this is the most
effective design. Pumping costs would be approximately $50/month/finger canal assuming a
desired flushing time of approximately 4 days. It may be necessary to install the pump on an
existing dock or construct a pump mount to facilitate unobstructed water conveyance.
A conceptual schematic of the evaluated technologies is included in Appendix C along with
estimated costs for each technology. The costs were utilized to assist in final selection of a
preferred alternative.
Preferred Remedial Alternative
No preferred alternative is presently offered for this canal system. Lack of engineering design
data, uncertainty in the design assumptions, and high estimated costs are the basis for this
decision.
Description of Conceptual Schematic Utilized for Remedial Costing:
Removal of accumulated organics within the yellow shaded area of the Cross Key Estates
Conceptual Schematic figure (refer to Appendix C) will be performed via hydraulic dredge.
47
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012 aillre,d
Shaded region will be backfilled to a depth of 6 feet at low tide using sand fill and or if available
clean construction debris.
To increase circulation at the far ends of each finger canal, water could be circulated using a
pump and 1 hp motor discharged through 4" PVC pipe.
Assumptions for Conceptual Schematic:
• Depth of accumulated organics: 3 feet over 1 /3 of canal bottom
• The bottom of the canal is 20 feet below the surface of the water at low tide
• The accumulated organics are non toxic and may be dewatered for transplant.
Organics Removal
Item
#
Units
Approx
Qty
Item
Unit Price
Cost
1
LS
1.0
Removal of Organics-
Mobilization
$ 507000.00
$ 507000.00
2
CY
177037*
Removal of Organics -Hydraulic
Dredge
$ 10.00
$1707370.00
3
CY
177037*
Removal of Organics-
Dewatering
$ 13.00
$ 2217481.00
3
Ton
17610*
Transportation and Disposal of
Accumulated Organics
$ 48.00
$777280.00
Subtotal
$ 5197131.00
Contingency
20%
$ 103, 826.00
Sub total
$6229957.00
Construction Administration
$ 417530.00
Final Design and Permitting
$ 517913.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 7169400.00
Note: * preliminary estimate only — value needs field verification
48
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
Backfiling
Item
#
Units
Approx
Qty
Item
Unit Pric
Cost
1
Ton
3771614.5
Backfill
$ 3.00
$171327844.00
2
Ton
3777 614.5
Trucking- Backf i I I
$ 6.25
$27360, 091.00
4
DAY
486.5
Backhoe and Operator
(B-66)
$ 660.88
$ 321, 485.00
5
DAY
486.5
Barge rental and
Operator (30'x901)
$294.20
$ 1437114.00
6
DAY
486.5
Loader and Crew (B-3C)
$ 2,796.00
$173607114.00
7
EA
5.0
Sediment Control (boom)
100 feet
$ 3, 300.00
$ 16, 500.00
Subtotal
$57334 7148. 00
Contingency
20%
$17066, 830.00
Sub total
$694009978.00
Construction
Administration
$ 1287020.00
Final Design and
Permitting
$ 160.024.00
Total
TOTAL
$696899022.00
Pumping to enhance circulation
Item
#
Units
Approx
Qty
Item
Unit Price
Cost
1
EA
10.0
Furnish and Install
Seawater Pump
$
167047.00
$ 1607470.00
Subtotal
$ 1607470.00
Contingency
20%
$ 32, 094.00
Sub total
$ 1929564.00
Construction
Administration
$ 107000.00
Final Design and
Permitting
$ 25, 000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 2279564.00
ELI
'�1
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
Assumptions for Cost Estimate:
- Cost estimates for backfill will reflect only purchased backfill
- Assuming specific weight of backfill 115lb/cf
- Assumed pump efficiency of 62%
- Pumps would be installed at available locations on seawalls or docks
Benefits of Proposed Restoration Project
'�1
The proposed restoration project consisting of the removal of the accumulated organics by
hydraulic dredge in the selected areas, backfilling, and the implementation of circulation pumps
will help to address the existing water quality impairments.
The removal of the accumulated organics will increase the DO within the waterbody by reducing
the sediment oxygen demand (SOD) imposed by the accumulated organics. Given the highly
organic nature of the sediment within the waterbody, it is possible that the SOD could be as high
as 20 g/m2/d (Davis 1950). Given the area of the waterbody of 44,000 m2 and an assumed
natural SOD of approximately 5 g/m2/d7 it is estimated that a reduction in oxygen consumption of
6607000 g/d (1,455 Ib/d) could be realized from the hydraulic dredging activities.
The implementation of circulation pumps will help the waterbody achieve improved levels of DO
by providing greater exchange with nearshore waters. Each pump was sized so that a flushing
time of 4 days would be realized in accordance with EPA recommendations (Boozer 1979). It is
proposed that the increased flushing, a 170 percent increase above the existing flushing
induced by tidal forces, will increase the water quality within the waterbody to approximate that
of the nearshore waters.
Grant Programs
None proposed at this time
Project Number: 3
Project Name: Marathon (Canal ID: 223)
Project Type: Design, permitting, construction, construction management, and
monitoring for weed gate system
Description of Project Area
Canal 223 is located on Vaca Key in the City of Marathon, Florida northwest of the Marathon
County Airport at Mile Marker 51. The canal is located within the halo zone of Water Body
Identification (WBID) 6011A. Halo Zone WBID 6011A is defined by the waters located within
500 meters of the shoreline of Vaca Key.6006A.
50
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
Impairments Addressed by the Project
The December 2008 Reasonable Assurance Document (RAD) developed for the Northern Keys
identified WBID 6011 A as being impaired for nutrients, in particular total nitrogen and total
phosphorous. However, the December 2008 RAD demonstrated that the WBID should be
classified as category 4b; indicating that the waterbody is impaired but that the implementation
of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is not required because it is expected that the
waterbody will reach the water quality criteria based on management activities that have been
undertaken. In the case of WBID 6011 A, the management strategy that is anticipated to allow
the waterbody to meet water quality criteria is the implementation of advanced wastewater
treatment throughout the watershed. An update to the RAD that was prepared in December
2011 demonstrates that the WBID is also impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). The DO
impairment was not assigned an anthropogenic cause, however, because water quality
monitoring did not identify concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorous, or biochemical
oxygen demand that exceeded water quality criteria.
During the May 15, 2012 assessment, the canal water displayed no visible flow and was visually
determined to be moderately clear with algae suspended in the water column. The DO
measurements collected just below the water surface and at 6 feet below the water surface
exhibited concentrations of 3.7 mg/L and 3.9 mg/L, respectively; which is below the FDEP
standard for impaired water bodies of 4.0 mg/L. Aerial photographs show large weed wrack
mats blanketing the northern part of the canal. The weed wrack is likely to accumulate in the
canal system and sink to the bottom. There the accumulated organics will decay and utilize DO,
potentially leading to anoxia and enhanced hydrogen sulfide production. The canal narrows as
it continues south, and terminates in a large stagnant basin which adds to the restriction in
natural flushing. The canal depth was noted to be approximately 8 feet.
Remedial Technology Evaluation
The primary water quality management issues for this canal system were identified as (1)
prevention of additional weed wrack from entering the canal; and (2) pumping to enhance
circulation. The relatively shallow canal depth of 8 feet makes it a poor candidate for backfilling.
Based upon the shallow depth, it was also assumed that a large volume of accumulated
organics was not present. However, field verification through bottom profiling and sediment
characterization should be performed to verify this assumption.
To keep additional organics (weed wrack) from entering the canal a physical weed wrack gate in
conjunction with an air weed wrack gate would be added to the entrance of the canals. To
increase circulation in the southern part of the canal, water should be pumped from near the
entrance of the canal into the south end of the canal. It may be necessary to install the pump on
an existing dock or construct a pump mount to facilitate unobstructed water conveyance from
Florida Bay to the south portion of the canal. This pumping application was sized to provide
improved circulation for the area south of the mangrove constriction. Post -installation monitoring
would be helpful to assess the effectiveness of the implemented water quality treatment
technology.
51
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012 ame,d
A conceptual schematic of the evaluated technologies is included in Appendix C along with
estimated costs for each technology. The costs were utilized to assist in final selection of a
preferred alternative.
Preferred Remedial Alternative
A weed wrack gate is proposed for this project which is intended to provide a barrier to prevent
floating or suspended organic material (weed wrack) from entering and accumulating within the
canal. The gate is designed to allow for navigational access during normal operation.
Description of Conceptual Schematic:
Two sections of physical weed wrack gate shall be constructed on both sides of the air weed
wrack gate. The physical weed wrack gate on the NE side of the air gate will be approximately
80 feet in length and the physical weed wrack gate on the SW side of the air gate will be
approximately 15 feet.
Physical weed wrack gate sections will be comprised of wooded or aluminum pilings that will be
placed approximately 10' on center. High- Strength Fiberglass Panels will be affixed to the
pilings in order to block the flow of weed wrack. The fiberglass panels shall be oriented such
that as mean sea level 2.5' of fiberglass remains above the water and 2.5' of fiberglass remains
below the water. Plastic netting shall be affixed to both sides of the fiberglass and offer
extended weed wrack guarding above and below the limits of the fiberglass.
flastkc Netting...
Mean Sea Level
Fiberglass Panels
52
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
Pl3stir, Netting
Fgl:3ss
Mean Sep Level
'�1
The gap between the ends of the physical weed wrack gate shall contain a 30' air weed wrack
gate. Coarse bubble diffusers will be spaced at an interval of 1.5 feet. The universal diffuser
mounts will be used to affix the coarse bubble diffusers to the air weed wrack gate lateral. The
air weed wrack gate lateral line will rest approximately 1 foot above the bottom surface to allow
for maximum boating clearance.
A 36 URAI pump in conjunction with a 5hp motor will provide air through 3" PVC pipe to the air
weed wrack gate. Calculations for determining the pump specifications were based on an
assumed diffuser depth of 7' which is 1' above the given depth of the canal bottom. This
estimate is subject to change based on detailed design.
Marathon 223 Preferred Alternative Cost Estimate
Physical and Air Weed Wrack Gate
Item
#
Units
Approx
Qty
Item
Unit Price
Cost
1
EA
1.0
Furnish and Install
Physical/ Air Weed
Wrack Gate
$
427747.00
$ 427747.00
Subtotal
$ 427747.00
Contingency
20%
$ 87549.00
Sub total
$ 519296.00
Construction
Administration
$ 87000.00
Final Design and
Permitting
$ 157000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 749296.00
53
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
Assumptions for Cost Estimate:
-Assumed Motor efficiency of 85%
'�1
Monthly costs for the air weed wrack gate are approximately $220/month assuming diffuser
discharge depth of 7 feet.
Benefits of Proposed Restoration Project
The proposed restoration project consists of the construction of a weed wrack gate to help
address the existing water quality impairments. The proposed weed wrack gate addresses the
DO impairment in a two -fold manner: by preventing the accumulation of organic material in the
benthic zone of the waterbody; and by helping to aerate incoming and outgoing water.
Grant Programs
The project identified above is expected to have a positive effect on water quality within the
canal and surrounding areas. Traditionally, water quality and habitat restoration efforts have
focused on restoration of natural ecosystems impacted by human activity. Grant programs are
typically geared toward these types of projects. For this reason, it will be critical to emphasize
that projects aimed at water quality improvements within Keys canal systems are likely to
provide equally significant improvements to the overall marine environment. The following grant
opportunities have been identified as potential funding sources for this project:
Required
Project
�
Required
Grant Program
Agency
Deadline*
Minimum
Objective
ective
Project
Match
Stage
g
Section 319
EPA/FDE
P
May2013
y'
40%
Reduce Non-
Conceptual
p
point pollution
TMDL
EPA/FDE
Mar/Jul/
50%
Reduce Non-
60% Design /
P
Nov
point pollution
Permitted
2012/2013
South Florida
USFWS
April,
ril 2013
0% required
Habitat
Conceptual
p
Coastal Program
Restoration
encouraged)
Community-
TNC /
April,
ril 2013
50%
Habitat
Conceptual
p
Based Matching
NOAA
Restoration
Grants Program
National Coastal
Habitat
Wetlands
USFWS
June, 2013
50%
Restoration
Conceptual
Conservation
Grant Program
54
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
Required
Project
�
Required
Grant Program
Agency
Deadline*
Minimum
Objective
ective
Project
Match
Stage
g
Urban Waters
EPA
January,
$2 500
Water Quality
Conceptual
p
Small Grants**
2013
Improvement
Notes: * 2013 deadlines are estimated and programs resources are not guaranteed
** This grant applies only if project is considered a demonstration
Grant Application Checklist
Many of the requirements for the above grant programs are similar, although each grant
application has its own format and should be reviewed and completed on an individual basis.
Grant application guidance for each program is available in Appendix D. The elements below
are provided as a quick reference to assist with assembling multiple applications:
❑ Applicant Contact Information
❑ Project Location Details
❑ Type of Project
❑ Project Objective
❑ Project Synopsis
❑ Project Description
❑ Expected Project Benefits
❑ Project Work Plan
❑ Project Monitoring Plan
❑ Project Budget
❑ Amount Requested
Information Necessary to Complete Applications
❑ Applicant Matching Amount
❑ Cooperating Partners/Match
❑ Benefits to Community
❑ Community Involvement
❑ Project Milestones
❑ Project Deliverables
❑ Project Team
❑ Required Forms
❑ Literature Cited
❑ Appendices
The project information in the checklist can be obtained largely from the information provided in
the project descriptions provided in the preceding section. More detailed information such as
project milestones and deliverables will need to be developed from the available project
information. Specific budget information will need to be provided using the individual grant
formats. Information on the project team will also need to be assembled prior to submittal.
Items that are included with this submittal can be utilized to provide the following checklist items:
R1 Project Location Details
R1 Type of Project
R1 Project Objective
R1 Project Synopsis
R1 Project Description
R1 Expected Project Benefits
R1 Project Work Plan
55
R1 Project Budget
R1 Project Milestones
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
Items that will need additional information to complete include the following:
0 Applicant Contact Information
0 Project Deliverables
0 Amount Requested
0 Applicant Matching Amount
0 Cooperating Partners/Match
0 Benefits to Community
0 Community Involvement
0 Project Team
0 Project Monitoring Plan
0 Required Forms
0 Literature Cited
0 Appendices
'�1
The agency applying for the grant will need to determine the amount of matching funds and
cooperating partners available for the project. Requirements for funding match range from 0%
to 50%, and additional points may be awarded for providing more than the minimum amount.
Community involvement and benefit is also generally encouraged and will need to be
considered when completing the applications.
Most applications require only conceptual plans and a reasonably well -developed budget.
However, the TMDL grant program requires projects to be at the 60% design stage, permitted,
and ready for construction. The projects described herein would need to be developed
accordingly to meet the TMDL grant program requirements.
Specific forms are required for many of the applications and they provide specific details about
how the information must be formatted. Generally, however, the information requested is very
similar among grant programs.
References Cited
Davis, W.S. 1950. Brief History of Sediment Oxygen Demand Investigations; in Hatcher, K.J.
Sediment Oxygen Demand. Institute of Natural Resources, University of Georgia. Athens,
Georgia.
Boozer, A. C. 1979. A Review of the Impacts of Coastal Marina Siting, Construction, and
Activities as Related to Water Quality Considerations, Publication No. 001-79, South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Field and Analytical Services,
Division of Biological and Special Services, Columbia, SC.
56
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
Task 6. Adaptive management process
Background
The objective of the task is to identify the steps that can be used to periodically assess the
effectiveness of the restoration and management actions, measure progress toward goals,
report that progress to stakeholders and funding entities, and (when necessary) redirect efforts
in more productive directions.
Because of the short timeline available for Phase 1 of this project, the purpose of Task 6 is to
provide a preliminary description of the adaptive management process in condensed form. It is
assumed that a more comprehensive summary, appropriate for inclusion in a Keys -wide master
plan, will be developed in Phase 2 of the project if funding becomes available.
A key role of adaptive management is to provide resource managers, administrators and
stakeholders a logical framework in which technical information can be collected and used to
guide management actions. The purpose is to target the use of limited resources in ways that
ensure program effectiveness (NRC 2011). Adaptive management also seeks to improve
coordination between strategy and operations, and ensure that scientific and engineering
information is well -coordinated with decision -making and decision -support activities. EPA
(2008) describes it as a "cycle of active strategy development, planning, implementation, and
evaluation" that allows an entire resource management program to "learn and change based on
the outputs of the adaptive management process".
The U.S. Department of Interior and Department of Commerce (DOI and DOC 2009), in a report
providing recommendations on steps that could be taken to improve the Chesapeake Bay
management effort, have summarized the process as follows:
• Define Programmatic Goals
• Plan and Prioritize — Management strategies and actions will need to be planned and
prioritized to meet the adopted goals. Monitoring should begin prior to implementation or
enhancement of management actions so baseline conditions are documented.
• Implement — Policies and actions are implemented through coordinated partner efforts
that effectively align resources.
• Monitor -- Monitoring is critical to document changes in ecological conditions, tracking of
management actions, and progress toward performance measures.
• Evaluate — Indicators are used to synthesize monitoring data and assess changes in
ecological and socioeconomic elements. Evaluation includes assessing effectiveness of
management actions to achieve desired outcomes, adequacy of supporting science
(models, monitoring, and research) to predict and detect ecosystem change, and
partnership capacity to implement programs and actions.
• Adjust — Based on the outcomes of the evaluate step, both short- and long-term
adjustments may need to be for management actions and partnership performance.
57
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012 aillre,d
Short-term adjustments (1 year or less) may be made to management actions or
strategies or partnership capacity to implement programs. Longer -term adjustments (1
year or more) may include modifying goals and management strategies and adjusting
long-term monitoring programs.
The recommended process is summarized graphically in Figure 6.1.
Refine goals aad flidica tors
000beconcm7 .c
performance
GOALS
F
ADJUST PLAN and PRIORITIZE
tI a le y s
Actions Fra dices
a sciallce 40 Prioritize
10.r7tang Locations
#qn parin er
EVALUATE IMPLEMENT
Acftons Coordinate partner
Ecosystem change actrvrties and resources
science for sufficient
QaaHedy and am afl o f T
Actions
Ecosystem change
Partnership
peoanr'
Figure 6.1. Adaptive management framework. (Source: DOI and DOC 2009)
For an ecosystem -scale program, DOI and DOC (2009) also note that the adaptive
management framework will depend on supporting science and engineering elements,
including:
58
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012 aillre,d
• Observations and monitoring — provide the raw data that form the basis for all other
science elements and adaptive management. Monitoring and observations are needed
to define the status of ecosystem integrity, prepare models to forecast ecological
conditions and test management scenarios, and document changes in management
actions and ecosystem condition.
• Information management — ensures that the observations and monitoring data are of
sufficient quality to be used for all the science applications, are accessible in databases
to ensure long-term integrity, and systems are in place to provide rapid access to and
application of the information.
• Assessment and research — monitoring data are assessed to define the extent of
problems and track changes over time. Research is conducted to understand and
explain the ecological conditions, examine the effectiveness of potential solutions, and
develop models to test hypotheses and forecast outcomes of different management and
socioeconomic scenarios.
• Indicators — selection of a full suite of variables to that can be measured and analyzed
is crucial so scientists, engineers and managers can track ecological, socioeconomic
and institutional trends and compare them to the objectives. The development of a clear
set of measurable indicators and benchmarks allows tracking of restoration progress and
the ability to report back to the public.
• Communication Process — provides the assessment and synthesis of scientific
information to improve decision making for federal and state managers and policy
makers, local governments and land -use planners, elected officials, and the general
public. Products for Federal and state resource managers would be focused on helping
them adjust management policies and actions based on an improved understanding of
the ecosystem and effectiveness of management actions. Products for local
governments and land -use planners would provide implications for a balance between
economic growth and a sustainable ecosystem. Products for the general public would
help them understand how their economic and social decisions affect, and derive benefit
from, ecosystem goods and services. Products for elected officials would provide
implications of how laws, policies, and budget decisions affect sustainability and
ecosystem conditions.
• Decision support tools — improved decision -making will depend on delivering the
information to each audience in a timely and user-friendly fashion.
Potential Application to the CMMP
The CMMP will obviously be carried out on a much smaller scale, and with substantially fewer
resources, than the ecosystem -level management program described and evaluated by DOI
and DOC (2009). However, the adaptive management approach shown in Fig. 1 can be used to
guide CMMP development and implementation. This could be done by including the following
components as explicit elements of the CMMP:
59
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
1. Define Programmatic Issues and Goals
Phase 1 of CMMP development has identified a preliminary set of priority management
issues and goals:
o Issue 1. Water quality — Eutrophication and DO -Related Issues
Goal: Restore and maintain water quality conditions in canal systems to levels
that are consistent with the State's current water quality criteria for Class III
waters, whose designated uses include human recreation as well as the
propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and
wildlife.
o Issue 2. Water quality — Organic Matter (e.g., Weed Wrack)
Goal: In canal systems whose location make them susceptible to receiving large
inputs of seagrass leaves and other `weed wrack' from nearshore waters, install
cost-effective barriers to prevent or substantially reduce those inputs to levels
that do not contribute to eutrophication, hypoxia, or other water and sediment
quality issues within the canals.
o Issue 3. Sediment quality
Goal: Reduce the incidence of anoxia, problematic sulfide levels and sediment
toxicity in canals where these issues are present, and prevent these issues from
developing in canal systems where they are not yet present.
o Issue 4. Habitat quality
Goal: Protect aquatic and benthic canal habitats that currently support native
flora and fauna, and improve water and sediment quality in other areas to levels
that are capable of supporting them.
o Issue 5. Public Involvement in the Canal Management Process
Goal: Create and maintain a constituency of informed, involved citizens who
understand the environmental and economic issues involved in managing
manmade canal systems
These can be used to guide management actions for the remainder of Phase 1. If
funding becomes available, they can be fleshed out and further refined in Phase 2 of the
program.
2. Plan and Prioritize
An initial list of potential project sites and site -specific restoration concepts were
developed using the information collated and evaluated in Task 1 of this project, as well
as site visits that included visual inspections of canals and spot -collection of depth
information and hydrographic (e.g., DO, water temperature, pH, and conductivity) data.
Two groups of canals were selected for site visits:
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012 ame,d
o Canals in subdivisions that were identified as water quality problem areas by a
working group convened by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
in 1996; and
o Canals known to have moderate to severe water quality problems associated with
weed wrack.
In the subdivisions identified as water quality problem areas by the 19996 SFWMD
working group, canals likely to have the most serious water quality problems, due to
poor designs that limit circulation and flushing, were identified by examining aerial
photographs and information from the project geodatabase. A site visit was then
performed to confirm that the most problematic canals within each subdivision had been
identified. To identify canals with potential weed wrack issues, high -resolution aerial
photographs taken during the winter of 2006 were examined to identify those with
significant organic flotsam coverage at the water surface.
The two groups of canal systems that were evaluated using site visits are summarized in
the Task 4 summary above, in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Those canals were then evaluated
and prioritized using the criteria described in Task 4 and Task 5. The criteria were used
in Task 5 to develop an initial short-list of project sites and restoration activities for which
implementation funds may be sought during the next few years.
3. Implement
The operational elements of the CMMP will be guided by the leadership and direction of
the members of the WQPP Steering Committee and its Canal Subcommittee, which
include the following partners:
• U.S. EPA
• U.S. National Park Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection
• South Florida Water Management District
• Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
• Florida Department of Health
• Three individuals in local government in the Florida Keys
• Three citizens knowledgeable about the WQPP
In order to implement the CMMP, the state and federal agencies represented on the
WQPP and the Canal Subcommittee will need to work cooperatively with the local
governments and homeowner associations who will be the lead entities carrying out
canal restoration and management activities. The results of those activities can then be
evaluated by the Steering Committee and Canal Subcommittee, and the program's
goals, objectives, strategies and operational procedures adjusted, using the steps
outlined below.
61
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
4. Monitor
As noted by DOI and DOC (2009), monitoring is critical to document changes in
environmental conditions and tracking of management actions and progress toward
goals. Currently, it appears that no monitoring programs are in place to track changes in
water, sediment or habitat quality within canal systems in the Florida Keys. Baseline
bathymetric information also appears to be unavailable for most canals. For Phase 1 of
the CMMP, a GIS-based database developed through a companion project, and the very
basic field work that was done as part of Task 4 of this project, have been the primary
sources of available information. If Phase 2 of the CMMP is funded, the development of
a more robust monitoring program should be one of its primary work elements.
5. Evaluate
Evaluation includes assessing the effectiveness of management actions to achieve
desired outcomes, adequacy of available information to detect changes in the managed
resources, and the capacity of the management program and its partners to implement
programs and actions. If Phase 2 of the CMMP receives funding, the development of a
defined evaluation process should be one of its work elements. Formal evaluations
using that process could then be performed periodically (e.g., every three to five years)
by the Canal Subcommittee, with the results reported to the WQPP Steering Committee
to provide regular updates to administrators and stakeholders on the effectiveness of the
canal management program.
6. Adjust
As noted by DOI and DOC (2009), the outcomes of the evaluation step can be used to
develop short- and long-term adjustments for management actions and partnership
performance. Short-term adjustments may be made to management actions or
strategies or partnership capacity to implement projects. Longer -term adjustments may
include modifying goals and management strategies and adjusting long-term monitoring
programs. As with the monitoring and evaluation steps, if Phase 2 of the CMMP is
funded, the development of a defined adjustment process that will be applied to the
canal management process should be included as one of its work elements.
62
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
References Cited
DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) and DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce). 2009.
Strengthening Science and Decision Support for Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake
Bay and its Watershed. A Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202f of Executive Order 13508. DOI
and DOC. Washington, DC. 58 pp.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Strengthening the Management,
Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA, Annapolis, MD. 122
pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in
the Chesapeake Bay: An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC. 241 pp.
63
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
APPENDIX A
Task 5 Score Sheets
•"
Task 5 Priority Canal Ranking
GIS Canal
Potential Restoration
Overall Score from
WWT
Subdivision Name
Number
Technologies
Task 5
present
Rank
Primany Weed wrack
Wynken, Blynken and
loading prevention;
78
45.3
Nod
secondary treatment
backfilling
yes
1
Backfilling and/or Pumping
Cross Key Estates
45
41.6
to increase circulation
yes
2
Weed wrack Loading
Marathon
223
Prevention primary
39
technology.
yes
3
Culvert Maintenance (plus
Bay Point
433
evaluation of adequate
37.8
culvert size)
yes
4
Little Venice
200
Circulation pump
35.6
yes
5
Gulfrest Park
437
Circulation pump
32
yes
6
Increase in circulation by
pumping or culvert. Depth
Boot Key Harbor
243
information will be
32
required to evaluate if
backfilling is appropriate.
yes
7
Little Venice
196
Backfilling
30.1
8
yes
Circulation pump
Key Haven
471
(reduction in stormwater
26.8
loading is appropriate)
yes
9
Lake Surprise -Sexton
24
Culvert to Lake Surprise
26.7
Cove
Yes
10
Hammer Point
93
Backfilling
25.8
yes
11
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Bay Point
Canal Number
433
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero
will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Culvert Maintenance (plus evaluation of
Technologies
adequate culvert size)
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
5
Comments
DO was measured as < 4 mg/L > 2 mg/L.
Existing culvert on north end is blocked.
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or habitat
quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or issues
ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
5
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection within
the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that
Comments
Efficiency of existing culvert once
would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
maintained should be evaluated to
further assess the effectiveness
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
-2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of water from within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQ than the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
4.8
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a value
of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10 would
indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected. Analogous
Comments
negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative effects on
users.
76 lots would incur benefit.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property owners
and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding support
for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to +10, with
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
-10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100% agreement
with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
Yes, this subdivision has WWT
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present = 0.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
30% plans can be prepared with existing
data. No survey data or as-builts plans
are available.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
8
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation
requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access.
Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation
and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Comments
Currently there is land access in a vacant
lot for maintenance equipment;
however, mangroves have colonized the
culvert area and will require pruning.
Score
37.8
Overall Score
Comments
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Boot Key Harbor
Canal Number
243
Potential Restoration
Increase in circulation by pumping or
culvert. Depth information will be
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero
will be assigned)
Technologies
required to evaluate if backfilling is
appropriate.
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
5
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
DO was < 4 mg/L but > 2 mg/L. Sediment
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
sample could not collected. No odors or
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10.
Weed wrack problems reported. Very
significant algae problem.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
5
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection within
the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that
Comments
Width of canal system and low energy at
the canal mouth will limit effectiveness of
would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
pumping. Closet location for a culvert is
not the best location hydrologically.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
-2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of water from within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQ than the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
10
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10 would
indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected. Analogous
Comments
negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative effects on
users.
A score of 10 was given due to heavy
recreational use.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property owners
and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding support
for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to +10,
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%
agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT Present.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
3
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
Comments
30%plans can be prepared with existing
data for pumping of improved circulation.
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
Insufficient data is available to evaluate
backfilling feasibility.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
1
Multiple pumps will be needed and will
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation
increase costs. Culvert installation is
requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access.
Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation
Comments
under US #1 and the distance to the
adjacent canal to provide flow through is
and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
at quite a distance and will require
extensive access coordination and
difficulty in construction.
Overall Score
Score
32
Comments
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Cross Key Estates
Canal Number
45
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Backfilling and/or Pumping to increase
circulation
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
5
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
DO < 4 mg/L but > 2 mg/L
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
7
This is a long deep canal (-20 feet) which
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
has good fish population with the deeper
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
Comments
zone and far ends of the canal only
showing water quality impacts. Length
g q Y � p g
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
and shape of the canal will limit
effectiveness.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
0
Backfilling would improve the water
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
quality discharging to the nearshore
zone. Circulation pump could negatively
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
impact the WQ in the nearshore zone for
a short time interval.
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
8.6
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative
effects on users.
243 parcels will incur benefit
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0
to +10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
3
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
Comments
30% plans can be prepared with existing
data for pumping of improved
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
circulation. Insufficient data is available
to evaluate backfilling feasibility.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
8
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of
access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
Comments
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
No major apparent issues
Overall Score
Score
41.6
Comments
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Gulfrest Park
Canal Number
437
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Circulation pump
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
5
DO was measured as > 4 mg/L but > 2
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
mg/L) at 6 foot depth (- bottom of
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
canal).
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
3
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Comments
Low energy at mouth will limit
effectiveness of pump circulation
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
-2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of water from within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQthan the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
6
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative
effects on users.
108 lots would incur benefit.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%
agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
3
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
Insufficient data is available for 30%
plans for circulation pumping.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
7
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of
access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Comments
Currently there is land access to install a
pump; may need to install electric, no
apparent permitting issues
Score
32.0
Overall Score
Comments
Weed wrack loading does not appear to
be an issue in this canal
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Hammer Point
Canal Number
93
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Bacl<filling
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
0
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
DO was > 4.0 mg/L
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
Comments
Due to relatively high existing DO little
improvement is anticipated.
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
Backfilling should improve water quality
discharging to the nearshore zone.
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
1.8
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
30 parcels will incur benefit
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative
effects on users.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0
to +10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
3
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
Insufficient data is available to evaluate
backfilling feasibility.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
7
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of
access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
Comments
No permitting issues but backfill would
have to be barged in from Florida Bay.
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Score
25.8
Overall Score
Comments
The canal system currently displays fair
to ood water quality.
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Key Haven
Canal Number
471
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero
will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Circulation pump (reduction in
stormwater loading is appropriate)
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
5
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
Comments
DO was < 4 mg/L but > 2 mg/L. Minor sea
weed loading issue. Organic muck
present in bottom sediments which ddid
not have an odor. Poor ciculation is major
cause of poor water quality.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
7
Long canal length and irregular shape is
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection within
the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that
Comments
limiting circulation. An increase in
h
circulation through pumping will assist in
would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
removing stormwater loading; high
energy at mouth will assist in flushing.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
-2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of water from within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQ than the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
7.8
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10 would
indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected. Analogous
Comments
negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative effects on
users.
188 parcels will incur benefit
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property owners
and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding support
for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to +10,
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%
agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
0
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT. Stormwater pipes discharge
into this canal.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
30% plans can be prepared with existing
data. No survey data or as-builts plans are
available.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
2
Multiple pumps are likely to be required
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation
due to numerous stormwater pipe
requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access.
Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation
Comments
outfalls into the different fingers of the
canal system. Access for multple pumps
and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
will be difficult due to density of homes;
electric likely required. no apparent
permitting issues.
Overall Score
Score
26.8
Comments
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Lake Surprise - Sexton Cove
Canal Number
24
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Culvert to Lake Surprise
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
0
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
DO above > 4 mg/L at the furthest point
of the canal.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
4
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Comments
Culvert cannot be located at the best
location to increase flushing
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
-2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of water from within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQthan the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
7.7
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative
effects on users.
187 parcel lots would incur benefit
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%
agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
30% plans can be prepared with existing
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
data. No survey data or as-builts plans
are available.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
0
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of
access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Comments
Extensive mangrove and seabed areas
would have to be disrupted to get the
culvert out to the main channel
Score
26.7
Overall Score
Water quality appeared fairly good so
Comments
that the improvement would be mininal
and the environmental impact of
installing the culvert would be significant.
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Little Venice
Canal Number
196
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Backfilling
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
2
The canal was observed to be deep;
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
however, the canal displayed good flow
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
and DO concentrations above the FDEP
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
standard for impaired waters of 4.0
mg/L.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6
to +10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
Comments
Backfilling would improve the conditions
of the sediment
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Comments
Backfilling would improve the water
quality discharging to the nearshore
zone.
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
4.1
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
61 lots on canal
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have
negative effects on users.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
to +10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
3
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
Insufficient data is available to evaluate
backfilling feasibility.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
7
Access to the canal will not be difficult
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty
of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
Comments
and there were no observed
environmental permitting issues noted
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
during the assessment
Score
30.1
Overall Score
Comments
Canal 196 displayed good water quality
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Little Venice
Canal Number
200
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Circulation pump
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
5
The canal was observed to be 8 feet
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
deep; displayed low DO (< 4.0 > 2.0
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
mg/L), and although the water flows
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
under the roadway the flushing appears
restricted.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
5
Comments
increase in circulation will help improve
water quality; however, the low energy
at the mouth will limit effectiveness
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6
to +10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
-2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of water from within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQthan the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
3.6
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
53 lots on the canal system would incur
benefit with improvement
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have
negative effects on users.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
to +10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
30% plans can be prepared with existing
data.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
7
No observed environmental permitting
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty
of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
Comments
issues noted during the assessment; site
access for a pump appears available but
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
will have to be confirmed
Score
35.6
Overall Score
The energy at the mouth is the
Comments
controlling factor for the circulation in
this canal
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Marathon
Canal Number
223
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero
ned
will be assigned) )
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Weed wrack Loading Prevention primary
technology.
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
10
DO was < 4 mg/L but > 2 mg/L. Significant
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
Weed wrack loading issue. organic muck
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
present in bottom sediments which had
hydrogen sulfide odor.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
6
Preventing weed wrack from entering the
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
canal will improve water quality. Narrow
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection within
the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that
Comments
middle section will prevent rapid flushing
after loading reduction. Addition of a
would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
circulation pump may be needed.
Evaluation of organic muck thickness and
additional remedial benefit of its removal
needs to be performed.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
0
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
Comments
weed wrack prevention would have no
effect on nearshore zone.
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
0
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative
effects on users.
17 parcels will incur benefit.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property owners
and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding support
for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to +10,
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%
agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
Yes, WWT.
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
30% plans can be prepared for weed
curtain with existing data. No survey data
or as-builts plans are available.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
6
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation
requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access.
Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation
and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Comments
Wide canal width, presence of mangroves
on one side of mouth, and site access for
equipment are all issues.
Score
39.0
Overall Score
Comments
This canal has a restrictive narrow middle
section that will limit natural flushing
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Wynken, Blynken and Nod
Canal Number
78
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
ned
zero will be assigned) )
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Primany Weed wrack loading prevention;
secondary treatment backfilling
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
7
DO was < 4 mg/L but > 2 mg/L at 1 and
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
11 feet below water (canal depth is 22
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
feet). Weed wrack gets trapped at the
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
end of the canals due to poor circulation
related to 90 degree bends, collects
garbage, and has an odor.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
7
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6
to +10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Comments
Preventing Weed wrack from getting into
the canal will greatly improve the water
quality
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Weed wrack loading prevention would
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
have no effect on nearshore; backfilling
would improve discharge to nearshore
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
waters.
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
4.3
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have
negative effects on users.
65 parcels would incur benefit
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
to +10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
30% plans can be prepared with existing
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
data. No survey data or as-builts plans
are available.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
8
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty
of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Comments
No issues evident; however backfilling
will have to be done from a barge
Overall Score
Score
45.3
Comments
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
APPENDIXB
L40 111:z
Attribute Table, Site Condition Summaries, and Aerial Photographs
for Task 5 Selected Canals
I
Water Quality
Area
Length
Number of
Degree of
Stormwater
Residential Canal Name
Subdivision Name
Potential Restoration Technologies
Priority Score
(acres)
(meters)
Mouths
Convolutions
Treatment
Backfilling and/or Pumping to
46.6
45 KEY LARGO
Cross KeyEstates
increase circulation
10.8
820
1
16
Primany Weed wrack loading
Winken, Blynken and
prevention; secondary treatment
45.3
78 ROCK HARBOR
Nod
backfilling
2.5
290
1
4
Weed wrack Loading Prevention
39
223 MARATHON
primary technology.
6.0
70
1
4
Yes
Distance to
WQ
Weed
Monitoring
Wastewater Service
Connection
WWT
Rack
Station
Residential Canal Name
Area
EDUs
Status
District
Loading
WBID
Impairment
Km
Monitoring Organization
Monitoring Parameters
KLWTD Service Area
Dissolved
(DO,TEMP,SAL,ENT)/
45 KEY LARGO
C
1047
Compliant
KLWTD
0.0%
6006A
Oxygen
0.0
Nature Conservanc /FDEP
Metals, Nutrients,&Biolo ical
KLWTD Service Area
Dissolved
78 ROCK HARBOR
1
684
Compliant
KLWTD
0.0%
6006A
Oxygen
0.6
FDEP
Metals, Nutrients,&Biological
S. A. 5 Vaca Key
Dissolved
Environmental Monitoring &
223 MARATHON
East
2365
Compliant
Marathon
97.0%
6011A
Oxygen
0.9
Assessment Program
Nutrients
Monroe county canal Management blaster Plan
Canal condition Summary
Winken, Blynken, & Nod
Canal 1D: 78
Canal No. 78 is located within the Winken, Blynken & Nod neighborhood on Key Largo.
The canal system within the Winken, Blynken & Nod subdivision was assessed on May
g, 2012. AMEc's database listed canal No, 78 as having fair water quality. There may
be a HOA associated within this subdivision. Field personnel confirmed the presence of
sewers within the neighborhood. The surrounding land use for canal No. 78 is
comprised of older mobile homes and newer single family homes. canal No. 78
discharges into Rock Harbor at one location. The canal system displayed a slight odor.
There was a 4 inch thick seaweed mat at the end of the assessed canal finger.
The canal was measured 40 feet wide and 22 feet below the water surface deep. Depth
was measured from the water surface to the bottom. The canal banks were observed to
be vertical seawalls. canal walls were made of coral rock.
The water quality parameters were collected with a YSI multi -parameter meter from an
elevated road above the canal finger. Dissolved oxygen (Do) was measured at two
depth intervals, just below the surface and at 11 feet below the water surface. Do
concentrations were measured below the FDEP standard for impaired water bodies of
4.0 mg/L for both measured intervals
During the May g, 2012 qualitative assessment, the water at the end of the canal
displayed no visible flow. Field personnel noted that the water within the canal was very
dark and displayed low visibility.
Sediment was not sampled at this location due to logistics.
Field personnel observed no existing structures within canal No. 78 that would affect the
flow of water in and out of the system. Field personnel noted the presence of multiple
aerators within the canal system. There were no observed issues that would affect
obtaining a permit.
Water quality was determined to be poor based on the field assessment.
Possible treatment measures for enhancing water quality within the canal include
installation of a seaweed gate that would prevent the seaweed from entering into the
canal system and backfilling the canal to decrease the depth.
46
Jr
* ! f AV if
r'
_ �. �� • it � 'y� ,� � � �4J. �
a
or' ■
41 41111' vo-v
.� vio
L41 11.11rq
r .
Jr
Jq
IL
d .
_ Z;+
r pr
f
r
I
Source- FDOT, 2010 (aerial);
NRCS, 2010; AMEC, 2012
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
N 1 inch = 150 feet
78 ROCK HARBOR
0 37.5 75 150 Feet Drawn Date
DLA 05/24/2012 MIA MI, FL Figure
Checked Date amee Project # 6783-12-2396 9
WCL 05/24/2012
Monitoring
Location
End
End
Monroe County Canal Management [Master Plan
Canal Condition Summary
Cross Key Estates
Canal ID: 45
Canal No. 45 is located within the cross Key Estates neighborhood on Key Largo. The
canal system within the cross Key Estates subdivision was assessed on May 9, 2012.
AMEc's database listed canal No. 45 as having poor water quality. There is a condo
association located within this subdivision. AMEc visually confirmed the presence of
sewers within the neighborhood. The surrounding land use for canal No. 45 is
comprised of residential homes. canal No. 45 discharges into Blackwater sound at one
location. The canal system displayed no noticeable odor.
The canal was measured 49 feet wide and between 12 and 20 feet below the water
surface deep. Depth was measured from the side of the dock to the bottom of the canal.
The canal banks were observed to be vertical seawalls.
The water quality parameters were collected with a YSI multi -parameter meter at a boat
dock near the terminal end of a canal finger. Dissolved oxygen (DO) was measured at
two depth intervals. DO concentrations were measured above the FDEP standard for
impaired water bodies of 4.0 mg/L for the interval just below the water surface and below
the DO standard for the interval approximately 8 feet below the water surface.
During the May 9, 201.2 qualitative assessment, the canal water displayed no visible flow
and was observed to have a green tint to the water column.
The sediment was sampled using a ponar dredge. The sediment sample consisted of
algae, shells, and decomposed organic matter. The sediment sample displayed a
distinct sulfurish odor.
There were no existing structures within canal No. 45 that were affecting the flow of
water in and out of the system. Field personnel did not observe the presence of any
treatment measures designed to enhance water quality within the canals. There were
no observed environmental issues that would affect obtaining a permit.
Water quality was observed to be fair to poor based on the field assessment. During a
subsequent visit to cross Key Estates on May 23, 2012, the streets were flooded as a
result of a recent storm event.
Possible treatment measures for enhancing water quality within the canal include
installing a pump system to circulate water and backfilling.
Monitoring
Location
End
End
Conductivilt
tl
Monroe county canal Management Master Plan
Canal condition Summary
Marathon (subdivision not provided)
Canal ID: 223
Canal No. 223 is located on Marathon. The canal system on Marathon was assessed
on May 15, 2012. Canal No. 223 was determined by aerial photographs as having a
potential seaweed loading issue. A neighborhood organization does not exist for this
subdivision. The surrounding land use for canal No. 223 is comprised of single family
homes and motels. Canal No. 223 discharges into Florida Bay at one location. The
canal system displayed no noticeable odor. Seaweed mats were observed floating
within the canal system at the time of the May 15, 2012 assessment and again during a
subsequent site visit on May 24, 2012. Representatives state that if the wind is
predominately out of the north for an extended period of time, the canal fingers will
accumulate substantial amounts of seaweed.
Canal measurements and parameters were collected near the inlet and at the terminal
end of the canal. Near the inlet, the canal was visually estimated at 100 feet wide and
measured 8 feet deep from the water surface. Depth was measured from the top of the
seawall to the bottom of the canal. The canal banks near the inlet were observed to be
vertical seawalls on one side and mangrove lined banks of the other. Seawalls are
present on both sides of the canal near the terminal end.
The water quality parameters were collected with a YSI multi -parameter meter from the
seawall near the inlet and at the terminal end of a canal finger. Dissolved oxygen (DO)
was measured at two depth intervals at each location. The DO concentrations were
measured below the FDEP standard for impaired water bodies of 4.0 mg/L for the depth
intervals just below the water surface and 6 feet below the water surface.
During the May 15, 2012 qualitative assessment, the canal water displayed no visible
flow and was visually determined to be moderately clear with algae suspended in the
water column.
The sediment was sampled using a ponar dredge. The sediment sample consisted of
silt, sand, seaweed, and algae. The sediment sample displayed a distinct sulfurlsh odor.
There were no existing structures within canal No. 223 that were affecting the flow of
water in and out of the system; however, the canal narrows severely in the middle which
will restrict flow. Field personnel did not observe the presence of any treatment
measures designed to enhance water quality within the system. The presence of
mangroves on one side of the canal may affect the ability to permit a treatment measure
within that area.
Water quality was observed to be fair based on the field assessment.
Possible treatment measures for enhancing water quality within the canal include
installing a bubble curtain or weed gate and a pump system that could improve
circulation near the terminal end of the canal.
Monitoring
Location
Mouth
End
Mouth
End
Conductivity
El
oil
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
APPENDIX C
Conceptual Design Calculations, Figures and Costs
- F
r 40
§ I
r
r� r. Al
f , _1y.
-''? 'h ,a`• �, 3 �tilW� 4 P }
r � _
e
PAF
Ir
°
Y
+
14'
- y
t
1
° � y
•iT G' � 1
# i
w.
1 4411
r-
r
i
-
x
y
4 tom'
i
N t a 1 ;- 1
j
ameO
AMEC - 2000 E. Edgewood Drive Ste #215 -
Lakeland, FL 33803 - CA-5392 - (863) 667-2345
Jotes:
- Project No.: 6783122396.05
- Data Sources -
- The map shown here has been created
with all due and reasonable care and is
strictly for use with AMEC Project
Number: This map has not
been certified by a licensed land
surveyor, and any third party use of this
map comes without warranties of any
kind. AMEC assumes no liability, direct
or indirect, whatsoever for any such
third party or unintended use.
Location Map
Not to Scale
Monroe County
Wynken, Blynken and Nod
Conceptual Schematic
Explanation of Features
Wood or Aluminum Pilings
36 URAI Pump/ 5HP Motor
0 Optimized Recirculation
Removal of Accumulated Organics
Physical Seaweed Gate
Air Seaweed Gate
Potential Backfill Location
4" PVC Air Pipe
N
Feet
0 40 80
Date: 06/15/2012
1 Revised:MM
Checked By:WL
r
J
:
-
IP
146
41
je
r ' • , .
'+ e
j i x
job
AL{ .:/'
- —
:
l
r • ,.-
t
�F Y
`i117 I 9
.. i
_f � �. •�{ � ^+fix. .;:°' �:- ,
_
t Op
APW
3+f fie. :arr• '. * .
a
-41
:
r �•
:
y .
Y
ROj
r=
h +
p�
Ir1' rf
La;N
{e
JW
+ f .
• ,ar ,• 1, � � - � �r
e
1 1
�4P
7 }1 i 4F
" Y - a
I� o
mr.
Lpl-
41
r
A , L
�l tl
T
5
L
Y
k ilt
•rF 7
7W
i
* f 1
op
F�� � 4
i
v
I° Y
}
}
y y�
y,
a
Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for WBN
Physical and Air Seaweed Gate
Item #
uoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit rice In
Figures
Total Amount
1
EA
1.0
Furnish and Install Air/ Physical Seaweed Gat
$ 19,462.00
$ 19,462.00
Subtotal
$ 19,462.00
Contingency 20%
$ 3,892.00
Sub total
$ 239354.00
Construction Administration
$ 5,000.00
Final Design and Permitting
$ 10,000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 389354.00
Removal of Accumulated Organics
Item #
uoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit rice In
Figures
Total Amount
1
LS
1.0
Removal of Organics- Mobilization
$ 50,000.00
$
50,000.00
2
CY
37376.4
Removal of Organics -Hydraulic Dredge
$ 10.00
$
33,764.00
3
CY
37376.4
Removal of Organ ics-Dewatering
$ 13.00
$
43,893.00
3
Ton
319.1
Disposal of Accumulated Organics
$ 48.00
$
15,315.00
Subtotal
$
142,972.00
Contingency 20%
$
28,594.00
Sub total
$
1719566.00
Construction Administration
$
25,735.00
Final Design and Permitting
$
42,892.00
Total
TOTAL
$
2409193.00
Backfillina
Item #
uoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit rice In
Figures
Total Amount
1
Ton
83869.133
Backfill
$
3.00
$
251,607.00
2
Ton
83869.133
Trucking- Backfill
$
6.25
$
5247182.00
4
DAY
167.7
Backhoe and Operator (B-66)
$
660.88
$
1107855.00
5
DAY
167.7
Barge rental and Operator (301X90')
$
294.20
$
497349.00
6
DAY
167.7
Loader and Crew (B-3C)
$
27796.00
$
4687995.00
7
EA
2.0
Sediment Control (boom) 100 feet
$
37300.00
$
67600.00
Subtotal
$
174117588.00
Contingency 20%
$
2827318.00
Sub total
$
196939906.00
Construction Administration
$
847695.00
Final Design and Permitting
$
1017634.00
Total
TOTAL
$
198809235.00
Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for Cross Key Estates
Pumping
Item #
UoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit Price In
Figures
I Total Amount
1
EA
10.0
Furnish and Install Seawater Pump
$ 167047.00
$ 1607470.00
Subtotal
$ 1607470.00
Contingency 20%
$ 327094.00
Sub total
$ 192,564.00
Construction Administration
$ 107000.00
Final Design and Permitting
$ 257000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 2279564.00
Removal of Accumulated Organics
Item #
UoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit Price In
Figures
Total Amount
1
LS
1.0
Removal of Organics- Mobilization
$ 507000.00
$
507000.00
2
CY
177037.0
Removal of Organics -Hydraulic Dredge
$ 10.00
$
1707370.00
3
CY
177037.0
Removal of Organ ics-Dewatering
$ 13.00
$
2217481.00
3
Ton
17610.0
Disposal of Accumulated Organics
$ 48.00
$
777280.00
Subtotal
$
5197131.00
Contingency 20%
$
1037826.00
Sub total
$
622,957.00
Construction Administration
$
417530.00
Final Design and Permitting
$
517913.00
Total
TOTAL
$
716,400.00
Backfillinq
Item #
UoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit Price In
Figures
Total Amount
1
Ton
3777614.5
Backfill
$
3.00
$
171327844.00
2
Ton
3777614.5
Trucking- Backfill
$
6.25
$
273607091.00
4
DAY
486.5
Backhoe and Operator (B-66)
$
660.88
$
3217485.00
5
DAY
486.5
Barge rental and Operator (301X90')
$
294.20
$
1437114.00
6
DAY
486.5
Loader and Crew (B-3C)
$
27796.00
$
173607114.00
7
EA
5.0
Sediment Control (boom) 100 feet
$
37300.00
$
167500.00
Subtotal
$
573347148.00
Contingency 20%
$
170667830.00
Sub total
$
6,400,978.00
Construction Administration
$
1287020.00
Final Design and Permitting
$
1607024.00
Total
TOTAL
$
696899022.00
Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for Marathon 223
Pumpinq
Item #
UoM
pprox
Qty
Item
unit Price In
Figures
Total Amount
1
EA
1.0
Furnish and Install Seawater Pump
$ 38,479.00
$ 38,479.00
Subtotal
$ 38,479.00
Contingency 20%
$ 7,696.00
Sub total
$ 469175.00
Construction Administration
$ 8,000.00
Final Design and Permitting
$ 25,000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 799175.00
Physical and Air Seaweed Gate
Item #
UoM
pprox
Qty
Item
unit Price In
Figures
Total Amount
1
1EA
1.0
Furnish and Install Physical/ Air Seaweed
Gate
$ 42, 747.00
$ 42, 747.00
Subtotal
$ 427747.00
Contingency 20%
$ 87549.00
Sub total
$ 519296.00
Construction Administration
$ 87000.00
Final Design and Permitting
$ 157000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 749296.00
Appendix - Calculations
Cross Key Estates Pumping
T f =(T x V)/(V f +Vp)
Where:
Tf: Flushing Time (hrs)
Tx: Tidal Period (hrs)
V: Stored Water Volume (acre-feet)
Vf: Tidal Prism Water Volume (acre-feet)
Vp: Volume Pumped (Acre ft)
Vp
Tx
V
Tf
Vf
Area
Depth
Tidal Range
18.8 acre-ft
Required Total Flow
12.5 hours
Number of Pumps
216 acre-ft
Required Pump Flow
96 hours
9.3 acre-ft
10.8 acres
20 feet
0.86 feet
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tides10/tab2ec3d.htmI
Largo Sound, Key Largo
Length of pipe
1679 ft
45 degree elbows equivalent 411PVC
5.1 ft
90 degree elbows equivalent 411PVC
13.1 ft
# 45 degree elbows
6
# 90 degree elbows
1
Equivalent Pipe Length
1722.7 ft
Pipe Diameter
4 inches
Hazen Williams
z head loss
10 feet
friction loss
11.9 ft
Total Head
21.9
C 145
Hydraulic Horsepower Required
Power= HQ(SG)/(3956*pump efficiency)
Power 1.0 hp
Q 106.6 gal/min
Specific Gravity 1.025
Head 21.9 ft
Assumed Pump Efficiency 0.62
Assumed Motor Efficiency 0.85
Selected Pump Size 1 hp
Cost to Operate
Electricity Cost from Florida Keys Coop 0.11 $/kW-hr
cost= (electricity*.7457kW/hp)*hp)/motor efficiency
Cost 0.09 $/hr
Cost (monthly) 63.23 $/month
1065.6 gal/min
10
106.6 gal/min
Marathon - Pumping
T f = (T x VNV f + VP)
Vp
Tx
V
Tf
Vf
Area
Depth
Tidal Range
16.4 acre-ft Required Q
25 hours
72.8 acre-ft
96 hours
2.6 acre-ft
3.64 acres
20 feet
0.71 feet
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tides10/tab2ec3d.html
Vaca Key, Marathon, FI
Length of pipe
1720 ft
45 degree elbows equivalent 411PVC
5.1 ft
90 degree elbows equivalent 411PVC
13.1 ft
# 45 degree elbows
0
# 90 degree elbows
7
Equivalent Pipe Length
1811.7 ft
Pipe Diameter
10 inches
Hazen Williams
z head loss
10 feet
friction loss
7.88 ft
Total Head
17.88 ft
C 145
Hydraulic Horsepower Required
Power= HQ(SG)/(3956*pump efficiency)
Power 6.92 hp
Q 926.23 gal/min
Specific Gravity 1.025
Head 17.88 ft
Assumed Pump Efficiency 0.62
Assumed Motor Efficiency 0.85
Selected Pump Size 60 hp
Cost to Operate
Electricity Cost from Florida Keys Coop 0.11 $/kW-hr
cost= (electricity*.7457kW/hp)*hp)/motor efficiency
Cost 0.67 $/hr
Cost (monthly) 448.89 $/month
926.2 gal/min
Winken, Blynken, & Nod - Seaweed Gate
Depth below surface of bubble discharge
9.00
1
ft
depth from pump to bottom
16.00
ft
Desired Airflow at 10' below waters surface
200.00
cfm
Desired Airflow at 10' below waters surface
3.33
ft"3/sec
Area of 3" PVC pipe
0.05
ft"2
v=QA
4,074.37
ft/min
v=QA
67.91
ft/sec
acceleration head v"2/2g
71.60
ft
air static head
16.00
ft
pressure (acceleration)
0.04
psi
water pressure
3.90
psi
Total pressure
3.95
psi
Assumed Pump Efficiency
0.80
Assumed Motor Efficiency
0.85
Power= pQ/3.819* efficiency of pump
4.31
hp
Pump selected
5.00
hp
cost= (electricity*.7457kW/hp)*hp)/motor efficiency
Electricity Cost from Florida Keys Cooperative
0.11
$/kW-hr
Cost
0.42
$/hr
Cost (monthly)
279.24
$/month
Marathon - Seaweed Gate
Depth below surface of bubble discharge
7.00
1
ft
depth from pump to bottom
14.00
ft
Desired Airflow at 10' below waters surface
200.00
cfm
Desired Airflow at 10' below waters surface
3.33
ft"3/sec
Area of 3" PVC pipe
0.05
ft"2
v=QA
4,074.37
ft/min
v=QA
67.91
ft/sec
acceleration head v"2/2g
71.60
ft
air static head
14.00
ft
pressure (acceleration)
0.04
psi
water pressure
3.03
psi
Total pressure
3.08
psi
Assumed Pump Efficiency
0.80
Assumed Motor Efficiency
0.85
Power= pQ/3.819* efficiency of pump
3.36
hp
Pump selected
5.00
hp
cost= (electricity*.7457kW/hp)*hp)/motor efficiency
Electricity Cost from Florida Keys Cooperative
0.11
$/kW-hr
Cost
0.32
$/hr
Cost (monthly)
217.81
$/month
Cross Keys Estates - Organics Removal
canal area
4697086.4
1
ft"2
assumed percent impacted by organics
33.0%
area to dredge
1537331.2
ft"2
assumed depth of accumulated organics
3.0
ft
volume of accumulated organics to be removed
4597993.6
ft"3
volume of accumulated organics to be removed
177036.8
ydA3
Backfilling
area to backfill
4697086.4
ft"2
fill required (current depth -proposed depth)
14.0
ft
current assumed canal depth
20.0
ft
proposed depth
6.0
ft
Backfill required
6, 567, 209.2
ft"3
Backfill required
2437230.0
ydA3
for backfill assuming 1 ydA3=1.5525 tons
specific weight = 115 Ib/cf
Backfill required
377,614.5 tons
Winken, Blynken, & Nod - Organics Removal
canal area
917162.1
1
ft"2
assumed percent impacted by organics
33.0%
area to dredge
307083.5
ft"2
assumed depth of accumulated organics
3.0
ft
volume of accumulated organics to be removed
907250.5
ft"3
volume of accumulated organics to be removed
37342.6
ydA3
Backfilling
area to backfill
307083.5
ft"2
fill required (current depth -proposed depth)
16.0
ft
current assumed canal depth
22.0
ft
proposed depth
6.0
ft
Backfill required
481, 335.9
ft"3
Backfill required
177827.3
ydA3
for backfill assuming 1 ydA3=1.5525 tons
specific weight = 115 Ib/cf
Backfill required
27,676.8 tons
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
APPENDIXD
Grant Program Application Information
67
Community -Based Matching Grants Program
Grant Information
TheNature �.
Conservancy
Protecting nature. Preserving life. 0
� cam'
Community -based Restoration Matching Grants Program
TNC Global Marine Team & NOAA Restoration Center
Request for Proposals — Due April 13, 2012
TNC-NOAA Community -based Habitat Restoration Grants
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) are pleased to request proposals for their restoration matching
grants program. This program is part of a national cooperative agreement between TNC's
Global Marine Team and the Community -based Restoration Program of the NOAA
Restoration Center.
The objectives of TNC and NOAA's Community -based Restoration Program (CRP) are
to bring together interested groups, public, private, tribal and non-profit organizations to
implement habitat restoration projects to benefit NOAA trust resources (coastal and
marine species and their habitats). This innovative program recognizes the significant
role that partnerships can play in making habitat restoration happen within communities,
and acknowledges that habitat restoration is often best implemented through technical
and monetary support provided at a community level. (For more information visit:
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/restoration/programs/crp.html and
httn://www.nature.ora/ourinitiatives/habitats/oceanscoasts/howwework/habitat-
restoration.xml).
Focus areas: NOAA and TNC are looking to support community -based restoration of a
diversity of habitat types and no habitats are excluded. We will consider any innovative
restoration project nationwide that supports NOAA trust resources, and particularly those
projects that have a multi -species benefit or emphasize Ecosystem -Based Management. A
focal area of particular interest, though not exclusive or limiting, is native shellfish
(bivalve) restoration projects.
Projects throughout all USA states and territories are eligible to compete for these grants.
Preference will be given to projects at priority sites identified through Marine
Ecoregional Assessments and other TNC priority setting approaches at the state and
territory level (contact TNC state or territory staff listed in Appendix II or NOAA/TNC
Partnership Coordinator, Boze Hancock, see below).
Match Requirements: The NOAA-TNC national partnership provides seed money to
individual projects that leverage funds and other contributions from the public and private
sector to implement locally important habitat restoration that benefits living coastal and
marine resources.
Non-federal match is required at the rate of 1:1. The 1:1 match can come from a variety
of (non-federal) public and private sources and can include in -kind goods and services
from project partners. Approved projects may use any unrecovered indirect costs as
match (see budget section below). Neither federal funds nor federal funds passed through
state agencies are eligible to be used as matching funds. Mitigation funds or other funds
mandated by a court action are also not eligible as match.
Global Marine Team Technical Support: As part of T'NC's increased focus on
restoration, The Global Marine Team will work with project sites and regional programs
to leverage the impact of individual restoration projects through information exchange
and coordination across projects. We can offer site and regional practitioners our
expertise to assist with developing (i) projects aimed at shellfish restoration and the
restoration of nursery habitats nationwide, (ii) linking projects towards achieving regional
restoration success, and (iii) improving the measurement and monitoring of ecosystem
services provided by the habitats restored.
NOAA's Community -based Restoration Program (CRP) Technical Support:
Through NOAA's Restoration Center, CRP staff provides technical support to assist
project proponents in the development and implementation of sound coastal restoration
projects. Located strategically throughout the country (see Appendix 1), CRP field staff
are available, as needed, to provide site -specific guidance on activities including project
design and engineering, environmental compliance, and science -based project
monitoring. In addition, CRP field staff work to enhance community engagement and
collaboration among local entities to increase restoration success at the local and regional
level and coordinate and gain public recognition for restoration efforts.
Administrative Requirements: Awards are expected to be announced in June 2012.
Anticipated awards are contingent on notification of federal funding to The Nature
Conservancy. Upon notification of an award, projects will be assigned a TNC Global
Marine Team budget center number to use for project expenses, and will also be
informed as to required financial and programmatic reporting requirements. This
information will assist TNC in meeting Federal guidelines for reporting expenses and
project status on a semi-annual basis.
Proposal Requirements and Submission: Specifications for TNC-NOAA Community -
based Habitat Restoration Grants are detailed in the following pages. Proposals are due
by April 13, 2012. Submission by e-mail is preferred. Submission by hard copy will be
accepted if it is received by the close of business on the due date. If you submit a hard
copy, please also submit an electronic copy on CD, to:
Boze Hancock, TNC-NOAA National Partnership Coordinator
bhancockAtnc.org (electronic submission is preferred)
The Nature Conservancy Global Marine Team
University of Rhode Island Narragansett Bay Campus
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882-1197
For questions about the grants program or proposals please contact Boze Hancock,
TNGNOAA National Partnership Coordinator at 401-874-6121 (phone), or
bhancockAtnc.org (email), or your local NOAA RC staff (Appendix 1).
If proposals are greater than 5MB please contact Boze Hancock regarding safe receipt of
large email files.
2
COMMUNITY -BASED HABITAT RESTORATION GRANTS 2012
Proposal Requirements
NOAA-TNC Partnership
The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all
life depends. To achieve its global mission, TNC has increasingly focused its efforts on
marine and estuarine conservation, an essential component of conserving global
biodiversity, and is growing rapidly with support and leadership from the Global Marine
Team. Effective conservation also requires us to explicitly consider and sustain the
ecological linkages among terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems.
TNC's conservation process has brought heightened awareness of coastal and marine
ecosystems and the many species that require these habitats during part of their lives.
This process has also highlighted the fact that many coastal and marine sites require
restoration (see Appendix IV) to function properly. As a result, TNC's Global Marine
Team has been vigorously promoting aquatic habitat restoration under the TNC/NOAA
partnership.
Grants
This year, typical grants will be in the range of $25,000-$85,000. This will be a
competitive process. The merits of each proposal will be weighed based on how closely
the project aligns with the national partnership's evaluation criteria (see below).
TNC and NOAA reserve the right to select a limited number of projects that have
demonstrated prior success with the proposed restoration technique and invite them to
prepare scaled proposals for up to $250,000 to achieve larger restoration outcomes.
Applicants are welcome to indicate if they consider that their proposal falls within this
category and if higher levels of matching funds may be available. Reference of prior
success and a brief (maximum 1 page) statement of the rationale for, and benefit of,
scaling up for larger restoration outcomes can be included as an appendix to the proposal.
This option will be considered only if sufficient funding is available.
Elements of Successful Proiect Proposals
Applicants should strive to meet as many of the following elements as possible (see also
selection criteria below):
Project is aligned with TNC's conservation planning framework. This means that
the project location falls within a TNC priority conservation area identified in an
Ecoregional Assessment or is identified as significant by alternative TNC
conservation priority assessments, as indicated by TNC state or territory chapters
(See appendix II). The assessment and TNC chapter and staff providing this
information should be noted in the proposal. [Note that these analyses are not
available in all U.S. and territorial geographies and therefore this can only be done
where the information is available. Contact your state or territorial chapter of TNC
(Appendix II) and / or Boze Hancock if you have questions regarding currently
available analyses.]
■ It should identify, or be prepared to address, short and long-term measures of
success (see Monitoring below).
■ Project implementation will result in tangible and measurable restoration of living
coastal and marine resources.
3
■ Project has clear restoration objectives, with measurable outcomes supported by a
well -crafted monitoring plan that meets NOAA's minimum monitoring requirements
(see Monitoring below).
■ Project involves significant community engagement and support that is tied to the
restoration activities. This should be done to ensure the community is aware of
restoration activities, feels ownership in specific projects and can voice any concerns
there may be, and to promote community stewardship.
■ Project concept involves substantial interaction with the NOAA Restoration Center
regional representative throughout its development. A list of the NOAA local
contacts is provided in Appendix 1.
■ Project involves partners.
■ Project demonstrates a reasonable assurance that the appropriate permits can be
obtained in a timely manner and the proposal includes a list of all necessary federal,
state, tribal and local permits required to complete the project.
■ Project demonstrates a reasonable assurance that there is ongoing protection for the
restoration investment (e.g., fishery closures, conservation easements, or other habitat
protection).
■ Project must provide a minimum 1:1 non-federal match. Match above the required
1:1 level increases the competitiveness of proposed projects.
■ Budget justification with sufficient detail to evaluate project cost effectiveness.
Proposal Contents
If the project qualifies, a proposal should be submitted to Boze Hancock in TNC's Global
Marine Team. Proposals should be no longer thanfive pages (not including
attachments). You are also strongly encouraged to consult with a member of NOAA
Restoration Center regional staff (see appendix 1), State or Territory TNC staff (see
appendix II), and Boze Hancock at TNC, early -on in the proposal preparation process.
11
Recommended format and minimum information to be provided in a project
proposal includes:
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
■ Project name
■ Contact person (address, phone, fax, email)
■ Congressional District(s) and Representative(s)
■ Regional NOAA contact staff person
■ Project abstract. 1 paragraph (3 to 5 sentence) Project Abstract succinctly outlining
major project goals and activities.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
■ Project location (include project zip code, and latitude/longitude if possible).
Relevant maps should be included as appendices with site location(s) specifically
indicated. Photos may also be included.
■ Description of the conservation status of the site in a marine ecoregional
assessment or other conservation assessment, and the TNC staff consulted.
■ Land ownership (public or private).
■ Anticipated benefits to species and habitat(s), including threatened and endangered
species.
■ A list of federal, state, tribal and local permits (e.g. see Permit Requirements and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements sections below).
■ A list of involved partners (include partner contributions, if applicable, even if not
used as match). Letters of partner support and pledges of match may be added to
the appendix.
■ Whether the project can be considered for increased funding and restoration
outcomes (has previously demonstrated success with the restoration technique and
is in a position to be scaled up for increased restoration outcomes, see `Grants'
above).
WORK PLAN
■ Start and end date. Two year projects are preferred, including implementation of
the restoration work and post -restoration monitoring.
■ Identification of goals and description of long-term measures of success.
■ Identification of measurable obj ectives/proj ect- specific benchmarks for measuring
short-term success (see Monitoring below).
■ Restoration methodology and design considerations.
■ Timeline for anticipated actions (e.g., design and permitting phase, pre -restoration
monitoring, implementation, post -restoration monitoring).
■ Identification of the mechanism that will be used to ensure that necessary
environmental permits and consultations will be secured prior to the use of federal
funds.
■ Community engagement (may include hands-on training and restoration activities
undertaken by volunteers, sponsorship from local entities, either through in -kind
goods and services or cash contributions, public education and outreach, and/or
support from state and local governments).
■ A description of the anticipated outreach for the project (e.g., press releases,
presentations, papers, publications, workshops and trainings, if applicable).
PROJECTED BUDGET AND NARRATIVE (included as Appendix 1 to the proposal,
see Appendix III below for instructions)
■ Completed Projected Budget Template.
■ Grant amount requested.
■ Match amount being provided (non-federal is required).
Identify source(s) of match and indicate whether match is confirmed or pending.
Justification for fund use (by funding category as listed in projected budget) and a
budget narrative.
Also, at the end of the narrative include the total project budget amount if it is
greater than is the amount represented by the requested funds plus match and state
whether these additional leverage funds are federal or non-federal.
Evaluation Criteria
Projects will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
■ Technical merit, project feasibility and a relevant monitoring plan.
■ Extent to which project benefits living coastal and marine resources.
■ Extent to which the project will persist over the long-term, including any long-term
maintenance plan for ensuring long-term sustainability of the site.
■ Community involvement, education, and stewardship.
■ Whether NEPA, ESA, or other regulatory compliance issues may reasonably be
raised, and how likely they are to be expeditiously resolved to allow project
implementation to begin as planned.
■ Budget justification, project cost-effectiveness and availability of match.
■ Degree of support from, and involvement with, the regional NOAA contact person.
■ The extent of present and future support of TNC staff at these sites.
Preference will be given to projects containing:
■ A statement from the local TNC Chapter regarding the site as a conservation
priority in Marine Ecoregional Assessments or significance in alternative TNC
conservation priority assessment.
■ Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as identified by NOAA Fisheries, and areas within
EFH identified as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (see:
http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH Mapper/map.aspx ).
■ Areas identified as critical habitat for federally or state listed estuarine and marine
species.
■ Areas identified as important habitat for marine mammals and turtles.
■ Areas identified as important nursery habitats.
■ Watersheds or other areas under special management by state coastal management
programs.
■ Other important commercial or recreational fish habitat.
■ Habitat supporting native bivalve shellfish and associated species. For projects
targeting habitats created by native bivalve species, quantification of a major
ecosystem service provided by the restoration may be included in the monitoring
plan.
Proiect Evaluation and Selection
Together, NOAA and TNC select projects that will receive support from this innovative
national partnership. This selection process will take place in two steps. In the first step,
TNC's Global Marine Team performs a preliminary review and narrows the project
proposals submitted to those that most closely meet the qualifications and evaluation
criteria. In the second step, NOAA Headquarters, the NOAA regional staff, and TNC will
then review, evaluate, and select final projects with the goal of funding 8-12 projects.
Following project selection
Reporting Requirements
After the selection process, the Grantees that are awarded funding shall be required to
file quarterly financial reports (for projects managed external to TNC), semi-annual
no
progress reports, a comprehensive final report, and a detailed monitoring plan. An
initial and final fact sheet will also be required with the first progress report and final
report for use by the project, TNC and NOAA.
Monitoring:
Applicants will be required to complete a `Restoration Performance Monitoring and
Evaluation' plan with parameters based on the NOAA restoration monitoring
guidelines (see: http://www.era.noaa.gov/information/monitor.html). For each
selected parameter (minimum of two), a baseline value, reference value, and a
proposed target value must be identified prior to the implementation of restoration
efforts. The Conservancy and NOAA will work together with the grantee to
determine monitoring parameters and targets for successful applicants.
In addition to biological parameters, proposals may include relevant socio-economic
monitoring in the work plan to quantify societal benefits derived from the restoration.
Applicant's Permit Requirements
Applicants must provide where relevant a list and status (obtained, application filed,
when anticipate obtaining approval, or have not applied) of all necessary federal, state,
tribal and local permits required to complete the project and the appropriate regulatory
agency contact (name, title, phone) for each permitting agency. TNC will require copies
of permit and compliance documentation once the documentation is secured.
Applicants will be required to meet all local, state and tribal environmental laws and
Federal consistency requirements before project implementation.
National Environmental Policy Act Requirements
All proposals will be reviewed by NOAA regarding National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) compliance. All projects must comply with NEPA before TNC will
release funds. For more information on NEPA, please visit NOAA's website at
http://www.nepa.noaa.gov.
Applicants will be required to provide detailed information on the activities to be
conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction
activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal
of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non -indigenous species, impacts to
endangered and threatened species, the presence of historic structures, and impacts to
coral reef systems) in order for NOAA to make a NEPA determination on each
proposal. For additional information on the NOAA Restoration Center NEPA
process, please visit the Environmental Compliance section at:
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/partners/granteeresources.html
.e� .e
In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any
required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in
drafting an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is
required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying and
implementing feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse
environmental impacts of their proposal.
Once awards are approved we will also need to ensure that, for projects involving
volunteers, each project manager has a management plan for them (e.g., liability
waivers & procedures for conveying safety information to volunteers prior to
conducting field work).
7
SCUBA Safety
For any Self -Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) diving activities
described in the proposal, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that
SCUBA divers are certified to a level commensurate with the type and conditions of
the diving activity being undertaken. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the
recipient to ensure that any SCUBA diving activities under this award meet, at a
minimum, all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations pertaining to
the type of SCUBA diving being undertaken.
Due Dili!ence
Non-profit applicants external to TNC will be asked to provide copies of documents
to ensure that the Awardee meets the criteria of a non-profit conservation
organization and that the Awardee meets appropriate standards of capacity,
competence, and financial accountability. These documents include but are not
limited to the following: a certificate of good standing, a list of the names of all of its
board members and principal officers, copies of Awardee's bylaws and articles of
incorporation and financial statements. Awardee agrees to notify TNC immediately
of any change in Awardee's corporate or tax status or operations, or if any official
judicial, legislative, or administrative proceeding is instituted against Awardee that
may affect the commitments and obligations agreed to in the award.
0
Appendix I
NOAA Restoration Center Staff
Northwest Re$ion:
Oregon
Washington
Megan Callahan -Grant
Polly Hicks
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd.
7600 Sandpoint Way NE
Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98115-6349
Portland, OR 97232
PH: 206-526-4861
PH: 503-231-2213
FAX: 206-526-6665
FAX: 503-231-6265
Polly. Hicksknoaa. gov
Megan. Callahan- Grantknoaa. _ov
Jason Lehto
Megan Hilgart
7600 Sandpoint Way NE
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd.
Seattle, WA 98115-6349
Suite 1100
PH: 206-526-4670
Portland, OR 97232
FAX: 206-526-6665
PH: 503-231-6848
Jason. A. Lehto knoaa. gov
FAX: 503-231-2339
Megan. Hil gartknoaa. _ ov
Laurel Jennings
7600 Sandpoint Way NE
Lauren Senkyr
Seattle, WA 98115-6349
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd.
PH: 206-526-4601
Suite 1100
FAX: 206-526-6665
Portland, OR 97232
Laurel. Jennings knoaa. _ ov
PH: 503-231-2110
CELL: 503-347-0848
Paul Cereghino
FAX: 503-231-6265
510 Desmond Dr. NE
Lauren. Senkyrknoaa.gov
Ste 103
Lacey, WA 98503
Alaska Region:
PH: (360) 753-4650
Erika Ammann
FAX:
222 West 7th Ave, Rm 517
CELL: (206) 948-6360
P.O. Box 48
Paul. R.Cerehg inoknoaa.gov
Anchorage, AK 99513-7577
Or
PH: 907-271-5118
WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
FAX: 907- 271-3 03 0
600 Capitol Way N.
Erika.Ammannknoaa. gov
Olympia,WA 98501-1091
PH: 360-902-2603
K. Koski
10656 Misty Lane
Juneau, AK
PH: 907-586-2609
K.Koskiknoaa. gov
9
Southwest Resion:
Dave Witting
Northern California
501 West Ocean Blvd
Leah Mahan
Suite 4400
1655 Heindon Rd.
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213
Arcata, CA 95521
PH: 562-980-3235
PH: 707-825-5161
CELL: 562-508-3264
CELL: 707-599-2713
FAX: 562-980-4084
FAX: 707-825-4840
David. WittingAnoaa. gov
Leah.MahanAnoaa. gov
Pacific Islands Resion:
Bob Pagliuco
Tia Brown
1655 Heindon Rd.
1601 Kapiolani Blvd.
Arcata, CA 95521
Suite 1110
PH: 707-825-5166
Honolulu, HI 96814
CELL: 707-834-2215
PH: 808-944-2259
FAX: 707-825-4840
FAX: 808-973-2941
Bob.PagliucoAnoaa.gov
Tia.BrownAnoaa.gov
Natalie Cosentino -Manning
Southeast Rejion:
777 Sonoma Ave, Room 219-A
Florida
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-6515
Daphne Macfarlan
PH: 707-575-6081
263 13th Avenue South
CELL: 707-206-1642
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
FAX: 707-575-6094
PH: 727-824-53 84
Natalie.C-Manning(knoaa.gov
CELL: 727-365-5419
FAX: 727-824-5390
Joe Pecharich
Daphne.MacfarlanAnoaa. ov
777 Sonoma Ave, Room 219-A
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-6515
Marti McGuire
PH: 707-575-6095
263 13th Avenue South
CELL: 707-5 83 -3189
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
FAX: 707-575-6094
PH: 727-551-5785
Joe. PecharichAnoaa.gov
CELL: 727-744-7328
FAX: 727- 824-5390
Southern California
Marti. McGuireAnoaa. gov
Milena Vilj oen
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Sean Meehan
Suite 101
263 13th Avenue South
Carlsbad, CA 92011
St Petersburg FL 33701
PH: 760-431-9440 EXT. 227
PH: 727-824-5330
CELL: 562-221-5717
CELL: 727-3 85-5202
FAX: 760-431-9624
FAX: 727-824-5390
Milena.ViljoenAnoaa.gov
Sean.MeehanAnoaa.gov
10
Tom Moore
263 131h Avenue South
Puerto Rico
St Petersburg FL 33701
Sean Griffin
PH: 727-551-5716
USCG Air Station Borinquen
CELL: 727-647-653 8
260 Guard Rd.
FAX: 727-824-5390
Aguadilla, PR 00605
Tom. MooreAnoaa. ov
PH: 787-667-7750
Sean.GriffinAnoaa. gov
Alabama
Meg Goecker
Northeast:
101 Bienville Blvd.
ME
Dauphin Island, AL 36528
Matt Bernier
PH: 251-861-7509
NOAA Fisheries Maine Field Station
Meg.GoeckerAnoaa.gov
17 Godfry Drive
Suite 1
Louisiana/Mississippi
Orono, ME 04473
Mel Landry
207-866-7409
Louisiana State University
CELL: 978-835-8868
Sea Grant Building, Room 124H
FAX: 207-866-7342
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Matthew.BernierAnoaa. _ ov
PH: 225-578-7667
FAX: 225-578-7926
VT/NH/MA
CELL: 985-492-0635
Steve Block
Mel. LandryAnoaa. gov
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
Texas
PH: 978-281-9127
Kristopher Benson
CELL: 978-609-7653
4700 Avenue U. Bldg 302
FAX: 978-281-9301
Galveston, TX 77551
Steve. Block(knoaa.gov
PH: 409-766-3699
CELL: 409-621-6408
Matt Collins
FAX: 409-766-3575
55 Great Republic Drive
Kristopher.BensonAnoaa.goy
Gloucester, MA 01930
PH: 978-281-9142
North/South Carolina/Georgia
FAX: 978-281-9301
Howard Schnabolk
Mathias. CollinsAnoaa. gov
NOAA Coastal Services Center
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Eric W. Hutchins
North Charleston, SC 29405-2413
55 Great Republic Drive
PH: 843-740-1328
Gloucester, MA 01930
CELL: 843-312-9995
PH: 978-281-9313
FAX: 843-740-1224
FAX: 978-281-9301
Howard. SchnabolkAnoaa.gov
Eric. HutchinsAnoaa. gov
11
RI/CT/NJ/Buzzards Bay/MA/ Long
Mary Andrews
Island north shore/NY
410 Severn Ave 107A
James G Turek
Annapolis, MD 21403-2524
28 Tarzwell Dr
PH: 410-267-5644
Narragansett, RI 02882
FAX: 410-267-5666
PH: 401-782-3 3 3 8
Mary. AndrewsAnoaa. ov
FAX: 401-782-3201
James. G. TurekAnoaa. _ ov
Stephanie Westby
410 Severn Ave 107A
Bryan DeAngelis
Annapolis, MD 21403-2524
28 Tarzwell Dr
PH: 410-295-3153
Narragansett, RI 02882
FAX: 410-267-5666
PH: 401-782-3 3 3 7
Stephanie. WestbyAnoaa. _ ov
FAX: 401-782-3292
Bryan. DeAngelisAnoaa.gov
Virginia
Walter Priest
NJ/NY/PA/DE
VIMS P.O. Box 1346
Bethany Bearmore
Greate Rd., Route 1208
JJ Howard Marine Science Lab
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
74 Magruder Rd
PH: 804-684-73 85
Highlands, NJ 07732
FAX: 804-684-7910
PH:732-872-3069
Walter. Priest(&,noaa. gov
FAX: 732-872-3077
Bethany. Bearmoreknoaa. gov
Great Lakes:
Terry Heathe
Carl Alderson
4840 South State Road
JJ Howard Marine Science Lab
Ann Arbor, MI 48108-9719
74 Magruder Rd
PH: 734-741-2211
Highlands, NJ 07732
FAX: 734-741-2055
PH: 732-872-3087
Terry. Heatlieknoaa. gov
FAX: 732-872-3077
Carl.Aldersonknoaa. oy
Julie Sims
4840 South State Road
Chesapeake Bay/MD/DE/PA:
Ann Arbor, MI 48108-9719
Richard L. Takacs
PH: 734-741-23 85
410 Severn Ave 107A
FAX: 734-680-5671
Annapolis, MD 21403-2524
Julie.Simsknoaa.gov
PH: 410-267-5672
CELL: 301-346-8374
Restoration Center HQ:
FAX: 410-267-5666
Summer Morlock
Rich. Takacsknoaa. gov
NOAA Fisheries
1315 East West Highway F/HC3
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-427-8677
Summer. Morlockknoaa. gov
12
Appendix II
TNC State and Regional Contacts
URL is provided where online reports provide initial guidance on TNC's priority
conservation areas
Hawaii
Oregon
Kim S . Hum
Jena Carter
Marine Program Director
Program Director
The Nature Conservancy, Hawaii Program
Oregon Field Office
923 Nuuanu Ave.
821 SE 14th Avenue
Honolulu, HI 96817
Portland, OR, 97214
Ph: 808-587-6244
Ph: 503 802 8114
Fax: 808-545-2019
dvanderschaaf(a�,tnc.org
khum(cz�,tnc.org
California
Alaska
Mary Gleason
Corinne Smith
Assoc. Director of Science
Mat -Su Basin Program Director
Monterey Office
Alaska Field Office
99 Pacific Street
715 L Street
Suite 200g
Suite 100
Monterey, CA, 93 940
Anchorage, AK, 99501
Ph: 831 333 2049
Ph:- 907 276-3133
m leasonAtnc.org
corinne smith(cz�,tnc.org
Gulf of Mexico
Southeast Alaska
(TX, LA, MS, AL)
Norman Cohen
Jennifer Greene
SE Alaska Program Director
Marine Scientist, Eastern Division
Alaska Field Office, Juneau
99 Bedford Street, 5th Floor
416 Harris Street
Boston, MA 02111
Suite 301
Ph: 617 532 8353
Juneau, AK, 99801
reene(ktnc.or
Ph:- 907-789-1791
ncohen(.&nc.org
Puerto Rico & USVI
Aaron Hutchins
Washington
Country Representative
Paul Dye
USVI Program
Program Director
3 052 Estate Little Princess
Washington Field Office
Christiansted
1917 1 St Avenue
St. Croix, VI, 00820
Seattle, WA, 98101
Virgin Islands
Ph:- 206 854 8803
Ph:- 340 718 5575
pdye Atnc.org
ahutchinsAtnc.org
Please visit;
http://waconservation.org/downloads/
13
Southeast USA
(Cape Hatteras to SC)
Mary Conley
SE Marine Conservation Director
Charleston SC Office
960 Morrison Drive
Charleston, SC, 29403
Ph: 843 937 8807
mconley(cr�,tnc.org
e
Florida
Anne Birch
FL Director of Marine Conservation
Brevard County FL Office
201 North Riverside Drive
Suite B
Indialantic, FL 32903
Ph: 321 956 7711
abirch(cz�,tnc.org
Northeast USA
(Cape Hatteras to ME)
Jennifer Greene
Marine Scientist, Eastern Division
99 Bedford Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02111
Ph: 617 532 8353
jgreeneAtnc.org
Other States & Territories
Boze Hancock
TNC-NOAA Partnership Coord.
Global Marine Team
URI Narragansett Bay Campus
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI, 02882
Ph: 401 874 6121
Cell: 401 644 9472
bhancockAtnc.or
Some marine and many freshwater priority
conservation areas (Portfolio Sites) are indicated
at: http://maps.tnc.org/coredata
14
APPENDIX III
PROJECTED BUDGET TEMPLATE
COMMUNITY -BASED HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT
BUDGET
CATEGORIES
REQUESTED
NOAA FUNDS
APPLICANT
MATCH**
THIRD
PARTY
MATCH**
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
(elaborate in
narrative)
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Travel
Supplies
Contractual
Other:
(Specify)*
Other: (Specify)
Other: (Specify)
Total Direct
Costs
Indirect Costs
(see note 3 below)
TOTAL*
* Equipment purchases over $5,000 per item are not allowable under this RFP.
* * Please indicate whether confirmed or pending.
NARRATIVE. Provide detail (by budget category) on how the funds requested, or provided as
match, will be used to meet the goals of this project. Please include the following:
1) Specify where possible the sources of confirmed match or potential sources of match.
2) Also, at the end of the narrative include the total project budget amount if it is greater
than what is represented by the NOAA requested funds plus match, and state whether
these additional leverage funds are federal or non-federal.
3) Please identify Fringe Benefits rates used in Narrative.
4) This RFP allows for reimbursement of up to 23.13% in indirect costs. To recover
indirect costs under this RFP, the organization must have an indirect cost recovery rate
that is based upon either a) a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with the U.S.
government or b) a documented methodology for recovering indirect costs.
15
APPENDIX IV
DEFINITION OF RESTORATION & REPRESENTATIVE ACTIVITIES
TNC's definition of "restoration" closely mirrors that published by the National
Research Council in their book on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems:
"Restoration is defined as the return of an ecosystem to a close approximation
of its condition prior to disturbance. In restoration, ecological damage to the
resource is repaired. Both the structure and the functions of the ecosystem are
recreated. Merely recreating the form without the functions, or the functions
in an artificial configuration bearing little resemblance to a natural resource,
does not constitute restoration. The goal is to emulate a natural, functioning,
self-regulating system that is integrated with the ecological landscape in
which it occurs. Often, natural resource restoration requires one or more of the
following processes: reconstruction of antecedent physical hydrologic and
morphologic conditions; chemical cleanup or adjustment of the environment;
and biological manipulation, including revegetation and the reintroduction of
absent or currently nonviable native species."
An illustrative, but not exhaustive, list of possible restoration activities to be
funded under this national partnership might include:
■ Restoring marsh, wetland, seagrass, or riparian communities through
revegetation, invasive plant control, natural recontouring of the landscape,
removing levees and artificial drainage systems, and related activities.
■ Restoring natural shellfish reefs and beds in estuarine areas through
introducing appropriate substrate for shellfish settlement and growth, creating
adult spawner sanctuaries and/or seeding juvenile shellfish.
■ Restoring habitat through re -introduction or enhancement of native
populations of aquatic organisms and control of invasive plant and animal
species.
■ Working with landowners or managers to restore water clarity, quality, and
natural flow of fresh and saltwater.
■ Working with water managers to restore natural volumes and timing of
freshwater flows through rivers and into estuarine and coastal areas, and to
remove or reduce the impacts of barriers to the movement of aquatic
organisms in rivers and estuaries.
Section 319
Grant Information
FLOR&A
WORM
cott
Florida Department of Rick rrior
Environmental Protection Jennifer Carroll
Bob Martinez Center Lt. Governor
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Herschel T. Vinyard Jr.
Secretary
TO: Applicants for Section 319 Grant funding for the FY13 Federal Fiscal Year
FROM: Kristine Papin Jones, Administrator, Nonpoint Source Management Section
DATE: March 19, 2012
SUBJECT: FY 2013 Application Guidance for the Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Management Program Grant Proposal
The DEP Nonpoint Source Management Section (NPSM) is pleased to announce the
solicitation for the FY 2013 Section 319 grant and welcomes you to apply for grant funds
for your nonpoint source management projects.
The NPSM administers grant money received from the U.S. EPA through Section 319 of
the Federal Clean Water Act. These grant funds are used to implement projects to
manage nonpoint sources of pollution and restore our impaired waterbodies. Nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution refers to diffuse sources of pollution. It is caused by rainfall
moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries
away natural and human -made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers,
wetlands, coastal waters, and even our underground sources of drinking water.
Nonpoint sources include stormwater runoff from urban areas and agricultural
operations, failing septic tanks, and erosion. NPS pollution is the leading cause of
water pollution in Florida today. Managing these sources is critical to meeting Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of pollutants for impaired waters as required by the
Clean Water Act.
In recent years, DEP has awarded Section 319 funds between $4 million and $5 million
annually to local governments and others in Florida to implement projects designed to
reduce the impacts of NPS pollution. Eligible grant recipients include state agencies,
local governments, colleges, universities, non-profit organizations, public utilities, and
state water management districts and priority is given to recipients actively engaging in
the BMAP process. The majority of funding is used to support the construction of
stormwater treatment facilities; however, funding has also been used for demonstration
projects (for agricultural and urban best management practices (BMPs)), training
opportunities, and education programs.
Upon selection and EPA approval, DEP and the Grant Recipient must enter into a
contract. The contract is managed by DEP's Nonpoint Source Management Section and
the recipient's designated manager. Grant funds are administered on a cost -
reimbursement basis. The grant period has been shortened by federal requirements and
projects now must be completed within approximately three years. Grant funds
become available approximately one and a half years after project selection.
Descriptions of previously funded projects, proposal ranking information, and the new
FY13 application form can be found on the Department's website at:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/ nonpoint/319h.htm
The schedule for the FY 2013 grant cycle is as follows:
➢ May 25, 2012 - Project proposals are due to the Department for review and
ranking.
➢ Summer 2012 - Projects will be evaluated for consideration.
➢ September 30, 2012 - Selected projects will be sent to EPA for approval in a draft
Work Plan and status letters will be mailed to all applicants.
➢ Spring 2013 - EPA will provide comment and/or approval of the draft Work
Plan.
➢ Fall 2013 - Federal funding will be provided to the state and contracts will be
initiated for projects included in the Final Work Plan.
➢ Spring 2014 - Most contracts will be executed and in place. No costs may be
reimbursed for work occurring outside the contract period.
This year's selection process and grant application has been altered from previous
years. You will benefit by carefully reading this guidance, the application instructions,
and the scoring sheet attached to this solicitation. Failing to abide by these instruction
could result in your project being denied funding.
1. Eligible and non -eligible costs:
➢ Section 319 funds may not be used for planning, engineering, design, or land
acquisition.
➢ Section 319 funds may not be used for monitoring unrelated to a project,
conducting waterbody assessments, or preparing watershed plans.
2. Required match: Projects should include a minimum 40% non-federal match (that is,
Section 319 funding may not exceed 60% of the total eligible project cost). Excluded
from match are the following:
➢ Alternative federal funding. While you are encouraged to seek out and obtain
funding from all sources, including federal sources, federal funding and other
federal in -kind services cannot count as match.
➢ Land. Land acquisition cannot count towards match.
3. Tasks and Budget Categories: Applications must identify clearly the budget
categories for each task described for both grant and match dollars. The task
description should answer questions about what the funding requested will be used for.
Funding categories for 319 grants include:
➢ Salaries: You must include the table provided in the application identifying the
positions that will be paid under the grant, their hourly rate is, and how many
hours it is anticipated they will work on the project. You must clearly describe
what the named staff will work on relating to the project. For example, if paying
for a PE, you must explain what his responsibilities will be in order to justify the
hours included in the application.
➢ Fringe Benefits: Provide the fringe benefit rate and the benefits included in the
rate in the same table for salaries.
➢ Travel: You must explain who will be traveling, to where, and include those
costs in the correct task.
➢ Contractual Services: If you will be hiring a subcontractor to complete a task (for
example, completing all construction, or completing all design), state that in your
task description and include the budget in the appropriate task.
➢ Equipment: Please state what equipment (including all items over $1,000) will be
purchased and what they will be used for. They must be tied to a specific task.
For example, if purchasing a monitoring well, it must be clearly stated in the
monitoring task.
➢ Supplies/ Other Expenses: Please state what supplies will be purchased or name
other expenses expected to be incurred in order to complete the task.
An example of three task descriptions and associated budget is below.
TASK NUMBER: 1
TASK NAME: Final Design and Permitting
TASK DESCRIPTION (detailed): Grantee will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for
construction of the project as described in Task 3. Grantee will contract out permitting work; however,
Grantee's Environmental Engineer will spend approximately 25 hours reviewing necessary permit
documents prior to submittal.
DELIVERABLES: Submission of copy of final design; copy of all required permits.
Maximum
Hourly
Fringe
Maximum Total
Maximum Total
Position
Hours
Rate
Benefit (%)
Fringe per
per position
position
Environmental
25
$23.95
14
$83.83
$682.58
Engineer
TOTAL
25
$23.95
14 %
$83.83
$682.58
TASK NUMBER: 2
TASK NAME: Advertise Project for Bid
TASK DESCRIPTION (detailed): Grantee will bid the permitted project for construction, review and
tabulate the bids, and select the contractor. The Grantee's Environmental Engineer will spend
approximately 55 hours conducting the bid process. The Supervising Engineer will spend approximately 5
hours reviewing the bids and ensuring laws were properly followed. Additionally, supplies required
include paper, postage, and ink in order to complete the bid.
Maximum
Hourly
Fringe
Maximum Total
Maximum Total
Position
Hours
Rate
o
Benefit (/o)
Fringe per
per position
position
Environmental
55
$23.95
14 %
$83.83
$682.58
Engineer
Supervising
5
$44.59
28 %
$64.43
$287.38
Engineer
TOTAL 1 60 1 varies I varies 1 $148.26 $969.96
DELIVERABLES: Submission of copy of bid package and selection of contractor.
TASK NUMBER: 3
TASK NAME: BMP Implementation
TASK DESCRIPTION (detailed): Grantee will construct a settling pond, wetlands, and construction of a
maintenance pathway in accordance with the drawing attached to this agreement and as modified during
Task 1. A parking area shall be constructed within the Shady Tree Park, which is currently owned by the
City in addition to the rehabilitation of an existing kayak launch, pedestrian bridge to allow residents better
access to the facility to view the items installed in Task 4. Work will be conducted by a contractor.
DELIVERABLE: Provide to the Department stormwater inspection reports; photographs of completed
project; as -built certification; and signed statement from Grantee's grant manager indicating construction
has been completed in accordance with design.
PROJECT BUDGET BY CATEGORY and TASK:
Task
No.
Category
Grant Funding
Match Funding
Match Source
1
Contractual
$0
$55,000
City of XYZ
Salaries
$0
$682.58
City of XYZ
TOTAL FOR TASK
$0
$55,682.58
City of XYZ
2
Supplies
$0
$150.00
City of XYZ
Salaries
$0
$969.96
City of XYZ
TOTAL FOR TASK
$0
$1119.96
City of XYZ
3
Contractual
$600 f465
$387,480
City of XYZ
TOTAL FOR TASK
$600,465
$387,480
City of XYZ
3. Comprehensive Watershed Plan: Section 319 funding is divided by EPA into "base"
and "incremental" funding. Projects that are identified in or otherwise implement
"comprehensive watershed plans," as defined below, are eligible for incremental
funding. Projects not part of a comprehensive watershed plan are only eligible to
receive base funding. We anticipate that nearly $4,000,000 of incremental funds may be
available for FY13 while significantly less base funds are expected to be available.
EPA defines a comprehensive watershed plan as one that contains all nine elements
listed below. Your application must identify the name of the watershed plan (or
combination of plans) to which your project applies. The named plan must meet the
elements listed below and identify the strategy in the plan that your project
implements. Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plans, National
Estuary Program Management Plans, TMDL Implementation Plans, stormwater master
plans, or other watershed plans are examples of plans that may qualify as
comprehensive watershed plans for incremental funds. It is the plan that must meet all
the nine elements, not your specific project. Do not send a copy of the plan with your
submittal.
The nine elements of a comprehensive watershed plan are:
1. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will need to be
controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in this watershed -based plan.
2. An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures described under item
(c) below.
3. A description of the NPS management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve the
load reductions estimated under item (b) above and an identification of the critical areas in which
those measures will be needed to implement this plan.
4. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or
the sources and authorities that will be relied upon, to implement this plan.
5. An information/education component that will be used to enhance public understanding of the
project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and
implementing the NPS management measures that will be implemented.
6. A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures identified in this plan that is
reasonably expeditious.
7. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management
measures or other control actions are being implemented.
8. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over
time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards and, if not,
the criteria for determining whether this watershed -based plan needs to be revised or, if a NPS
TMDL has been established, whether the NPS TMDL needs to be revised.
9. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time,
measured against the criteria established under item (h) immediately above.
If you have any questions or need further information, please call me at (850) 245-8682
or email me at Kristine.P.Tones@dep.state.fl.us.
Sincerely,
Kristine Papin Jones
Administartor
Nonpoint Source Management Section
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Phone: (850) 245-8682
Fax: (850) 245-8434
Email: Kristine.P.Tones@dep.state.fl.us
Attachment 1: FY13 Proposal Application with form fields (For a version without form
fields use Attachment 4.
Attachment 2: Proposal Evaluation Form
Attachment 3: Supplemental Information for Section 319(h) FY 2013 Agricultural
Project Applications
Attachment 4: Alternate FY13 Proposal Application Form without form fields (Submit only
if you are unable to use Attachment 1.
South Florida Coastal Program
Grant Information
Coastal Program
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
South Florida Coastal Program
Announcement of Financial Assistance
Fiscal Year 2012
U..
FTS" & 1dYTUnLCF'F
SHMfICE
A
ti
To develop cooperative agreements that provide funding for technically sound and cost effective projects that
restore or enhance degraded coastal wetlands, uplands, estuaries, and riparian corridors; including the removal of
exotic vegetation from coastal areas; and promoting public awareness of south Florida's ecological issues; and
To form partnerships in south Florida in joint effort to conserve, restore, and enhance coastal resources and
habitat.
To implement the Service's Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) framework focused on population objectives
and take the next steps in our conservation work across a suite of challenging issues including the most
compelling one of our time -- accelerating climate change.
PROJECT GOALS
• Ultimately result in on -the ground restoration or enhancement of coastal habitats, focusing on landscape level
initiatives
• Improve habitat for fish and wildlife resources, including federally protected species
• Collaborate with partners to combine resources and increase effectiveness
• Leverage additional funding or other in -kind goods and/or services towards the total project cost
• Incorporate SHC (http://www.fws.gov/southeast/SHGpdf/LandscapeConservationQA-10232008.pdfl into
projects with consideration of potential climate change effects and resiliency of restoration activities to factors
including, but not limited to, sea level rise.
Selected projects are funded from annual appropriations to the Coastal Program. Although project ideas may be
developed and project descriptions may be submitted throughout the year, please bear in mind that our final funding
allocations are typically distributed in mid -spring. Therefore, in order to be considered for funding in FY 2012, please
ensure that project descriptions are submitted no later than April 9, 2012. Projects will be evaluated by staff in the South
Florida Ecological Services Office and those selected will enter into cooperative agreements. During the cooperative
agreement process, project contacts may be asked to provide additional details of the work to be accomplished.
If you are aware of a project idea or need but are unsure of how to best develop it into a full project description, please
feel free to contact the Trust Resources Supervisor for guidance (see contact information below).
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title
Contact Information: Include name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone, fax, and e-mail address for each principal
investigator and co -investigator. Clearly indicate who the applicant is and what form of entity it is (e.g., Federal, state, or
local government; academic institution; non -governmental organization; non-profit group; or citizen).
Biological Planning
Project Objectives: Outline the plan of action and detail how the proposed work will be accomplished. Projects may be
multi -year in scope or a phased approach (up to 3 years). If a project will occur over more than 1 year, indicate
specifically what accomplishments (including acres restored or enhanced) will be completed each year.
Project Benefits to Coastal Ecosystems: (1) Note target/umbrella species and, if available, specific population objectives
for these species. Be sure to describe how any state or federally protected species will benefit from the project; (2)
provide background information on any problems the project seeks to resolve and the project's relevance to south
Florida's coastal ecosystem; and (3) outline the anticipated long-term and permanent results.
Conservation Design
Habitat Priority and Landscape Level Issues: Including how conservation practices to be implemented will address key
habitat limiting factors and threats to the target or umbrella species.
Project Location and Description: Provide a figure of the project area (include latitude and longitude; section, township,
and range; county), and clearly describe the approach and specific methods required to accomplish the project. Include
the following: (1) geographic extent of the benefits, including those that go beyond the project boundaries (e.g.,
landscape level benefits); (2) type of habitat and amount of area to be restored or permanently protected (e.g., linear feet
of shore line, acres); and (3) background on any problems the project seeks to resolve and the project's relevance to south
Florida's coastal ecosystems. Clearly quantify the amount of restoration (e.g., acreage per habitat type such as wetlands,
riparian, uplands, etc.) and indicate whether ownership of the project area is public or private.
Conservation Delivery
Contributing Partners: Identify each partner and what type of entity it is, define its role and responsibilities in completing
the project, and clearly itemize what each will contribute (e.g., funds, staff hours, volunteer hours, technical support) and
the dollar value. Please list all partners associated with the project, even those not contributing financial assistance.
Project Costs: Indicate the total cost to complete the project and provide a detailed budget itemizing individual
component costs, including all indirect and overhead costs. Indicate how much funding is being requested from the
Coastal Program and what project components this funding will pay for. In addition, indicate the amount of cash and in -
kind contributions each partner will contribute.
Statement of Products: Identify each product that will result from the project, in addition to quantifying the amount of
restoration (in acres per habitat type, stream miles, linear feet of shoreline, etc.). For multi -year projects, please specify
how many acres will be restored or enhanced during each year of the agreement.
Time Frame: Provide a detailed schedule of project implementation, duration, monitoring, reporting (semiannual and
annual), and milestones. Identify anticipated completion date for each product.
Actions to Date (if any): Describe past or current activities that are relevant to the project, such as previously initiated or
completed projects that could affect project initiation or offset the total project cost.
Permits: Projects that require Federal, state, local, or private authorization (e.g., permits, permission to access or conduct
activities on public or private lands) must demonstrate that they have or will have the necessary authorizations necessary
to complete the project. Additional environmental compliance documentation may be requested from those projects
selected for funding.
Outcome -based Monitoring
Describe monitoring plan; if available provide reference. Briefly summarize outcome -based accomplishment measure to
be monitored relative to target species and population objectives.
OTHER INSTRUCTIONS
Applicants are asked to submit one hard copy of each project description and one electronic copy (.DOC file) to
the addresses below. The electronic files may be sent via email, but please pay attention to the file size and send
multiple emails if necessary. Please limit project descriptions, excluding attachments, to five pages in length with
fonts no smaller than 12 point;
Other attachments should be limited to literature cited, aerial images, maps, project design schematics, and other
figures;
For more information or if you have any questions, please contact:
Craig Aubrey
Trust Resources Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office
1339 20th Street
Vero Beach, Florida, 32960
Phone: (772) 562-3909 (ext. 309)
Email: craig_aubrey@fws.gov
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program
Grant Information
49264 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002/Rules and Regulations
annually. It is not estimated to result in
the expenditure by motor vehicle and
motor vehicle equipment
manufacturers, child restraint system
manufacturers, and tire manufacturers
of more than $109 million annually.
Authority: Sec. 3, Pub. L. 106-414, 114
Stat. 1800 (49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112,
30117-121, 30166-167); delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: July 24, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
WR Doc. 02-19200 Filed 7-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 84
RIN 1018—AF51
National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes the
requirements for participation in the
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
Grant Program authorized by the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act (Act) and provides
guidance for the Program's
administration by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (referred to as
"Service," "we," and "us" within this
rule). It replaces interim procedures and
clarifies guidance for preparation,
submission, and evaluation of proposed
projects and administration of funded
projects.
DATES: This rule is effective July 30,
2002.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this
rule is available for inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the Division of Fish and
Wildlife Management and Habitat
Restoration, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Room
840, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,
Arlington, Virginia 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sally Valdes-Cogliano, Division of Fish
and Wildlife Management and Habitat
Restoration, by telephone (703) 358-
2201; fax (703) 358-2232; e-
mail<sally_ valdescogliano@fws.gov> or
Gary Reinitz, Division of Federal Aid,
by telephone (703) 358-2159; fax (703)
358-1837; e-mail.gary reinitz@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
What Is the National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program?
The Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act (16
U.S.C. 3951-3956) authorizes the
Director of the Service to make
matching grants to coastal States for
acquisition, restoration, enhancement,
management, and preservation of
coastal wetlands. Grants are available
annually on a competitive basis to
coastal States. Funding for this Program
comes from the Sport Fish Restoration
Account, which is supported by excise
taxes on fishing equipment, and
motorboat and small engine fuels.
The primary goal of the National
Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant
Program is the long-term conservation of
coastal wetland ecosystems. It
accomplishes this goal by helping States
in their efforts to protect, restore, and
enhance their coastal habitats. The
Program's accomplishments are
primarily on -the -ground and measured
in acres.
Why Protect Coastal Wetlands?
Coastal wetlands provide essential
fish and wildlife habitat. Coastal
ecosystems comprise less than 10
percent of the Nation's land area, but
support a much higher proportion of our
living resources. Specifically, coastal
areas support a high percentage of our
threatened and endangered species,
fishery resources, migratory songbirds,
and migrating and wintering waterfowl.
In addition to wildlife benefits,
wetlands provide substantial flood and
storm control values and can reduce the
need to construct expensive flood
control structures. They make an
important contribution to water quality
by recharging groundwater, filtering
surface runoff, and treating waste, and
they provide natural areas important for
recreational and aesthetic purposes.
Uplands associated with wetlands
provide food and cover to wildlife and
buffer wetlands from soil erosion and
contaminants. In the coterminous
United States, more than half of the
estimated original 221 million acres of
American wetlands have been destroyed
since European settlement. The
concentration of the U.S. population in
coastal areas is a continuing source of
development pressure on the remaining
coastal wetlands.
What Has the Program Accomplished?
Since the Service began awarding
grants in 1992, we have awarded about
$105 million to 25 States and 1 U.S.
territory to protect and/or restore about
130,000 acres of coastal wetland
ecosystems. The Program's emphasis on
encouraging partnerships, supporting
watershed planning, and leveraging
ongoing projects has helped stretch
program funds. The resource benefits of
this Program have included habitat
protection and restoration for migratory
birds, shorebirds, waterfowl,
endangered and threatened species, and
fish and shellfish.
Why Do We Need This Rule?
The National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program is currently
being administered using internal
interim program guidance and the
standard grant administration policies
of our Federal Aid Program. We believe
administration of the Program could be
improved through regulations
specifically tailored to meet the needs of
the Program. Accordingly, the rule uses
a plain English style, provides examples
to illustrate concepts, and combines
current guidance in one place. It should
result in a streamlined proposal
preparation, review and grant
administration process.
Currently, we evaluate grant requests
received from the State agencies on an
annual schedule. In the last few years,
the number of proposals received
annually by the Service National Office
has ranged from 29 to 36. A review
panel consisting of Service personnel
representing the coastal Regions of the
Service and specific program areas (for
example, the Fisheries and Habitat
Conservation, Endangered Species, and
Refuges Programs) reviews and ranks all
proposals. Based on the rankings of the
panel, recommendations are sent to the
Director of the Service, who makes the
final determination of which projects
will receive grants. The basic schedule
and procedures will not change
significantly with this rule.
The criteria for selecting proposals in
this final rule have been modified from
the interim guidance. For example, a
new criterion has been added to give
credit to projects that provide benefits to
migratory birds. Also, we have
expanded the discussion of each
criterion to clarify project scoring. The
changes were based on comments
provided by Service personnel who
have reviewed National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Grant proposals.
These criteria can be found in the rule
portion of this document.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the proposed rule that was
published August 20, 2001 (66 FR
43555), we requested that interested
parties submit any comments they
might have. We particularly sought
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49265
comments from the affected State
agencies. The comment period was from
August 20, 2001, to October 4, 2001.
We received comments from nine
State government agencies. These
comment letters provided suggestions
and comments on a wide range of
topics. We have considered all the
comment letters received during the
comment period and have made minor
changes to improve and clarify the rule
in response. Summaries of the major
comments or issues follow.
Issue 1: Do we need to extend the
period for the development of the grant
agreement?
Response: We agree that a longer
period for development of the grant
agreement is appropriate. Resolving all
the compliance issues that need to be
addressed before a grant agreement is
signed can be difficult. We are revising
§ 84.42 so that funds allocated for a
grant will be held until December 31 of
the following year.
Issue 2: What is the relationship
between the goals of the National
Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant
program and the Long-term and Annual
Performance Goals of the Service?
Response: Long-term conservation of
coastal wetlands is the primary goal of
the Program. The results can be
quantified in terms of acres enhanced,
protected, and/or restored. (See § 84.10
for the goal statement.) When States
conserve their wetlands resources using
this program we all achieve benefits to
habitat and wildlife. The discussion of
performance measures in the rule in
§ 84.30(a)(2)(v) has been clarified to
explain where to find the Service's
Long-term and Annual Performance
Goals and the relationship of these goals
to the Grants Program.
Issue 3: Should the annual grant
schedule be changed?
Response: The schedule in the rule
reflects the current operating schedule
for the Grants Program. We examined
the effects of moving deadlines but have
decided to maintain the current
schedule.
Issue 4: Is the definition of ineligible
activities too restrictive? Do we need to
distinguish between planning activities
for stand-alone grants, and planning as
a minimal part of a grant objective?
Response: The focus of this Grant
Program has always been on -the -ground
accomplishments —through land
acquisitions, easements, restoration and
enhancement activities —and its
accomplishments are measured in acres.
We have modified the description of
ineligible activities in § 84.20(b) to
clarify that planning activities of a
minimal nature and necessary to
complete the project could be allowable.
Issue 5: The definition of a
"substantial proposal" should include
that it is consistent with State and
Regional watershed plans. Consistency
should be encouraged and rewarded in
the grant scoring process.
Response: We agree that project
proposals should take into account
watershed plans. One of the ranking
criteria in § 84.32 is specifically
designed to give credit to proposals that
demonstrate the value of the proposal in
connection with wider planning efforts.
Issue 6: For the purposes of this rule,
how should we define maritime forests?
Response: The current definition is
not intended to include all kinds of
maritime forests that might be included
from a strictly biological perspective. It
is, instead, focused on protection of the
maritime forests characteristic of the
southeastern United States. This area
was considered to be, when the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act was passed, extremely
beneficial in protecting the coast and
also under severe development
pressure.
Issue 7: Should regionally threatened
wetland types be given the same priority
as nationally decreasing wetland types?
Response: The Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection and Restoration
Act states that the Director of the
Service should give priority to coastal
wetlands conservation projects that are
consistent with the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan developed
under Section 301 of the Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act (16 U.S.C.
3921). This Conservation Plan, which
was published in 1991, categorized
wetland types into declining, stable, and
increasing. Types that were declining
nationally do need to receive priority
under the National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program scoring
system.
We recognize that certain important
wetland types can be declining
regionally even if they are not declining
nationally. For this reason, we included
in this rule the possibility of regionally
decreasing types receiving credit in the
scoring system if the case for regionally
declining types is well -documented (see
§ 84.32(a)(1)(i)).
Issue 8: How should we define long-
term conservation? Should we handle
restoration and acquisition differently?
Response: Long-term conservation is a
requirement established by the Act for
this program. This rule requires that
projects provide conservation for at least
20 years. In selecting this number we
looked at the requirements of other
programs. For this one criterion,
acquisition projects may have some
advantage over restoration projects, but
this is one criterion among many and
we do not want to establish separate
ranking criteria for acquisition and
restoration.
Effective Date
This rule is effective upon
publication. In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), we believe that we have good
cause for making this rule effective
upon publication to ensure that the rule
is in effect during the next funding cycle
for the National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program. This rule
will benefit those entities seeking grants
under this Program. This rule provides
helpful information to grant applicants
in preparing their applications and will
help ensure that the Service applies fair
and consistent standards in reviewing
the grant applications.
What Are the Environmental Effects of
This Regulation?
This final rule is a regulation of an
administrative and financial nature.
Therefore, the action is categorically
excluded under 516 DM 2, Appendix
1.10 from any environmental
documentation pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
However, subsequent actions involved
with acquisition, restoration, or
enhancement will require further
compliance with NEPA on a case -by -
case basis.
Compliance with NEPA and other
environmental laws and Executive
Orders such as the Endangered Species
Act, Coastal Barrier Resources Act,
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act,
Executive Orders on Floodplains (E.O.
11988) and Wetlands (E.O. 11990), other
applicable executive orders on historic/
cultural resources, prime and unique
farmlands, and the Clean Water Act will
be satisfied before we approve grant
agreements for any project.
Does This Rule Have Any Information
Collection Requirements?
This rule's information collection
requirements include those necessary to
fulfill applicable requirements of 43
CFR part 12, and these have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et. seq.). This section of the Code of
Federal Regulations provides the
uniform administrative requirements for
grants and cooperative agreements to
States and local governments. The
required forms include a grant
agreement form, USFWS Form 3-1552
(OMB control number 1018-0049); an
amendment to the grant agreement form,
USFWS Form 3-1591 (OMB control
49266 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
number 1018-0049); the Federal Aid
Grant Application Booklet, which was
approved by OMB on January 18, 2001,
(OMB control number 1018-0109); the
NEPA Compliance Checklist, USFWS
Form 3-2185 (OMB control number
1018-0110); and the Summary
Information for Ranking National
Coastal Wetlands Grant Program
Proposals, USFWS Form 3-2179 (OMB
Control Number 1018-0111). An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with the criteria in
Executive Order 12866, this rule is a
significant regulatory action. OMB
makes the final determination of
significance under Executive Order
12866.
This rule will not have an annual
effect of $100 million or adversely affect
an economic sector, productivity, jobs,
the environment, or other units of
government. A cost -benefit and
economic analysis is not required. The
entities affected by this final rule are
State natural resource agencies. The
primary intended effect is to augment
State efforts to conserve their coastal
wetland resources. The program is
completely voluntary; States choose
whether to submit proposals for
matching grants. New funds available
each year are determined as a
percentage of monies received by the
Sport Fish Restoration Fund. However,
the total receipts for a given year for this
program are limited by the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act to $15 million. Receipts
for the last few years have been in the
$10 million to $13 million range. This
last grant cycle included $13 million in
new money and $1.5 million available
as carryover from previous years.
This rule will not create
inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. The Service is charged with
administering the National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Program by the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection
and Restoration Act. This Program
supports and augments State efforts to
conserve their resources. States
voluntarily choose to participate, and no
other Federal agencies have
responsibilities associated with this
Grant Program. Some Federal agencies
have participated voluntarily on specific
projects as cooperators with the State
agencies.
This rule will not affect entitlements,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights
and obligations of their recipients. It
will affect this specific grant program.
The Service has been giving out
matching grants to States under the
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
Grant Program since 1992. If we
continue to operate with interim
procedures and general Federal Aid
grant administration, the same amount
of grant assistance will be given to
coastal States. The main effect that we
expect from this rulemaking is a
streamlined proposal preparation and
review and grant administration
process.
This rule will not raise novel legal or
policy issues. As stated above, the
Service has been awarding grants to
States and administering this Program
under the authority of the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act since 1992. However,
the purpose of this new rule is to
improve the process.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities as
defined under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). By law, the
only eligible recipients of this grant
program are coastal State and territory
government agencies. Operating with
interim guidance, we have given out
grants since 1992. This rule should not
result in a major change to the Program.
The Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act specifies
an annual cap of $15 million that can be
allocated to this program. An initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
required. Accordingly, a Small Entity
Compliance Guide is also not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This final rule will not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more; will not cause a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions; and will not have
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign -based enterprises.
As stated above, the maximum
amount, by law, that can be directed to
this Grant Program is $15 million per
year. This Program is directed
exclusively at State governments. This
rule might provide some contracting
work at a local level for restoration
projects, creating a minor positive effect
on the local economy. All land
purchased under this Program is paid at
fair market value from willing sellers.
The land involved is a relatively small
amount spread over the 10 to 15 States
and territories that typically receive
grants in a given year. All lands
acquired will be put under long-term
conservation protection by the States.
Some of the grants are for restoration
work on lands already owned by the
States.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), this final rule will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments and will not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year, i.e., it is not a
"significant regulatory action" under
the Act. A Small Government Agency
Plan is not required. As stated above,
this rule pertains to a grant program
directed at State governments. In a few
cases, local governments have chosen to
partner in a grant project proposed by
the State. Participation in the Program is
entirely voluntary. The Program income
is limited to $15 million per year by the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection
and Restoration Act.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order
12630, this final rule does not have
significant takings implications. A
takings implication assessment is not
required. The rule specifies that all
acquisitions under this Program are
from willing sellers. No private property
will be taken from unwilling owners for
the furtherance of this Program, and just
compensation will be provided to
willing owners.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, the final rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. The rule
allows eligible coastal States to make
decisions regarding the selection of
properties for acquisition, plan
restoration projects, and take protective
measures.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order
12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3 (a)
and 3 (b) (2) of the Order. To the extent
of our knowledge, no legal cases have
ever been associated with this grant
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49267
program. The rule should actually serve
to reduce the possibility of litigation by
establishing specific requirements for
participation in the National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Grant Program
and guidance for its administration by
the Service. The rule will establish a
clear legal standard for affected conduct.
Government -to -Government
Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President's
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
"Government -to -Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments" (59 FR 22951), E.O.
13175, and part 512, chapter 2 of the
Department of the Interior Manual, we
have evaluated potential effects on
federally recognized Indian tribes and
have determined that the effects are
minimal. The Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection and Restoration
Act specifies the States that can
participate in this Grant Program. The
Act does not provide for grants directly
to Indian tribes. Tribes have, in a few
cases, participated as cooperators on
projects.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
(Executive Order 13211)
On May 18, 2001, the President issues
Executive Order 13 211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order
13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. While this
rule is a significant action under
Executive Order 12866, it is not
expected to significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, and use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
How Does the Intergovernmental Review
of Federal Programs Work?
This National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program is covered
under Executive Order (Order) 12372
"Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs" and 43 CFR Part 9
"Intergovernmental Review of
Department of the Interior Programs and
Activities." Under the Order, States may
design their own processes for
reviewing and commenting on proposed
Federal assistance under covered
programs.
Coastal States and territories that have
chosen to participate in the Executive
Order process have established Single
Points of Contact (SPOCs). Applicants
from jurisdictions that do not
participate do not need to take any
action regarding E.O. 12372. All other
applicants should alert their SPOCs
early in the application process. This
step will insure that applicants find out
about any SPOC requirements. If you as
an applicant are required to submit
materials to the SPOC, indicate the date
of this submittal (or the date of contact
if no submittal is required) on the
Standard Form 424.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 84
Coastal zone -wetlands, Environmental
protection -natural resources, Fisheries,
Grant administration, Grant programs -
natural resources, Intergovernmental
relations, Marine resources, Natural
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Wildlife.
For the reasons discussed in the
supplementary information, we are
amending subchapter F of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
by adding a new part 84, to read as
follows:
PART 84—NATIONAL COASTAL
WETLANDS CONSERVATION GRANT
PROGRAM
Subpart A —General Background
Sec.
84.10 What is the purpose and scope of this
rule?
84.11 How does the Service define the
terms used in this rule?
84.12 What are the information collection,
record keeping, and reporting
requirements?
Subpart B—Applying for Grants
84.20 What are the grant eligibility
requirements?
84.21 How do I apply for a National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Grant?
84.22 What needs to be included in grant
proposals?
Subpart C—Project Selection
84.30 How are projects selected for grants?
84.31 An overview of the ranking criteria.
84.32 What are the ranking criteria?
Subpart D—Conditions on Acceptance/Use
of Federal Money
84.40 What conditions must I follow to
accept Federal money?
84.41 Who prepares a grant agreement?
What needs to be included?
84.42 What if a grant agreement is not
signed?
84.43 How do States get the grant monies?
84.44 What is the timetable for use of grant
funds?
84.45 How do I amend a proposal?
84.46 What are the cost -sharing
requirements?
84.47 What are allowable costs?
84.48 What are the procedures for
acquiring, maintaining, and disposing of
real property?
84.49 What if the project costs more or less
than originally expected?
84.50 How does a State certify compliance
with Federal laws, regulations, and
policies?
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3951-3956.
Subpart A —General Background
§ 84.10 What is the purpose and scope of
this rule?
The regulations in this part establish
the requirements for coastal State
participation in the National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Grant Program
authorized by Section 305 of the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act (Pub L. 101-646, title
III; 16 U.S.C. 3954). The primary goal of
the National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program is the long-
term conservation of coastal wetlands
ecosystems. It accomplishes this by
helping States protect, restore, and
enhance their coastal habitats through a
competitive grants program. Results are
measured in acres protected, restored,
and enhanced.
§ 84.11 How does the Service define the
terms used in this rule?
Terms used have the following
meaning in this part:
Coastal barrier. A depositional
geologic feature that is subject to wave,
tidal, and wind energies; protects
landward aquatic habitats from direct
wave attack; and includes all associated
aquatic habitats such as adjacent
wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and
nearshore waters. These can include
islands; spits of land connected to a
mainland at one end; sand bars that
connect two headlands and enclose
aquatic habitat; broad, sandy, dune
beaches; or fringing mangroves. Coastal
barriers are found on coastlines
including major embayments and the
Great Lakes of the United States and its
territories.
Coastal Barrier Resources System. A
defined set of undeveloped coastal
areas, designated by the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-348)
and the Coastal Barrier Improvement
Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-591). Within
these defined units of the System,
Federal expenditures are restricted to
discourage development of coastal
barriers.
Coastal States. States bordering the
Great Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin); States
bordering the Atlantic, Gulf (except
Louisiana), and Pacific coasts (Alabama,
Alaska, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Texas, Virginia, and Washington); and
American Samoa, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto
49268 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. (Louisiana
is not included because it has its own
wetlands conservation program
authorized by the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection and Restoration
Act and implemented by the Corps of
Engineers with assistance from the State
of Louisiana, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Departments
of the Interior, Agriculture, and
Commerce.)
Coastal wetland ecosystems.
Ecosystems that consist of multiple,
interrelated coastal land features. They
include wetlands in drainage basins of
estuaries or coastal waters that contain
saline, brackish, and nearshore waters;
coastlines and adjacent lands; adjacent
freshwater and intermediate wetlands
that interact as an ecological unit; and
river mouths and those portions of
major river systems affected by tidal
influence —all of which interact as an
integrated ecological unit. Shorelands,
dunes, nearshore islands, barrier islands
and associated headlands, and
freshwater wetlands within estuarine
drainages are included in the definition
since these interrelated features are
critical to coastal fish, wildlife, and
their habitats.
The definition of a coastal wetland
ecosystem also applies to the Great
Lakes and their watersheds, where
freshwater plays a similar hydrologic
role. The Great Lakes coastal wetland
ecosystem is made up of multiple
interrelated coastal landscape features
along the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes
coastal wetland ecosystem includes
wetlands located adjacent to any of the
Great Lakes including Lake St. Clair and
connecting waters, and mouths of river
or stream systems draining directly into
the Great Lakes. Shorelands, dunes,
offshore islands, and barrier islands and
associated headlands are included in
the definition since these interrelated
features are critical to Great Lakes fish,
wildlife, and their habitats.
Coastal Wetlands Act or Act. The
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection
and Restoration Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.
3951-3956).
Eligible applicant. Any agency or
agencies of a coastal State designated by
the Governor. It is usually a State
natural resource or fish and wildlife
agency.
Enhancement. The manipulation of
the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a wetland
(undisturbed or degraded) site to
heighten, intensify, or improve specific
function(s) or to change the growth stage
or composition of the vegetation
present.
Fund. A fund established and used by
a coastal State for acquiring coastal
wetlands, other natural areas, or open
spaces. The fund can be a trust fund
from which the principal is not spent,
or a fund derived from a dedicated
recurring source of monies including,
but not limited to, real estate transfer
fees or taxes, cigarette taxes, tax
checkoffs, or motor vehicle license plate
fees.
Grant. An award of financial
assistance by the Federal Government to
an eligible applicant.
Long-term conservation. Protecting
and restoring terrestrial and aquatic
environments for at least 20 years. This
includes the hydrology, water quality,
and fish and wildlife that depend on
these environments.
Maintenance. (These activities are
ineligible under the program; the
definition is included to distinguish
these activities from acquisition,
restoration, enhancement, and
management.) Maintenance includes
those activities necessary for upkeep of
a facility or habitat. These activities
include routine, recurring custodial
maintenance such as housekeeping and
minor repairs as well as the supplies,
materials, and tools necessary to carry
out the work. Also included is
nonroutine cyclical maintenance to
keep facilities or habitat improvements
fully functional. Cyclical maintenance is
major maintenance or renovation
activities conducted at intervals
normally greater than 1 year.
Management. (Includes habitat
management only.) Habitat management
includes vegetation manipulation and
restoration of habitat to support fish and
wildlife populations. Creation of
wetlands where they did not previously
exist is not included in the definition of
management.
Maritime forest. Maritime forests are
defined, for the purposes of this
regulation, as broad-leaved forests that
occur on barrier islands and along the
mainland coast from Delaware to Texas.
Examples are primarily characterized by
a closed canopy of various combinations
of live oak (Quercus virginiana), upland
laurel oak (Quercus hemisphaerica),
pignut hickory (Carya glabra), southern
magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora),
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and
cabbage palm (Saba] palmetto). Shrubs
and smaller trees typical of the
understory include live oak, upland
laurel oak, pignut hickory, red mulberry
(Morns rubra), wild olive (Osmanthus
americanus), American holly (Ilex
opaca), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria),
beautyberry (Callicarpa americana),
bumelia (Sideraxylon spp.), and small -
flowered pawpaw (Asimina parviflora).
The herb layer is generally rich and
diverse, typically including
partridgeberry (Mitchella repens),
coralbean (Erythrina herbacea), small -
leaved milk pea (Galactic microphylla),
tick trefoils (Desmodium spp.), and
sp'kegrass (Chasmanthium
sessiliflorum). Vines are represented by
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia),
Virginia creeper (Parrhenocissus
quinquefolia), and various briers
(Smilax spp.).
This natural community type becomes
established on old coastal dunes that
have been stabilized long enough to
sustain forests. In time, the
accumulation of humus contributes to
moisture retention of soils, while the
canopy minimizes temperature
fluctuations by reducing soil warming
during the day and heat loss at night.
Because of the underlying deep sands,
maritime forests are generally well -
drained.
Maritime forests have become prime
resort and residential property because
of their relatively protected locations
along the coast. Although this
community type originally occurred in
virtually continuous strips along the
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, residential
developments and infrastructure
encroachments have severely
fragmented most occurrences.
National Wetlands Inventory. A
Service program that produces
information on the characteristics,
extent, and status of the Nation's
wetlands and deepwater habitat. The
program's strongest mandates come
from the Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901),
which directs the Service to map
wetlands, conduct wetlands status and
trends studies, and disseminate the
information produced.
National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan. A plan developed by
the Service for the U.S. Department of
the Interior at the direction of Congress
through the Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901).
The plan provides the criteria and
guidance for identifying wetlands that
warrant attention for Federal and State
acquisition using Land and Water
Conservation Fund appropriations.
Operations. (These activities are
ineligible under the program; the
definition is included to distinguish
these activities from acquisition,
restoration, enhancement, and
management.) Operations include
activities necessary for the functioning
of a facility or habitat to produce
desired results. These include public
use management and facility
management.
Program. The National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Grant Program.
A program administered by the Service
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49269
that awards Federal grants through a
competitive process to State agencies for
projects to acquire, restore, manage, or
enhance coastal wetlands.
Project. One or more related activities
necessary to fulfill a stated objective to
provide for the long-term conservation
of coastal wetlands including the lands
and waters, hydrology, water quality,
and wetland -dependent wildlife. These
activities can include acquisition,
restoration, enhancement, or
management of coastal wetlands.
Restoration. The manipulation of the
physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of
returning natural/historic functions to a
former or degraded wetland.
§ 84.12 What are the information
collection, record keeping, and reporting
requirements?
(a) Information collection
requirements include:
(1) An Application for Federal
Assistance (Standard Form 424);
(2) A proposal, following the guidance
of OMB Circular A-102 and the Federal
Aid Grant Application Booklet (OMB
Control Number 1018-0109), that
includes statements of need and
objective(s); a description of expected
results or benefits; the approach to be
used, such as procedures, schedules,
key personnel and cooperators, location
of the proposed action, and estimated
costs to accomplish the objective(s);
identification of any other actions that
may relate to the grant; and a
description of public involvement and
interagency coordination;
(3) Discussion of ranking criteria,
including a completed summary
information form (USFWS Form 3-
2179);
(4) Assurances of compliance with all
applicable Federal laws, regulations,
and policies (SF 424B or SF 424D); and
(5) Documents, as appropriate,
supporting the proposal; for example,
environmental assessments (including
the NEPA compliance checklist, USFWS
Form 3-2185) and evaluations of effects
on threatened and endangered species.
(6) A grant agreement form if the
proposal is selected for an award
(USFWS Form 3-1552); and
(7) A grant amendment form if the
agreement is modified (USFWS Form 3-
1591).
(b) Record -keeping requirements
include the tracking of costs and
accomplishments related to the grant as
required by 43 CFR 12.60, monitoring
and reporting program performance (43
CFR 12.80), and financial reporting (43
CFR 12.81). The project report should
include information about the acres
conserved, with a breakdown by
conservation method (for example,
acquired, restored, or both) and type of
habitat (list habitat types and include
the acreage of each). Are the results of
the project being monitored? Is there
evidence that the resources targeted in
the proposal (for example, anadromous
fish, threatened and endangered species,
and migratory birds) have benefited?
(c) Reporting requirements include
retention and access requirements as
specified in 43 CFR 12.82 and
authorized by OMB through the Federal
Aid Grant Application Booklet (OMB
Control Number 1018-0109).
Subpart B—Applying for Grants
§ 84.20 What are the grant eligibility
requirements?
(a) Eligible grant activities include:
(1) Acquisition of a real property
interest in coastal lands or waters from
willing sellers or partners (coastal
wetlands ecosystems), providing that
the terms and conditions will ensure the
real property will be administered for
long-term conservation.
(2) The restoration, enhancement, or
management of coastal wetlands
ecosystems, providing restoration,
enhancement, or management will be
administered for long-term
conservation.
(b) Ineligible activities include but are
not limited to:
(1) Projects that primarily benefit
navigation, irrigation, flood control, or
mariculture;
(2) Acquisition, restoration,
enhancement, or management of lands
to mitigate recent or pending habitat
losses resulting from the actions of
agencies, organizations, companies, or
individuals;
(3) Creation of wetlands by humans
where wetlands did not previously
exist;
(4) Enforcement of fish and wildlife
laws and regulations, except when
necessary for the accomplishment of
approved project purposes;
(5) Research;
(6) Planning as a primary project
focus (planning is allowable as a
minimal component of project plan
development);
(7) Operations and maintenance;
(8) Acquiring and/or restoring upper
portions of watersheds where benefits to
the coastal wetlands ecosystem are not
significant and direct; and
(9) Projects providing less than 20
years of conservation benefits.
§84.21 How Do I Apply for a National
Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant?
(a) Eligible applicants should submit
their proposals to the appropriate
Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Proposals must be
complete upon submission, and must
include the information outlined in
§ 84.22 to be complete.
(1) Service Regional Federal Aid
Offices' responsibilities for
administration of this grant program
include: Notifying the States of the
program, its requirements, and any
changes that occur; determining the
State agencies designated by the
Governor as eligible applicants;
ensuring that only eligible applicants
apply for grants; coordinating with
various Service programs to ensure that
sound and consistent guidance is
communicated to the States;
determining proposal eligibility and
substantiality; and determining 75
percent match eligibility and notifying
the States of approved and disapproved
proposals.
(2) Service Divisions of Ecological
Services in the regions and field and
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation in
the national office provide technical
assistance and work with Federal Aid to
encourage State participation in this
process.
(3) Send your proposals to the
appropriate Regional Offices, as follows:
Coastal states by service regions I Regional contact information
American Samoa, California, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington (Region 1).
Texas(Region 2)....................................................................................
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin (Region 3)
Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE 11 th Avenue, Portland, Or-
egon 97232-4181, (503) 231-6128.
Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, P.O. Box 1306, 500 Gold Avenue, SW, Albuquerque, New Mex-
ico 87103, (505) 248-7450.
Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort
Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, (612) 713-5130.
49270 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Coastal states by service regions Regional contact information
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
South Carolina, and the Virgin Islands. Louisiana is not eligible to ice, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345,
participate under Section 305 of 16 U.S.C. 3954, because Louisiana (404) 679-4159.
has its own separate program. (Region 4).
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hamp- Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
shire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vir- ice, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035—
ginia (Region 5). 9589, (413) 253-8508.
Alaska (Region 7)..................................................................................... Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, (907) 786-
3435.
(b) The Program operates on an
annual cycle. Regional Federal Aid
Offices request proposals from the
States in early April. Proposals must be
received by the Regional Director on or
before a due date set in early June in
order to be considered for funding in the
following fiscal year. Check with your
Regional Office each year for the exact
due dates. Regions review proposals for
eligibility and substantiality. Regions
may rank eligible and substantial
proposals and submit them to the
national office of the Service in
Washington, DC, by a date set in late
June. A Review Panel coordinated by
the Service's National Office of
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation
reviews and ranks proposals in early
August using the criteria established in
this rule. The Director selects the
proposals and announces the grant
recipients at the beginning of the new
fiscal year (October 1).
(c) More than one agency in a State
may submit proposals to the Service if
the Governor determines that more than
one agency has responsibility for coastal
wetlands.
(d) A project proposal that includes
several separate and distinct phases may
be submitted in phases, but any
succeeding phases must compete
against other proposals in the year
submitted. Obtaining money for one
phase of a project will not be contingent
upon acquiring money for another phase
of that same project.
(e) The Federal (Program) share will
not exceed $1 million per project.
(f) The percentage of non -Federal
match (cash or in -kind) must not be less
than 25 percent of the total costs if the
State has a designated fund or not less
than 50 percent without a fund.
§ 84.22 What needs to be included in grant
proposals?
Proposals must include the following:
(a) Application for Federal Assistance
(Standard Form 424);
(b) A Statement of Assurances of
compliance with applicable Federal
laws, regulations, and policies (either
Standard Form 424B or 424D); and
(c) A project statement that identifies
and describes:
(1) The need within the purposes of
the Act;
(2) Discrete, quantifiable, and
verifiable objective(s) to be
accomplished during a specified time
period;
(3) Expected results or benefits, in
terms of coastal lands and waters, the
hydrology, water quality, or fish and
wildlife dependent on the wetlands;
(4) The approach to be used in
meeting the objectives, including
specific procedures, schedules, key
personnel, and cooperators;
(5) A project location, including two
maps: A map of the State showing the
general location of the proposal, and a
map of the project site;
(6) Estimated costs to attain the
objective(s) (the various activities or
components of each project should be
broken down by cost and by
cooperator);
(7) If the request is more than
$100,000 (Federal share), the applicant
must submit a Form DI-2010, certifying
that the grant money will not be used
for lobbying activities;
(8) A concise statement, with
documentation, of how the proposal
addresses each of the 13 numeric
criteria including a summary using FWS
Form No. 3-2179 (see § 84.32);
(9) A description of the State trust
fund that supports a request for a 75
percent Federal share in sufficient detail
for the Service to make an eligibility
determination, or a statement that
eligibility has been previously approved
and no change has occurred in the fund;
(10) A list of other current coastal
acquisition, restoration, enhancement,
and management actions; agency(ies)
involved; relationship to the proposed
grant; and how the proposal fits into
comprehensive naturaf resource plans
for the area, if any; and
(11) Public involvement or
interagency coordination on coastal
wetlands conservation projects that has
occurred or is planned that relates to
this proposal (Specify the organizations
or agencies involved and dates of
involvement.) .
Subpart C—Project Selection
§ 84.30 How are projects selected for
grants?
Project selection is a three -step
process: proposal acceptance, proposal
ranking, and proposal selection.
(a) Proposal acceptance. (1) The
Regional Federal Aid Offices decide
whether a proposal should be accepted
for consideration by determining if the
proposal is complete, substantial, and
contains activities that are eligible.
Proposals that do not qualify are
immediately returned to the State.
Revision and resubmission of returned
proposals is allowable during this
period, which is in June (check with
your Regional Office for the exact dates
each year). If any of the factors of
completeness, substantiality, or
eligibility are not met, the Regions
should not forward the proposal to the
Washington Office.
(2) To be considered for acceptance,
the proposal must be substantial in
character and design. A substantial
proposal is one that:
(i) Identifies and describes a need
within the purposes of the Act;
(ii) Identifies the objective to be
accomplished based on the stated need;
(iii) Uses accepted principles, sound
design, and appropriate procedures;
(iv) Provides public conservation
benefits that are cost effective and long-
term, i.e., at least 20 years; and
(v) Identifies obtainable, quantified
performance measures (acres enhanced,
restored, or protected) that help achieve
the management goals and objectives of
the National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program. Through
this program, the States' efforts and
leadership will help the Service meet its
Long -Term and Annual Performance
Goals as expressed in the Service's
Annual Performance Plan.'
(3) The grant limit is $1 million.
Proposals requesting Program awards
1 The Service's Annual Performance Plan can be
found on the Service's homepage at http://www//
. fws.gov/r9gpra. For more information you might
also contact the Budget Office at 202-208-4596 or
the Planning and Evaluation Staff at 202-208-2549.
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49271
that exceed $1 million will be returned
to the appropriate State. Similarly,
individual projects that have clearly
been divided into multiple proposals for
submission in one grant cycle to avoid
this limit will be returned to the
appropriate State. The State can revise
and resubmit the proposal so that the
request does not exceed the $1 million
limit.
(b) Proposal ranking. Once a proposal
is accepted by the Region, the Regional
Federal Aid Office sends the proposal to
the National Federal Aid Office, which
works with the National Office of the
Fish and Wildlife Management and
Habitat Restoration Program for
distribution to a Review Panel. The
Review Panel includes representation
from our coastal Regions and from other
Service Programs, for example, the
Endangered Species Program. The
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation
Program is responsible for coordinating
the review and ranking of proposals
according to the established criteria, a
process that usually involves a national
meeting.
(c) Proposal selection. The Review
Panel's recommendations are forwarded
to the Director of the Service for a final
review and project selection. The
Director announces the selection by
October 1.
§ 84.31 An overview of the ranking criteria.
(a) The primary objective of the
proposal will be to acquire, restore,
enhance, or manage coastal wetlands to
benefit coastal wetlands and the
hydrology, water quality, and fish and
wildlife dependent upon them. The
Program will not provide grants, for
example, for construction or repair of
boat ramps or docks for recreational
purposes and construction or support of
research facilities or activities. The
purpose of the ranking criteria is to
provide a means for selecting the best
projects —those that produce the
maximum benefits to coastal wetlands
and the fish and wildlife that depend on
them.
(b) Proposal ranking factors. (1)
Ranking criteria. As explained in
§ 84.32, we will evaluate proposals
according to 13 ranking criteria. These
criteria have varying point values.
Proposals must address each of these 13
criteria.
(2) Additional considerations. Even
though the criteria provide the primary
evaluation of proposals, we may factor
additional considerations into the
ranking decision at the national level. In
case of a tie, we will use these
additional considerations to rank
proposals having identical scores.
(c) The criteria in § 84.32 are not
listed in priority order.
(d) Points are assigned on the basis of
a completed project, rather than current
conditions, e.g., count 50 acres of
estuarine emergent wetlands if 50 acres
of that habitat type will be restored
when the project is completed.
(e) A range of points rather than a set
point value allows the reviewer to
distinguish between, for example, a
proposal that provides some foraging
habitat for a threatened species versus
one that provides critical nesting habitat
of several endangered species. Scoring
guidance is included with the
individual criteria.
(f) A total of 64 points is possible
under the scoring system.
(g) If a grant proposal is not selected,
the State may resubmit it for
reconsideration in subsequent fiscal
years. Resubmission of a grant proposal
is the responsibility of the applicant.
§ 84.32 What are the ranking criteria?
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
will rank proposals using the 13 criteria
listed below. In the following list, a
description of each criterion is followed
by examples and the points they would
receive for that criterion.
(1) Wetlands conservation. Will the
project reverse coastal wetland loss or
habitat degradation in decreasing or
stable coastal wetland types? Will it
conserve wetlands to prevent losses of
decreasing or stable wetland types?
(Maximum: 7 points)
(i) The majority of the project area
(over 50 percent) is nationally
decreasing coastal wetland types,2 or
the majority is regionally decreasing
wetlands types in which the case for
regionally decreasing is well -
documented (Up to 7 points). The
nationally decreasing types are
estuarine intertidal emergent; estuarine
intertidal forested; estuarine intertidal
scrub -shrub; marine intertidal;
palustrine emergent; palustrine forested;
and palustrine scrub -shrub. Describe the
wetlands using terms listed above.
Include a breakdown showing the
percentage of the proposal's total and
wetland acreage in decreasing types.
Provide National Wetlands Inventory
codes/information if available.
Information about these can be found on
the National Wetland Inventory's web
site at http://wetlands.fws.gov.
(ii) The majority of the project area
(over 50 percent) is nationally stable
coastal wetlands types 2 (Up to 5
2 These designations are based on the National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. For more
information about the plan, or to receive a copy of
the document, refer to the contact information
provided in § 84.21.
points). The nationally stable types are
estuarine intertidal non -vegetated and
estuarine subtidal. Describe the
wetlands using the terms listed above.
Include a breakdown showing the
percentage of the proposal's total and
wetland acreage in stable types. Provide
National Wetlands Inventory codes/
information if available.
(iii) Wetlands benefited are less than
50 percent of the project area. (Up to 3
points)
(iv) If the project would benefit
wetlands in the upper portion of the
coastal watershed, but does not
demonstrate significant and direct
benefits to coastal wetlands, the
proposal will not receive any points. (0
points)
(v) We will award a full 7 points to
proposals that document that over 50
percent of their project area would be,
upon project completion, decreasing
coastal wetland types. A combination of
decreasing and stable types that is over
50 percent of the project area could
receive an intermediate score of 4, 5, or
6 points, depending on the balance
between decreasing and stable types. If
wetlands are 50 percent or less of the
project area, use the following guide for
allocating points: 25 to 50 percent of the
project area is decreasing or stable
wetlands, 2, 3, or 4 points; 5 to 24
percent, 1 or 2 points; and less than 5
percent, 0 points.
(2) Maritime forests on coastal
barriers. Will the proposal significantly
benefit maritime forests on coastal
barriers? The coastal barrier does not
need to be a unit of the Coastal Barrier
Resources System. (Maximum: 7 points)
(i) The proposal documents
significant benefit to maritime forests on
a coastal barrier. Describe the forest in
sufficient detail so reviewers can
determine whether it meets the
definition of "maritime forest." (Up to 7
points)
(ii) The proposal does not benefit
maritime forests on a coastal barrier. (0
points)
(iii) For this criterion most scores
should be either 0 or 7. If questions arise
about the significance of the benefit or
whether the forests meet the strict
definition, an intermediate score could
be given.
(3) Long-term conservation. Does the
project ensure long-term conservation of
coastal wetland functions? The project
must provide at least 20 years of
conservation benefits to be eligible.
(Maximum: 7 points)
(i) Once the project is complete, the
project will provide continuing coastal
wetlands benefits in perpetuity (100
years or longer). (7 points)
49272 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) Once the project is complete, the
project will provide continuing coastal
wetland benefits for 50-99 years. (3 to
6 points)
(iii) Once the project is complete, the
proposal will provide continuing coastal
wetlands benefits for 20-49 years. (1 to
3 points)
(iv) The proposal should show how
the project will be maintained and the
benefits sustained over time. Proposals
must include adequate documentation
of long-term conservation of coastal
wetland values, such as a 25-year
easement, to receive points for this
criterion. If part of the project's benefits
will be perpetual (owned in fee title, for
example) and part is estimated to last 20
years, reviewers should weigh the
different elements of the project and
give an intermediate score.
(4) Coastal watershed management.
Would the completed project help
accomplish the natural resource goals
and objectives of one or more formal,
ongoing coastal ecosystem or coastal
watershed management plan(s) or
effort(s)? Describe the management plan
or effort(s). (Maximum: 3 points)
(i) The project supports the natural
resource goals of identified formal,
ongoing coastal ecosystem or coastal
watershed management plans or efforts.
Describe the management plan(s) and/or
effort(s) and explain how this project
relates to its objectives. A plan that very
specifically identifies the site will
receive more points than a plan
containing many generic references. (Up
to 3 points)
(ii) The project does not support the
natural resource goals and objectives of
a formal, ongoing coastal ecosystem or
coastal watershed management effort. If
the proposal benefits the upper portions
of coastal watersheds, but provides no
significant and direct benefits to the
coastal wetlands ecosystems, the
proposal will not receive points. (0
points)
(5) Conservation of threatened and
endangered species. Will the project
benefit any federally listed endangered
or threatened species, species proposed
for Federal listing, recently delisted
species, or designated or proposed
critical habitat in coastal wetlands? Will
it benefit State -listed threatened and
endangered species? (Maximum: 5
points)
(i) The project will provide, restore, or
enhance important habitat (e.g., nesting,
breeding, feeding, nursery areas) for
federally listed or proposed endangered
or threatened species that use the
coastal area project site for at least part
of their life cycle. The project will
benefit recently delisted species and
habitat conservation plans developed
under the auspices of the Endangered
Species Act. List the species and their
status (e.g., threatened or endangered)
and provide documentation (e.g., cite
recovery plan, attach letter from species
expert) of current or recent species
occurrence in the coastal area project
site. Describe the importance of the
habitat. (Up to 5 points)
(ii) The project will provide, restore,
or enhance important habitat for State -
listed threatened and endangered
species. (Up to 2 points)
(iii) The project will not provide,
restore, or enhance important habitat for
federally or State -listed or proposed
endangered or threatened species in the
coastal area project site for any part of
their life cycle. If the proposal provides
benefits to threatened and endangered
species in the upper portion of the
coastal watershed, but provides no
significant and direct benefits to
threatened and endangered species
using coastal wetlands ecosystem
habitat, the proposal will not receive
any points. (0 points)
(iv) The combined scores of
subparagraphs (a) (5) (i) and (a) (5) (ii) of
this section cannot exceed the 5-point
maximum.
(6) Benefits to fish. Will the project
provide, restore, or enhance important
fisheries habitat? (Maximum: 5 points)
(i) The project will provide, restore, or
enhance important habitat (i.e.,
spawning, nursery, juvenile, or foraging
habitat) for specific species that use the
coastal area project site for at least part
of their life cycle. These species may
include anadromous, interjurisdictional,
or other important species. List species,
habitat types, and benefits to each
species. (Up to 5 points)
(ii) The project does not document
current or future benefits to fish species
and their habitat. (0 points)
(iii) The more specific the information
is on the use of the area and the
importance of the habitat, the greater the
points. An area specifically identified as
critical for conservation in a fisheries
management plan will, for example,
receive more points than one which is
not.
(7) Benefits to coastal -dependent or
migratory birds. Will the project
provide, restore, or enhance important
habitat for coastal -dependent or
migratory birds?
(i) The project will provide, restore, or
enhance important habitat (i.e.,
breeding, staging, foraging, wintering/
summering habitat) benefits for at least
part of the life cycle of coastal
dependent or migratory birds. List the
species and habitat types, and describe
the benefits to each. (Up to 5 points)
(ii) The project will not significantly
benefit coastal -dependent or migratory
birds. (0 points)
(iii) We will give maximum points to
projects that benefit coastal -dependent
species identified in the North
American Waterfowl Plan or listed as
species of management concern.3
Proposals should also include
information that demonstrates how the
project will contribute to the regional
goals developed under the U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan,
Partners in Flight, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, or other
bird conservation initiatives. Proposals
that fail to do so will not receive
maximum points. Indicate if the
proposed area has been specifically
identified by any program or agency for
its migratory bird values.
(8) Prevent or reduce contamination.
Will the project prevent or reduce input
of contaminants to the coastal wetlands
and associated coastal waters, or restore
coastal wetlands and other associated
coastal waters that are already
contaminated? (Maximum: 5 points)
(i) The project will prevent significant
inputs of contaminants or will provide
significant improvements to the quality
of the coastal wetland and associated
waters through protection from
contaminants or restoration, including
assimilation of nutrients and
nonpersistent toxic substances. Describe
the types and sources of possible or
current impairment to the coastal
wetland and other associated coastal
waters (e.g., to water quality, sediments,
flora, or fauna). Describe how
contaminant inputs or residues will be
prevented, reduced, or eliminated.
Preventing contaminants by precluding
residential development through
acquisition will not normally warrant
full points unless the applicant can be
shown that significant contamination
would have occurred otherwise. (Up to
5 points)
(ii) The proposal will not significantly
prevent impairment or improve the
quality of the coastal wetland and
associated coastal waters. If the proposal
provides positive water quality benefits
in the upper portions of watersheds, but
provides no significant and direct
positive water quality benefits to coastal
wetland ecosystems, the proposal will
not receive points. (0 points)
(iii) Show direct links between
contamination and wildlife and aquatic
habitats. To receive full points, you
3 For more information about species of
management concern, visit the website
migratorybirds.fws.gov or contact the Division of
Migratory Bird Management at 703-358-1714.
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49273
should provide documentation of the
linkage. Reviewers may consider the
extent of contaminants prevention/
reduction when assigning points.
Proposals having the potential to
produce an attractive nuisance (e.g.,
acquiring and/or restoring a wetland
that will be attractive to wildlife and
that also has the potential to accumulate
high levels of persistent toxic metals or
hydrocarbon compounds) will not
receive points.
(9) Catalyst for future conservation. Is
the project proposal designed to
leverage other ongoing coastal wetlands
protection projects in the area, such as
acquisition of areas to add to already
acquired coastal lands, or provide
impetus for additional restoration?
(Maximum: 4 points)
(i) The project will be essential (e.g.,
key to completion or implementation of
a greater conservation plan) to further
advance or promote other coastal
projects under way. Explain why. (Up to
4 points)
(ii) The project proposal does not
demonstrate a positive impact on other
coastal projects. (0 points)
(iii) To receive the maximum number
of points, the proposal should be
essential to the initiation or completion
of a larger project. Examples may
include acquisition of key in -holdings
within a larger protected area, funds
necessary to acquire fee simple interest
in properties where a conservation
easement has already been secured, and
funds necessary to complete restoration
activities to a protected area.
(10) Partners in conservation. Will the
proposal receive financial support,
including in -kind match, from private,
local, or other Federal interests?
(Maximum: 4 points)
(i) The proposal includes the State
applicant plus one or more non -State
financial partners. (Up to 4 points)
(ii) The proposal includes only
financial support from the State
applicant. (0 points)
(iii) A written description of
commitment of funds or in -kind match
from the partners must accompany the
proposal. (This requirement is in
addition to signing the Assurances
Form.) The purpose of this criterion is
to promote partnerships with private,
local, or other Federal agencies rather
than to increase the dollar amount of the
matching share. Therefore, no specific
minimum amount is indicated here. At
least two partners, in addition to the
State applicant, should have committed
money to the project to receive
maximum points.
(11) Federal share reduced. Does the
proposal significantly reduce the
Federal share by providing more than
the required match amount? In the case
of a Territory or Commonwealth that
does not require match funds, does the
proposal include financial support from
sources other than the Territory or
Commonwealth? (Maximum: 5 points)
(i) The State, territory, or
commonwealth applicant must have a
non -Federal funding source (in -kind
match does not count for this criterion)
that reduces the Federal share. (Up to 5
points)
(ii) The maximum Federal share is
requested by the proposal. (0 points)
(iii) The purpose of this criterion is to
increase the amount of money from non -
Federal sources. This increase decreases
the need for Federal match dollars, so
that Federal dollars can help more
projects. Documentation of each
partner's financial commitment must
accompany the proposal to receive
points. If the State itself provides the
excess match, the State should receive
credit for reducing the Federal share.
Each 5 percent above the required State
match would be approximately equal to
1 point. The following two examples,
using both a 50 and 75 percent Federal
match share, define a 10 percent
increase in a State's match amount.
(A) Example 1-50—Percent Federal
Match
If the total project costs are $100,000,
then the required State match share is
$50,000.
If the State or a partner provides an
additional cash contribution equal to
10 percent of the $50,000, $5,000.
This is defined as a 10 percent
increase in the State match.4
(B) Example 2-75—Percent Federal
Match
If the total project costs are $100,000,
then the required State match share is
$25,000.
If the State or a partner provides an
additional cash contribution equal to
10 percent of the $25,000, $2,500.
This is defined as a 10 percent
increase in the State match.4
(12) Education/outreach program or
wildlife -oriented recreation. Is the
project designed to increase
environmental awareness and develop
support for coastal wetlands
conservation? Does it provide
recreational opportunities that are
consistent with the conservation goals
of the site? (Maximum: 3 points)
(i) The proposal includes a site -
specific, substantive education/outreach
4 From sources other than Federal agencies.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment funds may in
some cases be defined as "non -Federal." See
discussion under § 84.46 on What are the cost -
sharing requirements?
or wildlife -oriented recreation program.
(Up to 3 points)
(ii) The proposal does not include a
substantive education/outreach or
wildlife -oriented recreation program. (0
points)
(iii) The proposal must describe what
makes this program substantive and link
it closely with the specific site to
receive full points. Programs supported
by activities or funds from partners
should be encouraged over use of
project dollars. Project proposals may
include substantive education/outreach
components necessary for the
completion of the project. However,
these should be activities that
complement or support the primary goal
of the project.
(13) Other factors. Do any other
factors, not covered in the previous
criteria, make this project or site
particularly unique and valuable? Does
the project offer important benefits that
are not reflected in the other criteria?
The following list includes examples of
projects that provide benefits not
reflected in other criteria. (Maximum: 4
points)
(i) The project might provide
significant benefits to, for example: rare
or threatened habitat types; biodiverse
habitats; rare and declining species; and
the local community.
(ii) The project would be particularly
cost-effective, providing very significant
resource benefits for the cost.
(iii) The project would assist in the
prevention or control of invasive
species.
(iv) The project would provide
important cultural or historical resource
benefits.
(v) The project would provide other
benefits.
(vi) Reviewers should not assign
points to resource values covered by
other criteria. The proposal should
provide a short narrative to support
claims to Other Factors points.
(b) Additional considerations. We will
factor the following considerations into
the ranking process if two or more
proposals have the same point totals.
The tie -breaking factors are as follows:
(1) The project would prevent the
destruction or degradation of habitat
from pending sale of property, from
adverse effects of current activities such
as draining of wetlands, or from natural
processes such as erosion at excessive
rates;
(2) The project would protect unique
and significant biological diversity;
(3) The project has lower costs per
acre conserved; and
(4) In the project proposal the State or
third party provides lands as opposed to
using lands already owned by the State
49274 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
or third party as part of the State
matching share.
(c) All proposals must include the
information described in paragraphs (b)
(1)—(4) of this section. If a tie occurs
between two or more proposals, the
reviewers need to have this information
available immediately to decide which
proposal or proposals should be
recommended for selection.
Subpart D—Conditions on Acceptance/
Use of Federal Money
§ 84.40 What conditions must I follow to
accept Federal grant money?
(a) The audit requirements for State
and local governments (43 CFR part 12),
and
(b) The uniform administrative
requirements for grants and cooperative
agreements with State and local
governments (4 3 CFR part 12) .
§84.41 Who prepares a grant agreement?
What needs to be included?
The coastal State and the Fish and
Wildlife Service work together to
develop a Grant Agreement (Form 3-
1552) upon completion of the review by
the Regional Director to determine
compliance with applicable Federal
laws and regulations. The Grant
Agreement includes the grant title, the
grant cost distribution, the agreement
period, other grant provisions, and
special grant conditions. If a Coastal
Barrier Unit is affected, the Service must
conduct internal consultations pursuant
to Section 6 of the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act, as amended by the
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act, prior
to providing any grant monies to that
State.
§ 84.42 What if a grant agreement is not
signed?
Monies that have been allocated for a
grant will be held until December 31 of
the following year. If a grant agreement
has not been signed by the State and the
Service and, therefore, the money has
not been obligated for the approved
grant by that date, the funds
automatically are returned to the
Program account in Washington.
§ 84.43 How do States get the grant
monies?
Funding to States is provided on a
reimbursable basis. See § 84.47 for
information on what costs can be
reimbursed. The Service may reimburse
the State for projects completed, or
make payments as the project
progresses. For construction work and
labor, the Service and the State may
jointly determine, on a case -by -case
basis, that payments may be made in
advance. We will minimize the time
elapsing between the transfer to the
State and the State's need for the funds,
and the time period will be subject to a
specific determined need for the funds
in advance. Except for extenuating
circumstances, a reasonable time period
to advance funds to a State is up to 3
days. OMB Circular A-102, Parts II and
III, 43 CFR part 12, and 31 CFR part 205
provide specific information on
methods and procedures for transferring
funds.
§ 84.44 What is the timetable for the use of
grant money?
Once money is granted to the coastal
States, the money is available to those
States for the time designated in the
grant agreement. If a State needs more
time, the State must apply for an
extension of time by amending the grant
agreement. If the Service does not
extend the time, the unobligated monies
return to the Service for expenditure on
future grants. Also, if a State cannot
spend the money on the approved
project, the State must notify the
appropriate Regional Director as soon as
possible so that the money can revert
back to the Service for future grants.
§ 84.45 How do I amend a proposal?
Following procedures in 43 CFR
12.70, you must submit a signed original
and two copies of the revised SF 424,
the revised portion of the project
statement if appropriate, and an
explanation of the reason for the
revision to the Regional Director
(Federal Aid).
§ 84.46 What are the cost -sharing
requirements?
(a) Except for certain insular areas, the
Federal share of an approved grant will
not exceed 50 percent of approved costs
incurred. However, the Federal share
may be increased to 75 percent for
coastal States that have established and
are using a fund as defined in § 84.11.
The Regions must certify the eligibility
of the fund in order for the State to
qualify for the 75 percent matching
share.
(b) The following insular areas:
American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
have been exempted from the matching
share, as provided in Pub. L. 95-134,
amended by Pub. L. 95-348, Pub. L. 96-
205, Pub. L. 98-213, and Pub. L. 98-454
(48 U.S.C. 1469a). Puerto Rico is not
exempt from the match requirements of
this Program.
(c) The State may provide materials
(e.g., heavy equipment) or other services
as a noncash match for portions of the
State's matching share. The State may
also provide the value of land, including
the land proposed for restoration,
enhancement, or management as a
noncash match, provided that the land
is necessary and reasonable for
completing the project. For example, if
a State proposes to manage a contiguous
wetland of 100 acres, and already owns
10 of the 100 acres, the State can apply
the current value of the 10 acres,
provided that the 10 acres are necessary
to manage the entire 100 acres. If the 10-
acre wetland were not contiguous and
no connection could be made that the
10 acres were needed to manage the
proposed wetland, the State could not
use the 10 acres as a noncash match.
Review 43 CFR 12.64 for determining
the value of in -kind contributions.
(d) The requirements in 43 CFR 12.64
and Service Manual Part 522 FW 1.135
apply to in -kind matches or cost -sharing
involving third parties. Third party in -
kind contributions must represent the
current market value of noncash
contributions furnished as part of the
grant by another public agency, private
organization, or individual. In -kind
matches must be necessary and
reasonable to accomplish grant
objectives.
(e) Coastal States must commit to
their matching share of the total costs by
signing the Application for Federal
Assistance (SF 424), the Assurances (SF
424B or SF 424D), and the Grant
Agreement (Form 3-15 5 2) .
(f) No Federal monies, non -Federal
monies, in -kind contributions, or
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
grant program monies that will be or
have been previously used to satisfy the
matching requirement of another
Federal grant can be used as part of the
coastal State's matching share.
(g) The coastal State is responsible for
ensuring the full amount of that State's
matching requirement, either with State
funds or from contributions toward the
proposal from other agencies, groups, or
individuals. Sources other than State
applicant funds must be documented
and approved as eligible.
(h) Total Federal contributions
(including all Federal sources outside of
the Program) may not exceed the
maximum eligible Federal share under
the Program. This includes monies
provided to the State by other Federal
programs. If the amount of Federal
money available to the project is more
than the maximum allowed, we will
reduce the Program contribution by the
amount in excess.
5 From the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,
available on-line at http://www.fws.gov/directives/
in d ex.h tml.
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49275
(i) Natural Resource Damage
Assessment funds that are managed by
a non -Federal trustee are considered to
be non -Federal, even if these monies
were once deposited in the Department
of the Interior's Natural Resource
Damage Assessment and Restoration
Fund, provided the following criteria
are met:
(1) The monies were deposited
pursuant to a joint and indivisible
recovery by the Department of the
Interior and non -Federal trustees under
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) or the Oil Pollution Act
(OPA);
(2) The non -Federal trustee has joint
and binding control over the funds;
(3) The co -trustees agree that monies
from the fund should be available to the
non -Federal trustee and can be used as
a non -Federal match to support a project
consistent with the settlement
agreement, CERCLA, and OPA; and
(4) The monies have been transferred
to the non -Federal trustee.
§ 84.47 What are allowable costs?
(a) Allowable grant costs are limited
to costs necessary and reasonable to
achieve approved grant objectives and
meet the applicable Federal cost
principles in 43 CFR 12.62 (b).
(b) If a project or facility is designed
to include purposes other than those
eligible under the Act, the costs must be
prorated among the various purposes.
(c) If you incur costs before the
effective date of the grant, they cannot
be reimbursed, with the exception that
we can allow preliminary costs, but
only with the approval of the
appropriate Regional Director.
Preliminary costs may include costs
necessary for preparing the grant
proposal, such as feasibility surveys,
engineering design, biological
reconnaissance, appraisals, or
preparation of grant documents such as
environmental assessments for
compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act.
§ 84.48 What are the procedures for
acquiring, maintaining, and disposing of
real property?
(a) Acquisition, maintenance, and
disposal of real property must follow
the rules established in 43 CFR 12.71
and 50 CFR 80.14.
(1) Title to real property acquired
under a grant or subgrant must be vested
in the State or subgrantee, including
local governments and nonprofit
organizations. States must submit
documentation (e.g., appraisals and
appraisal reviews) to the Regional
Director who must approve it before the
State becomes legally obligated for the
purchase. States will provide title
vesting evidence and summary of land
costs upon completion of the
acquisition. The grant agreement and
any deed to third parties (e.g.,
conservation easement or other lien on
a third -party property) must include
appropriate language to ensure that the
lands and/or interests would revert back
to the State or Federal Government if
the conditions of the grant were no
longer being implemented.
(2) In cases where the interest
obtained is less than fee simple title, the
interest must be sufficient for long-term
conservation of the specified wetlands
resources.
(3) Real property acquired with
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
Grant funds must continue to serve the
purpose for which it was acquired. If
acquired property is used for reasons
inconsistent with the purpose(s) for
which acquired, such activities must
cease and any adverse effects on the
property must be corrected by the State
or subgrantee with non -Federal monies
in accordance with 50 CFR 80.14.
(4) The State or subgrantee may not
dispose of or encumber its title or other
interest in real property without prior
approval of the appropriate Regional
Director of the Service. Real property
includes, but is not limited to, lands,
buildings, minerals, energy resources,
timber, grazing, and animal products. If
real property is sold, the State or
subgrantee must compensate the Service
in accordance with 43 CFR 12.71(c)(2).
(5) If rights or interests obtained with
the acquisition of coastal wetlands
generate revenue during the Grant
Agreement period, the State will treat
the revenue as program income and use
it to manage the acquired properties. If
the State sells or leases real property,
the State must treat the proceeds as
program income and return the money
to the Federal Aid program regardless of
the grant period.
(6) Inconsistent use that is not
corrected can be grounds for denying a
State future grants under this Program.
(b) A coastal State is responsible for
design, supervision, and inspection of
all major construction projects in
accordance with accepted engineering
standards.
(1) The coastal State must have
adequate rights to lands or waters where
restoration or enhancement projects are
planned to ensure protection and use of
the facilities or structures throughout
their useful life.
(2) The construction, enlargement, or
rehabilitation of dams are subject to
Federal standards for dam design. If
requested, the State must provide to the
Regional Office written certification that
any proposed changes to a dam meet
Federal standards.
(3) The coastal State must operate and
maintain facilities, structures, or related
assets to ensure their use for the stated
project purpose and that they are
adequately protected.
(c) Acquisition, property records,
maintenance, and disposal of equipment
must be made in accordance with 43
CFR 12.72.
§ 84.49 What if the project costs more or
less than originally expected?
All requests for additional monies for
approved coastal wetland grants will be
subject to the entire review process
along with new grants. Any monies left
over after the project is complete, or if
the project is not completed, should be
returned to the Washington Office for
use in following years. If a State has
lands it wishes to acquire, restore, or
enhance in close proximity to the
original project, and the Region deems
that spending project monies in these
areas would provide similar benefits,
the Region may use unspent balances to
pay for these projects with prior
approval from the Washington Office.
States must provide adequate
justification and documentation to the
Regions that the lands acquired,
restored, or enhanced are similar to
those in the original proposal and
provide similar benefits to fish and
wildlife.
§ 84.50 How does a State certify
compliance with Federal laws, regulations,
and policies?
(a) In accepting Federal money,
coastal State representatives must agree
to and certify compliance with all
applicable Federal laws, regulations,
and policies. The applicant will need to
submit a Statement of Assurances
(either SF 424B or SF 424D) signed and
dated by an authorized agency
representative as part of the proposal.
(b) Compliance with environmental
and other laws, as defined in the Service
Manual 523 FW Chapter 1,6 may require
additional documentation. Consult with
Regional Offices for how this applies to
a specific project.
Dated: March 29, 2002.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-19065 Filed 7-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
6 The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, see
footnote 3 for availability.
TMDL
Grant Information
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
TMDL WATER QUALITY RESTORATION GRANT PROPOSAL APPLICATION
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT FUNDING: TMDL Grant $ %
Matching Funds $ %
Total Project Cost $ %
LEAD ORGANIZATION:
End of Fiscal Year:
FEID Number:
CONTACT PERSON:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
FAX:
EMAIL:
COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS AND CONTACT PERSON (THOSE PROVIDING FUNDING OR IN -
KIND SERVICES):
PROJECT ABSTRACT:
PROJECT LOCATION AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS:
Water Body Name:
Hydrologic Unit Code(HUC):
Project Latitude:
Project Longitude:
Land Uses within the Watershed (acres and percentages of total):
Land Use Acres
Land Use Totals (Acreage and %)
TMDL STATUS OF WATER BODY AND PROJECT:
Name of Impaired Water:
1
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
Status of Impaired Water:
Status of BMAP:
POLLUTION REDUCTION STRATEGY:
PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (PLEASE LIST ALL TASKS AND DELIVERABLES):
NOTE: Typical tasks will include: Land acquisition, design, permitting, bidding, BMP construction,
BMP monitoring, grant administration, quarterly progress reports, draft final report, final report.
TASK 1:
DELIVERABLES:
SCHEDULE:
TASK 2:
DELIVERABLES:
SCHEDULE:
TASK 3:
DELIVERABLES:
SCHEDULE:
TASK 4:
DELIVERABLES:
SCHEDULE:
ETC
ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTION:
BMP's
Other
Other
Installed
TSS
kg/yr
TP
kg/yr
TN
kg/yr
BOD
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
N
Pre -Project
ca
�
Post -Project
Load
Reduction
0
a
% Reduction
Other
Other
TSS
TP
TN
BOD
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
Pre -Project
2
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
Post -Project
Load
Reduction
% Reduction
Other
Other
TSS
TP
TN
BOD
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
Pre -Project
c�
�
Post -Project
Load
Reduction
0
a
% Reduction
Other
Other
TSS
TP
TN
BOD
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
Pre -Project
c�
�
Post -Project
Load
Reduction
0
a
% Reduction
MODEL USED: Allowable models include Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (STEPL,
2007), Nonpoint Source Loading Management Model (NPSLMM, 2008) and Watershed
Management Model (WMM, 2006). The STEPL model is available for download at
http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/steel/ while the other models are on the TMDL Grant web site.
EMCS USED IN MODEL: Please use the Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) listed in
Attachment 1 in the model to estimate pre- and post -project pollutant loads and load reductions.
PROJECT MILESTONES:
Task
Activity
Start
Complete
1
Land Acquisition
2
Design and Permitting
3
Bidding
4
BMP Construction
5
BMP Effectiveness Monitoring
6
Public Education
7
Draft and Final Reports:
K
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
PROJECT BUDGET:
Project FundingActivity
y
Grant Amount
Matching
Contribution
Match Source
Land Acquisition
Design and Permitting
Bidding
BMP Construction
BMP Effectiveness
Monitoring
Public Education
Draft and Final Reports:
Total:
Total Project Cost:
Percentage Match:
*If a stormwater utility or other dedicated recurring fee is contributing, put that information
in the following table.
DEDICATED STORMWATER FUNDING INFORMATION:
Match Source Name Description ERU/Fee
OTHER FUNDING (Not Match):
REFERENCES CITED:
NOTE: PLEASE SUBMIT ALL APPENDICES IN A SEPARATE WORD DOCUMENT. THIS
MAY INCLUDE MAPS, FIGURES OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO
INCLUDE WITH YOUR APPLICATION
n
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
ATTACHMENT 1 - EMC VALUES FOR MODELING POLLUTANT LOADS
LAND USE
TYPICAL RUNOFF CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
TOTAL N
TOTAL P
BOD
TSS
COPPER
LEAD
ZINC
CATEGORY
Low -Density Residential'
1.61
0.191
4.7
23.0
0.0084
0.0024
0.0314
Single -Family
2.07
0.327
7.9
37.5
0.016
0.004
0.062
Multi -Family
2.32
0.520
11.3
77.8
0.009
0.006
0.086
Low -Intensity Commercial
1.18
0.179
7.7
57.5
0.018
0.005
0.094
High -Intensity Commercial
2.40
0.345
11.3
69.7
0.015
--
0.160
Light Industrial
1.20
0.260
7.6
60.0
0.003
0.002
0.057
Highway
1.64
0.220
5.2
37.3
0.032
0.011
0.126
Agricultural
Pasture
3.47
0.616
5.1
94.3
--
--
--
Citrus
2.24
0.183
2.55
15.5
0.003
0.001
0.012
Row Crops
2.65
0.593
--
19.8
0.022
0.004
0.030
General A riculture2
2.79
0.431
3.8
43.2
0.013
0.003
0.021
Undeveloped / Rangeland /
1.15
0.055
1.4
8.4
--
--
--
Forest
Mining / Extractive
1.18
0.15
7.63
60.03
0.0033
0.0023
0.0573
1. Average of single-family and undeveloped loading rates
2. Mean of pasture, citrus, and row crop land uses
3. Runoff concentrations assumed equal to industrial values for these parameters
4. Value assumed to be equal to 50% of single-family concentration
61
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
APPENDIX 2. MONITORING TO DETERMINE TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
If this project is approved for funding, the applicant will be required to monitor
the effectiveness of the stormwater BMP. BMP effectiveness data is required to
demonstrate the environmental benefits of a project. The general monitoring
requirements are set forth below. Please note that the final scope of work in the
contract may include more specifics on particular monitoring requirements.
Within six months before the completion of the project, the applicant will submit a
detailed monitoring plan to the department for review and comment. The monitoring
plan will specify the sampling locations, sampling instruments, and parameters to be
sampled. The monitoring will include sampling of from seven to ten (10) storm events
as described below. If possible, monitored events will be discrete rainfall events
generally consisting of greater than 0.20 inches and less than 1.5 inches or rain.
However, we want to monitor the real world to determine true efficiency. Therefore,
remember this is a GENERAL guideline with respect to the storm event. Actual rainfall
may vary depending on the type of BMP, the contributing drainage area, the amount of
impervious area, and the time of concentration.
Monitoring will be conducted at two locations: inflows and outflows.
Monitoring will include the following parameters:
• Daily rainfall (to nearest 0.01 inch) measured at the sampling location with
verification from the local weather station. Rainfall data should be provided for at
least the week proceeding monitoring and day(s) of monitoring.
• Flow using approved flow activated flow meters
• Parameters as specified below
Parameter
Detection Limit
Method
Total Cadmium
1 ug/I
Composite*
Total Chromium
5 ug/I
Composite*
Total Copper
5 ug/I
Composite*
Total Zinc
10 ug/I
Composite*
NO2+NO3
0.1 mg/I
Composite*
TKN
0.3 mg/I
Composite*
Total Ammonia
0.05 mg/I
Composite*
Or Total N
Composite*
Total Phosphorus
0.05 mg/I
Composite*
Ortho Phosphate
0.05 mg/I
Composite*
TSS
1 mg/I
Composite*
Oil/Grease
1 mg/I
Composite*
Fecal coliform
N/A
Grab** if possible
C�
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
*Flow weighted composite samples will be taken over the storm hydrograph. Typically,
the samples will be composited over the inflow hydrograph at the inflow and for up to a
36 hour period at outflow station, depending upon the time of concentration and flow
into and out of the BMP. Each composite will include at least six evenly distributed sub -
samples.
**Grab samples to be collected within the drainage area time of concentration at
influent and effluent stations described above.
The applicant should estimate the pollutant removal efficiency of the stormwater BMP
by calculating the percent reduction in the event mean concentration (EMC) for the
period of record [1-(Average Inflow EMC/Average Outflow EMC)]. For BMPs with
multiple inflow (and/or outflow) points, the pollutant contributions for each inflow should
be flow weighted. See the National Stormwater Best Management Practice database at
http://www.bmpdatabase.orq/ and Development of Performance Measures, Determining
Urban Stormwater Best Management Practice Removal Efficiencies, 1999 by URS
Greiner Woodward Clyde, ASCE and EPA at http://www.bmpdatabase.orq/task3 1.pdf
From ASCE Data base
3.1 Efficiency Ratio
Definition
The efficiency ratio is defined in terms of the average event mean concentration (EMC) of
pollutants over some time period:
Average outlet EMC average inlet EMC —average outlet EMC
Average inlet EMC average inlet EMC
EMCs can be either collected as flow weighted composite samples in the field or calculated
from discrete measurements. The EMC for an individual event or set of field measurements,
where discrete samples have been collected, is defined as:
EMCViCiVi
where,
V: volume of flow during period i
C: average concentration associated with period i
n: total number of measurements taken during event
The arithmetic average EMC is defined as,
averageEMC = Y EMCj / m
where,
m: number of events measured
In addition, the log mean EMC can be calculated using the logarithmic transformation of each
EMC. This transformation allows for normalization of the data for statistical purposes.
7
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
Mean of the Log EMCs Log(EMCj) l m
Estimates of the arithmetic summary statistics of the population (mean, median, standard
deviation, and coefficient of variation) should be based on their theoretical relationships
(Appendix A) with the mean and standard deviation of the transformed data. Computing the
mean and standard deviation of log transforms of the sample EMC data and then converting
them to an arithmetic estimate often obtains a better estimate of the mean of the population
due to the more typical distributional characteristics of water quality data. This value will not
match that produced by the simple arithmetic
average of the data. Both provide an estimate of the population mean, but the approach
utilizing the log -transformed data tends to provide a better estimator, as it has been shown in
various investigations that pollutant, contaminant and constituent concentration levels have a
log -normal distribution (NURP, 1983). As the sample size increases, the two values converge.
Assumptions
This method
Weights EMCs from all storms equally regardless of relative magnitude of storm. For
example a high concentration/high volume event has equal weight in the average EMC
as a low concentration/low volume event. The logarithmic approach tends to minimize
the difference between the EMC and mass balance calculations.
Is most useful when loads are directly proportional to storm volume. For work conducted
on nonpoint pollution (i.e., inflows), the EMC has been shown to not vary significantly
with storm volume. This lends credence to using the average EMC value for the inflow
but does not provide sufficient evidence that outflows are well represented by average
EMC. Accuracy of this method will vary based on the BMP type.
• Minimizes the impacts of smaller/cleaner storm events on actual performance
calculations. For example, in a storm by storm efficiency approach, a low removal value
for such an event is weighted equally to a larger value.
• Allows for the use of data where portions of the inflow or outflow data are missing,
based on the assumption that the inclusion of the missing data points would not
significantly impact the calculated average EMC.
Comments
This method
• Is taken directly from nonpoint pollution studies and does a good job characterizing
inflows to BMPs but fails to take into account some of the complexities of BMP design.
For example, some BMPs may not have outflow EMCs that are normally distributed
(e.g., a media filter that treats to a relatively constant level that is independent on inflow
concentrations).
• Assumes that if all storms at the site had been monitored, the average inlet and outlet
EMCs would be similar to those that were monitored.
E:]
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
ATTACHMENT 3 - GRANT APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
The DEP Bureau of Watershed Restoration administers state funds allocated to the
TMDL program for the reduction of urban nonpoint source pollutant loadings to
impaired waters. These grant funds are used to implement projects (Best Management
Practices or BMPs) to reduce urban stormwater pollutant loadings from existing
drainage systems without treatment and from lands developed before the
implementation of the state's stormwater treatment rules. Nonpoint source pollution is
the biggest cause of water pollution in Florida today, and reducing stormwater pollutant
loadings is critical to meeting Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established for
impaired waters.
1. Project Name: Provide the name of the project. For example, Lake Greenwood
Urban Wetland Stormwater Retrofit
2. Project Funding: Provide the total project costs, the matching funds, and the
amount of TMDL grant funding requested. Provide the % for matching funds and TMDL
grant funds.
3. Lead Organization: This is the entity that is applying for the grant funds and with
which DEP will enter into a contract for the project. Also, provide the date on which the
Lead Organization's Fiscal Year ends (i.e., December 31, September 30, June 30) and
the Lead Organization's Federal Employment Identification Number (FEID)
4. Contact Person: Provide the name and contact information for the person from the
Lead Organization that will serve as the project/contract manager.
5. Cooperating Organizations: Provide the name and contact person for any entities
that are providing matching funds or in -kind services on the project.
6. Project Abstract: Provide an abstract of the project that includes the name of the
water body to which the stormwater BMP discharges, the status of the impaired water
body (i.e., BMAP adopted, TMDL adopted, verified list), the number of acres in the
drainage area to be treated, the BMPs to be implemented, and the anticipated load
reductions.
7. Project Location and Watershed Characteristics: Provide the requested information
for the drainage area that will contribute stormwater to the retrofit project.
8. TMDL Status of Water Body: Provide the requested information. Status of impaired
water body means one of the following, as applicable: TMDL Adopted, on Adopted
Verified List of Impaired Waters, on Planning List of Impaired Waters, on 1999 Consent
Decree list. Status of Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) means one of the
following, as applicable: BMAP Adopted, BMAP in development, no BMAP
9. Pollution Reduction Strategy: Summarize the actions, both structural and
nonstructural, that will be undertaken as part of the project to reduce stormwater
�191
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
pollutant loadings to impaired waters. Please state if the project is specifically listed in
a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM Plan), National Estuary
Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), BMAP, or
other watershed or stormwater master plan.
10. Project Objectives: Provide the objectives of the project. For example, the
objective of this project is to reduce stormwater pollutant loads to Dirty Lake, an
impaired water body with an adopted TMDL, and to educate the public about effective
stormwater treatment.
11. Project Description: Provide a brief, but complete, description of each task to be
undertaken as part of the project. For each task, include the specific deliverables that
will result from the task, and the start date and end date for the task. Some tasks may
actually occur before the grant application is submitted such as land acquisition, project
design, permitting, etc.
12. Estimated Pollutant Load Reduction: Using the models listed and the Event Mean
Concentrations listed in Attachment 1, provide stormwater pollutant load estimates for
the existing condition, the condition after the BMP is installed, and the resulting load
reductions.
13. Project Milestones: List your tasks from Number 11 and their start and end dates.
14. Project Budget by Category: Provide your budget, for both grant funds and
matching funds, by the categories listed. You may add additional categories, as
needed.
15. Dedicated Stormwater Funding Information: If matching funds are being provided
by a dedicated stormwater funding source, such as a stormwater utility fee, MSBU,
MSTU, or infrastructure sales tax, please provide the requested information.
16. Budget by Task: Provide your budget, for both grant funds and matching funds, by
task. Tasks should correspond to those listed in Items 11 and 13.
17. Other Funding: List other funding sources that do not serve as matching funds.
18. References Cited: Please list any references cited in your project description
10
Urban Waters Small Grants
Grant Information
Federal Agency Name: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Immediate
Office
Funding Opportunity Title: Urban Waters Small Grants
Announcement Type: Request for Proposals (RFP)
Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-OW-I0-12-01
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.440
Dates: Hard copy proposals must be received by the EPA Regional Contact (See Section IV.B.2
of this RFP) by 4:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time (EST) January 23, 2012. Proposals
submitted electronically via http://www. rg ants.gov must be received by 11:59 P.M. EST
January 23, 2012. Late proposals will not be considered for funding. Questions must be
submitted in writing via e-mail and must be received by the Agency Contact identified in Section
VII by January 16, 2012. Written responses will be posted on EPA"s website at:
http://www.epa.gov/urbanwaters/funding.
Following EPA's evaluation of proposals, all applicants will be notified regarding their status.
Final applications will be requested fi^om those eligible entities whose proposal have been
successfully evaluated and preliminarily recommended for award. Those entities will be
provided with instructions and a due date for submittal of the final application package.
Note to Applicants: If you name subawardees/subgrantees and/or contractor(s) in your proposal
to assist you with the proposed project, pay careful attention to the information in Section ILC
CONTRACTS AND SUBAWARDS.
SUMMARY:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting proposals from eligible
applicants for projects that will contribute to improved water quality in urban areas. The goal of
the Urban Waters Small Grants is to fund research, studies, training, and demonstration projects
that will advance the restoration of urban waters by improving water quality through activities
that also support community revitalization and other local priorities. In general, projects should
promote a comprehensive understanding of local water quality issues; identify and support
activities that address these issues at the local level; engage, educate and empower communities
surrounding the urban water body; and benefit surrounding communities including those that
have been adversely impacted by the water pollution issues affecting the urban water body.
The funding provided under this announcement supports the following goals of the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2006 — 2011 EPA Strategic Plan: Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water, Objective 2.2: Protect
Water Quality, Sub-obj ective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis. In addition,
funding provided under this announcement supports the following goals of the FY 2011 — 2015
EPA Strategic Plan: Goal 2: Protecting America«s Waters, Objective 2.2: Protect and Restore
Watershed and Aquatic Ecosystems. Information on the FY 2006 — 2011 EPA Strategic Plan is
available at http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P 1001 IPK.PDF and information on the FY 2011 —
2015 EPA Strategic Plan is available at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html.
The total estimated funding available for the awards under this competition is up to
approximately $3.8 million, with $1.8 million currently available and up to an estimated
additional $2 million anticipated in FY 2012. Funding is contingent upon Agency funding levels,
the quality of proposals received, and other applicable considerations.
EPA Regional Offices will award the cooperative agreements for projects resulting from this
announcement. Approximately three to four cooperative agreements are anticipated to be
awarded by each EPA Regional Office with funds currently available. Pending receipt of FY
2012 funds, it is anticipated that each EPA Regional Office may award up to approximately four
additional cooperative agreements for projects resulting from this announcement. Applicants
may not request more than $60,000 in federal funding —proposals requesting more than $60,000
in federal funds will not be reviewed. While there is no minimum, EPA suggests applicants
request at least approximately $40,000 in federal funds. A minimum non-federal cost share /
match of $2,500 is required (see Section III.B for information on the cost share /match
requirement). It is anticipated that funded cooperative agreements will have atwo-year project
period.
I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
A. BACKGROUND
Many urban waters are impaired by pathogens, excess nutrients, and contaminated sediments that
result from sanitary sewer and combined sewer overflows, polluted runoff from urban landscapes
and contamination from abandoned industrial facilities. Under the Urban Waters Program, EPA
is seeking to support communities in their efforts to access, improve, and benefit from their
urban waters and the surrounding land. This program also recognizes that certain communities,
including minority, low income and those with indigenous populations, are and have been
particularly burdened by polluted urban waterways and have not reaped the benefits that healthy,
accessible waters can bring.
The objective of EPA«s Urban Waters Program is to protect and restore America«s urban
waterways. It is also expected that the awards under this program will help promote addressing
environmental justice considerations by:
Addressing water quality issues in communities, such as those containing minority, low
income, or indigenous populations, that have been adversely impacted by polluted urban
waters; and
• Involving these communities and others in performance of the project including the
design, planning and performance of activities that contribute to water quality restoration.
Healthy and accessible urban waters can help grow local businesses and enhance educational,
recreational, employment and social opportunities in nearby communities. By promoting public
access to urban waterways, EPA will help communities become active participants in restoration
and protection. By linking water to other community priorities, such as economic development,
2
EPA will help to sustain that involvement. By more effectively leveraging existing programs,
EPA aims to support projects and build partnerships with a variety of federal, state, tribal, and
local partners that foster increased connection, understanding, and stewardship of local
waterways.
B. URBAN WATERS SMALL GRANTS
The goal of the Urban Waters Small Grants being competed under this opportunity is to fund
research, studies, training, and demonstration projects that will advance the restoration of urban
waters by improving water quality through activities that also support community revitalization
and local priorities. EPA"s Urban Waters Small Grants RFP intends to fund proposals for water
quality projects located in urban areas. It is anticipated that projects funded under this
announcement will promote a comprehensive understanding of local water quality issues;
identify and support activities that address these issues at the local level; engage, educate, and
empower communities surrounding the water body; and benefit surrounding communities
including those that have been adversely impacted by the water pollution issues affecting the
urban water body.
In order to achieve the objectives of the program, proposals should address the following
elements:
1. Leads to the environmental restoration of an urban water body.
i. Water Quality Restoration
Proposals should describe how the project will contribute to environmental
restoration of an urban water body. The description should include the characteristics
of the project area that identify it as "urban", using supporting information (such as
total population relative to adjacent areas, population density, land use or density of
created structures, etc.). The proposal should also describe the urban water body,
which may include any body of water, all or an important part of which flows through
or is located in the urban project area (e.g., wetlands, rivers, lakes, bays, estuaries,
reservoirs, canals, etc.), and describe how the planned work addresses important
water quality threats or impairments.
ii. Relevance to Community Priorities
Proposals should describe how the proposed project makes water quality restoration
of the urban water body relevant to community priorities, which may include public
health, social and economic revitalization, and livability goals. Community priorities
may be demonstrated through available community information (e.g., documented
community interests, community plans, surveys, polls, studies, etc.). The description
should include how the project uses community priorities as a way to engage local
residents and sustain their engagement over the time horizon required for water
quality improvement beyond EPA Urban Waters Small Grants funding.
iii. Success Potential/Feasibility
Proposals should describe how the proposed project uses a creative or effective
approach to restore water quality within the urban area. The description should
discuss the readiness of the project (in particular, the projects success potential or
feasibility).
2. Partnerships.
Proposals should identify appropriate and necessary partnerships to successfully conduct the
project. Effective partnerships are very important to urban waters work. Partnerships between
organizations focused on water quality, environmental justice concerns and other community
priorities can greatly benefit from one another«s experience. In their proposals, applicants
should demonstrate their ability to identify appropriate and necessary partnerships to
successfully conduct the project including how they plan to involve surrounding
communities that have been adversely impacted by the water pollution issues affecting the
urban water body (e.g., minority, low income or indigenous populations) in the design,
planning, and performance of the project.
Partnerships should include organizations that have the skills, expertise and networks related
to environmental justice, community revitalization and other local priorities. Some examples
of key partners include local residents, industry businesses, academic institutions, non-profit
organizations, communities surrounding the urban water body, and other suitable partners to
work on urban water issues. If a working partnership already exists or is under development,
the proposal should identify all parties involved, as well as provide a clear description of the
roles of each partner in the projects components/tasks and how each partner will contribute
to the success of the project.
If a working partnership exists, partnership letters of commitment should be included in the
proposal package. Letters of commitment should describe the extent to which the partner will
engage with the applicant to help effectively perform the project. If a partnership does not yet
exist, proposals should describe how the applicant plans to engage partners and establish
working partnerships to successfully complete the project. If the applicant does not intend to
have partners, then an explanation should be provided on how it will effectively perform the
project without partners. Please do not send letters of endorsement, recommendation, or
support; they will not be considered.
3. Benefits to Community.
Proposals should address how the project will benefit communities surrounding the urban
water body that have been impacted by the water pollution issues affecting the urban water
body. This includes communities comprised of minority, low income, or indigenous
populations, as well as others that may be adversely impacted by the urban water body's
water pollution issues. For example, proposals should describe community impacts related to
the water pollution, which may include but are not limited to economic, health and
environmental conditions as well as how the proposed project will benefit the surrounding
communities.
11
As discussed in Section I.D. the statutory authority for the cooperative agreements to be funded
under this announcement is Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Examples of
projects that are eligible for funding under this announcement include, but are not limited to,
those that:
• Foster collaboration and/or coordinate a partnership among diverse stakeholders,
including industry, environmental groups, upstream and downstream interests (actors),
etc., to develop a plan or study. (*Funds cannot be used to implement such a plan).
• Develop educational programs to provide training and recognition to schools, business,
and homeowners on how to implement practices that reduce the amount of water
pollution and/or stormwater entering the water body, or promote low -impact design
(LID) and/or green infrastructure practices.
• Map trails and other walkways along water bodies to identify gaps or areas where
additional connectivity is needed (e.g. identify properties for potential acquisition or
maintenance).
• Establish a baseline monitoring program for routine water quality monitoring and support
and /or establish monitoring to identify areas of concern and possible places where
restoration efforts can be effectively targeted.
• Provide education and training related to preparing community members for anticipated
jobs in green infrastructure, water quality restoration, or other water quality improvement
projects (i.e., green j obs).
If the proposal includes a demonstration project, the applicant must describe how it meets the
requirements set forth for demonstration projects, as discussed in Section I.D.
Examples of projects that are not eligible for funding under this announcement include, but are
not limited to those that:
• Construct community access points such as overlooks, boat launches, and recreation
areas;
• Implement stormwater infrastructure improvements, including installation of low -impact
development and green infrastructure;
• Carry out community clean-ups;
• Construct habitat for birds and other wildlife along the water body;
• Construct connections between open space to provide corridors for birds and other
wildlife; and
• Restore stream banks.
Proposals will be evaluated using the criteria outlined in Section V. Selections and awards will
be made by EPA Regional Offices. Under this competition, only one proposal can be submitted
per applicant. If an applicant submits more than one proposal, EPA will contact them before the
review process begins to determine which one will be withdrawn. For the purposes of this RFP,
EPA considers governmental units to be a single applicant per the definition of Grantee in 40
CFR 31.3 and they may submit only one proposal to EPA. The Agency will not accept proposals
from more than one agency of the same governmental unit. However, applicants may list other
eligible applicants as partners on proposals even if the partner also submits a proposal to EPA.
Hard copy proposals must be submitted to the appropriate Regional Office, as described in
Section IV. For all submittals (hard copy or electronic), the cover page of the Proposal Narrative
(see Section IV.C) must include the appropriate Regional Office for the proposal. If an applicant
is uncertain which Region to submit their proposal, they should contact Ji-Sun Yi by email at
urbanwaters(kepa. gov.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS AND LINKAGE TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The funding provided under this announcement supports the following goals of the FY 2006 —
2011 EPA Strategic Plan: Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water, Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality,
Sub-obj ective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis. In addition, funding under
this announcement supports the following goals of the FY 2011 — 2015 EPA Strategic Plan: Goal
2: Protecting America«s Waters, Objective 2.2: Protect and Restore Watershed and Aquatic
Ecosystems. Information on the FY 2006 — 2011 EPA Strategic Plan is available at
http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P 1001 IPK.PDF and information on the FY 2011 — 2015 EPA
Strategic Plan is available at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html.
All proposed projects should demonstrate the linkage to both EPA Strategic Plans and include
specific statements describing the environmental results of the proposed project in terms of well-
defined outputs and, to the maximum extent practicable, well-defined outcomes that will
demonstrate how the project will contribute to the overall goals listed above.
Environmental results are a way to gauge a proj ect«s performance and are described in terms of
outputs and outcomes. Environmental outputs (or deliverables) refer to an environmental
activity, effort, and/or associated work product related to an environmental goal or objective, that
will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be
quantitative or qualitative, but must be measurable during a cooperative agreement funding
period.
Examples of anticipated environmental outputs from the cooperative agreements to be awarded
under this announcement include, but are not limited to:
• Core partnership is established representing community interests with those living and
working in the community, affected by the project, up- and downstream stakeholders and
key local, state and federal departments and agencies with regulatory jurisdiction or
programmatic assistance.
0
• Number of outreach education and presentations to residents, businesses, green industry
workforce and local/state officials conducted to improve understanding of water quality
and community health and environmental issues, and to understand management
practices suitable to reduce pollution identified in the management plan.
• Maps are prepared illustrating all properties, current use and types of ownership. Maps
are prepared illustrating designated or maintained trails, common paths, sidewalks, and
railroad, pipeline and other right-of-ways for potential access.
• Number of new locations and indicators identified for monitoring, number of new
volunteer training workshops conducted, and arrangement of laboratory analysis and
preparation of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
• Number of green job trainings to improve the knowledge and experience in water quality
improvement techniques provided to under -employed and unemployed residents. Number
of workshops, educational materials, and other assistance applied during training.
Environmental outcomes are the result, effect, or consequence that will occur from carrying out
an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or
objective, and are used as a way to gauge a project"s performance and take the form of output
measures and outcome measures. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health -related, or
programmatic in nature. Outcomes must be quantitative and may not necessarily be achieved
within a cooperative agreement funding period. Outcomes may be short-term (changes in
learning, knowledge, attitude, skills), intermediate (changes in behavior, practice, or decisions),
or long-term (changes in condition of the natural resource).
Examples of anticipated outcomes from the cooperative agreements to be awarded under this
announcement include, but are not limited to:
• Local and state ordinances are enacted / enforced to manage and resolve significant
threats identified in the Urban Watershed Management Plan. Environmental and
community improvements are undertaken by partners with responsibilities under the
management plan.
• Interest is generated and technical support is provided to X number of homeowners,
business and community interests to design rain gardens, and other "green" practices that
provide direct pollutant removal. As a result of this outreach campaign, X number of low -
impact development educational sites are installed.
• „Green" or open space, safe community access to waterways and surroundings are
dedicated for public use; local or municipal maintenance is provided to improve
community environment and safe access to waterways.
7
Knowledge and awareness of baseline conditions are established, areas of concern are
identified, and results are transferred to help educate community decisions makers,
residents and state and federal agencies.
Hands-on training and installation of demonstration projects provides a larger workforce
knowledgeable of rain gardens and other practices leading to a direct improvement on
water quality.
As part of the Proposal Narrative, an applicant will be required to describe how the project
results will link the outcomes to both of the Agency«s Strategic Plans. Additional information
regarding EPA«s discussion of environmental results in terms of outputs and outcomes can be
found at: http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/5700.7.pdf.
D. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The statutory authority for the cooperative agreements to be funded under this announcement is
Section 104(b)(3) of the CWA, 33 USC § 1254(b)(3). CWA Section 104(b)(3) restricts the use of
these cooperative agreements to the following: conducting or promoting the coordination and
acceleration of research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and
studies relating to the causes, effects (including health and welfare effects), extent, prevention,
reduction, and elimination of water pollution. Projects that are demonstrations must involve new
or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches. EPA expects that the results of the project
will be disseminated so that others can benefit from the knowledge gained in the demonstration
project. A project that is accomplished through the performance of routine, traditional, or
established practices, or a project that is simply intended to carry out a task rather than transfer
information or advance the state of knowledge, however worthwhile the project might be, is not
considered a demonstration project. For proposals that include demonstration projects, the
applicant must describe how the project meets the above requirements. Implementation projects
are not eligible for funding under this announcement.
II. AWARD INFORMATION
A. AMOUNT OF FUNDING
The total estimated funding available for the awards under this competition is up to
approximately $3.8 million, with $1.8 million currently available and up to an estimated
additional $2 million anticipated in FY 2012. Funding is contingent upon Agency funding levels,
the quality of proposals received, and other applicable considerations.
EPA Regional Offices will award the cooperative agreements for projects resulting from this
announcement. Approximately three to four cooperative agreements are anticipated to be
awarded by each EPA Regional Office with funds currently available. Pending receipt of FY
2012 funds, it is anticipated that each EPA Regional Office may award up to approximately four
additional cooperative agreements for projects resulting from this announcement. Applicants
may not request more than $60,000 in federal funding — proposals requesting more than $60,000
in federal funds will not be reviewed. While there is no minimum, EPA suggests applicants
0
request at least approximately $40,000 in federal funds. A minimum non-federal cost share /
match of $2,500 is required (see Section III.B for information on the cost share /match
requirement). It is anticipated that funded cooperative agreements will have atwo-year project
period.
In appropriate circumstances, EPA reserves the right to partially fund a proposal by funding
discrete portions or phases of a proposed project. If EPA decides to partially fund a proposal, it
will do so in a manner that does not prejudice any applicants or affect the basis upon which the
proposal or portion thereof, was evaluated and selected for award, and therefore maintains the
integrity of the competition and selection process.
EPA reserves the right to make no awards under this announcement, or make fewer awards than
anticipated. In addition, EPA reserves the right to make additional awards under this
announcement, consistent with Agency policy and guidance, if additional funding becomes
available after the original selections are made. Any additional selections for awards will be
made within six months after the original selection decisions.
B. TYPE OF FUNDING
It is anticipated that cooperative agreements will be funded under this announcement. When a
cooperative agreement is awarded, EPA will have substantial involvement with the project
workplans and budget. Although EPA will negotiate precise terms and conditions relating to
substantial involvement as part of the award process, the anticipated substantial federal
involvement for a project selected may include:
1. Close monitoring of the recipient«s performance to verify the results proposed by the
applicant;
2. Collaboration during the performance of the scope of work;
3. In accordance with the applicable regulations at 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31, review of
proposed procurements;
4. Review of qualifications of key personnel (EPA does not have authority to select
employees or contractors employed by the recipient);
5. Review and comment on tasks/deliverables and reports prepared under the cooperative
agreement(s) (the final decision on the content of these reports rests with the recipient);
and
6. Upon request by the recipient and subject to the availability of personnel, EPA will provide
the recipient with access to EPA scientific expertise, sampling protocols, publicly available
data, and other forms of technical assistance.
C. CONTRACTS AND SUBAWARDS
1. Can funding be used for the applicant to make subawards, acquire contract services, or fund
partnerships?
EPA awards funds to one eligible applicant as the recipient even if other eligible applicants are
named as partners or co -applicants or members of a coalition or consortium. The recipient is
accountable to EPA for the proper expenditure of funds.
9
Funding may be used to provide subgrants or subawards of financial assistance, which includes
using subawards or subgrants to fund partnerships, provided the recipient complies with
applicable requirements for subawards or subgrants including those contained in 40 CFR Parts
3 0 or 31, as appropriate. Applicants must compete contracts for services and products, including
consultant contracts, and conduct cost and price analyses, to the extent required by the
procurement provisions of the regulations at 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31, as appropriate. The
regulations also contain limitations on consultant compensation. Applicants are not required to
identify subawardees/subgrantees and/or contractors (including consultants) in their proposal.
However, if they do, the fact that an applicant selected for award has named a specific
subawardee/subgrantee, contractor, or consultant in the proposal EPA selects for funding does
not relieve the applicant of its obligations to comply with subaward/subgrant and/or competitive
procurement requirements as appropriate. Please note that applicants may not award sole source
contracts to consulting, engineering or other firms assisting applicants with the proposal solely
based on the firm's role in preparing the proposal.
Successful applicants cannot use subgrants or subawards to avoid requirements in EPA grant
regulations for competitive procurement by using these instruments to acquire commercial
services or products from for -profit organizations to carry out its assistance agreement. The
nature of the transaction between the recipient and the subawardee or subgrantee must be
consistent with the standards for distinguishing between vendor transactions and subrecipient
assistance under Subpart B Section .210 of OMB Circular A-133 ,and the definitions of
subaward at 40 CFR 30.2(ffl or subgrant at 40 CFR 31.3, as applicable. EPA will not be a party
to these transactions. Applicants acquiring commercial goods or services must comply with the
competitive procurement standards in 40 CFR Part 30 or 40 CFR Part 31.36 and cannot use a
subaward/subgrant as the funding mechanism.
2. How will an applicant«s proposed subawardees/subgrantees and contractors be considered
during the evaluation process described in Section V of the announcement?
Section V of the announcement describes the evaluation criteria and evaluation process that will
be used by EPA to make selections under this announcement. During this evaluation, except for
those criteria that relate to the applicant's own qualifications, past performance, and reporting
history, the review panel will consider, as appropriate and relevant, the qualifications, expertise,
and experience of:
(i) an applicant's named subawardees/subgrantees identified in the proposal if the
applicant demonstrates in the proposal that if it receives an award that the
subaward/subgrant will be properly awarded consistent with the applicable
regulations in 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31. For example, applicants must not use
subawards/subgrants to obtain commercial services or products from for -profit firms
or individual consultants.
(ii) an applicant's named contractor(s), including consultants, identified in the proposal if
the applicant demonstrates in its proposal that the contractor(s) was selected in
compliance with the competitive Procurement Standards in 40 CFR Part 30 or 40
CFR 31.36 as appropriate. For example, an applicant must demonstrate that it
10
selected the contractor(s) competitively or that a proper non-competitive sole -source
award consistent with the regulations will be made to the contractor(s), that efforts
were made to provide small and disadvantaged businesses with opportunities to
compete, and that some form of cost or price analysis was conducted. EPA may not
accept sole source justifications for contracts for services or products that are
otherwise readily available in the commercial marketplace.
EPA will not consider the qualifications, experience, and expertise of named subawardees /
subgrantees and/or named contractor(s) during the proposal evaluation process unless the
applicant complies with these requirements.
III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
A. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
States, local governments, territories, Indian Tribes, and possessions of the U.S. (including the
District of Columbia), public and private universities and colleges, public or private nonprofit
institutions, intertribal consortia, and interstate agencies are eligible to apply. Individuals, for -
profit commercial entities and all federal agencies are not eligible to apply. Nonprofit
organizations described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engage in
lobbying activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 1995 are not eligible
to apply.
The term "interstate agency" is defined in CWA Section 502 as "an agency of two or more States
established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact approved by the Congress, or any other
agency of two or more States, having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control of
pollution as determined and approved by the Administrator."
An intertribal consortium is a partnership between two or more tribes that is authorized by the
governing bodies of those tribes to apply for and receive assistance (see 40 CFR 35.502.). The
intertribal consortium is eligible only if the consortium demonstrates that all of its members meet
the eligibility requirements and authorize the consortium to apply for and receive assistance in
accordance with 40 CFR 35.504 at the time of proposal submission. An intertribal consortium
must submit with its proposal to EPA adequate documentation of the existence of the partnership
and the authorization of the consortium by its members to apply for and receive the grant (see 40
CFR 35.504.).
Nonprofit organizations may be asked to provide documentation that they meet the definition of
a nonprofit organization in OMB Circular A-122, now at 2 CFR Part 230. The OMB Circular A-
122 is available at http://www.whitehouse.aov/omb/circulars a122 2004/. Interstate agencies
may be asked to provide a citation to the statutory authority, which establishes their status.
B. COST SHARING / MATCH REQUIREMENTS
For this RFP, EPA has determined that an applicant must provide a minimum of $2,500 as
the non-federal cost share / match.
11
The non-federal cost share / match may be provided in cash or can come from in -kind
contributions, such as use of volunteers and/or donated time, equipment, expertise, etc., and is
subject to the regulations governing matching fund requirements described in 40 CFR 30.23 or
40 CFR 31.24, as applicable. In -kind contributions often include salaries or other verifiable costs
and this value must be carefully documented. In the case of salaries, applicants may use either
minimum wage or fair market value. Cost share / match must be used for eligible and allowable
project costs. Cost share / matching funds are considered grant funds and are included in the total
award amount and should be used for the reasonable and necessary expenses of carrying out the
workplan. All grant funds are subject to federal audit. Any restrictions on the use of grant funds
(examples of restrictions are outlined in Section III.D of this announcement) also apply to the use
of cost share / match. Other federal grants may not be used as cost share / match without specific
statutory authority. In order to be considered for funding, all applicants must describe in
their proposal submission how they will contribute the appropriate cost share / match
requirement.
Indian Tribes may be exempt from this cost share / match requirement if fulfilling the cost share
/ match requirement would impose undue hardship. Tribal governments wishing to be exempt
from the minimum $2,500 cost share / match requirement must submit a one -page written
request via e-mail to the Agency contact identified in Section VII with justification within 30
calendar days from the date of issuance of this announcement. EPA will notify the potential
applicant of its decision within 10 business days of receipt of the written request. If the cost share
/ match exemption is approved, the proposal will be reviewed for threshold eligibility as
satisfying the $2,500 cost share / match.
C. THRESHOLD ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Proposals must meet the following threshold criteria in order to be considered for funding. Only
proposals that meet all of these criteria will be considered eligible and evaluated against the
ranking factors in Section V of the announcement. Applicants deemed ineligible for funding
consideration as a result of the threshold eligibility review will be notified within 15 calendar
days of the ineligibility determination.
1. An applicant must meet the eligibility requirements in Section III.A of this
announcement.
2. Proposals must substantially comply with the proposal submission instructions and
requirements set forth in Section IV of this announcement or else they will be rejected.
Where a page limit is expressed in Section IV.C.3 with respect to the Proposal Narrative,
pages in excess of the page limitation will not be reviewed. Section IV.C.3 establishes a
10-page, single-spaced Proposal Narrative page limit that includes the cover page.
3. Proposals must be in compliance with CWA 104(b)(3) and include projects that conduct
or promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments,
training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent,
prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. Projects that are
demonstrations must involve new or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches.
A project that is accomplished through the performance of routine, traditional, or
12
established practices, or a project that is simply intended to carry out a task rather than
transfer information or advance the state of knowledge, however worthwhile the project
might be, is not considered a demonstration project. For proposals that include
demonstration projects, the applicant must describe how the project meets the above
requirements. Implementation projects are not eligible for funding under this
announcement.
4. Proposals requesting federal funds in excess of $60,000 will not be reviewed.
5. Applicants must demonstrate in their proposal how they will provide the minimum
required non-federal cost share/match of $2,500 as described in Section III.B.
6. Proposals must be received by EPA or received through Grants.gov, as specified in
Section IV of this announcement, on or before the proposal submission deadline
published in Section IV of this announcement. If submitting a hard copy proposal,
applicants are responsible for ensuring that their proposal reaches the designated person /
office specified in Section IV of the announcement by the submission deadline.
7. If the applicant chooses to submit a hard copy of the proposal, it must be submitted by
hand delivery, express delivery service, or courier service. Hard copy proposals
submitted by any type of regular U.S. Postal Service mail will not be considered.
EPA will not accept faxed or emailed submissions.
8. Proposals received after the submission deadline will not be considered unless the
applicant can clearly demonstrate that it was late due to EPA mishandling or because of
technical issues attributable to grants.gov. For hard copy submissions, where Section IV
requires proposal receipt by a specific person / office by the submission deadline, receipt
by an agency mailroom is not sufficient. Applicants should confirm receipt of their
proposal with the appropriate Regional EPA contact listed in Section IV.B.2 as soon as
possible after the submission deadline; failure to do so may result in your proposal not
being reviewed.
9. Only one proposal per applicant can be submitted under this RFP. If an applicant submits
more than one proposal, EPA will contact them before the review process begins to
determine which one will be withdrawn.
D. FUNDING RESTRICTIONS
All costs incurred under this program must be allowable under the applicable Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Cost Circulars: A-87 (States and local governments), A-122
(nonprofit organizations), or A-21 (universities). Copies of these circulars can be found at
http://www.whitehouse.aov/omb/circulars/. In accordance with EPA policy and the OMB
circulars, as appropriate, any recipient of funding must agree not to use assistance funds for
lobbying, fund-raising, or political activities (i.e., lobbying members of Congress or lobbying for
other federal grants, assistance agreements, or contracts). Funds cannot be used to pay for travel
by federal agency staff. Proposed project activities must also comply with all state and federal
regulations applicable to the project area. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance.
IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
A. APPLICATION PACKAGES
13
Grant application forms, including Standard Forms (SF) 424 and SF 424A, are available at
http://www.epa.,zov/ogd/grants/how to apply.htm and by mail upon request by calling the
Grants and Interagency Agreements Management Division at (202) 564-5320.
B. FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION
Applicants have the option to submit their proposals in one of two ways: 1) electronically via
www.grants.gov or 2) hard copy and CD by overnight delivery, hand delivery, or courier service
to the EPA contact identified in Section IV.13.2. Proposals that are submitted via regular U.S.
Postal mail, FAX or e-mail will not be considered. All proposals must be prepared, and include
the information, as described in Section IV.C. CONTENT OF PROPOSAL SUBMISSION,
regardless of mode of submission.
As discussed in Section I.B. selections and awards will be made by EPA Regional Offices. For
hard copy submissions (electronic submittals are sent through grants.gov), the appropriate EPA
Regional Office to send the proposal to is determined by the geographic location of the project,
not the location of the applicant. For example, if the proposed project takes places in Louisiana,
the proposal should be submitted to EPA Region 6 (see Section IV.B.2). If the project location is
served by two or more EPA Regions (for example, the project is located in both Pennsylvania
(served by EPA Region 3) and New Jersey (served by EPA Region 2)), the applicant must
submit the proposal to the appropriate EPA Regional Office based on where the majority of the
work will take place. Only one proposal per applicant can be submitted. For all submittals (hard
copy or electronic), the cover page of the Proposal Narrative (see Section IV.C) must include the
appropriate Regional Office for the proposal. If an applicant is uncertain which Region to submit
their proposal to, they should contact Ji-Sun Yi by email at urbanwatersAepa.gov.
1. Grants.gov Submission
Applicants who wish to submit their materials electronically through the Federal government"s
Grants.gov web site may do so. Grants.gov allows an applicant to download an application
package template and complete the package offline based on agency instructions. After an
applicant completes the required application package, it can submit the package electronically to
Grants.gov, which transmits the package to the funding agency.
The electronic submission of your proposal must be made by an official representative of your
institution who is registered with Grants.gov and is authorized to sign applications for Federal
assistance. For more information, go to http://www.,!izrants.,!iZov and click on "Get Registered" on
the left side of the page.
Note that the registration process may take a week or longer to complete. If your organization is
not currently registered with Grants.gov, please encourage your office to designate an
Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) and ask that individual to begin the registration
process as soon as possible.
To begin the proposal process under this grant announcement, go to http://www.grants.gov and
click on the "Apply for Grants" tab on the left side of the page. Then click on "Apply Step 1:
14
Download a Grant Application Package" to download the compatible Adobe viewer and obtain
the application package. To apply through Grants.gov you must use Adobe Reader
applications and download the compatible Adobe Reader version (Adobe Reader
applications are available to download free on the Grants.gov website). For more
information on Adobe Reader, please visit the Help Section on grants.gov at
http://www.grants.gov/help/help.jsp or. http://www.grants.gov/aboutgrants/program status.jsp.
Once you have downloaded the viewer, you may retrieve the proposal package by entering the
Funding Opportunity Number, EPA-OW-I0-12-01, or the CFDA number that applies to the
announcement (CFDA 66.440), in the appropriate field. You may also be able to access the
proposal package by clicking on the Application button at the top right of the synopsis page for
this announcement on http://www.grants.gov (to find the synopsis page, go to
http://www.grants.gov and click on the "Find Grant Opportunities" button on the left side of the
page and then go to Search Opportunities and use the Browse by Agency feature to find EPA
opportunities).
Proposal Submission Deadline
Your organization"s AOR must submit your complete proposal electronically to EPA through
Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) no later than 11:59 PM EST January 23, 2012.
Please submit all of the proposal materials described below.
Proposal Materials
The following forms and documents are required to be submitted under this
announcement:
I. Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424).
II. Budget Information for Non -Construction Programs (SF-424A).
III. Proposal Narrative - prepared as described in Section IV.0 of this announcement.
The proposal package must include all of the following materials:
I. Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance
Complete the form. There are no attachments. Please be sure to include the organization fax
number and e-mail address in Block 5 of the Standard Form SF 424.
Please note that the organizational Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Number System
(DUNS) number must be included on the SF-424. Organizations may obtain a DUNS number at
no cost by calling the toll -free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705-5711.
II. Standard Form SF 424A — Budget Information:
15
Complete the form. There are no attachments. The total amount of Federal funding requested for
the project period should be shown on line 5(e) and on line 6(k) of SF-424A. If indirect costs are
included, the amount of indirect costs should be entered on line 60). The indirect cost rate (i.e., a
percentage), the base (e.g., personnel costs and fringe benefits), and the amount should also be
indicated on line 22.
III. Proposal Narrative
Prepare the Proposal Narrative in accordance with the instructions in Section IV.C.3 of this
announcement. The document should be readable in PDF or MS Word and consolidated into a
single file.
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
Documents I through III listed under Proposal Materials above should appear in the
"Mandatory Documents" box on the Grants.gov Grant Application Package page.
For documents I and II, click on the appropriate form and then click "Open Form" below the
box. The fields that must be completed will be highlighted in yellow. Optional fields and
completed fields will be displayed in white. If you enter an invalid response or incomplete
information in a field, you will receive an error message. When you have finished filling out
each form, click "Save." When you return to the electronic Grant Application Package page,
click on the form you just completed, and then click on the box that says, "Move Form to
Submission List." This action will move the document over to the box that says, "Mandatory
Completed Documents for Submission."
For document III, Proposal Narrative, you will need to attach electronic files. Prepare your
proposal narrative as described in Section IV.C.3 of the announcement and save the document to
your computer as an MS Word or PDF file. When you are ready to attach it to the application
package, click on "Project Narrative Attachment Form," and open the form. Click "Add
Mandatory Project Narrative File," and then attach your proposal narrative (previously saved to
your computer) using the browse window that appears. You may then click "View Mandatory
Project Narrative File" to view it. Enter a brief descriptive title of your project in the space
beside "Mandatory Project Narrative File Filename;" the filename should be no more than 40
characters long. If there other attachments that you would like to submit to accompany your
proposal narrative, you may click "Add Optional Project Narrative File" or use the "Other
Attachments" form and proceed as before. When you have finished attaching the necessary
documents, click "Close Form." When you return to the "Grant Application Package" page,
select the "Project Narrative Attachment Form" and click "Move Form to Submission List" The
form should now appear in the box that says, "Mandatory Completed Documents for
Submission."
Once you have finished filling out all of the forms/attachments and they appear in one of the
"Completed Documents for Submission" boxes, click the "Save" button that appears at the top of
the Web page. It is suggested that you save the document a second time, using a different name,
since this will make it easier to submit an amended package later if necessary. Please use the
16
following format when saving your file: "Applicant Name — FYI — Urban Waters Small Grants
— 1 st Submission" or "Applicant Name — FY 12 Urban Waters Small Grants — Back-up
Submission."
Once your proposal package has been completed and saved, send it to your AOR for submission
to U.S. EPA through Grants.gov. Please advise your AOR to close all other software programs
before attempting to submit the proposal package through Grants.gov.
In the "Application Filing Name" box, your AOR should enter your organization"s name
(abbreviate where possible), the fiscal year (e.g., FY12), and the grant category (e.g., Urban
Waters Small Grants). The filing name should not exceed 40 characters. From the "Grant
Application Package" page, your AOR may submit the application package by clicking the
"Submit" button that appears at the top of the page. The AOR will then be asked to verify the
agency and funding opportunity number for which the application package is being submitted. If
problems are encountered during the submission process, the AOR should reboot his/her
computer before trying to submit the proposal package again. [It may be necessary to turn off the
computer (not just restart it) before attempting to submit the package again.] If the AOR
continues to experience submission problems, he/she may contact Grants.gov for assistance by
phone at 1-800-518-4726, or e-mail at http://www.grants.gov/help/help.is-p. or contact Ji-Sun Yi
at 1-202-566-0730, or e-mail at urbanwaters(�,epa.gov.
Proposal packages submitted thru Grants.gov will be time/date stamped electronically.
If you have not received a confirmation of receipt from EPA (notftom Grants.gov) within 30
days of the proposal deadline, please contact Ji-Sun Yi as indicated above. Failure to do so may
result in your proposal not being reviewed.
2. Hard Copy and Compact Disc (CD) Submission
Two hard copies of all required documents listed in Section IV.C, CONTENT OF
APPLICATION SUBMISSION, and an electronic version on a CD, are required to be sent by
express delivery service, courier service, or hand delivered to the appropriate EPA Regional
contact mailing address listed below. States / territories served by each Region are provided in
parentheses. These Regional contacts are listed for the sole purpose of where applicants should
send their hard copies. Please do not contact Regions with questions regarding this
announcement. To help ensure that responses are consistent and made available to all potential
applicants, all questions must be submitted in writing via email to urbanwaters(kepa.gov, as
specified in Section VII.
As noted above, the proposal must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office that
serves the project location. If the project location is served by two or more EPA Regions (for
example, the project is located in both Pennsylvania (served by EPA Region 3) and New Jersey
(served by EPA Region 2), the applicant must submit the proposal to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office based on where the majority of the work will take place. Only one proposal per
applicant can be submitted. The cover page of the Proposal Narrative (see Section IV.C) must
include the appropriate Regional Office for the proposal. If an applicant is uncertain which
17
Region to submit their proposal, they should contact Ji-Sun Yi, by e-mail at
urbanwatersAepa. gov.
Please mark all submissions: ATTN: FY12 URBAN WATERS SMALL GRANTS RFP.
The electronic version copied on the CD may be in PDF or MS Word format. Annotated resumes
(preferably no more than two pages each) may need to be scanned so that they can be submitted
electronically as part of the CD. Proposal submissions sent by hard copy with CD must be
received by the appropriate Regional Office identified below by 4:00 P.M. EST January 23,
2012.
Hard copy proposal submission contacts:
Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT)
Caitlyn Whittle
U.S. EPA Region 1
5 Post Office Square
Suite 100 (OEP06-1)
Boston, MA 02109-3912
(617) 918.1748
whittle. caitlynAepa. gov
Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, Virgin Islands)
Cyndy Kopitsky
U.S. EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637.3832
kopitsky . cyndy Aepa.gov
Region 3 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV)
Catherine King
U.S. EPA Region 3 (3WP10)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 814.2657
king . Catherine (kepa-gov
Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)
Franklin Baker
U.S. EPA Region 4 (9T25)
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562.9757
baker. frank(?e�gov
Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)
18
Peg Donnelly
U.S. EPA Region 5 (WQ-16J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886.6109
donnelly.peggyAepa.gov
Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
Adele Cardenas
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6WQ)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665.7210
Cardenas. adele k epa. gov
Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE)
Jennifer Ousley
U.S. EPA Region 7 (WWPD/WPIB)
901 N. St" Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551.7498
ousley.jenniferAepa. o�v
Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
Stacey Eriksen
U.S. EPA Region 8 (8EPR-EP)
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202-1129
(303) 312.6692
eriksen. stacey (kepa.gov
Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands)
Jared Vollmer
U.S. EPA Region 9 (WTR-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 972.3447
vollmer. j ared(&,eT _gov
Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA)
Mary Lou Soscia
U.S. EPA Region 10
Oregon Operations Office (000)
805 S.W. Broadway, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97205
(503) 326.5873
19
soscia.mar.. uAepa.gov
C. CONTENT OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION
Applicants must read the following section very closely. A complete proposal package must
include the following three documents described below:
1. Signed Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance.
Complete the form. There are no attachments. Please be sure to include organization fax number
and e-mail address in Block 5 of the SF 424.
Please note that the organizational Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Number System
(DUNS) number must be included on the SF 424. Organizations may obtain a DUNS number at
no cost by calling the toll -free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or by visiting the
website at www.dnb.com.
2. SF 424A, Budget Information for Non -Construction Programs.
Complete the form. There are no attachments. The total amount of federal funding requested for
the project should be shown on line 5(e) and on line 6(k) of the SF-424A. If indirect costs are
included, the amount of indirect costs should be entered on line 60). The indirect cost rate (a
percentage), the base (e.g., personnel costs and fringe benefits), and the amount should also be
indicated on line 22. If indirect costs are requested, a copy of the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate
Agreement must be submitted as part of the application package. In Section B, Budget
Categories column (1) should be filled out for federal funds, column (2) should be filled out for
non-federal cost share/match, if applicable.
3. Proposal Narrative
NOTE: The Proposal Narrative (including cover page) must be limited to no more than
10 single-spaced, typewritten 8.5x11-inch pages (a page is one side of paper). Pages
should be consecutively numbered for ease of reading. It is recommended that
applicants use a standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins. While these guidelines
establish the minimum type size recommended, applicants are advised that readability
is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate
font for use in the proposal. Additional pages beyond the 10-page single-spaced limit
will not be considered. Supporting materials (such as annotated resumes, letters of
commitment, documentation of community priorities, grant forms, etc.) do not have to be
within the page limit. Documentation pertaining to Quality Assurance/Quality Control is also
not covered by the page limit.
The Proposal Narrative, including items 1-2 below, must be typewritten and must include the
information described below. If a particular item is not applicable, clearly state this.
1. Cover Page including:
i. Name of Applicant;
ii. Regional Office for the Proposal;
20
iii. Urban Project Area and Name of Urban Water Body;
iv. Project Title (the project title should reflect the main project
outcome/objective and should be 15 words or less);
v. Key personnel and contact information (i.e., e-mail address and phone
number);
vi. Total project cost (specify the amount of federal funds requested, the
non-federal cost share / match, and the total project cost); and
vii. Abstract (the abstract should begin with one or two sentences
describing the main objective of the proposal. It should also include a
listing of the main tasks to be accomplished, and a description of the
anticipated outputs and outcomes. The entire abstract should be 250
words or less).
2. Project description containing:
a) Technical Approach —The technical approach should include a
description of how the project addresses the following elements as
discussed in Section I.B of this announcement.
i. Water Quality Restoration —Refer to Section I.B.
ii. Relevance to Community Priorities — Refer to Section I.B.
iii. Success Potential/Feasibility — Refer to Section I.B.
b) Partnerships —Refer to Section I.B.
c) Benefits to Community —Refer to Section I.B.
d) Environmental Results and Measuring Progress -
i. Stated Objective/Link to EPA Strate is Plan - List the
objective of the project and describe the linkage to the EPA
Strategic Plans (see Section I.0 of this announcement). The
Urban Waters Small Grants support the following goals of
the FY 2006 — 2011 EPA Strategic Plan: Goal 2: Clean and
Safe Water, Objective 2.2 : Protect Water Quality, Sub -
objective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed
Basis. In addition, the Urban Waters Small Grants support
the following goals of the FY 2011 — 2015 EPA Strategic
Plan: Goal 2: Protecting America«s Waters, Objective 2.2 :
Protect and Restore Watershed and Aquatic Ecosystems.
21
ii. Results of Activities (Outputs) -List the products/results
which are expected to be achieved from accomplishment of
the project activities and an approach for tracking your
progress toward achieving the expected project output(s)
(examples of outputs can be found in Section LC of this
announcement).
iii. Anticipated Environmental Improvement (Outcomes) -List
the anticipated environmental improvements to be
accomplished as a result of the project activities. These
improvements are changes or benefits to the environment
which are a result from the accomplishment of project
outputs. Describe an approach for tracking your progress
toward achieving the expected project outcome(s) (examples
of outcomes can be found in Section LC of this
announcement).
e) Milestone Schedule — Provide a projected milestone schedule that
covers each year of the total grant period request and provides a
breakout of the project activities into phases with associated tasks
and a timeframe for completion of tasks. The project start date will
follow award acceptance by the successful applicants.
f) Transfer of Results — Provide a description of how the applicant
will transfer the results of the project to state, tribal, and local
governmental agencies, other community and watershed
organizations, public and private organizations, and/or other
interested stakeholders. For example, the applicant could create
opportunities for sharing best practices and lessons learned in the
form of meetings, web casts, or other mechanisms.
g) Detailed Budget Narrative — Provide a detailed budget and
estimated funding amounts for each project component/task.
Identify the requested federal dollars, demonstrate how the non-
federal cost share / match will be met and provide a total project
cost. This section provides an opportunity for narrative description
of the budget or aspects of the budget found in the SF 424A (i.e.,
personnel, travel, contractual, other). All subgrant funding should
be located under the "other" category. Helpful tips on writing a
budget may be found at http://www.epa.gov/o/oad/recipient/tips.htm.
i. Total costs must include separate breakdowns for federal
costs and non-federal cost share / matching components (a
minimum $2,500 non-federal cost share / match is required).
Explain if and how partners will contribute to the required
cost share / match. Attach letters of commitment from
intended cost share / match partners, to your proposal. Letters
22
of commitment are not counted in the page limit and should
be submitted on applicable letterhead. Describe cost-
effectiveness, reasonableness of costs, and value of in -kind
contributions. If applicable, include any travel for applicant
staff to attend any necessary meetings throughout the
proposed project period, including having one representative
from the recipient organization attend the Urban Waters
Small Grants National Training Workshop (see Section VIX
of this announcement for additional information). Describe
itemized costs in sufficient detail for EPA to determine the
reasonableness and allowability of costs for each project
component/task.
ii. When formulating budgets for proposals, the applicant must
not include management fees or similar charges in excess of
the direct costs and indirect costs at the rate approved by the
applicant«s cognizant audit agency, or at the rate provided for
by the terms of the agreement negotiated with EPA. The term
"management fees or similar charges" refers to expenses
added to the direct costs in order to accumulate and reserve
funds for ongoing business expenses, unforeseen liabilities,
or for other similar costs that are not allowable under EPA
assistance agreements. Management fees or similar charges
may not be used to improve or expand the project funded
under this agreement, except to the extent authorized as a
direct cost of carrying out the scope of work.
h) Programmatic Capability/Specialized Experience
i. Organizational Experience — Provide a brief description of
your organizational experience related to the proposed
project, and your infrastructure as it relates to your ability to
successfully implement the proposed project.
ii. Staff Expertise/Qualifications — Provide a list of key staff and
briefly describe their expertise/qualifications and knowledge,
and describe your resources or the ability to obtain them to
successfully achieve the goals of the project. Include an
estimate of the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) workers
(based on 2080 hours per year/FTE). List proposed partner
entities, and describe their roles, and whether they will
participate as subgrantees. Annotated resumes of applicant"s
key staff (no more than two pages each) are also encouraged
and are not included in the page limit.
i) Past Performance —Briefly describe federally and/or non -federally
funded assistance agreements (an assistance agreement is a grant
23
or cooperative agreement and not a contract) similar in size, scope,
and relevance to the proposed project that your organization
performed within the last five years (no more than three such
agreements and preferably EPA agreements) and:
i. Describe whether, and how, you were able to successfully
complete and manage those agreements.
ii. Describe your history of meeting the reporting requirements
under those agreements including submitting acceptable final
technical reports.
iii. Describe how you documented and/or reported on whether
you were making progress towards achieving the expected
results (i.e., outputs and outcomes) under those agreements.
If you were not making progress, please indicate whether,
and how, you documented why not.
Note: In evaluating the applicant«s past performance, the Agency
will consider the information supplied by the applicant in its
proposal, and may also consider relevant information from other
sources including Agency files (e.g., Grantee Compliance
Database) and prior/current grantors (e.g., to verify and/or
supplement the information provided the by applicant). If you do
not have any relevant or available past performance information,
please indicate this in the proposal and you will receive a neutral
score for these factors under Section V. Failure to provide any past
performance information, or to include a statement in the proposal
that you do not have any relevant or available past performance or
reporting information, may result in a zero score for these factors
(see also Section V).
j) Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) (not included in the
page limit) — If you plan to collect or use environmental data or
information, explain how you will comply with the Quality
Assurance/Quality Control requirements (see Section VIII.A
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) of
this announcement for additional information).
NOTE: The applicant should also provide in its Proposal Narrative any additional
information, to the extent not already identified above, that addresses the selection criteria
found in Section V.
D. SUBMISSION DATES AND TIMES
Proposals submitted by hard copy with CD must be received by the appropriate EPA Regional
Office contact identified in Section IV.13.2 by 4:00 P.M. EST January 23, 2012. Proposals
24
submitted electronically via http://www.rants.gov must be received by 11:59 P.M. EST
January 23, 2012. Late proposals will not be considered for funding.
E. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
EPA recommends that you do not include confidential business information ("CBI") in your
proposal. However, if CBI is included, it will be treated in accordance with 40 CFR 2.203.
Applicants must clearly indicate which portion(s) of their proposal they are claiming as CBI.
EPA will evaluate such claims in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality is
made, EPA is not required to make the inquiry to the applicant otherwise required by 40 CFR
2.204(c)(2) prior to disclosure. The Agency protects competitive proposals from disclosure under
applicable provisions of the Freedom of Information Act prior to the completion of the
competitive selection process.
V. Application Review Information
A. SELECTION CRITERIA
All eligible proposals, based on the Section III threshold eligibility review, will be evaluated
based on the evaluation criteria and weights below (100-point scale). Points will be awarded
based on how well and thoroughly each criterion and/or sub -criterion is addressed in the proposal
package.
1) Technical Approach (30 Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on
points) the extent and quality to which the proposal demonstrates
how the project addresses the following elements as
described in Section I.B:
a) Water Quality Restoration —How well the proposal
identifies the project area as "urban" and how well the
proposed project will contribute to future environmental
restoration of the urban water body. Restoration efforts
include addressing important water quality threats or
impairments. (15 points)
b) Relevance to Community Priorities —How well the
proposed project makes water quality restoration of the
urban water body relevant to community priorities and
strives to engage local residents in a sustainable way. (5
points)
c) Success Potential/Project Feasibility —How well the
proposed project demonstrates a creative or effective
approach to restoring water quality within the urban area
and is prepared to begin work. (10 points)
25
2) Partnerships (8 points)
Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on
their ability to demonstrate appropriate and necessary
partnerships to successfully conduct the project (as
described in Section I.B) including whether they have
provided a clear description of the roles of specific partners
in the project's components/tasks, and how these
partnerships will contribute to the success of the proposed
projects, and the extent to which communities surrounding
the urban water body (including but not limited to minority,
low income, or indigenous population communities) are
participating in the project. (8points)
3) Benefits to Community
Proposals will be evaluated based on the extent to which
(7 points)
they demonstrate how they will benefit communities
surrounding the urban water body (as described in Section
I.B) that have been impacted by the water pollution issues
affecting the urban water body. This includes communities
comprised of minority, low income, or indigenous
populations, as well as others that may be adversely
impacted by the urban water body"s water pollution issues.
(7 points)
4) Milestone
Proposals will be evaluated based on the extent and quality
Schedule/Detailed
to which the proposal demonstrates the following:
Budget/Transfer of
Results (15 points)
a) Clearly articulated milestone schedule for project tasks.
(5 points)
b) Reasonableness of the budget and estimated funding
amounts for each project task. Applicants will be
evaluated based on: the adequacy of the information
provided in the detailed budget; whether the proposed
costs are reasonable and allowable; and how well the
applicant demonstrated cost-effectiveness and value of
the project. Total project costs must include both federal
and required cost share /match (non-federal)
components. (5 points)
c) How well the applicant will transfer the results of the
proposed project to state, tribal, and local governmental
agencies, other community and watershed organizations,
and/or other interested stakeholders. (5 points)
26
5) Environmental Results
(20 points)
Proposals will be evaluated based on the following elements:
a) The extent and quality to which the proposal
demonstrates potential environmental results, anticipated
outputs and outcomes, and how the outcomes are linked
to EPA's Strategic Plans (see Section I of
announcement). (10 points)
b) The extent and quality to which the proposal
demonstrates a sound plan for tracking progress toward
achieving the expected outputs and outcomes (examples
of outputs and outcomes are provided in Section LC of
the announcement). (10points)
6) Programmatic
Under this criterion proposals will be evaluated based on the
Capability/Specialized
applicant"s ability to successfully complete and manage the
Experience (10 points)
proposed project taking into account the applicant"s:
a) Organizational experience related to the proposed
project, and their infrastructure as it relates to their
ability to successfully implement the proposed project. (5
points)
b) Staff experience/qualifications, staff knowledge, and
resources, or the ability to obtain them, to successfully
implement the proposed project. (5points)
7) Past Performance (10
Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on
points)
their ability to successfully complete and manage the
proposed project taking into account their:
a) Past performance in successfully completing and
managing federally and/or non -federally funded
assistance agreements (an assistance agreement is a grant
or cooperative agreement and not a contract) similar in
size, scope, and relevance to the proposed project
performed within the last five years (no more than three,
and preferably EPA agreements). (4 points)
b) History of meeting reporting requirements under
federally and/or non -federally funded assistance
agreements (an assistance agreement is a grant or
cooperative agreement and not a contract) similar in
size, scope, and relevance to the proposed project
performed within the last five years (no more than three,
and preferably EPA agreements) and submitting
acceptable final technical reports under these
agreements. (3 points)
27
c) Extent and quality to which they documented and/or
reported on their progress towards achieving the
expected results (e.g. outcomes and outputs) under
federally and/or non -federally funded assistance
agreements (an assistance agreement is a grant or
cooperative agreement and not a contract) performed in
the last 5 years (no more than three, and preferably EPA
agreements), and if such progress was not being made,
whether the applicant adequately documented why not.
(3 points)
Note: In evaluating applicants under this criterion, the
Agency will consider the information supplied by the
applicant in its proposal, and may also consider relevant
information from other sources including Agency files (e.g.
Grantee Compliance Database) and prior/current grantors
(e.g., to verify and/or supplement the information provided
by the applicant). Applicants who have no relevant or
available past performance information will receive a neutral
score for these factors (i.e., 2 points for subcriterion a), 1.5
points for subcriterion b), and 1.5 points for subcriterion c)).
Failure to provide any past performance information, or to
include a statement in your proposal that you do not have
any relevant or available past performance information, may
result in a zero score for the factors.
B. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS
Each Regional Office will review proposal submissions for proposed projects located in its
associated geographic region. A proposal where the project location is served by two or more
Regional Offices will be reviewed by the Regional Office to which the proposal was submitted
to as described in Section IV.B.
All proposals received by EPA in hard copy or via grants.gov by the submission deadline will
first be screened by EPA Regional staff against the threshold criteria in Section III of the
announcement. Proposals that do not pass the threshold review will not be evaluated further or
considered for funding.
All eligible proposals will then be evaluated by a Regional review panel, which will be
composed of EPA staff, and which may also include representatives from other federal agencies
that are part of the Urban Waters Federal Partnership. Evaluations will be based on the 100-point
scale described in Section V.A above. Proposals will be ranked based on the reviewers" scores,
and the scores and rankings will be provided to the EPA Regional Selection Official(s) for final
funding decisions. In making the final funding decisions, the Regional Selection Officials may
also consider geographic diversity, project diversity, and funding availability.
28
VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
A. AWARD NOTICES
Following EPA"s evaluation of proposals, all applicants will be notified regarding their status.
Final applications will be requested from those eligible entities whose proposal has been
successfully evaluated and preliminary recommended for award. Those entities will be provided
with instructions and a due date for submittal of the final application package.
EPA reserves the right to negotiate and/or adjust the final grant amount and workplan prior to
award, as appropriate and consistent with Agency policy including the Policy for Competition of
Assistance Agreements, EPA Order 5700.5AL An approvable final workplan narrative is
required to include:
1. Workplan components to be funded under the cooperative agreement;
2. Estimated work years and the estimated funding amounts for each workplan
component;
3. Workplan commitments for each workplan component and a timeframe for their
accomplishment;
4. Performance evaluation process and reporting schedule in accordance with
§35.115 of 40 CFR; and
5. Roles and responsibilities of the recipient and EPA (for cooperative agreements
only) in carrying out the workplan commitments.
In addition, successful applicants will be required to certify that they have not been Debarred or
Suspended from participation in federal assistance awards in accordance with 40 CFR Part 32.
Any additional information about this RFP will be posted on EPA"s Urban Waters website at
http://www.epa.,c�ov/urbanwaters/funding. Deadline extensions or other modifications will be
posted on this website and www. rants.gov.
B. ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS
The general award and administration process for this RFP is governed by regulations at 40 CFR
Part 30 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of
Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations), 40 CFR Part 31 (States,
Tribes, interstate agencies, intertribal consortia and local governments), and 40 CFR Part 35,
Subpart A ("Environmental Program Grants for State, Interstate, and Local Government
Agencies") and Subpart B ("Environmental Program Grants for Tribes"). These regulations can
be found at http://www.epa.,tyov/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/chi-toc.htm. A description of the Agency"s
substantial involvement in the cooperative agreements will be included in the final assistance
agreement.
C. NON-PROFIT ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY CLAUSE
29
Non-profit applicants that are recommended for funding under this announcement are subject to
pre -award administrative capability reviews consistent with Section 8b, 8c and 9d of EPA Order
5700.8 - Policy on Assessing Capabilities of Non -Profit Applicants for Managing Assistance
Awards (http://www.epa.aov/oad/grants/award/5700 8.pdf). In addition, non-profit applicants
that qualify for funding may, depending on the size of the award, be required to fill out and
submit to the Grants Management Office the Administrative Capabilities Form with supporting
documents contained in Appendix A of EPA Order 5700.8.
D. SUBAWARD AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION REPORTING
Applicants must ensure that they have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply
with the sub -award and executive total compensation reporting requirements established under
OMB guidance at 2 CFR Part 170, unless they qualify for an exception from the requirements,
should they be selected for funding.
E. CENTRAL CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION (CCR) AND DATA UNIVERSAL
NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS) REQUIREMENTS
Unless exempt from these requirements under OMB guidance at 2 CFR Part 25 (e.g.,
individuals), applicants must:
1. Be registered in the CCR prior to submitting an application or proposal under this
announcement. CCR information can be found at https://www.bpn.gov/ccr/;
2. Maintain an active CCR registration with current information at all times during
which it has an active Federal award or an application or proposal under
consideration by an agency, and
3. Provide its DUNS number in each application or proposal it submits to the agency.
Applicants can receive a DUNS number, at no cost, by calling the dedicated toll -free
DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711, or visiting the D&B website at:
http://www.dnb.com.
If an applicant fails to comply with these requirements, it will, should it be selected for award,
affect their ability to receive the award.
F. UNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS
An applicant that receives an award under this announcement is expected to manage assistance
agreement funds efficiently and effectively and make sufficient progress towards completing the
project activities described in the work -plan in a timely manner. The assistance agreement will
include terms/conditions implementing this requirement.
G. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
This program may be eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of
Federal Programs." An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single
point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be
30
followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review. Further
information regarding this can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.
H. DISPUTE PROCEDURES
Assistance agreement competition -related disputes will be resolved in accordance with the
dispute resolution procedures published in 70 FR (Federal Register) 3629, 3630 (January 26,
2005) which can be found at:
http://www.epa.Gov/ogd/competition/resolution.htm. Copies may also be requested by contacting
the Agency contact in Section VII.
I. COPYRIGHTS
In accordance with 40 CFR 3 0.3 6 for institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-
profit organizations, or 40 CFR 31.34 for other recipients, EPA reserves a royalty -free,
nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize
others to use, for Federal Government purposes copyrighted works developed under a grant,
subgrant or contract under a grant or subgrant. Examples of Federal purpose include but are not
limited to: (1) Use by EPA and other Federal employees for official Government purposes; (2)
Use by Federal contractors performing specific tasks for the Government; (3) Publication in EPA
documents provided the document does not disclose trade secrets (e.g. software codes) and the
work is properly attributed to the recipient through citation or otherwise; (4) Reproduction of
documents for inclusion in Federal depositories; (5) Use by State, tribal and local governments
that carry out delegated Federal environmental programs as "co -regulators" or act as official
partners with EPA to carry out a national environmental program within their jurisdiction; (6)
Limited use by other grantees to carry out Federal grants provided the use is consistent with the
terms of EPA"s authorization to the grantee to use the copyrighted material.
J. REPORTING
In general, recipients are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations and activities
supported by the assistance funding, to assure compliance with applicable federal requirements,
and for ensuring that established milestones and performance goals are being achieved.
Performance reports and financial reports must be submitted semi-annually and are due 30 days
after the reporting period. The final report is due 90 days after the assistance agreement has
expired. Recipients will be required to report direct and indirect environmental results from the
work accomplished through the award. In negotiating assistance agreements, EPA will work
closely with the recipient to incorporate appropriate performance measures and reporting
requirements in the workplan consistent with 40 CFR 3 0.51, 31.40, and 40 CFR Part 45. In
addition, it is anticipated that by the end of the assistance agreement performance period,
grantees will provide a report to describe the project as a success story that helps other
communities across the country learn from their experience.
K. NATIONAL TRAINING WORKSHOP
31
Urban Waters Small Grants recipients will be required to attend an EPA -sponsored Urban
Waters Small Grants National Training Workshop. It is anticipated that the workshop will take
place over a period of up to 2 days during the first year of the cooperative agreement
performance period. One representative from the recipient organization should plan to attend.
The purpose of this training is to help the recipient with strategic planning and cooperative
agreement management, as well as afford grantees numerous opportunities to network with other
Urban Waters community representatives. The workshop location has not yet been determined.
The recipient will be allowed to use cooperative agreement funds to pay for one person«s travel
and lodging to attend the National Training Workshop. If the recipient wishes to use cooperative
agreement funds for travel expenses to the National Training Workshop, these costs must be
included in the submitted proposed budget.
VII. AGENCY CONTACTS
Note to Applicants: In accordance with EPA's Assistance Agreement Competition Policy (EPA
Order 5700.5AI), EPA staff will not meet with individual applicants to discuss draft proposals,
provide informal comments on draft proposals, or provide advice to applicants on how to
respond to ranking criteria. Applicants are responsible for the contents of their proposals.
However, consistent with the provisions in the announcement, EPA will respond to questions
from individual applicants regarding threshold eligibility criteria, administrative issues related to
the submission of the proposal, and requests for clarification about the announcement. Questions
must be submitted in writing via e-mail and must be received by the Agency Contact identified
below by January 16, 2012 and written responses will be posted on EPA«s website at
http://www.epa.gov/urbanwaters/funding.
Agency Contact
Ji-Sun Yi
Phone Number: (202) 566-0730
E-mail: urbanwaters(keTgov
In addition, EPA will host two national Information Sessions regarding this announcement via
webinar, based on the schedule below. EPA will attempt to answer any appropriate questions in
these public forums. Registration information for both Information Sessions can be found at
http://www.epa.Gov/urbanwaters/funding.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. (EST)
Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. (EST)
Questions and answers from these Information Sessions will also be posted at
http://www.epa.gov/urbanwaters/funding.
VIII. OTHER INFORMATION
A. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
32
Quality Assurance/Quality Control requirements apply to these grants (see 40 CFR 30.54 and 40
CFR 31.45). QA/QC requirements apply to the collection of environmental data. Environmental
data are any measurements or information that describe environmental processes, location, or
conditions; ecological or health effects and consequences; or the performance of environmental
technology. Environmental data include information collected directly from measurements,
produced from models, and compiled from other sources such as databases or literature.
Successful applicants should allow sufficient time and resources for this process. EPA can assist
successful applicants in determining whether QA/QC is required for the proposed project. If
QA/QC is required for the project, the successful applicant may work with the EPA QA/QC staff
to determine the appropriate QA/QC practices for the project. See Section VII., AGENCY
CONTACTS for Agency Contact information for referral to an EPA QA/QC staff.
The successful applicant must ensure all water quality data generated in accordance with an EPA
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan, either directly or by subaward, is transmitted into the
Agency"s Storage and Retrieval (STOREY) Data Warehouse annually or by project completion
using either WQX or WQXweb. Water quality data that are appropriate for STOREY include
physical, chemical, and biological sample results for water, sediment and fish tissue. The data
include toxicity data, microbiological data, and the metrics and indices generated from biological
and habitat data. The Water Quality Exchange (WQX) is the water data schema associated with
the EPA, State and Tribal Exchange Network. Using the WQX schema partners map their
database structure to the WQX/STOREY structure. WQXweb is a web -based tool to convert data
into the STOREY format for smaller data generators that are not direct partners on the Exchange
Network. More information about WQX, WQXweb, and the STOREY Warehouse, including
tutorials, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/storet/wqx/
B. DATA SHARING
All recipients of these assistance agreements may be required to share any data generated
through this funding agreement as a defined deliverable in the final workplan.
C. DATA ACCESS AND INFORMATION RELEASE
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide
public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some
circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part
with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an
action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. If
such data are requested by the public, the EPA must ask for it, and the grantee must submit it, in
accordance with A-110 and EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. 30.36.
D. EXCHANGE NETWORK
EPA, states, territories, and tribes are working together to develop the National Environmental
Information Exchange Network, a secure, Internet- and standards -based way to support
electronic data reporting, sharing, and integration of both regulatory and non -regulatory
environmental data. States, tribes and territories exchanging data with each other or with EPA,
33
should make the Exchange Network and the Agency's connection to it, the Central Data
Exchange (CDX), the standard way they exchange data and should phase out any legacy
methods they have been using. More information on the Exchange Network is available at
www.exchan�enetwork.net.
E. URBAN WATERS FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
The Urban Waters Program supports the goals and principles of the Urban Waters Federal
Partnership (www.urbanwater ) which is a partnership of eleven federal agencies working to
reconnect urban communities with their waterways by improving coordination among federal
agencies and collaborating with community -led revitalization efforts to improve the nation"s
water systems and promote their economic, environmental and social benefits. The Urban Waters
Federal Partnership closely aligns with and advances the work of the White House"s place -based
efforts, including the Partnership for Sustainable Communities
(http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/aboutUs.html), to revitalize communities, create jobs
and improve the quality of life in cities and towns across the nation. The Urban Waters Federal
Partnership also advances the work of President Obama"s America"s Great Outdoors Initiative.
EPA"s approach to protect and restore America"s urban waters is outlined in the Urban Waters
Strategic Framework, available at http://www.epa.gov/urbanwaters/StrategicFramework.pdf. This
Strategic Framework strives to meet the following five Intended Outcomes: Improved
connection to Urban Waters, understanding of urban waters and their potential, sense of public
ownership of urban waters, protection and restoration of urban waters, and community
revitalization.
F. UNFUNDED PROPOSALS
Subject to the availability of funds, funding authorities, and other considerations, the U.S. Forest
Service (an Urban Waters Federal Partnership agency) may consider for funding proposals not
selected for funding by EPA under this RFP.
34
CANAL RESTORATIONS IN THE FLORIDA KEYS
Statement of Problem/Project Scope: Construction of residential canals in the Florida Keys was
initiated in the mid-20th century, before resource managers fully understood their impacts on local
water quality and broader coastal ecosystems. Many of the 502 canal systems currently present in
the Keys were excavated to depths of 20 — 25 feet in order to maximize production of fill material.
Most were designed as long, multi -segmented, dead-end canal networks which maximize waterfront
property but provide little or no tidal flushing and accumulate nutrients and decomposing organic
material.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has determined that the water quality is
impaired in multiple water bodies (WBIDS) throughout the Florida Keys. The Florida Keys
Reasonable Assurance Documentation Update of 2011 (RAD Update) outlined extensive waste
water and storm water restoration activities to address the nutrient impairments from these sources.
However, FDEP recognizes that even after the restoration and management activities detailed in the
RAD are completed, water quality in many canals will likely not achieve Class III marine standards,
as required by regulation. The varying nature of canals with poor water circulation, weed wrack,
organic sediments, and/or water depth were the cited reasons. Since the canals discharge directly to
near shore Outstanding Florida Waters in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS),
where FDEP adopted a "zero -degradation" policy for marine waters, addressing on -going canal
water quality impairment is of utmost importance. This project proposes to implement restoration
techniques that will further improve the water quality in the Florida Keys canals and thus the affected
near shore waters.
Relationship to Existing Federal/State Plans: The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 provides for federal protection of commercial fisheries
species and protection of essential fish habitat, which are both present in the Florida Keys. Canal
restoration measures will help to reverse a declining fish population trend and better protect nursery
habitats. The FKNMS was established by Congress in 1990. Under its authority, NOAA and the
FDEP manage all waters as well as natural and cultural resources surrounding the Florida Keys. The
Sanctuary's Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) was mandated by Congress and developed
jointly by EPA, NOAA, the State of Florida, and Monroe County. Centralized waste water system
development has been a focal effort of the Sanctuary and its WQPP over the last several years.
Now that these efforts are well underway, the WQPP recognizes that addressing the impaired water
quality in the canals is the next focus. In 2007, the FKNMS developed a canal water quality
improvement strategy that includes implementing improvement strategies in the canals. In 2012 the
WQPP Steering Committee convened a Water Quality Canal Subcommittee to manage and oversee
the implementation of canal water quality improvements.
Benefits to Natural Resources:
The near shore tidal waters of the Florida Keys are a fragile, extremely valuable and unique
ecosystem that supports many species of commercial importance, including the snapper -grouper
complex, red drum, stone crab, and spiny lobster. Essential fish habitat in the Florida Keys includes
critical breeding and hatchling habitats such as the extensive seagrass beds in Florida Bay and the
Gulf of Mexico and coral reefs in the southern Atlantic Ocean. These habitats are extremely sensitive
to sedimentation, turbidity, and nutrient loading — all problems that have been attributed to, in part, by
the water quality of the Keys' canal systems. The health of nearshore essential fish habitat has been
negatively affected by oil spills and other human activity in the Gulf of Mexico, and low water quality
output from the Keys canals represents a long-term cumulative impact on these resources. Canal
restoration measures will help to reverse this trend and better protect nursery habitat for species
covered under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act.
In addition, improved canal water quality in the Florida Keys will directly benefit a number of marine
species listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), These species —
which include the West Indian manatee, many species of sea turtles, acroporid corals, and the small -
toothed sawfish — also depend on near shore seagrass and coral reef habitats. Improvements to
near shore water quality resulting from improvements to the canal systems will reduce stresses on
these critically important marine communities.
Economic Benefits: Monroe County is the only county on the entire Gulf Coast that contains a
barrier coral reef, which provides the ecological foundation for fisheries and a tourism -based
economy that generates more than 70,000 jobs and is worth over $6 billion. The Keys are
considered the `fishing capital of the world', generating hundreds of world records and billions of
dollars of economic impact. The Keys provide essential habitats and critical spawning grounds for
many of the commercially and recreationally -harvested fish species that populate the Gulf. Key West
is also the 20t" most valuable commercial fishing port in the nation. Improved canal and near shore
water quality will help to sustain and improve these natural resources that are the economic base of
the Keys.
Work Accomplished to Date to Address Water Quality Impairment: A total of $900 million will be
spent replacing inefficient septic tanks and cesspits with centralized waste water treatment plants
and collection systems. In addition to implementing waste water and storm water improvements,
Monroe County, through FDEP and EPA grant funding, is developing a Canal Management Master
Plan to prioritize need for improvement of the water quality in the canals and identify appropriate
restoration techniques. A $100,000 bathymetry survey is being undertaken to support design of
canal restoration measures. A proposal to commit $5,000,000 of County infrastructure money for
pilot testing canal restoration technologies is in the development stage.
Estimated Costs: The likely cost to implement the canal restorations is thought to range from $191-
$298 million, based upon a preliminary assessment of canal conditions and assumptions regarding
design and construction costs. The estimated number of canals that may require restoration is only
preliminary and will be revised as additional data is collected and evaluated. It is assumed that some
canals may achieve adequate water quality improvement through the installation of waste water
collection and treatment systems alone and will not require additional canal restoration. The tables
below have been provided to illustrate the range in total restoration costs as well as variation
between technologies. These tables will assist in prioritization of utilization of funds.
Estimated Number of Canal Restorations by Selected Technology
Scenario
Weed
Organics
Pumping
Culverts
Backfilling
Total
Wrack Gate
Removal
Low Range
62
31
20
20
40
173
High Range
72
54
34
1 34
60
1 254
Likely Range in Cost by Selected Technologies ($M)
Number
Weed
Organics
Scenario
of
Wrack
Removal
Pumping
Culverts
Backfilling
Total
Canals
Gate
Low Range
173
$3
$21
$5
$2
$160
$191
High Range
254
$5
$38
$8
$7
$240
$298
4
ClekKls op-9;�a�
AGREEMENT NO. S0607
STATE OF FLORIDA
GRANT AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO LINE ITEM 1596 OF THE 2011-2012 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, whose address is 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida
32399-3000 (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") and the MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, whose address is 1100 Simonton Street, Suite 2-283, Ivey `]Vest, Florida 33040 (hereinafter
referred to as "Grantee" or "Recipient"), a local government, to provide financial assistance for the Monroe County
Canal Management Master Plan.
In consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom, the Department and the Grantee do hereby
agree as follows:
1. The Grantee does hereby agree to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement, Attachment A, Grant Work Plan, and all attachments and exhibits named herein which are
attached hereto and incorporated by reference. For purposes of this Agreement, the terms "Contract" and
"Agreement" and the terms "Grantee", "Recipient" and "Contractor", are used interchangeably.
2. This Agreement shall begin upon execution by both parties and end no later than June 30, 2012, inclusive.
The Grantee shall be eligible for reimbursement for work performed on or after the date of execution and
until the expiration of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended to provide for additional services
if additional funding is made available by the Legislature.
3. A. As consideration for the services rendered by the Grantee under the terms of this Agreement, the
Department shall pay the Grantee on a cost reimbursement basis in an amount not to exceed
$100,000. The parties hereto understand and agree that this Agreement does not require a cost
sharing or match on the part of the Grantee.
B. The Grantee shall be reimbursed on a cost reimbursement basis for all eligible project costs, upon
the completion, submittal and approval of deliverables identified in Attachment A, in accordance
with the schedule therein. Reimbursement shall be requested utilizing Attachment B, Payment
Request Summary Form. A final payment request must be submitted to the Department no later
than June 28, 2012, to assure the availability of funds for payment. In addition to the summary
form, the Grantee must provide from its accounting system, a listing of expenditures charged
against this Agreement. The listing shall include, at a minimum, a description of the goods or
services purchased, date of the transaction, voucher number, amount paid, and vendor name.
Travel expenses will not be reimbursed under the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
C. In addition to the invoicing requirements contained in paragraph 3.13. above, the Department will
periodically request proof of a transaction (invoice, payroll register, etc.) to evaluate the
appropriateness of costs to the Agreement pursuant to State and Federal guidelines (including cost
allocation guidelines), as appropriate. This information, when requested, must be provided within
thirty (3 0) calendar days of such request. The Grantee may also be required to submit a cost
allocation - plan to the Department in support of its multipliers (overhead, indirect, general
administrative costs, and fringe benefits). All bills for amounts due under this Agreement shall be
submitted in detail sufficient for a proper pre -audit and post -audit thereof. State guidelines for
allowable costs can be found in the Department of Financial Services' Reference Guide for State
Expenditures at http://www.fldfs.coi-n/aadir/refereiice`/`5Fguide.
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Page 1 of 6
D. l . The accounting systems for all Grantees must ensure that these funds are not commingled
with funds from other agencies. Funds from each agency must be accounted for
separately. Grantees are prohibited from commingling funds on either a program -by -
program or a project -by -project basis. Funds specifically budgeted and/or received for
one project may not be used to support another project. Where a Grantee's, or
subrecipient's, accounting system cannot comply with this requirement, the Grantee, or
subrecipient, shall establish a system to provide adequate fund accountability for each
project it has been awarded.
2. If the Department finds that these funds have been commingled, the Department shall
have the right to demand a refund, either in whole or in part, of the funds provided to the
Grantee under this Agreement for non-compliance with the material terms of this
Agreement. The Grantee, upon such written notification from the Department shall
refund, and shall forthwith pay to the Department, the amount of money demanded by the
Department. Interest on any refund shall be calculated based on the prevailing rate used
by the State Board of Administration. Interest shall be calculated from the date(s) the
original payment(s) are received from the Department by the Grantee to the date
repayment is made by the Grantee to the Department.
3. In the event that the Grantee recovers costs, incurred under this Agreement and
reimbursed by the Department, from another source(s), the Grantee shall reimburse the
Department for all recovered funds originally provided under this Agreement. Interest on
any refund shall be calculated based on the prevailing rate used by the State Board of
Administration. Interest shall be calculated from the date(s) the payment(s) are recovered
by the Grantee to the date repayment is made to the Department by the Grantee.
4. The State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under this Agreement is contingent upon an annual
appropriation by the Legislature. The parties hereto understand that this Agreement is not a commitment of
future appropriations.
5. Progress Reports shall be submitted to the Department's Grant Manager no later than twenty (20) days
following the completion of the monthly reporting period. Each Progress Report shall be submitted on
Attachment C, Progress Report Form, and shall describe the work performed, problems encountered,
problem resolution, schedule updates and proposed work for the next reporting period. The Department's
Grant Manager shall have ten (10) calendar days to review the required reports and deliverables submitted
by the Grantee.
6. Each party hereto agrees that it shall be solely responsible for the negligent or wrongful acts of its
employees and agents. However, nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver by either party of its
sovereign immunity or the provisions of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes.
7. A. The Department may terminate this Agreement at any time in the event of the failure of the
Grantee to fulfill any of its obligations under this Agreement. Prior to termination, the Department
shall provide thirty (30) calendar days written notice of its intent to terminate and shall provide the
Grantee an opportunity to consult with the Department regarding the reason(s) for termination.
B. The Department may terminate this Agreement for convenience by providing the Grantee with
thirty (3 0) calendar days written notice.
8. This Agreement may be unilaterally canceled by the Department for refusal by the Grantee to allow public
access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material made or received by the Grantee in conjunction
with this Agreement, unless the records are exempt from Section 24(a) of Article I of the State Constitution
and Section 119.07(l)(a), Florida Statutes.
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Page 2 of 6
9. The Grantee shall maintain books, records and documents directly pertinent to performance under this
Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied. The
Department, the State, or their authorized representatives shall have access to such records for audit
purposes during the term of this Agreement and for five (5) years following Agreement completion. In the
event any work is subcontracted, the Grantee shall similarly require each subcontractor to maintain and
allow access to such records for audit purposes.
10. A. In addition to the requirements of the preceding paragraph, the Grantee shall comply with the
applicable provisions contained in Attachment D, Special Audit Requirements, attached hereto
and made a part hereof. Exhibit 1 to Attachment D summarizes the funding sources supporting
the Agreement for purposes of assisting the Grantee in complying with the requirements of
Attachment D. A revised copy of Exhibit 1 must be provided to the Grantee for each amendment
which authorizes a funding increase or decrease. If the Grantee fails to receive a revised copy of
Exhibit 1, the Grantee shall notify the Department's Grants Development and Review Manager at
850/245-2361 to request a copy of the updated information.
B. The Grantee is hereby advised that the Federal and/or Florida Single Audit Act Requirements may
further apply to lower tier transactions that may be a result of this Agreement. The Grantee shall
consider the type of financial assistance (federal and/or state) identified in Attachment D, Exhibit
1 when making its determination. For federal financial assistance, the Grantee shall utilize the
guidance provided under OMB Circular A-133, Subpart B, Section .210 for determining
whether the relationship represents that of a subrecipient or vendor. For state financial assistance,
the Grantee shall utilize the form entitled "Checklist for Nonstate Organizations
Recipient/Subrecipient vs. Vendor Determination" (form number DFS-A2-NS) that can be found
under the "Links/Forms" section appearing at the following website:
http.s-.i//ai)p.s.fl fs.com/fsaa
The Grantee should confer with its chief financial officer, audit director or contact the Department
for assistance with questions pertaining to the applicability of these requirements.
C. In addition, the Grantee agrees to complete and submit the Certification of Applicability to
Single Audit Act Reporting, Attachment E, attached hereto and made a part hereof, within four
(4) months following the end of the Grantee's fiscal year. Attachment E should be submitted to the
Department's Grants Development and Review Manager at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail
Station 93, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000. The Grants Development and Review Manager is
available to answer any questions at (850) 245-2361.
11. A. The Grantee may subcontract work under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the
Department's Grant Manager. The payment terms of subcontracts (other than construction and the
purchase of commodities) shall comply with the terms of this Agreement (for example, if payment
under this Agreement is being made on a cost reimbursement basis, then the subcontract should
also be cost reimbursement). The Grantee shall submit a copy of the executed subcontract to the
Department within ten (10) days after execution. The Grantee agrees to be responsible for the
fulfillment of all work elements included in any subcontract and agrees to be responsible for the
payment of all monies due under any subcontract. It is understood and agreed by the Grantee that
the Department shall not be liable to any subcontractor for any expenses or liabilities incurred
under the subcontract and that the Grantee shall be solely liable to the subcontractor for all
expenses and liabilities incurred under the subcontract.
B. The Department of Environmental Protection supports diversity in its procurement program and
requests that all subcontracting opportunities afforded by this Agreement embrace diversity
enthusiastically. The award of subcontracts should reflect the full diversity of the citizens of the
State of Florida. A list of minority owned firms that could be offered subcontracting opportunities
may be obtained by contacting the Office of Supplier Diversity at (850) 487-0915.
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Page 3 of 6
12. In accordance with Section 216.347, Florida Statutes, the Grantee is hereby prohibited from using funds
provided by this Agreement for the purpose of lobbying the Legislature, the judicial branch or a state
agency.
13. The Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local rules and regulations in providing
services to the Department under this Agreement. The Grantee acknowledges that this requirement
includes, but is not limited to, compliance with all applicable federal, state and local health and safety rules
and regulations. The Grantee further agrees to include this provision in all subcontracts issued as a result of
this Agreement.
14. Any notices between the parties shall be considered delivered when posted by Certified Mail, return receipt
requested, or overnight courier service, or delivered in person to the Grant Managers at the addresses
below.
15. The Department's Grant Manager for this Agreement is identified below.
Rand Landers
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
South District Office
Post Office Box 2549
Ft. M ers, Florida 33901
Telephone No.:
(239) 344-5659
Fax No.:
(850) 412-0590
E-mail Address:
Randal. landers de .state.fl.us
16. The Grantee's Grant Manager for this Agreement is identified below.
Rhonda Haag
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Sustainability Pro ram Manager
Insert Address here
1100 Simonton Street, Suite 2--283
Telephone No.:
(305) 292-4482
Fax No.:
(305) 292-4515
E-mail Address:
Haa -Rhonda monroecount -fl. Uov
17. To the extent required by law, the Grantee will be self -insured against, or will secure and maintain during
the life of this Agreement, workers' Compensation Insurance for all of its employees connected with the
work of this project and, in case any work is subcontracted, the Grantee shall require the subcontractor
similarly to provide workers' Compensation Insurance for all of the latter's employees unless such
employees are covered by the protection afforded by the Grantee. Such self-insurance program or insurance
coverage shall comply fully with the Florida workers' Compensation law. In case any class of employees
engaged in hazardous work under this Agreement is not protected under Workers' Compensation statutes,
the Grantee shall provide, and cause each subcontractor to provide, adequate insurance satisfactory to the
Department, for the protection of his employees not otherwise protected.
18. The Grantee warrants and represents that it is self -funded for liability insurance, appropriate and allowable
under Florida law, and that such self-insurance offers protection applicable to the Grantee's officers,
employees, servants and agents while acting within the scope of their employment with the Grantee.
19. The Grantee covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required.
DEP Agreement No. 50607, Page 4 of 6
20. Reimbursement for equipment purchases costing $1,000 or more is not authorized under the terms and
conditions of this Project Agreement.
21. The Department may at any time, by written order designated to be a change order, make any change in the
Grant Manager information or task timelines within the current authorized Agreement period. All change
orders are subject to the mutual agreement of both parties as evidenced in writing. Any change, which
causes an increase or decrease in the Grantee's cost or time, shall require formal amendment to this
Agreement.
22. A. No person, on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability, shall be
excluded from participation in; be denied the proceeds or benefits of; or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination in performance of this Agreement.
B . An entity or affiliate who has been placed on the discriminatory vendor list may not submit a bid
on a contract to provide goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract
with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not
submit bids on leases of real property to a public entity, may not award or perform work as a
contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under contract with any public entity, and may
not transact business with any public entity. The Florida Department of Management Services is
responsible for maintaining the discriminatory vendor list and intends to post the list on its website.
Questions regarding the discriminatory vendor list may be directed to the Florida Department of
Management Services, Office of Supplier Diversity, at 850/487-0915.
23. Land acquisition is not authorized under the terms of this Agreement.
24. If a court deems any provision of this Agreement void or unenforceable, that provision shall be enforced
only to the extent that it is not in violation of law or is not otherwise unenforceable and all other provisions
shall remain in full force and effect.
25. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties. Any alterations, variations, changes,
modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced
to writing, duly signed by each of the parties hereto, and attached to the original of this Agreement, unless
otherwise provided herein.
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DEP Agreement No. 50607, Page 5 of 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed, the day and year
last written below.
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By:
Title.
Date:
ROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
PPROVED AS To ORM:
4
W.
SSEL
ASS1
STANT COUNTY ATT ORNEY
ate-_ cae
I)EN) CLEPY
FEID No.:59-6000749
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
:
Secretary or designee
Date: Aro/L1c 7, go/ -z,-
"K�andy Landers, Grant Manager
DEP Contracts Administrator
Approved as to form and legality:
�NS1.w
DEP ttorney
*For Agreements with governmental boards/commissions: If someone other than the Chairman signs this
Agreement, a resolution, statement or other document authorizing that person to sign the Agreement on behalf of the
Grantee must accompany the Agreement.
List of attachments/exhibits included as part of this Agreement:
Specify Letter/
Type Number Description (include number of pages)
Attachment A Grant Work Plan (6,Pages )
Attachment B Payment Request Summary Form (2 Pages)
Attachment C Progress Report Form (2-Pages)
Attachment D Special Audit Requirements (5 Pages)........
Attachment E Certification of Applicability to Single Audit Act Reporting.0 Pages)
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
GRANT WORK PLAN
I Project Title: Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan I
Project Location: Monroe County
Florida Kevs Watershed IHUC= 03090203.
Project Background:
The work to be accomplished under this Agreement is for development of a Phase I Canal Management Master Plan
(CMMP).
This work under this Agreement includes identification of the highest -priority canals for potential implementation of
restoration options and development of an initial short-list of restoration projects. For each site on the short-list of
canal restoration projects implementation options will be developed, a detailed scope of work and budget will be
prepared, and potential funding sources identified. The final deliverable will be an Initial Canal Management
Master Plan document.
Justification Statement: This project is needed to develop cost-effective and feasible strategies to improve water
quality in artificial canals in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). Many of these canals do not
meet the State's minimum water quality criteria and are a potential source of nutrients and other contaminants to
near shore waters designated as Outstanding Florida Waters and subject to special protection under the Florida
Statutes. This project is a priority of the FKNMS water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) Steering Committee
which recently passed a motion to develop a plan to prioritize canal restoration projects and to identify funding
sources for these projects. The tourism economy of the Keys depends largely on clean water and a healthy
environment and this project is fully supported by the WQPP Steering Committee and local governments in Monroe
County. The successful implementation of this project is also consistent with the goals of the Florida Keys
Reasonable Assurance Document that was recently adopted by the Department in order to satisfy the requirements
of the Impaired Waters Rule, Chapter 62-3 03 of the Florida Administrative Code.
Project Description:
Task 1: COLLATE AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND SUMMARIZE PLAN OBJECTIVES
Task 1.1: Reports and publications relevant to canal management and restoration will be obtained from local,
state and federal agencies, searches of online databases, and other sources. These reports will be disseminated to the
appropriate members of the subcontractor's (AMEC) project team for review, based on the subject material and
team members' areas of expertise.
Deliverable: A list of reports and publications that were reviewed. The list of reports and publications shall include
a review of the current state of the science related to water quality restoration within impaired manmade canal
systems. Emphasis shall be placed on coastal Florida systems where possible. The report shall identify best
management practices that have been used successfully elsewhere to improve water quality in artificial canals and
basins.
Budget: $3,000 Contractual Services
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and determine if they
are acceptable using the following criteria:
• The list of reports and publications will be reviewed to ensure the following criteria has been met:
o Include a review of the current state of the science related to water quality restoration within
impaired manmade canal systems. Must reflect an emphasis on coastal Florida systems where
possible.
o Must identify best management practices that have been used successfully elsewhere to improve
water quality in artificial canals and basins.
DEP Agreement S0607, Attachment A, Page 1 of 6
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: May 1, 2012
Task 1.2: Project Geodatabase that was originally developed by AMEC in 2003, and is to be updated, will be
reviewed for accuracy and completeness.
Deliverable: A report describing any identified data deficiencies in the updated electronic GIS database originally
developed by AMEC (formerly MACTEC) during the 2003 Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and
Assessment (MACTEC Project No. 40700-1-2681, June 2003).
Budget: $1,064 Contractual Services
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and determine if they
are acceptable using the following criteria:
• The report will be reviewed to ensure the following criteria has been met:
o Describes in detail any identified data deficiencies in the updated electronic GIS database
originally developed by AMEC (formerly MACTEC) during the 2003 Monroe County Residential
Canal Inventory and Assessment (MACTEC Project No. 40700-1-2681, June 2003).
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: May 1, 2012
Task 1.3: Objectives Statement will be developed for the management plan. An example of the form the
objectives statement may take (borrowed from the existing wastewater master plan), is: The objective of the CMMP
is to provide an ecologically sound and economically feasible implementation strategy for improving and managing
the environmental quality of canal systems in the Florida Keys. The plan will provide flexible and cost-effective
solutions that improve canal management practices throughout the Keys and satisfy the existing and future needs of
the community. It must address affordability and equity issues, reflect key stakeholder concerns, and satisfy
environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines.
Deliverable: A report of the process used to develop the initial Objectives Statement for the canal management
plan shall include an account of the process used to prepare the objectives statement.
Budget: $2,246.60
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and determine if they
are acceptable using the following criteria:
The report will be reviewed to ensure the following criteria has been met:
o Includes a descriptive summary of the process used to develop the initial Objectives Statement for
the canal management plan
o Includes an account of the process used to prepare the objectives statement.
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: May 1, 2012
Task 2: IDENTIFY AND RAND PRIORITY MANAGEMENT ISSUES FOR RESIDENTIAL CANALS
An initial prioritized list of the canal management and restoration issues that will be addressed in the CMMP will be
developed. This will build upon the work that has already been done identifying a `Hot Spot' list of water quality
problem areas. Based on initial reviews of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the Florida Keys Reasonable
Assurance Documents (FKRADs), Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, Monroe County Stormwater
Management Master Plan, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Revised Management Plan, and other
sources, some possibilities include:
• Water quality - nutrient loading, nutrient enrichment and eutrophication
Water quality - dissolved oxygen/hypoxia
Water quality - organic matter(e.g.,weed wrack
DEP Agreement S0607, Attachment A, Page 2 of 6
• Water quality — human pathogen levels
► Water quality --- compliance with regulatory requirements (e.g., WQ criteria; WBID impairments;
TMDLIReasonable Assurance process; NNC when adopted)
• Sediment quality — anoxia; sulphides; sediment contaminants (TELIPEL exceedances)
• Habitat quality --- benthic community; intertidal community; shoreline stability and vegetation
► Physical characteristics --- maximum depth; bathymetry; geometry; orientation
► Physical characteristics — circulation and flushing
• Physical characteristics — effects on local hydrology
• Public involvement in the canal management process
Because of the short timeline associated with this phase of the project (which must be completed by June 30, 2012),
it is anticipated that this issues list will be a preliminary one. The objective of this task will be to provide an initial
list of the highest -priority canal management and restoration issues, which will be sufficient to guide work on Tasks
3, 4 and 5 (below). It is anticipated that a more comprehensive priorities list, appropriate for inclusion in a Keys -
wide master plan, will be developed in a future phase of the project, if funding is available to support that work
effort. In order to meet the June 30, 2012, deadline for completion of Tasks 4 and 5, we assume that work on Task 2
will be conducted expeditiously, in a brief series of Subcommittee meetings, and completed in April 2012.
Deliverable: A report describing the decision making process used to develop the ranked list of priority issues. The
report shall include a ranked list of priority management issues that will guide the work in Tasks 3, 4 and 5 (below).
Budget: $14,143.00
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and determine if they
are acceptable using the following criteria:
The report will be reviewed to ensure the following criteria has been met:
o Includes a detailed description of the decision making process used to develop the ranked list of
priority issues.
o Includes a ranked list of priority management issues that will guide the work in Tasks 3, 4 and 5
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: May 1, 2012
Task 3: ESTABLISH CONSENSUS -BASED MANAGEMENT GOALS FOR EACH PRIORITY ISSUE
Ideally, the goals should be quantitative, living --resource based (when possible), readily measurable, and challenging
but achievable. As with Task 2, because of the short timeline associated with Phase 1, we anticipate that this list of
management goals will be a preliminary one. The objective of this task will be to provide initial goal statements for
the highest -priority canal management and restoration issues identified in Task 2, sufficient to guide work on Tasks
4 and 5 (below). More comprehensive goal statements, appropriate for inclusion in a Keys -wide master plan, will be
developed in a future phase of the project, if funding becomes available. In order to meet the June 30, 2012,
deadline for completion of Tasks 4 and 5, we assume that work on Task 3 will be conducted expeditiously and
completed by mid -May, 2012.
Deliverable: A report detailing the process used to develop the management goals for each priority issue. The
memorandum shall include the specific goal(s) established for each of the management issues.
Budget: $3,632.60 Contractual Services
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and determine if they
are acceptable using the following criteria:
The report will be reviewed to ensure the following criteria has been met:
o Includes a detailed description of the process used to develop the management goals for each
priority issue.
o Includes specific goal(s) established for each of the management issues.
DEP Agreement S0607, Attachment A, Page 3 of 6
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: May 1.0, 2012
Task 4: IDENTIFY THE HIGHEST -PRIORITY CANALS FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF
RESTORATION OPTIONS
Based on the priority issues identified in Task 2, the Grantee will identify a list of canals that will receive detailed
consideration for potential implementation of restoration options. For each of the major restoration options
identified in the project geodatabase, one or more canals or canal systems will be identified for more detailed
considerations. The list of potential locations will be evaluated for selection of the specific sites and projects for
which funding and implementation options will be developed in Task 5.
Deliverable: A report detailing the description of the process used to develop the list of potential locations for
implementation of restoration options. A list of the locations of the highest ranked priority canals requiring
restoration will also be submitted.
Budget: $25,591.20
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and determine if they
are acceptable using the following criteria:
The report will be reviewed to ensure the following criteria has been met:
o Includes a detailed description of the process used to develop the list of potential locations for
implementation of restoration options.
o Includes a list of the locations of the highest ranked priority canals requiring restoration.
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: May 24, 2012
Task 5: DEVELOP THE INITIAL SHORT-LIST OF RESTORATION PROJECTS
This is the key task of this initial phase of the project, and is intended to provide a short-list of project sites and
restoration activities for which implementation funds will be sought during the next one to two years. For each
project site, the team will identify implementation options and potential funding sources (e.g., grants through the
319 [h], TMDL water Quality Restoration, Homeowner Associations, or other appropriate funding programs). In
order to be eligible and competitive for grant funding, a detailed scope of work and budget will need to be developed
for each potential project. Anticipated water quality improvements from each project will be estimated for the
purposes of inclusion with any grant application. Other grant application requirements vary among funding
programs, but the requirements of Florida's TMDL Water Quality Restoration program can be used for illustrative
purposes: "Applicants are eligible for the TMDL Water Quality Restoration Grant for the following types of
projects:
• The project reduces storm water pollutant loadings from urban areas that discharge to water
bodies on the state's verified list of impaired waters.
• The project is at least at the 60% design phase.
i The project is permitted or the permit has been scheduled for approval at the next meeting of the
water management district governing hoard or Department.
The project includes storm event monitoring to determine the actual load reduction.
• The construction will be completed within three years of appropriation of the funds by the
Legislature in order to ensure fund remain available.
• The applicant provides a minimum of 50% of the total project cost in matching funds, of which at
least 25% are provided by the local government.
• The grant funds are used for construction of best management practices, monitoring to determine
pollutant load reductions, or public education activities specifically associated with the project
and may only occur after the date of contract. Funds spent in advance of contract may be used for
match, such as design, land acquisition, and other costs incurred by the applicant. " (Source:
http:I/www-.dep.state.fl.us;'waterlwatersliedsftmdl_grant.htm ; accessed Feb. 20, 2012)
DEP Agreement S0607, Attachment A, Page 4 of 6
Other funding programs have different eligibility requirements. For example, the requirement that the project be at
the 60% design phase is not a requirement of the States' 319[h] grant program
Deliverable: A report that includes the following:
The short-list of projects selected for immediate restoration implementation, the potential sources of
funding that will be pursued for each restoration project, and the information that will be needed to prepare
grant applications for each identified funding source. A summary of each selected short-listed project. At
a minimum, the project summaries shall include a description of the affected WBID, impairments
addressed by the project, conceptual restoration design, estimated improvements associated with the
project, preliminary budget and scope of work, and potential sources of funding to construction the project.
An attempt will be made to obtain canal depth information from local residents, if required for costing
purposes.
• For each potential restoration project, a list of the grant application requirements that have already been
fulfilled and a list of additional items that will need to be completed before a grant application can be
submitted.
• A list of applicable state and federal grant opportunities and corresponding deadlines shall be prepared for
each selected project. Information on the application deadlines for the larger state and federal grant
programs during 2012 and 2013, providing information to the Canal Subcommittee and Steering
Committee on the scheduling that will be necessary when developing grant application packages. A grant
application checklist shall be provided for each selected project to include a list of requirements that have
been fulfilled and additional items that need to be addressed before a completed application can be
submitted.
Budget: $42,905.20 Contractual Services
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and determine if they
are acceptable using the following criteria:
The report will be reviewed to ensure the following criteria has been met:
o Includes a summary of each selected short-listed shovel -ready projects.
o Each of the project summaries must include a description of the affected WBID, impairments
addressed by the project, conceptual restoration design, estimated improvements associated with
the project, preliminary budget and scope of work, and potential sources of funding to
construction the project.
o Reflects attempts to obtain canal depth information from local residents, if required for costing
purposes.
o Includes a list of applicable state and federal grant opportunities and corresponding deadlines shall
be prepared for each selected project.
o Includes a grant application checklist for each selected project to include a list of requirements that
have been fulfilled and additional items that need to be addressed before a completed application
can be submitted.
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: June 15, 2012
Task 6: ESTABLISH ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Identify the steps that will be utilized to periodically assess the effectiveness of the restoration and management
actions, measure progress toward goals, report that progress to stakeholders and funding entities, and (if and when
necessary) redirect efforts in more productive directions. As with Tasks 2 and 3, because of the short timeline
associated with Phase 1 of this project, the objective of this task will be to provide a preliminary description of the
adaptive management process in condensed form. A more comprehensive summary, appropriate for inclusion in a
Keys -wide master plan, will be developed in a future phase of the project if funding becomes available.
Deliverable: A report detailing the description of the process used to develop the adaptive management process,
including a summary of the adaptive management process.
DEP Agreement S0607, Attachment A, Page 5 of 6
Budget: $2,512.00 Contractual Services
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and determine if they
are acceptable using the following criteria:
The report will be reviewed to ensure the following criteria has been met:
o Includes a detailed description of the process used to develop the adaptive management process
and a summary of the adaptive management process.
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: June 8, 2012
Task 7: PREPARE INITIAL CMMP DOCUMENT
The purpose of this task is to summarize the results of Tasks 1-6 and make the information available to stakeholders
in the form of a user-friendly document. It will include an appropriate subset of the information present in the
information provided as deliverables for those tasks, along with introductory and summary sections, a table of
contents, an executive summary, and relevant tables, figures, maps and other graphical material developed in Tasks
1 through 6. A presentation to the water Quality Steering Committee will be presented at the next meeting in July
2012 (actual meeting date TBD) summarizing the information gathered through the study.
Because of the short timeline associated with Phase I of this project, the initial CMMP document will be a highly -
condensed and preliminary version of a management plan. A more comprehensive document, appropriate to serve
as a Keys -wide master plan, will be developed in a future phase of the project if funding becomes available..
Deliverable(s):
A management plan document produced by extracting relevant and appropriate information from the
information prepared for Tasks 1 through 6 and shall serve as the final document produced as part of this
Work Plan. At a minimum, the report shall consist of sections including an executive summary,
introduction, project summary, selected alternatives, project scopes and budgets, and a strategic plan for
implementation of each project. Relevant tables and figures, and other graphical information shall be
included to provide stakeholders and other interested parties with a user-friendly summary of the work
performed. The management plan developed under this task may be used to develop a comprehensive
Keys -wide canal master plan.
Budget: $4,905.40 Contractual Services
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and determine if they
are acceptable using the following criteria:
The Canal Management Master Plan will be reviewed to ensure the following criteria has been met:
o Includes a compilation of information produced in Task I through 6 and can serve as the final
document produced as a part of this work plan.
o Consists of sections to include an executive summary, introduction, summary of proposed shovel -
ready projects based upon the assessments of all canal systems in Monroe County, selected
alternatives, scope of each project and associated budgets, and strategic plans for implementation
of each the shovel- ready project. Relevant tables and figures, and other graphical information
shall be included to provide stakeholders and other interested parties with a user-friendly summary
of the work performed.
o Must be able to be used to develop a comprehensive Keys -wide canal master plan.
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: June 22, 2012
DEP Agreement 50607, Attachment A, Page 6 of 6
Grantee:
Mailing Address:
DEP Agreement No.:
Date Of Request:
ATTACHMENT B
PAYMENT REQUEST SUMMARY FORM
S0607
Task/Deliverable Amount
Requested:$
Grantee's Grant Manager:
Payment Request No.:
Performance
Period:
Task/Deliverable
o.:
GRANT EXPENDITURES SUMMARY SECTION
I Effective Date of Grant throuLh End -of -grant Period
CATEGORY OF EXPENDITURE
AMOUNT OF
THIS REQUEST
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
PAYMENTS
MATCHING
FUNDS
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
MATCHING
FUNDS
Salaries
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
Fringe Benefits
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
Travel (if authorized)
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
Subcontracting:
$N/A
$NIA
Contractual Services
$
$
$NIA
$N/A
Design
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
Construction
$N/A
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
Equipment Purchases
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
Supplies/Other Expenses
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
Land
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
Indirect
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
$NIA
TOTAL AMOUNT
$
$
$NIA
$NIA
TOTAL TASK BUDGET AMOUNT
$
$NIA
Less Total Cumulative Payments of:
$
$NIA
TOTAL REMAINING IN TASK
$
$NIA
GRANTEE CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that the amount being requested for reimbursement above
r .r r > > •r • t 1 l.1 1 1
was iur Rern5 LnaL were cliarueu Lo miu ULHILeu 0111V iur UIC aUUVU WWU F-I-WIL ULAIVILA
Grantee's Grant Manager's Signature Grantee's Fiscal Agent
Print Name Print Name
Telephone Number Telephone Number
DEP 55-223 (07/10)
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment B, Page 1 of 2
is.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING
PAYMENT REQUEST SUMMARY FORM
GRANTEE: Enter the name of the grantee's agency.
MAILING ADDRESS: Enter the address that you want the state warrant sent.
DEP AGREEMENT NO.: This is the number on your grant agreement.
DATE OF REQUEST: This is the date you are submitting the request.
TASK AMOUNT REQUESTED: This should match the amount on the "TOTAL TASK BUDGET AMOUNT" line for the
"AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST' column.
GRANTEE'S GRANT MANAGER: This should be the person identified as grant manager in the grant Agreement.
PAYMENT REQUEST NO.: This is the number of your payment request, not the quarter number.
PERFORMANCE PERIOD: This is the beginning and ending date of the invoice period.
TASK NO.: Enter the number of the task that you are requesting payment for.
GRANT EXPENDITURES SUMMARY SECTION:
"AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST" COLUMN: Enter the amount that was paid out for this task/deliverable during the
invoice period for which you are requesting reimbursement. This must agree with the budget category as in the currently
approved budget in the current Grant Work Plan of your grant Agreement. Do not claim expenses in a budget category that
does not have an approved budget. Do not claim items that are not specifically identified in the current Budget Narrative
section of the current Grant Work Plan. Enter the column total on the "TOTAL AMOUNT' line. Enter the amount of the
task on the "TOTAL TASK B UDGET AMOUNT' line. Enter the total cumulative amount of this request and all previous
payments on the "LESS TOTAL CUMULATIVE PAYMENTS OF' line. Deduct the "LESS TOTAL CUMULATIVE
PAYMENTS OF' from the "TOTAL TASK BUDGET AMOUNT' for the amount to enter on the "TOTAL REMAINING IN
TASIK" line.
"TOTAL CUMULATIVE PAYMENTS" COLUMN: Enter the cumulative amounts that have been claimed to date for
reimbursement by budget category. The final report should show the total of all payments; first through the final payment
(this amount cannot exceed the approved budget amount for that budget category for the task you are reporting on). Enter
the column total on the "TOTALS" line. Do not enter anything in the shaded areas.
"MATCHING FUNDS" COLUMN: Enter the amount to be claimed as match for the invoice period for the task you are
reporting on. This needs to
Plan. Enter the total on the
TASK BUDGET AMOUNT"
claimed on the "LESS TO.
be shown under specific budget categories according to the currently approved Grant Work
"TOTAL AMOUNT" line for this column. Enter the match budget amount on the "TOTAL
line for this column. Enter the total cumulative amount of this and any previous match
AL CUMULI[ TI YE PAYMENTS OF"' line for this column. Deduct the "LESS TOTAL
CUMULATIVE PAYMENTS OF" from the "TOTAL TASK BUDGET AMOUNT' for the amount to enter on the "TOTAL
REINING IN TASI�" line.
"TOTAL CUMULATIVE MATCHING FUNDS" COLUMN: Enter the cumulative amount you have claimed to date
for match by budget category for the task. Put the total of all on the line titled "TOTALS." The final report should shove the
total of all claims, first claim through the final claim, etc. Do not enter anything in the shaded areas.
GRANTEE CERTIFICATION: Must be signed by both the Grantee's Grant Manager as identified in the grant
agreement and the Grantee's Fiscal Agent.
NOTE: If claiming reimbursement for travel, you must include copies of receipts and a copy of the travel
reimbursement form approved by the Department of Financial Services, Chief Financial Officer.
DEP 55-223 (07/10)
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment B, Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT
PROGRESS REPORT FORM
DEP Agreement No.:
S0607
Grantee Name:
Grantee Address:
Grantee's Grant Manager:
Telephone No.:
Quarterly Re ortin Period:
Project Number and Title:
Provide a summary of project accomplishments to date. (Include a comparison of actual
accomplishments to the objectives established for the period. If goals were not met,
provide reasons why.)
Provide an update on the estimated time for completion of the project and an explanation
for any anticipated delays.
Provide any additional pertinent information including, when appropriate, analysis and
explanation of cost overruns or high unit costs.
DEP Agreement No. S0507, Attachment C, Page 1 of 2
(continued from page 1)
Identify below, and attach copies of, any relevant work products being submitted for the
project for this reporting period (e.g.,, report data sets, links to on-line photographs, etc.)
Provide a project budget update, comparing the project budget to actual costs to date.
Expenditures
Prior to this Expenditures
Budget Total Project Reporting this Reporting Project Funding
-Category Budget Period Period Balance
This report is submitted in accordance with the reporting requirements of DEP Agreement No.
S0607 and accurately reflects the activities and costs associated with the subject project.
Signature of Grantee's Grant Manager
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment C, Page 2 of 2
Date
ATTACHMENT D
SPECIAL AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
The administration of resources awarded by the Department of Environmental Protection (which may be referred to
as the "Department", "DEP", "FD.EP" or "Grantor'; or other name in the contractlagreement) to the recipient
(which may be referred to as the "Contractor', Grantee" or other name in the contractlagreement) may be subject
to audits and/or monitoring by the Department of Environmental Protection, as described in this attachment.
MONITORING
In addition to reviews of audits conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 and Section 215.97, F.S., as
revised (see "AUDITS" below), monitoring procedures may include, but not be limited to, on -site visits by
Department staff, limited scope audits as defined by OMB Circular A-133, as revised, and/or other procedures. By
entering into this Agreement, the recipient agrees to comply and cooperate with any monitoring
procedures/processes deemed appropriate by the Department of Environmental Protection. In the event the
Department of Environmental Protection determines that a limited scope audit of the recipient is appropriate, the
recipient agrees to comply with any additional instructions provided by the Department to the recipient regarding
such audit. The recipient further agrees to comply and cooperate with any inspections, reviews, investigations, or
audits deemed necessary by the Chief Financial Officer or Auditor General.
AUDITS
PART I: FEDERALLY FUNDED
This part is applicable if the recipient is a State or local government or a nonprofit organization as defined in OMB
Circular A-133, as revised.
1. In the event that the recipient expends $500,000 or more in Federal awards in its fiscal year, the recipient
must have a single or program -specific audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular
A-133, as revised. EXHIBIT 1 to this Attachment indicates Federal funds awarded through the Department
of Environmental Protection by this Agreement. In determining the Federal awards expended in its fiscal
year, the recipient shall consider all sources of Federal awards, including Federal resources received from
the Department of Environmental Protection. The determination of amounts of Federal awards expended
should be in accordance with the guidelines established by OMB Circular A-133, as revised. An audit of
the recipient conducted by the Auditor General in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133,
as revised, will meet the requirements of this part.
2. In connection with the audit requirements addressed in Part I, paragraph 1, the recipient shall fulfill the
requirements relative to auditee responsibilities as provided in Subpart C of OMB Circular A-133, as
revised.
3. If the recipient expends less than $500,000 in Federal awards in its fiscal year, an audit conducted in
accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133, as revised, is not required. In the event that the
recipient expends less than $500,000 in Federal awards in its fiscal year and elects to have an audit
conducted in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133, as revised, the cost of the audit must
be paid from non -Federal resources (i.e., the cost of such an audit must be paid from recipient resources
obtained from other than Federal entities).
4. The recipient may access information regarding the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) via
the internet at http://12.46.245.173/efda/efda.htm].
DEP 55-215 (03/09)
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment D, Page 1 of 5
PART II: STATE FUNDED
This part is applicable if the recipient is a nonstate entity as defined by Section 215.97(2)(m), Florida Statutes.
1. In the event that the recipient expends a total amount of state financial assistance equal to or in excess of
$500,000 in any fiscal year of such recipient, the recipient must have a State single or project -specific audit
for such fiscal year in accordance with Section 215.97, Florida Statutes; applicable rules of the Department
of Financial Services; and Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for -profit
organizations), Rules of the Auditor General. EXHIBIT I to this Attachment indicates state financial
assistance awarded through the Department of Environmental Protection by this Agreement. In
determining the state financial assistance expended in its fiscal year, the recipient shall consider all sources
of state financial assistance, including state financial assistance received from the Department of
Environmental Protection, other state agencies, and other nonstate entities. State financial assistance does
not include Federal direct or pass -through awards and resources received by a nonstate entity for Federal
program matching requirements.
2. In connection with the audit requirements addressed in Part II, paragraph 1; the recipient shall ensure that
the audit complies with the requirements of Section 215.97(7), Florida Statutes. This includes submission
of a financial reporting package as defined by Section 215.97(2), Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10.550
(local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for -profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor
General.
3. If the recipient expends less than $500,000 in state financial assistance in its fiscal year, an audit conducted
in accordance with the provisions of Section 215.97, Florida Statutes, is not required. In the event that the
recipient expends less than $500,000 in state financial assistance in its fiscal year, and elects to have an
audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 215.97, Florida Statutes, the cost of the audit
must be paid from the non -state entity's resources (i.e., the cost of such an audit must be paid from the
recipient's resources obtained from other than State entities).
4. For information regarding the Florida Catalog of State Financial Assistance (CSFA), a recipient should
access the Florida Single Audit Act website located at https:llAps.fldfs.comlfsaa for assistance. In
addition to the above websites, the following websites may be accessed for information: Legislature's
Website at http:llwww.leg.state.fl.us/Welcome/index.cfm, State of Florida's website at
http://www.myflorida.com/, Department of Financial Services' Website at http:llwww.fldfs.coin1 and the
Auditor General's Website at htt :Hwww. state.fl.uslaud en.
PART III: OTHER AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
(NOTE: This part would be used to sped any additional audit requirements imposed by the State awarding entity
that are solely a matter of that State awarding entity's policy (i. e., the audit is not required by Federal or State laws
and is not in conflict with other Federal or State audit requirements). Pursuant to Section 215.97(8), .Florida
Statutes, State agencies may conduct or arrange for audits of State financial assistance that are in addition to audits
conducted in accordance with Section 215.97, Florida Statutes. In such an event, the State awarding agency must
arrange for funding the full cost of such additional audits.)
PART IV: REPORT SUBMISSION
1. Copies of reporting packages for audits conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, as revised, and
required by PART I of this Attachment shall be submitted, when required by Section .320 (d), OMB
Circular A-133, as revised, by or on behalf of the recipient directly to each of the following:
DEP 55-215 (03/09)
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment D, Page 2 of 5
A. The Department of Environmental Protection at the following address:
Audit Director
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Office of the Inspector General, MS 40
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
B. The Federal Audit Clearinghouse designated in OMB Circular A-133, as revised (the number of
copies required by Sections .320 (d)(1) and (2), OMB Circular A-133, as revised, should be
submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse), at the following address:
Federal Audit Clearinghouse
Bureau of the Census
1201 East 10th Street
Jeffersonville, IN 47132
Submissions of the Single Audit reporting package for fiscal periods ending on or after January 1,
2008, must be submitted using the Federal Clearinghouse's Internet Data Entry System which can
be found at http://harvester.census.gov/fac/
C. Other Federal agencies and pass -through entities in accordance with Sections .320 (e) and (f),
OMB Circular A-1331, as revised.
2. Pursuant to Section .320(f), OMB Circular A-133, as revised, the recipient shall submit a copy of the
reporting package described in Section .320(c), OMB Circular A-133, as revised, and any management
letters issued by the auditor, to the Department of Environmental Protection at the following address:
Audit Director
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Office of the Inspector General, MS 40
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
3. Copies of financial reporting packages required by PART II of this Attachment shall be submitted by or on
behalf of the recipient dir� ecily to each of the following:
A. The Department of Environmental Protection at the following address:
Audit Director
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Office of the Inspector General, MS 40
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
B. The Auditor General's Office at the following address:
State of Florida Auditor General
Room 401, Claude Pepper Building
I I I west Madison Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1450
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DEP 55-215 (03/09)
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment D, Page 3 of 5
4. Copies of reports or management letters required by PART III of this Attachment shall be submitted by or
on behalf of the recipient directly to the Department of Environmental Protection at the following address:
Audit Director
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Office of the Inspector General, MS 40
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
5. Any reports, management letters, or other information required to be submitted to the Department of
Environmental Protection pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted timely in accordance with OMB
Circular A-133, Florida Statutes, or Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and
for --profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General, as applicable.
6. Recipients, when submitting financial reporting packages to the Department of Environmental Protection
for audits done in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, or Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities)
or 10.650 (nonprofit and for -profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General, should indicate the date
that the reporting package was delivered to the recipient in correspondence accompanying the reporting
package.
PART v: RECORD RETENTION
The recipient shall retain sufficient records demonstrating its compliance with the terms of this Agreement for a
period of 5 years from the date the audit report is issued, and shall allow the Department of Environmental
Protection, or its designee, Chief Financial Officer, or Auditor General access to such records upon request. The
recipient shall ensure that audit working papers are made available to the Department of Environmental Protection,
or its designee, Chief Financial Officer, or Auditor General upon request for a period of 3 years from the date the
audit report is issued, unless extended in writing by the Department of Environmental Protection.
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DEP 55-215 (03/09)
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment D, Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT --1
FUNDS AWARDED TO THE RECIPIENT PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING:
Federal Resources Awarded to the Recipient Pursuant to this Agreement Consist of the Following-.
Federal State
Program CFDA Appropriation
Number Federal Agency Number CFDA Title Funding Amount Category
State Resources Awarded to the Recipient Pursuant to this A reement Consist of the Following Matching Resources for Federal Pro rams:
Federal State
Program Appropriation
Number Federal Agency CFDA CFDA Title Fundinor Amount Category
State Resources Awarded to the Recipient Pursuant to this A reement Consist of the Following Resources Subject to Section 215.97, F.S.:
State CSFA Title State
Program State CSFA or Appropriation
Number Funding_Source Fiscal Year Number Funding Source Description Fundin Amount Category
Original Ecosystem Management 2011-2012 37.039 Statewide Surface Water Restoration $10000.00 030000
Agreement Trust Fund, Line Item and Wastewater Projects
#1596
A. -
Total Award $100,0oo.00
For each program identified above, the recipient shall comply with the program requirements described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
[http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html] and/or the Florida Catalog of State Financial Assistance (CSFA) [https:Happs.fldfs.com/fsaa/searchCatalog.aspx]. The
services/purposes for which the funds are to be used are included in the Contract scope of services/work. Any match required by the recipient is clearly indicated
in the Contract.
DEP 55-215 (03/09)
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment D, Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT E
CERTIFICATION OF APPLICABILITY TO SINGLE AUDIT ACT REPORTING
Grantee's Name:
Grantee Fiscal Year Period: FROM: TO:
Total State Financial Assistance Expended during Grantee's most recently completed Fiscal Year:
Total Federal Financial Assistance Expended during Grantee's most recently completed Fiscal Year:
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT:
I hereby certify that the above information is correct.
Signature
Print Name and Position Title
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment E, Page 1 of 3
Date
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE ATTACHMENT
Grantee Fiscal Year Period: FROM: Month/Year TO: Month/Year
NOTE: THIS SHOULD BE THE GRANTEE'S FISCAL YEAR FROM (MONTH/YEAR) TO
(MONTH/YEAR).
Total State Financial Assistance Expended during Grantee's most recently completed Fiscal Year:
NOTE: THIS AMOUNT SHOULD BE THE TOTAL STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
EXPENDED FROM ALL STATE AGENCIES, NOT JUST DEP.
Total Federal Financial Assistance Expended during Grantee's most recently completed Fiscal Year:
NOTE: THIS AMOUNT SHOULD BE THE TOTAL FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
EXPENDED FROM ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES, NOT JUST THROUGH DEP.
69
The Certification should be signed by your Chief Financial officer.
Please print the name and include the title and date of the signature.
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment E, Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATION OF APPLICABILITY TO SINGLE AUDIT ACT REPORTING
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. Question: Do I complete and return this form when I return my signed
Agreement/Amendment?
Answer: No, this form is to be completed and signed by your Chief Financial Officer
and returned 4 months after the end of your fiscal year.
2. Question: Can I fax the form to you?
Answer: Yes, you can fax the Certification form, the fax number is 850/245-2411.
3. Question: How can I submit the form if our audit is not completed by the due date of
this letter?
Answer: You should be able to complete the form from the information in your
accounting system. This is just to let our office of the Inspector General know which
entities they should be getting an audit from. If you are under the threshold you do not
have to submit a copy of your audit, only the Certification form.
4. Question: Do you only want what we received from DEP?
Answer: No, the Single Audit is the TOTAL AMOUNT of funds that you expended
towards all state or federal grants that you receive. You should list those that are specific
to DEP on the form.
5. Question: Do I have to submit the completed form and a copy of my audit?
Answer: No, you do not have to submit your audit unless you are over the threshold of
$50000. If you would prefer to submit your audit (CAFR) instead of the form, that is
fine.
6. Question: our CAFR will not be ready before your due date and we don't have the
information necessary to complete the certification. Can we get an extension?
Answer: Yes, just send us an Email letting us know when you will have your CAFR
completed and we will place the Email with your letter in our file so that you don't get a
2nd notice.
7. Question: Can I submit my Certification Form or CAFR electronically?
Answer: Yes, you can submit them by Email to Debb le. skelton@dep. state. fl.us
DEP Agreement No. S0607, Attachment E, Page 3 of.3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 20., 20.1II
Division-. County Administrator
Bulk Item-. Yes No Department*. Count y -Administrator
Staff Contact /Phone #: Rhonda Haag, 292-4482
........................
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a Task Order with AMEC Environmental &
Infrastructure, Inc. under the On Call Professional Engineering Services contract to perform
bathymetric surveys and collect and analyze soil samples to help determine the costs of implementing
the canal restoration strategies developed under the county -wide Canal Improvements Management
Master Plan.. The project will be funded by funds provided by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
ITEM BACKGROUND: DEP has grant funds available to improve water quality. The Florida Keys
Water Quality Protection Program Canal Subcommittee selected this bathymetric survey project for
funding. The final Master Plan currently under development will develop a comprehensive Keys -wide
priority list of canal restoration projects. This $100,000 of EDEP funds are to perform bathymetric
surveys on 502 Keys Canals and sediment collections on 10 canals. The it fonnation gathered will help
to determine the costs of implementing the canal restoration strategies developed under the Canal
Manaement Master Plan, and will aid in obtaining grants from various state and federal sources.
vl�
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On March 21, 2012 the BOCC granted approval and
authorized execution of Item 6 Grant Agreement from FDEP for a Grant to fund Phase 1. On June 20,
2012, the BOCC approved the grant application submitted to EPA, which requested $100,000 in grant
funds and specified a $10,000 match of in -kind services. On September 1.9, 2012, the BOCC approved
the revenue -producing grant agreement from EPA that funded Task Order #2 with AMEC. The DEP
revenue -producing grant agreement for these bathymetric surveys is also presented for approval today.
............
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None . .. ...
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST: $100,000 INDIRECT COST:
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: N/A
BUDGETED: Yes No
COST TO COUNTY: $100,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS; DEP Grant -A.,greement 50640
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty %!B/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION',10
.................. .. ........ .. . . . . . AGENDA ITEM# CAD#
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Contract with: AMEC (Task Order)
Contract #SO640
Effective Date:
Task Order S0640-1
February 20,, 2013
.......................... -
Contract PurPose/Description: Expiration Date: June 30, 2013
This Task Order No. 1 authorized under DEP Grant S0640, shall authon*ze AMC to
verform. bath ethic survSysin all residential canals (502) and analyze
collect and 10 sediment
samples from 10 different canals. 'his is beMg funded by a $100,000
1
. ...... Eant from FDEP. The
purpose is to determine the canal depths and thickness of the sedn'nents on the bottoms, to help
determine the costs of implementing the canal restoration strategies developed during Phase 2 of
the Canal Management Master -plan .
Contract Manager: Rhonda Haag
(Name)
for BOCC meeting on 02/20/13
4482 CAD M.S. #1
(Ext.) (Department/Stop #)
Agenda Deadline.- 02/05/13
CONTRACT COSTS
Total Dollar Value of Contract: $ 1009000 Current Year Portion: $ 100,000
Budgeted? Yes[] No Z Account Codes:
Grant: $ $100,000
County Match:$ 0
. ............... .. . . . .
ADDITIONAL COSTS
Estimated Ongoing Costs: $__/yr For:
Not included in dollar value above)
... .......... (ea. maintenance,, utilities, janitorial, salaries, etc.)
mm"M
CONTRACT REVIEW
Changes Date Out
Date In Needed Reviewer
Division Director Yes[] No[:]
Risk Management Yes� ' �yy �[:] NoE]
O.M.B./Purchasmg Yes[:] NoEj
— --------- Le I
pP
County Attorney Yesn NO
Comments:
TASK ORDER S0640-1
FOR ON CALL PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
BETWEEN
MONROE COUNTY
AND
AMEC ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.
FOR
BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS AND ORGANICS CHARACTERIZATION
IN THE MONROE COUNTY CANALS
In accordance with the Continuing Contract for On Call Professional Engineering Services made and entered
on the 17th day February 2010, as amended January 19, 2012, between Monroe County hereinafter referred
to as the `County" and AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Consultant' where
design services are allowed if construction costs do not exceed $2,000,000.
All terms and conditions of the referenced Contract for On Call Professional Engineering Services, as
amended, apply to the Task Order, unless the Task Order modifies an Article of the Agreement of which will be
specifically referenced in this Task Order and the modification shall be precisely described,
This Task Order is effective on the 20th Day of February 2013 and shall extend through June 30, 2013. Funds
for this Task Order are being provided under Florida Department of Environmental Protection Grant Agreement
S0640.,
Scope of Basic Services is as follows:
The scope of work is for performing bathymetric surveys to determine the average depths of all of the
residential canals (total of 502 canals) identified in the 2003 and updated in 2012 Monroe County Residential
esi
Canal Inventory & Assessment. The surveys will be performed using automated hydrographic survey
equipment consisting of a dual frequency echo sounder used in conjunction with a GPS positioning system to
survey a profile of each canal centerline with bottom surface elevations of the canal, relative to the North
American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), determined at approximate 50' intervals and at the end and
mouths of the canals. As part of this effort AMEC will obtain, through the use of the automated hydrographic
survey equipment and traditional probing methodologies, sufficient data to provide approximate information
regarding unconsolidated material thickness within the canals.
Ten (10) sediment samples will be collected and will be submitted for physical and chemical characterization to
assist in refining the design for removal and disposal of the material from the canal bottoms. The samples will
be collected from 10 different canals based upon a preliminary evaluation from the GIS database, aerial photo
review and public communications of the canals where seaweed loading is a serious problem. The sample
locations will be based upon confirmed presence of a significant organic layer in that portion of the canal.
Details of the scope of services are included in Attachment A.
The Consultant shall be paid monthly with the not to exceed fees shown in Attachment A, which shall not
exceed $100,000, and as follows-.
Task 1.1 4. Completion of Bathymetric Survey of 30% of the Canals $25,1324.62
Task 12, Completion of Bathyrnetric Survey of An Additional 30% of the Canals $25,324.62
Task 1.3: Completion of Bathymetric Survey for Remaining 40% of Canals and Final Reporting $33,766.16
Task 2.0: Sediment Characterization and Reporting -$151584-60
Total NTE Fee $100,000.00
Page 1
Article IX miscellaneous, Paragraph 9.29 Federal Highway Administration Requirements do not apply to this
project.
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
1� 11111111IN''
By:
Date
Title:
mvk- C"�eA 0
(SEAL)
Attest: Clerk of the Court
By.
Deputy Clerk
Date:
Witness:
0
By. L 'IS
\\1-J Date
iA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor
Date:
Page 2
kTTAC H M E NT
Work Flan
Bathyrr etric Surveys and Organics Characterization in the Monroe County Canals
Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
GRANT WORK PLAN
.......................
PrMct Title: Bathymetric Survels and Organics Characterization in the Monroe Count X Canals
... ..... .. . . ... . . .... ... .. .
. . .... ... ..........
....................
Project Location: Monroe County
Florida Kevs Watershed /HUC— 03090203.
Project Background:
The work to be accomplished tinder this Agreement is one of the high priority projects identified during the
development of the Phase I of the Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP).
Bathymetric surveys will be performed to determine the depths of all of the canals identified in the Geographic
Information System (GIS) database developed by AMEC (formerly MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.) in
2001-2003 as part of the Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment, to determine the approximate
thickness of unconsolidated material lying in the bottom of the canals and to collect samples of the unconsolidated
materials. The length of the canals identified in the GIS was initially 111 miles with an additional. six (6) miles
delineated during the recent aerial photo update performed in 201.2 (total of 117 miles of canals). 'rhe survey will
not include marinas or turning basins. The canal depth. data in the existing GIS database is based upon limited
permit information and not actual depth measurements. The depth of the canals and the approximate thickness of
unconsolidated inaterials in the canals are critical factors in evaluating potential restoration needs and in quantifying
restoration costs.
The purpose of this project is to determine the depth of the canals identified in the GIS database developed by
AMEC (formerly MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.) in 2001-2003, as well as the approximate thickness
and physiochemical composition of the unconsolidated sediments found in the bottom of these canals. This
information is required in order to accurately determine the costs of implernenting the canal restoration strategies
developed during Phase I of the CMMP in DEP Agreement No. 50607. Many of the canals in. the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) do not meet the State s minimum water quality criteria and are a potential
source of nutrients and other contaminants to near shore waters designated as Outstanding Florida Waters and
subject to special protection. under the Florida Statutes. This project a priority of the FKNMS Water Quality
Protection Program (WQPP) Steering Committee which recently passed a motion. to develop a plan to prioritize
canal restoration projects and to identify funding sources for these projects. The tourism economy of the Keys
depends largely on clean water and a healthy environment and this project is fully supported by the WQPP Steering
Committee and local governments in Monroe County. The successful implementation of this project is also
consistent with the goals of the Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document that was recently adopted by the
Department in order to satisfy the requirements of the Impaired Waters Rule, Chapter 62-303 of the Florida
Adi
ninistrative Code.
I Project Description:
I
'Task 1: BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS OF RESIDENTIAL CANALS
I 'rhe Grantee will perform bathymetric surveys to determine the average depths of all of the residential canals (total
of 502 canals) identified in the 2003 and updated in 2012 Monroe County Residential. Canal Inventory &
Assessment (refer to Table I for a list of the canals). The surveys will be performed using automated hydrographic
I survey equipment consisting of a dual frequency echo sounder used in conjunction with a GPS positioning system to
I survey a profile of each canal centerline with bottom surface elevations of the canal,
relative to the North American
Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA.VD88), determined at approximate 50' intervals and at the end and mouths of the
canals. An elevation will be collected of the natural sea bottom at the canal mouth. The collected survey data will
be referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) to allow for inclusion into the existing GIS. As part
of this effort the Grantee will. obtain'. through the use of the automated hydrographic survey equipment and
traditional robing methodologies, sufficient data to provide approximate information re�ardinay unconsolidated
............
DEP Agreement S0640, Attachment A, Page I of 12
. . . .... ........ ............................. . .. _
material. thickness within the canals.
The bathymetric data collection will be divided into 3 tasks as follows:
Task 1. 1: Completion of Bathymetric Survey for 151 of the Canals
Bathymetric surveys as detailed above will completed for 151 of the 502 canals in the Monroe County Residential
Canal. Inventory and Assessment GIS data base (refer to Table 1).
Deliverables: A CD with a subset of the GIS canal layer and a Google Earth Pro layer for the 151 canals which
were surveyed with updated attributes of depth and organic thickness, and an excel file of the updated attributes of
depth and organic thickness. All surveying and mapping services associated with this assignment will conform with
the requirements of the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping, and applicable sections of Florida
Administrative Rule Chapter 5J-17, Minimum Technical Standards, pursuant to Chapter 472, Florida Statutes.
Budget: $25,324.62 for subcontractor
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and will consult with the
appropriate staff of the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping to verify the deliverables conform with the
criteria found in 5J- 17, F.A.C., pursuant to Chapter 472, F.S.
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in denial of the request for
reimbursement,
Completion Date: April 30,2013
NOTE-: Payment will be upon completion of the task and review and approval of the deliverables
Task 1.2: Completion of Bathymetric Survey for An Additional 30% of the Canals
Bathymetric surveys as detailed above will completed for an additional 150 canals of the total of 502 canals in the
Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment GIS data base (refer to Table 1).
Deliverables: A CD with a subset of the GIS canal layer and a Google Earth Pro layer for the additional 30% of
canals which were surveyed with updated attributes of depth and organic thickness, and an excel file of the updated
attributes of depth and organic thickness. All surveying and mapping services associated with this assignment will
conform with the requirements of the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping, and applicable sections of
Florida Administrative Rule Chapter 5J- 17, Minimum Technical Standards, pursuant to Chapter 472, Florida
Statutes.
Budget: $25,324.62 for subcontractor
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and will consult with the
appropriate staff of the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping to verify the deliverables conform with the
criteria found in 5J-17, F.A.C., pursuant to Chapter 472, F.S. .
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: May 31, 2013
NOTE - Payment will be upon completion of the task and review and approval of the deliverables,
$I
Task 1.3-, Completion of Bathymetric Survey for Remaining 201 of the Canals and Final Report
Bathy-metric surveys as detailed above will completed for the remaining 201 canals of the total of 502 canals in the
Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment GIS data base (refer to Table 1).
DEP Agreement S0640, Attachment A, Page 2 of 12
. ..... ... ....... .........................................
Deliverables: The final deliverable products will include a technical memorandum which summarizes the work
completed under Task 1. The technical memorandum will include the following attachments: a certified Surveyor's
Report of the survey operation and results, a CD with a complete GIS canal layer and a Google Earth Pro layer for
all the 502 surveyed canals with updated attributes of depth and organic thickness, an excel file of the updated
attributes of depth and organic thickness, and canal profiles in digital format. All surveying and mapping services
associated with this assignment will conform with the requirements of the Department's Bureau of Survey and
Mapping, and applicable sections of Florida Administrative Rule Chapter 5J-17, Minimum Technical Standards,
pursuant to Chapter 472, Florida Statutes.
Budget,-- $33,766.16 for subcontractor
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and will consult with the
appropriate staff of the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping to verify the deliverables conform with the
criteria found in 5J-17, F.A.C., pursuant to Chapter 472, F.S.
"nancial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement.
Completion Date: June 7, 2013
NOTE: Payment will be upon completion of the task and review and approval of the deliverables.
Task 2: SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION AND REPORTING
Ten (1-0) sediment samples will be collected and will be submitted for physical and chemical characterization to
assist in refining the design for removal and disposal of the material from the canal bottoms. The samples will be
collected. from. 10 different canals based upon a preliminary evaluation from the GIS database, aerial photo review
and public communications of the canals where seaweed loading is a serious problem. The sample locations will be
based upon confirmed presence of a significant organic layer in that portion of the canal.
'rhe Physical testing will be performed by an AMEC Geotechnical Lab and will consist of the following:
-Moisture/Solids Content by ASTM D-2216
- 200 Mesh Sieve Distribution by ASTM D- 1140
- Organic Content by ASTM D-2974
Specific Gravity by ASTM D-2974
Grain size distribution by ASTM D-422 (4 samples only)
Settling rate (2 samples only)
The chemical characterization to determine disposal options will be performed by Test America Analytical
Laboratories, a State National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) certified laboratory.
The proposed test methods include:
Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs by 8081/8082
Chlorinated Herbicides by 81.51
8 RCRA Metals by 6010/7471
- Copper by 60 10
- Polynticlear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by 8270 low level
- Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) by FL -PRO
- TCLP metals (2 tests only based upon total metal's concentrations)
Deliverable: A technical memorandum containing the above referenced test results and summary of sediment
disposal options that will meet all applicable Department regulations, including the requirements of Chapter 62-160
of the Florida Administrative Code.
Budget.: $15,584.60 for subcontractor
DE Agreement S0640, Attachment -A, Page 3 of 12
Performance Measure: The Department's Grant Manager will review the deliverables and will consult with the
Department's Standards and Assessment Section and the Division of Waste Management staff to determine if they
are acceptable using the following criteria:
1, The sampling and test procedures must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 62-
160 of the Florida Administrative Code.
2. The sediment disposal options provided in the technical memorandum must be consistent with all
applicable Departments' regulations.
Financial Consequences: Failure to meet the above performance measure will result in rejection of the request for
reimbursement,
NOTE: Payment will be upon completion of the task and review and approval of the deliverables.
Completion Date: May 31,2013
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DEP Agreement S0640, Attachment A, Page 4 of 12
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL INVENTORY
r
�
t
wMF
i
r
F ,
i
F
WN
II:.iJ
4
8
i
MM
1
i
REFERENCE: The Invenk y 1s a Ming of the nWdenft canal$ Indenffled in the 2003 {CIS Datnbwe
PnNxwed by AMEC Envkonment IntmaWxture, Inc., ae amnwded in 2012.
DEP Agreement No. S0640, Attachment A, Page 5 of 12
TABLE 1; RESIUENTLAL CANAL INVENTORY
REFERENCE: The Inventory Is a Who of the residential cwWS indentifled In the 2003 GIB WW:a M
PrePered by AMEC E wk0nment InkaWWure, lnr.,, as amrnended In 2012.
DEP Agreement No. S0640, Attachment A, Page 6 of 12
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL INVENTORY
REFERENC&: rw Inventory is a 11aft of the reaidential caroms indentfied in the 2a43 M Datat w
Prepared by AMEC E.nvlranffmmt Infrastructure, Inc, as amna ded In 2M2.
C EP agreement No. S0640, Attachment A, Page 7 of 12
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL INVENTORY
REFERENCE: The inventory Is a listIng Of the resldentW canals Indenfified in the M03 Gis Database
prepared by AMEC Envlmnmwt Infroatructure, ice,, as arnmanded in 2012.
DES' Agreement No. S06401 Attachment A, Page 8 of 12
TABLE i: RESIDENTIAL CANAL INVENTORY
REFERENCE: The inventory is a listing of the residendal canals Indenthled In the 2003 GIB Datah"
prepared by AMEC Envimnment Inftstructure, Inc., as ammended In 2012.
DEP Agreement No. S0640, Attachment A, Page 9 of 12
TABLE I** RESIDENTIAL CANAL INVENTORY
REFERENCE; The iwwtory Is,a 00ing•of-the residenWI canak IndeWed to the 2DO3 GIS Datahpse.
prepared by AMEC Environment Infirastructure, inc., a$ ammwded in 2012. _
0EP Agreement No. S0 4o, Attachment Ar Page 10 of 12
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL INVENTORY
EFEAENVE�--T-he Wsntary-f hequildentia�eemL%-IFlden#ftd4n-1ho-2GA 18-oattbw
Prepared•by-AMEC-ErMronn*nt.lntm#rt
DEP Agreement No. S0 4g, Attachment A, Page I I of 12
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CARNAL INVENTORY
i 110,
ii
a
► ■
i
* , r
MENE.m
I
I
M
onow
MOMI zi
r
A
MOON
INEZZE
MOOL
"
mmew
is
'•'
;]
Rated-bye°�I��i�t.�taf�aa#r�r,�e�-lr�,.•a�rrirnmrFd�d.#��0.1
DEP Agreement No, S4640, Attachment A, Page 12 of 12
INCLUDING
ORIGINAL
CONTINUING SERVICES
AGREEMENT
ALN ,7J f NV 1 0 ON C,A A.., 'ROVV.aSS ) AU1 CON'T Ra` -C"I
A ND
CONSENTTO
is tmtt `,Ivd into this � �� --okaycif` J.armary .2101 , b � it-,f 1)em�� en 'vf.�:�r�.�oe �::°�?��.�� �� , a p� b� f'ca i
. , IV
{�� ct l'ed mto sa. cout.rut. for ('41 ."all PI-ofes'siomd F"t;irl;ke'MICT Sery�c e,�; <iiid
41
t . i i : i�� , '11 -.I�, din 1�S� (-'r:� :)R will ���txbille trrto one �ry NJI �' �°��:t`�����r��h �.������ �� ��� �'����.:F� ���:� t�r�c�
'> 0,1f (A� ASS1�(,`N(:)R rio-hts, :h iz z c f i ti :)�� wider the c..c:anlnad wi h. the ("(' � "Fyr
�v� therefore, its �:.c, m,,,ic���ration c; 1he ��ut�zal ��r€����i.4 ��S (.-IF the c��� �ri��".11 t�:�v,��e������t as������F��c �i��
.Afective y ou July 6, 01 f thh� On Csfl I �'��:�.��3��i��r�z�� � Y� ;i�.�� ���r�� S�T��
t Kkr tc t'c°$: t'o rt.t ` fret -.i :'' . °` t . - 6 f: "R . ' € X St f..' `IC
:. I..'pol7 �°{�wpleti-o €.�f�t�le � f�«:� its f.� ��l �ar;�it�r �k�f�'�'.€iv�� ��:�tlu�� � .:�'�:�f �, the
the As"s f tmor's titfe 'and €,fiterest in 0,10 original
l
Its (br sick �:u. .tves to bo bol-i.nd b-V CaU the timm"', ;.uld
of the orlgyill,�Fll
4.I� rt'El2LIif?'.' t 4;'t'1E,'t: a.�sh.2�t7` ms M 1� fi• f.T?.1t:'�� 1I€.
w• u r
(SEAL)
Ara,s'r: DANNY'L., KOLHA("TE, CLERK
-t LIN)
Dl-'Uty Clerk
W i t tie's s
By
Cc
W i t n cs' s c 8:
Ll
Witnesses:
f
taL44: tlju &tv
c Itt- lk44
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER
O'tNS
OF M'ROE CO U-'-,NT- Y-,,FL,OR,IDA
By,
M 'It"Iyo Irman
ayo
,VIACI'EC ENGINNEERINO and C()NSULJINGx, hic.
By,
Signa=c
Printc-.,-d Nla Ille
Mite:
AMEC E&J, Inc. (ASSIGNOR)
By: z
Signature
Printed Name
AMEV Environrmcnt & Infrastnicture, tic. (ASSIGNET)
signature
Printed Name
Date:
Z4 641
NIA(' i EC A
Contract for On Call Professional Engineering Services
THIS Contract The AGREEMENT) made and entered into this 17 day of February
201 Oi by and between Monroe County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
whose address is 1100 Simonton Street, Key West Florida, 33040, its successors and
assigns hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY,," through the Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC), the Owner
And
MACTEC Engineering Consulting, Inc., a Corporation of the State of Florida, whose
address is 3 100 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050, its successors and assigns,
herein -after referred to as ""CONSULTANT",
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, COUNTY desires to employ the professional engineering services of
CONSUUrANT for various County Projects located in Monroe County, Florida and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide professional services for
miscellaneous projects in which construction costs do not exceed $2,000,000.00
The professional services required by this Contract will be for services in the form of a
continuing contract, commencing the effective date of this agreement and ending four
years thereafter, with options for the County to renew on an annual basis two consecutive
times.
Specific services will be performed pursuant to individual task orders issued by the
COUNTY and agreed to by the CONSULTANT. Task Orders will contain specific scope
of work, time schedule, charges and payment conditions, and additional terms and
conditions that are applicable to such Task Orders.
Execution of a Task Order by the COUNTY and the CONSULTANT constitutes the
COUNTY's written authorization to CONSULTANT to proceed with the service's
described in, the Task Order.
I'lie terms and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to each Task Order, except to the
extent expressly modified. When a Task Order is to modify a provision of this
Agreement, the Article of this Agreement to be modified will be specifically referenced
in the Task Order and the modification shall be precisely described.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration Of Mutual promises, covenants and agreements
stated herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, COUNTY and CONSULTANT agree as follows:
FORM OF AGREEMENT
ARTICLE I
1.1 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
By executing this Agreement, the CONSULTANT makes the following express
representations and warranties to the COUNTY:
1.1.1 The CONSULTANT shall maintain all necessary licenses, permits or other
authorizations necessary to act as CONSULTANT for the Project until the
CONSULTANT'S duties hereunder have been satisfied;
1.1,2 The CONSULTANT has become familiar with the Protect site and the local
conditions under which the Project is to be designed, constructed, and operated';
1.1.3 The CONSULTANT shall prepare all documents required by this Agreement
including, but not limited to, all contract plans and specifications, in such a
manner that they shall be in conformity and comply with all applicable law, codes
and regulations. The CONSULTANT warrants that the documents prepared as a
part of this Contract will be adequate and sufficient to accomplish the purposes of
the Project, therefore, eliminating any additional construction cost due to missing
or incorrect design elements in the contract documents,*
1.1.4 The CONSULTANT assumes full responsibility to the extent allowed by law with
regards to his performance and those directly under his employ.
1.1.5 The CONSULTANT'S services shall be performed as expeditiously as is
consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project.
In providing all services pursuant to this agreement, the CONSULTANT shall
abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to, or regulating
such services, including those now in effect and hereinafter adopted. Any
violation of said statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations shall constitute a
material breach of this agreement and shall entitle the COUNTY to terminate this
agreement immediately upon delivery of written notice of termination to the
CONSULTANT.
1-.1.6 -At all times and for purposes under this agreement the CONSULTANT is an
independent contractor and not an employee of the Board of County
Commissioners for Monroe County. No statement contained in this agreement
shall be construed so as to find the CONSULTANT or any other of his/tier
employees, contractors,, servants, or agents to be employees of the Board of
County Commissioners for Monroe County.
The CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any person based on race,
creed, color, national origin, sex, age or any other characteristic or aspect which is
not related, in its recruiting, hiring, promoting, terminating, or other area affecting
employment under this agreement or with the provision of services or goods
tinder this agreement.
ARTICLE 11
SCOPE OF BASIC SERVICES
2.1.1 The CONSULTANT will perform for the COUNTY services as described in
individual Task Orders in accordance with the requirements outlined in the
Agreement and the specific Task Order. These services will include, but not be
limited to:
A. Provide comprehensive transportation engineering design services for
road and bridge construction and rehabilitation projects, including
design, surveying, drafting, preparing specifications and contract
documents, traffic studies, lighting and signalization, geotechnical
investigations, permitting, assisting with review of contractor bids,
comprehensive project management services, and construction
engineering and inspection services.
B. Provide comprehensive stormwater and drainage engineering services
including design, surveying, feasibility studies, geotechnical
investigations, permit preparation, preparing construction plans,
specifications and contract documents, assisting with review of
contractor bids, comprehensive project management services and
construction engineering and inspection services.
C. Provide comprehensive environmental engineering services including
design, surveying, geotechnical investigations, environmental
assessments, water quality studies, sampling analysis and monitoring,
permit preparation, preparing construction plans, specifications and
contract documents, assisting with review of contractor bids,
comprehensive project management services and constniction
engineering and inspection services.
D. Provide comprehensive structural engineering services including
design, surveying, facility inspections and assessments, preparing
construction plans, specifications and contract documents, permitting,
construction administration related to new construction, construction
improvements, rehabilitation and/or retrofit of County facilities and
buildings,
E. Provide general engineering services including but not limited to
surveying, drafting, studies and assessments, engineering design,
preparation of bid and proposal documents, permitting, assistance with
technical review of contractor documents, construction engineering
and inspection services for miscellaneous County projects.
2.1,2 The CONSULTANT shall be responsible for performing in accordance with all
applicable Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) manuals, procedures,
specifications and guidance for all Local Agency Program (LAP) projects, When
a Project is funded through the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA) and will be administered under the Florida Department of
Transportations" Local Agency Program (LAP), the CONSULTANT must be
familiar with and must comply with all applicable federal, state and local
requirements of these programs. The CONSULTANT shall exercise their
independent professional judgment in performing their obligations and
responsibilities under this Agreement. Pursuant to Section 4.1.4 of the Florida
Department of Transportation's, Construction Project Administration Manual
(CPAM), the authority of the Consultant's lead person, such as the Senior Project
Engineer, and the Consultant's Project Administrator shall be identical to the
Department's Resident Engineer and Project Administrator respectively and shall
be interpreted as such.
2.2 CORRECTIONS OF ERRORS, OMMISSIONS, DEFICIENCIES
2.2.1 The CONSULTANT shall, without additional compensation, promptly correct
errors, omissions, deficiencies, or conflicts in the work product of the
CONSULT -ANT or its subconsultants, or both.
2.3 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
2.3.1 All written correspondence to the COUNTY shall be dated and signed by an
authorized representative of the CONSULTANT. Any notice required or
permitted under this agreement shall be in writing and hand delivered or mailed,
postage prepaid, to the COUNTY by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
the following:
Ms. Judith Clarke, P.E.
Monroe County Engineering Services
1100 Simonton St. Rm 2-216
Key West, FL 33040
And -Mr. Roman Gastesi, Jr.
County Administrator
1100 Simonton Street
Key West, FL 33040
4
For the Consultant:
Dana Pollitt
MACTEC Engineering Consulting, Inc.
3 100 Overseas Highway
Marathon, Florida 33050
ARTICLE III
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
3.1 The services described in this Article III are not included in Basic Services. They
shall be paid for by the COUNTY as provided in this agreement as an addition to the
compensation paid for the Basic Services but only if approved by the COUNTY before
commencement, and as follows-.
A. Providing services of CONSULTANT for other than the previously listed
consulting scope of Project provided as a part of Basic Services.
B. Providing any other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not
customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted consulting
practice.
C. Providing representation before public bodies in connection with the Project,
upon approval by the COUNTY.
3.2 If Additional Services are required, such as those listed above, the COUNTY shall
issue a letter requesting and describing the requested services to the CONSULTANT,
The CONSULTANT shall respond with fee proposal to perform the requested services.
Only after receiving an amendment to the Agreement and a notice to proceed from the
COUNTY, shall the CONSULTANT proceed with the Additional Services.
ARTICLE IV
COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
4A The COUNTY shall provide full information regarding requirements for the project
including physical location of work, county maintained roads and maps.
4.2 The COUNTY shall designate Monroe County Engineering Services Department
to act on the COUNTY'S behalf with respects to the Project. The COUNTY or Monroe
County Engineering Services Department shall render decisions in a timely manner
pertaining to documents submitted by the CONSULTANT in order to avoid unreasonable
delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the CONSULTANTS services.
4.3 Prompt written notice shall be given by the COUNTY and its representative to the
CONSULTANT if they become aware of any fault or defect in the Project or
nonconformance with the Agreement Documents. Written notice shall be deemed to have
been duly served if sent pursuant to paragraph 2.3.
4.4 The COUNTY shall furnish the required information and services and shall render
approvals and decisions as expeditiously as necessary for the orderly progress of the
Consultants services and work of the contractors.
4.5 The COUNTY'S review of any documents prepared by the CONSULTANT or its
subconsultants shall be solely for the purpose of determining whether such documents are
generally consistent with the COUNTY"S criteria, as, and if, modified. No review of such
documents shall relieve the CONSULTANT of responsibility for the accuracy, adequacy,
fitness, suitability or coordination of its work product.
4.6 The COUNTY shall provide copies of necessary documents required to complete
the work.
4.7 Any information that may be of assistance to the CONSULTANT that the
COUNTY has immediate access to will be provided as requested.
ARTICLE V
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
5.1A The CONSULTANT covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
COUNTY/Monroe County and Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
from any and all claims for bodily injury, including death, personal injury, and
property damage, including property owned by Monroe County, and any other
losses, darnages, and expenses, including attorneys fees, court costs and
expenses, which arise out of, in connection with, or by reason of services
provided by the CONSULTANT or Subcontractor(s) in any tier, occasioned by
the negligence, errors, or other wrongful act or omission of the CONSULTANT
in any tier, their employees, or agents.
5.1.2 The first ten dollars ($ 10.00) of remuneration paid to the CONSULTANT is for
the indemnification provided for above. The extent of liability is in no way
limited to, reduced, or lessened by the insurance requirements contained
elsewhere within this agreement. Should any claims be asserted against the
COUNTY by virtue of any deficiency or ambiguity in the plans and specifications
provided by the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT agrees and warrants that he
shall hold the COUNTY harmless and shall indemnify him from all losses
occurring thereby and shall further defend any claim or action on the COUNTY"S
behalf.
5.1.3 In the event the completion of the project (to include the work of others) is
delayed or suspended as a result of the CONSULTANT'S failure to purchase or
maintain the required insurance, the CONSULTANT shall indemnify COUNTY
from rom any and all increased expenses resulting from such delays. Should any
claims be asserted against COUNTY by virtue of any deficiencies or ambiguity in
the plans and specifications provide by the CONSULTANT the CONSULTANT
agrees and warrants that CONSULTANT hold the COUNTY harmless and shall
indemnify it from all losses occurring thereby and shall further defend any claims
or action. on. the COUNTY' S behalf.
5J.4 The extent of liability is in no way limited to, reduced or lessened by the
insurance requirements contained elsewhere within the Agreement.
5.1.5 This indemnification shall survive the expiration or early termination of the
Agreement.
ARTICLE VI
PERSONNEL
6.1 PERSONNEL
The CONSULTANT shall assign only qualified personnel to perform any service
concerning the project. At the tirne of execution of this Agreement, the parties anticipate
that the following named individuals will perform those functions as indicated:
FUNCTION
So long as the individuals named above remain actively employed or retained by the
CONSULTANT,, they shall perform the functions indicated next to their names. If they
are replaced the CONSULTANT shall notify the COUNTY of the change im-t-nediately.
ARTICLE VII
PAYMENTS
7A. PAYMIENT SUM
7.1.1 The COUNTY shall pay the CONSULTANT in current funds for the
CONSULTANT'S performance of this Agreement based on rates negotiated and
agreed upon and shown in Exhibit B.
7.2 PAYMENTS
7.2.1 For its assumption and performances of the duties, obligations and responsibilities
set forth herein, the CONSULTANT shall be paid monthly.
(A) If the CONSULTANT'S duties, obligations and responsibilities are
materially changed by amendment to this agreement after execution of this
Agreement, compensation due to the CONSULTANT shall be equitably
adjusted, either upward or downward,
(B) As a condition precedent for any payment due under this Agreement, the
CONSULTANT shall submit monthly, unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the COUNTY, an invoice to the COUNTY requesting payment for
services properly rendered and reimbursable expenses due hereunder. The
CONSULTANT'S invoice shall describe with reasonable particularity the
service rendered. The CONSULTANT'S invoice shall be accompanied by
such documentation or data in support of expenses for which payment is
sought that the COUNTY may require.
(C) For the performance of the optional additional services and contingent
additional services described in Article III of this contract, provided same
are first authorized in writing by the COUNTY, the CONSULTANT shall
be paid hourly at the rates identified in Exhibit B, or as negotiated.
7.3 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
7.3.1 Reimbursable expenses include expenses incurred by the CONSULTANT in the
interest of the Project:
a. Expenses of transportation submitted by CONSULTANT, in writing, and
living expenses in connection with travel authorized by the COUNTY, in
writing, but only to the extent and in the amounts authorized by Section
.12.061, Florida Statutes.
b. Cost of reproducn'ig maps or drawings or other materials used in performing
the scope of services,
c. Postage and handling of reports;
7.4 BUDGET
7.4.1 The CONSULANT may not be entitled to receive, and the COUNTY is not
obligated to pay, any fees or expenses in excess of the amount budgeted for this
Agreement in each fiscal year (October I - September 30) by COUNTY" S Board
of County Commissioners. The budgeted arnount may only be modified by an
affirmative act of the COUNTY'S Board of County Commissioners.
7.4.2 AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. If funding cannot be obtained or cai-tnot be
continued at a level sufficient to allow for continued reimbursement, of
expenditures for services specified in the Task Order, the agreement may be
terminated immediately at the option of the COUNTY by written notice of
termination delivered to the CONSULTANT. The COUNTY shall not be
obligated to pay for any services provided by the CONSULTANT after the
CONSULTANT has received written notice of termination, unless otherwise
required by law.
7.4.3 The COUNTY does not guarantee CONSULTANT any specific amount of work
or task orders under this agreement.
ARTICLE VIII
8A INSURANCE
8.1.1 The CONSULTANT shall obtain insurance as specified and maintain the required
insurance at all. times that this Agreement is in effect. In the event the completion
of the project to include the work of others) is delayed or suspended as a result of
the CONSULTANT'S failure to purchase or maintain the required insurance, the
CONSULTANT shall indemnify the COUNTY from any and all increased
expenses resulting from such delay.
%-W
8.1,2 The coverage provided herein shall be provided by an insurer with an A.M. Best
Rating of V1 or better, that is licensed to do business in the State of Florida and
that has an agent for service of process within the State of Florida. The insurance
certificate shall contain an endorsement providing sixty (60) days notice to the
COUNTY prior to any cancellation of said coverage. Said coverage shall be
written by an insurer acceptable to the COUNTY and shall be in a form
acceptable to the COUNTY.
8.1.3 CONSULTANT shall obtain and maintain the following policies:
A. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of Florida,
sufficient to respond to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
B. Employers Liability Insurance with limits of $1,000,000 per Accident,
$1,000,000 Disease, policy limits, $1,000,000 Disease each employee.
C. Comprehensive business automobile and vehicle liability insurance covering
claims for injuries to members of the public and/or damages to property of
others arising from use of motor vehicles, including onsite and offsite
operations, and owned, hired or non -owned vehicles, with One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit and One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) annual aggregate.
9
D. Commercial general liability, including Personal Injury Liability insurance
covering claims for injuries to members of the public or damage to property of
others arising out of any covered act or omission of the CONSULTANT or
any of its employees, agents or subcontractors or subconsultants, including
Premises and/or Operations, Products and Completed Operations, Independent
Contractors; Broad Form Property Damage and a Contractual Liability
Endorsement with One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and
amival aggregate.
An Occurrence Form policy is preferred. If coverage is changed to or
provided on a Claims Made policy, its provisions should include coverage for
claims filed on or after the effective date of this Agreement. In addition, the
period for which they may be reported must extend for a minimum of 48
months following the termination or expiration of this Agreement.
E. Professional liability insurance of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per
claim and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) annual aggregate. If the
policy is a "claims made" policy, CONSULTANT shall maintain coverage or
purchase a "tail" to cover claims made after completion of the project to cover
the statutory time limits in Chapter 95 of the Florida Statutes.
F. COUNTY shall be named as an additional insured with respect to
CONSULTANTS liabilities hereunder in insurance coverage identified in
Paragraphs C and D.
G. CONSULTANT shall require its subconsultants to be adequately insured at
least to the limits prescribed above, and to any increased limits of
CONSULTANT if so required by COUNTY during the term of this
Agreement. COUNTY will not pay for increased limits of insurance for
s ubcons u I tant s.
H. CONSULTANT shall provide to the COUNTY certificates of insurance or a
copy of all insurance policies including those naming the COUNTY as an
additional insured by including any subsection hereunder. The COUNTY
reserves the right to require a certified copy of such policies upon request.
1. If the CONSULTANT participates in a self-insurance fund, a Certificate of
Insurance will be required. In addition, the CONSULTANT may be required
to submit updated financial statements from the fund upon request from the
COUNTY.
8,2 XPPLICABLE LAW
This contract is governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any litigation
arising under this contract must be in Monroe County, Florida.
10
ARTICLE IX
MISCELLANEOUS
911 SECTION HEADINGS
Section headings have been inserted in this Agreement as a matter of convenience of
reference only, and that it is agreed that such section headings are not a part of this
Agreement and will not be use in the interpretation of any provisions of this Agreement.
9.2 OWNERSHIP OF THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS
The documents prepared by the CONSULTANT for this Project belong to the COUNTY
and may be reproduced and copied without acknowledgement or permission of the
CONSULTANT.
9.3 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
The CONSULTANT shall not assign or subcontract its obligations under this Agreement
except in writing and with the prior written approval of the Board of County
Commissioners for Monroe County and the CONSULTANT,, which approval shall be
Subject to Such conditions and provisions as the Board may deem necessary. This
paragraph shall be incorporated by reference into any assignment or subcontract and any
assignee or subcontractor shall comply with all of the provisions of this Agreement.
Subject to the provisions of the immediately proceeding sentence, each party hereto binds
itself, its successors, assignees and legal representatives to the other and to the
successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party. The CONSULTANT
shall not assign its right hereunder, excepting its right to payment, nor shall it delegate
any of its duties hereunder without the written consent of the COUNTY.
9.4 NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Nothing contained herein shall create any relationship, contractual or otherwise, with or
any rights in favor of, any third party.
9,5 ,rERMINATION
A. In the event the CONSULTANT shall be found to be negligent in any aspect of
service, the COUNTY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement after five days
written notification to the CONSULTANT.
B. The County may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving the other party
sixty (60) days written notice of its intention to do so.
9.6 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The contract documents consist of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ), any addenda,,
the Form of Agreement (Articles I-XV), the CONSULTANTS response to the RFQ, the
documents referred to in the Form of Agreement as a part of this Agreement, and the
attachments A and Exhibit B and modifications made after execution by written
amendment. In the event any conflict between any of those Agreement documents, the
one imposing the greater burden on the CONSULTANT will control.
9.7 PUBLIC ENTITIES CRIMEES
A person or affiliate who has been place on the convicted vendor list following a
conviction for public entity crime may not submit a bid on contracts to provide any goods
or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract with a public entity for
the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on
leases of real property to public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a
contractor, supplier, subcontractor., or consultant under a contract with any public entity,
and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount
provided in. Section 287.017 of the Florida Statutes, for CATEGORY TWO for a period
of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list.
By signing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that the execution of this
Agreement will not violate the Public Entity Crimes Act (Section 287.133, Florida
Statutes), Violation of this section shall result in termination of this Agreement and
recovery of all moneys paid hereto, and may reSLIlt in debar-nent from COUNTY'S
competitive procurement activities.
'In addition to the foregoing, CONSULTANT further represents that there has been no
determination, based on an audit that it or any subconsultant has committed an act
2b
defined by Section 287.133, as "public entity crime", and that it has not been formally
charged with committing an act defined as a `public entity crime" regardless of the
amount of money involved or whether CONSULTANT has been placed on the convicted
vendor list.
CONSULTANT will promptly notify the COUNTY if it or any subcontractor or
subconsultant is formally charged with an act defined as a "public entity crime" or
has been placed on the convicted vendor list.
9.8 MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS
CONSULTANT shall maintain all books, records, and documents directly pertinent to
performance Linder this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles consistently applied. Records shall be retained for a period of five years from
the termination of this Agreement. Each party to this Agreement or their authorized
representatives shall have reasonable and timely access to such records of each other
party to this Agreement for public records purposes during the term of the Agreement and
for fOLir years following the termination of this Agreement. If an auditor employed by the
County or Clerk determines that monies paid to CONSULTANT pursuant to this
Agreement were spent for purposes not authorized by this Agreement, the
12
CONSULTANT shall repay the monies together with interest calculated pursuant to Sec.
55D3, FS, running from the date the monies were paid to County.
9.9 GOVERNING LAW, VENUE� INTERPERTATION, COST AND FEES
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Florida applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely in the State. In
the event that any cause of action or administrative proceeding is instituted for the
enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, COUNTY and CONSULTANT agree
that venue will lie in the 16"" Judicial Circuit, Monroe County, Florida, in the
appropriate court or before the appropriate administrative body in Monroe County,
Florida. This Agreement shall not be subject to arbitration. The County and
CONSULTANT agree that, in the event of conflicting interpretations of the terms or a
term of this Agreement by or between any of them the issue shall be Submitted to
mediation prior to the institution of any other administrative or legal proceeding.
9.10 SEVERABILITY
If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement or the application
thereof to any circumstance or person) shall be declared invalid or unenforceable to any
extent by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining terms, covenants, conditions
and provisions of this Agreement, shall not be affected thereby; and each remaining term,
covenant, condition and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and shall be
enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law unless the enforcement of the remaining
terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Agreement would prevent the
accomplishment of the original intent of this Agreement, The County and
CONSULTANT agree to reform the Agreement to replace any stricken provision with a
valid provision that comes as close as possible to the intent of the stricken provision.
9.11 ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
The COUNTY and CONSULTANT agree that in the event any cause of action or
administrative proceeding is initiated or defended by any party relative to the
enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
reasonable attorney's fees and court costs expenses, as an award against the non -
prevailing party, and shall include attorney's fees and Courts costs expenses in appellate
proceedings, as an award against the non -prevailing party. Mediation proceedings
initiated and conducted pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and usual and customary procedures required by the
circuit court of Monroe County.
9.12 BINDING EFFECT
The terms, covenants, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure
to the benefit of the COUNTY and CONSULTANT and their respective legal
representatives, successors, and assigns.
13
9,13 AUTHORITY
Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution, delivery and
performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary COUNTY
and corporate action, as required by law.
9J4 CLAIMS FOR FEDERAL OR STATE AID
CONSULTANT and COUNTY agree that each shall be, and is, empowered to apply for,
seek, and obtain federal and state funds to further the purpose of this Agreement;
provided that all applications, requests, grant proposals, and funding solicitations shall be
approved by each party prior to submission.
9.15 ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES OR DISAGREEMIENTS
COUNTY and CONSULTANT agree that all disputes and disagreements shall be
attempted to be resolved by meet and confer sessions between representatives of each of
the parties. If no resolution can be agreed upon within 30 days after the first meet and
confer session, the issue or issues shall be discussed at a public meeting of the Board of
County Commissioners. If the issue or issues are still not resolved to the satisfaction of
the parties, then any party shall have the right to seek such relief or remedy as may be
provided by this Agreement or by Florida law. This provision does not negate or waive
the provisions of paragraph 9.5 concerning termination or cancellation.
9.16 COOPERATION
In the event any administrative or legal proceeding is instituted against either party
relating to the formation, execution, performance, or breach of this Agreement,
COUNTY and CONSULTANT agree to participate,, to the extent required by the other
party, in all proceedings, hearings,, processes,, meetings, and other activities related to the
substance of this Agreement or provision of the services under this Agreement.
COUNTY and CONSULTANT specifically agree that no party to this Agreement shall
be required to enter into any arbitration proceedings related to this Agreement.
9.17 NON DISCRIMINATION
CONSULTANT and COUNTY agree that there will be no discrimination against any
person, and it is expressly understood that upon a determination by a court of competent
jurisdiction that discrimination has occurred, this Agreement automatically terminates
without any further action on the part of any party, effective the date of the court order.
CONSULTANT and COUNTY agree to comply with all Federal and Florida statutes,
and all local ordinances,., as applicable, relating to nondiscrimination. These include but
are not limited to: 1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; 2) Title IX of the
Education Amendment of 1972, as amended (20 USC ss. 1.681-1683, and 1685-1-686),,
14
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; 3) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended (20 USC s. 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of
handicaps; 4) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 USC ss. 6101-61-07)
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; 5) The Drug Abuse Office and
Treatment Act of .1972 (PL 9.).-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the
basis of drug abuse; 6) The Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention,
Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (PL 91-61.6), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; 7) The Public Health
Service Act of .1912, ss. 523 and 527 (42 USC ss. 690dd-3 and 290ee-3), as amended,
relating to confidential. ity of alcohol and dnig abuse patent records; 8) Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 USC s. et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination
in the sale, rental or -financing of housing-, 9) The Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 USC s. 1201 Note), as maybe amended from time to time, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; 10) Any other nondiscrimination provisions
in any Federal or state statutes which may apply to the parties to, or the subject matter of,
this Agreement.
9.18 COVENANT OF NO INTEREST
CONSULTANT and COUNTY covenant that neither presently has any interest, and shall
not acquire any interest, which would conflict in any manner or degree with its
performance under this Agreement, and that only interest of each is to perform and
receive benefits as recited in this Agreement.
9.19 CODE OF ETHICS
COUNTY agrees that officers and employees of the COUNTY recognize and will be
required to comply with the standards of conduct for public officers and employees as
delineated in Section 112.313, Florida Statutes, regarding, but not limited to, solicitation
or acceptance of gifts; doing business with one's agency; unauthorized compensation;
misuse of public position, conflicting employment or contractual relationship; and
disclosure or use of certain information.
9.20 NO SOLICITATION/PAYMIENT
The CONSULTANT and COUNTY warrant that, in respect to itself, it has neither
employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working
solely for it, to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not paid or agreed to pay
any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for it, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For the breach
or violation of the provision, the CONSULTANT agrees that the COUNTY shall have
15
the right to terminate this Agreement without liability and, at its discretion, to offset from
monies owed, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage,,
gift, or consideration.
9.21 PUBLIC ACCESS
The CONSULTANT and COUNTY shall allow and permit reasonable access to, and
inspection of, all documents, papers, letters or other materials in its possession or under
its control subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or
received by the CONSULTANT and COUNTY in conjunction with this Agreement; and
the COUNTY shall have the right to unilaterally cancel this Agreement upon violation of
this provision by CONSULTANT.
9.22 NON -WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 768.28, Florida Statutes, the participation of the
CONSULTANT and the COUNTY in this Agreement and the acquisition of any
commercial liability insurance coverage, self-insurance coverage, or local govemment
liability insurance pool coverage shall not be deemed a waiver of immunity to the extent
of liability coverage, nor shall any contract entered into by the COUNTY be required to
contain. any provision for waiver.
9.23 PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITY
All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances,
and rules and pensions and relief, disability, workers' compensation, and other benefits
which apply to the activity of officers., agents, or employees of any public agents or
employees of the COUNTY, when performing their respective functions under this
Agreement within the territorial lit -nits of the COUNTY shall apply to the same degree
and extent to the performance of such functions and duties of such officers, agents,,
volunteers, or employees outside the territorial limits of the COUNTY.
9.24 LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Non -Delegation of Constitutional or Statutory Duties. This Agreement is not intended to,,
nor shall it be construed as, relieving any participating entity from any obligation or
responsibility imposed upon the entity by law except to the extent of actual and timely
performance thereof by any participating entity, in which case the performance may be
offered in satisfaction of the obligation or responsibility. Further, this Agreement is not
intended to, nor shall it be construed as, authorizing the delegation of the constitutional or
statutory duties of the COUNTY, except to the extent permitted by the Florida
constitution, state statute,, and case law,
9.25 NON -RELIANCE BY NON-PARTIES
16
,No person or entity shall be entitled to rely upon the terns, or any of them, of this
Agreement to enforce or attempt to enforce any third -party claim or entitlement to or
benefit of any service or program contemplated hereunder, and the CONSULTANT and
the COUNTY agree that neither the CONSULTANT nor the COUNTY or any agent,
officer, or employee of either shall have the authority to inform, counsel,, or otherwise
indicate that any particular individual or group of individuals, entity or entities, have
entitlements or benefits under this Agreement separate and apart, inferior to, or Superior
to the community in general or for the purposes contemplated in this Agreement.
9.26 ATTESTATIONS AND TRUTH IN NEGOTATION
CONSULTANT agrees to execute such documents as the COUNTY may reasonably
require including a Public Entity Crime Statement, an Ethics Statement, and a Drug -Free
Workplace Statement. Signature of this Agreement by CONSULTANT shall act as the
execution of a truth in negotiation certificate stating that wage rates and other factual unit
costs supporting the compensation pursuant to the Agreement are accurate,, complete, and
current at the time of contracting. The original contract price and any additions thereto
shall be adjusted to exclude significant sums by which the agency determines the contract
price was increased due to inaccurate, incomplete, or concurrent wage rates and other
factual unit costs. All such adjustments must be made within one year following the end
of the Agreement.
9,27 NO PERSONAL LIABILITY
No covenant or agreement contained herein shall be deemed to be a covenant or
agreement of any member, officer, agent or employee of Monroe County in his or her
individual capacity, and no member, officer, agent or employee of Monroe County shall
be liable personally on this Agreement or be subject to any personal liability or
accountability by reason of the execution of this Agreement.
9.28 EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be
regarded as an original, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same
instrument and any of the parties hereto may execute this Agreement by singing any such
counter -part,
9.29 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
Following forins and provisions are incorporated in and made part of this Agreement.
9.29.1 Davis -Bacon Act — In accordance with the Davis -Bacon Act the Consultant or
their subcontractors shall pay workers employed directly upon the site of the work -
no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid on projects of a
similar character. The current wage rates can be found at:
W'vVW. access, opo.,uov/dav isbacon/11fitnil under Monroe County.
17
9.29.2 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) The CONSULTANT will
comply with all the requirements as imposed by the ADA, the regulations of the
Federal government issued thereunder, and the assurance by the CONSULTANT
pursuant thereto.
9,29.3 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE)POLICY AND
OBLIGATION
It is the policy of the COUNTY that DBEs, as defined in C.F.R. Part 26, as
amended, shall have the opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts
financed in whole or in part with COUNTY funds under this Agreement. The
DBE requirements of applicable federal and state laws and regulations apply to
this Agreement. The COUNTY and its CONSULTANT agree to ensure that
DBE's have the opportunity to participate in the performance of the Agreement.
In this regard, all recipients and contractors shall take all necessary and
reasonable steps in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and
regulations to ensure that DBE's have the opportunity to compete and perform
contracts, The COUNTY and the CONSULTANT and subcontractors shall not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and
performance of contracts, entered pursuant to this .Agreement,
9.29.4 CONVICT LABOR,
The convict labor prohibition in 23 U.S.C. 114 applies to Federal Aid
construction projects. Convict labor cannot be used for Federal Aid construction
projects.
9.29.5 FHWA Form 1273 is attached hereto as Attachment A and made a part of this
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly
auth6ri'zed �rcsentative on the day and year first above written.
,tt
.- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
w
By: µ By.Z�4- -
Deputy Clerk Mayo Chai an
Mace: FEB 17. 201Q
•f . �.< �' J �y,r� fir+: •, �- `�� -�. i ., �
18 1 �
(Seal)CONSULTANT
,fittest: � �----
4
By: Ricardo Fraxedas PE
Title: Chief Engineer
� -,
By: G'
ITNESS
WITNESS
END OF AGREEMENT
U
ATTACHMENT A
REQUIRED CONTRACT PROVISIONS
FEDERAL -AID CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Page
1,
General ............ I
IL
Nondiscrimination ........... ...... 1
Ill..
Nonsegregated Facilities .... ....... ....... 3
1V.
Payment of Predetermined Minimum Wage ......... 3
V,
Statements and Payrolls . * ' ' ' ' ' * ................ 5
V1.
Record of Materials, Supplies, and Labor ...... 5
VIL
Subletting or Assigning the Contract 5
VIII.
Safety., Accident Prevention , . ......... ....... 6
X
False Statements Concerning Highway Projects ...... 6
K
Implementation of Clean Air Act and Federal
Water Pollution Control Act ........ 6
X1.
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension,
Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion . . ..... ...... 6
XII,
Certification Regarding Use of Contract Funds for
Lobbying ...... 8
ATTACHMENTS
A,
Employment Preference for Appalachian Contracts
(included in Appalachian contracts only)
1. GENERAL
1. These contract provisions shall apply to all work performed on
the contract by the contractor's own organization and with the
assistance of workers under the contractor's immediate superinten-
dence and to all work performed on the contract by piecework, station
work, or by subcontract.
2, Except as otherwise provided for in each section, the contractor
shall insert in each subcontract all of the stipulations contained in
these Required Contract Provisions, and further require their
inclusion in any lower tier subcontract or purchase order that may in
turn be made. The Required Contract Provisions shall not be
incorporated by reference in any case. The prime contractor shall be
responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier
subcontractor with these Required Contract Provisions.
3. A breach of any of the stipulations contained in these Required
Contract Provisions shall be sufficient grounds for termination of the
contract.
4. A breach of the following clauses of the Required Contract
Provisions may also be grounds for debarment as provided in 29
CFR 5.12,
Section 1, paragraph 2;
Section IV, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7;
Section V, paragraphs 1 and 2a through 2g,
5, Disputes arising out of the labor standards provisions of Section
IV (except paragraph 5) and Section V of these Required Contract
Provisions shall not be subject to the general disputes clause of this
contract. Such disputes shall be resolved in accordance with the
procedures of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) as set forth in 29
CFR 5, 6, and 7. Disputes within the meaning of this clause include
disputes between the contractor (or any of its subcontractors) and the
contracting agency, the DOL, or the contractor's employees or their
representatives.
6. Selection of Labor: During the performance of this contract,
the contractor shall not:
a. discriminate against labor from any other State, possession,
or territory of the United States (except for employment preference for
Appalachian contracts, when applicable, as specified in Attachment
A), or
b, employ convict labor for any purpose within the limits of the
project unless it is labor performed by convicts who are on parole,
supervised release, or probation,
11. NONDISCRIMINATION
(Applicable to all Federal -aid construction contracts and to all
related subcontracts of $10,000 or more,)
1. Equal Employment Opportunity: Equal employment opportu-
nity (EEO) requirements not to discriminate and to take affirmative
act -ion to assure equal opportunity as set forth under laws, executive
orders, rules, regulations (28 CFR 35, 29 CFR 1630 and 41 CFR 60)
and orders of the Secretary of Labor as modified by the provisions
prescribed herein, and imposed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 140 shall
constitute the EEO and specific affirmative action standards for the
contractor's project activities under this contract, The Equal Opportu-
nity Construction Contract Specifications set forth under 41 CFR 60-
4.3 and the provisions of the American Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C, 12101 et seq.) set forth under 28 CFR 35 and 29 CFR 1630
are incorporate? Ey—r6ference in this contract. In the execution of this
contract, the contractor agrees to comply with the following minimum
specific requirement activities of EEO:
a. The contractor will work with the State highway agency
(SHA) and the Federal Government in carrying out EEO obligations
and in their review of his/her activities under the contract.
b. The contractor will accept as his operating policy the
following statement:
"It is the policy of this Company to assure that applicants are
employed, and that employees are treated during employment,
without regard to their race, rellgion, sex, color, national origin,
age or disability. Such action shall include: employment,
upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment
advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of
compensation; and selection for training, including apprentice-
ship, prea pprent ices hip, and/or on-the-job training,"
2. EEO Officer*. The contractor will designate and make known
to the SHA contracting officers an EEO Officer who will have the
responsibility for and must be capable of effectively administering and
promoting an active contractor program of EEO and who must be
assigned adequate authority and responsibility to do so.
3. Dissemination of Policy: All members of the contractor's staff
who are authorized to hire, supervise, promote, and discharge
employees, or who recommend such action, or who are substantially
involved in such action, will be made fully cognizant of, and will
implement, the contractor's EEO policy and contractual responsibili-
ties to provide EEO in each grade and classification of employment.
To ensure that the above agreement will be met, the following actions
will be taken as a minimum:
a. Periodic meetings of supervisory and personnel office
employees will be conducted before the start of work and then not
less often than once every six months, at which time the contractor's
EEO policy and its implementation will be reviewed and explained.
The meetings will be conducted by the EEO Officer,
b. All new supervisory or personnel office employees will be
given a thorough indoctrination by the EEO Officer, covering all major
aspects of the contractor's EEO obligations within thirty days
following their reporting for duty with the contractor.
c, All personnel who are engaged in direct recruitment for the
Project will be instructed by the EEO Officer in the contractors
procedures for locating and hiring minority group employees,
d. Notices and posters setting forth the contractors EEO policy
will be placed in areas readily accessible to employees., applicants for
employment and potential employees.
e. The contractor's EEO policy and the procedures to imple-
ment such policy will be brought to the attention of employees by
means of meetings, employee handbooks, or other appropriate
means.
4. Recruitment: When advertising for employees, the contractor
will include in all advertisements for employees the notation: "An
Equal Opportunity Employer." All such advertisements will be placed
Form FHWA-1273 (Rev. 3-94) Page 1
in publications having a large circulation among minority groups in the
area from which the project work force would normally be derived.
a, The contractor will, unless precluded by a valid bargaining
agreement, conduct systematic and direct recruitment through public
a n d private employee referral sources likely to yield qualified minority
group applicants. To meet this requirement, the contractor will
identify sources of potential minority group employees, and establish
with such identified sources procedures whereby minority group
applicants may be re fe rred to the contractor for employment consider-
ation.
b. In the event the contractor has a valid bargaining agreement
providing for exclusive hiring hall referrals, he is expected to observe
the provisions of that agreement to the extent that the system permits
the contractor's compliance with EEO contract provisions. (The DOL
has held that where implementation of such agreements have the
effect of discriminating against minorities or women, or obligates the
contractor to do the same, such implementation violates Executive
Order 11246, as amended.)
c. The contractor will encourage his present employees to refer
minority group applicants for employment. Information and proce-
dures with regard to referring minority group applicants will be
discussed with employees.
5. Personnel Actions: Wages, working conditions, and employee
benefits shall be established and administered, and personnel actions
of every type, including hiring, upgrading, promotion, transfer,
demotion, layoff, and termination, shall be taken without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. The
following procedures shall be followed,
a. The contractor will conduct periodic inspections of project
sites to insure that working conditions and employee facilities do not
indicate discriminatory treatment of project site personnel.
b. The contractor will periodically evaluate the spread of wages
paid within each classification to determine any evidence of discrimi-
natory wage practices.
c. The contractor will periodically review selected personnel
actions in de pth to determine whether there is evidence of discrimina-
tion. Where evidence is found, the contractor will promptly take
corrective action. If the review indicates that the discrimination may
extend beyond the actions reviewed, such corrective action shall
include all affected persons.
d. The contractor will promptly investigate all complaints of
alleged discrimination made to the contractor in connection with his
obligations under this contract, will attempt to resolve such com-
plaints, and will take appropriate corrective action within a reasonable
time. If the investigation indicates that the discrimination may affect
persons other than the complainant, such corrective action shall
include such other persons. Upon completion of each investigation,
the contractor will inform every complainant of all of his avenues of
appeal,
6. Training and Promotlon:
a, The contractor will assist in locating, qualifying, and
increasing the skills of minority group and women employees, and.
applicants for employment.
b. Consistent with the contractor's workforce requirements and
as permissible under Federal and State regulations, the contractor
shall make full use of training programs, i.e., apprenticeship, and
on-the-job training programs for the geographical area of contract
performance. Where feasible, 25 percent of apprentices or trainees
in each occupation shall be in their first year of apprenticeship or
training. In the event a special provision for training is provided under
this contract, this subparagraph will be superseded as indicated in the
special provision,
c. The contractor will advise employees and applicants for
employment of available training programs and entrance require-
ments for each,
d. The contractor will periodically review the training and
promotion potential of minority group and women employees and will
encourage eligible employees to apply for such training and promo-
tion,
7. Unions: If the contractor relies in whole or in part upon unions
as a source of employees, the contractor will use his/her best efforts
to obtain the cooperation of such unions to increase opportunities for
minority groups and women within the unions, and to effect referrals
by such unions of minority and female employees. Actions by the
contractor either directly or through a contractor's association acting
as agent will include the procedures set forth below,
a. The contractor will use best efforts to develop, in coopera-
tion with the unions, joint training programs aimed toward qualifying
more minority group members and women for membership in the
unions and increasing the skills of minority group employees and
women so that they may qualify for higher paying employment.
b, The contractor will use best efforts to incorporate an EEO
clause into each union agreement to the end that Such union will be
contractually bound to refer applicants without regard to their race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability,
c. The contractor is to obtain information as to the referral
practices and policies of the labor union except that to the extent
such information is within the exclusive possession of the labor union
and such labor union refuses to furnish such information to the
contractor, the contractor shall so certify to the SHA and shall set
forth what efforts have been made to obtain such information.
d. In the event the union is unable to provide the contractor
with a reasonable flow of minority and women referrals within the time
limit set forth in the collective bargaining agreement, the contractor
will, through independent recruitment efforts, fill the employment
vacancies without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
age or disability; making full efforts to obtain qualified and/or
qualifiable minority group persons and women. (The DOL has held
that it shall be no excuse that the union with which the contractor has
a collective bargaining agreement providing for exclusive referral
failed to refer minority employees) In the event the union referral
practice prevents the contractor from meeting the obligations
pursuant to Executive Order 11246, as amended, and these special
provisions, such contractor shall immediately notify the SHA.
8. Selection of Subcontractors, Procurement of Materials and
Leasing of Equipmont: The contractor shall not discriminate on the
grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability
in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procure-
ment of materials and leases of equipment.
a. The contractor shall notify all potential subcontractors and
suppliers of his/her EEO obligations under this contract.
b. Disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE), as defined in 49
CFR 23, shall have equal opportunity to compete for and perform
subcontracts which the contractor enters into pursuant to this
contract. The contractor will use his best efforts to solicit bids from
and to utilize DBE subcontractors or subcontractors with meaningful
minority group and female representation among their employees.
Contractors shall obtain lists of DBE construction firms from SHA
personnel.
c. The contractor will use his best efforts to ensure subcontrac-
tor compliance with their EEO obligations.
9. Records and Reportsm. The contractor shall keep such records
as necessary to document compliance with the EEO requirements.
Such records shall be retained for a period of three years following
completion of the contract work and shall be available at reasonable
times and places for inspection by authorized representatives of the
SHA and the FHWA.
a. The records kept by the contractor shall document the
following:
(1) The number of minority and non -minority group
members and women employed in each work classification on the
project;
(2) The progress and efforts being made in cooperation
with unions, when applicable, to increase employment opportunities
for minorities and women;
(3) The progress and efforts being made in locating, hiring,
training, qualifying, and upgrading minority and female employees,
and
(4) The progress and efforts being made in securing the
services of DBE subcontractors or subcontractors with meaningful
minority and female representation among their employees.
b. The contractors will submit an annual report to the SHA
Rage 2 Form FHWA-1273 (Rev. 3-94)
each July for the duration of the project, indicating the number of
minority, women, and non -minority group employees currently
engaged in each work classification required by the contract work,
This information is to be reported on Form FHWA-1 391 . If on -the
job training is being required by special provision, the contractor will
be required to collect and report training data,
Ill. NONSEGREGATED FACILITIES
(Applicable to all Federal -aid construction contracts and to all
related subcontracts of $10,000 or more.)
a, By submission of this bid, the execution of this contract or
subcontract, or the consummation of this material supply agreement
or purchase order, as appropriate, the bidder, Federal -aid construc-
tion contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, or vendor, as
appropriate, certifies that the firm does not maintain or provide for its
employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and
that the firm does not permit its employees to perform their services
at any location, under its control, where segregated facilities are
maintained. The firm agrees that a breach of this certification is a
violation of the EEO provisions of this contract. The firm further
certifies that no employee will be denied access to adequate facilities
on the basis of sex or disability,
b, As used in this certification, the term "segregated facilities
means any waiting rooms, work areas, restrooms and washrooms,
restaurants and other eating areas, fimeclocks, locker rooms, and
other storage or dressing areas, parking lots, drinking fountains,
recreation or entertainment areas, transportation, and housing
facilities provided for employees which are segregated by explicit
directive, or are, in fact, segregated on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, age or disability, because of habit, local
custom, or otherwise. The only exception wilt be for the disabled
when the demands for accessibility override (e.g. disabled parking).
c, 'The contractor agrees that it has obtained or will obtain
identical certification from proposed subcontractors or material
suppliers prior to award of subcontracts or consummation of material
supply agreements of $10,000 or more and that it will retain such
certifications in its files.
IV, PAYMENT OF PREDETERMINED MINIMUM WAGE
(Applicable to all Federal -aid construction contracts exceeding
$2,000 and to all related subcontracts, except for projects located on
roadways classified as local roads or rural minor collectors, which are
lk
exempt.
1. General:
a, All mechanics and laborers employed or working upon the
site of the work will be paid unconditionally and not less often than
once a week and without subsequent deduction or rebate on any
account [except such payroll deductions as are permitted by
regulations (29 CFR 3) issued by the Secretary of Labor under the
Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. 276c)] the full amounts of wages and bona
fide fringe benefits (or cash equivalents thereof) due at time of
payment. The payment shall be computed at wage rates not less
than those contained in the wage determination of the Secretary of
Labor (hereinafter "the wage determination") which is attached hereto
and made a part hereof, regardless of any contractual relationship
which may be alleged to exist between the contractor or its subcon-
tractors and such laborers and mechanics. The wage determination
(including any additional classifications and wage rates conformed
under paragraph 2 of this Section IV and the DOL poster (WH- 132 1 )
or Form FHWA-149,5) shall be posted at all times by the contractor
and its subcontractors at the site of the work in a prominent and
accessible place where it can be easily seen by the workers. For the
purpose of this Section, contributions made or costs reasonably
anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits under Section 1 (b)(2) of the
Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a)on behalf of laborers or mechanics
are considered wages paid to such laborers or mechanics, subject to
the provisions of Section IV, paragraph 3b, hereof. Also, for the
purpose of this Section, regular contributions made or costs incurred
for more than a weekly period (but not less often than quarterly)
under plans, funds, or programs, which cover the particular weekly
period, are deemed to be constructively made or incurred during such
weekly period. Such laborers and mechanics shall be paid the
appropriate wage rate and fringe benefits on the wage determination
for the classification of work actually performed, without regard to
skill., except as pmvided in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Section IV.
b. Laborers or mechanics performing work in more than one
classification may be compensated at the rate specified for each
classification for the time actually worked therein, provided, that the
employer's payroll records accurately set forth the time spent in each
classification in which work is performed,
c. All rulings and interpretations of the Davis -Bacon Act and
related acts contained in 29 CFR 1, 3, and 5 are herein incorporated
by reference in this contract.
2. Classification:
a. The SHA contracting officer shall require that any class of
laborers or mechanics employed under the contract, which is not
listed in the wage determination, shall be classified in conformance
with the wage determination.
b. The contracting officer shall approve an additional classifica-
tion, wage rate and fringe benefits only when the following criteria
have been met:
(1) the work to be performed by the additional classifica-
tion requested is not performed by a classification in the wage
determination;
(2) the additional classification is utilized in the area by the
construction industry;
(3) the proposed wage rate, including any bona fide fringe
benefits, bears a reasonable relationship to the wage rates contained
in the wage determination; and
(4) with respect to helpers, when such a classification
prevails in the area in which the work is performed.
c. If the contractor or subcontractors, as appropriate, the
laborers and mechanics (if known) to be employed in the additional
classification or their representatives, and the contracting officer
agree on the classification and wage rate (including the amount
designated for fringe benefits where appropriate), a report of the
action taken shall be sent by the contracting officer to the DOL,
Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards
Administration, Washington, D.C. 20210. The Wage and Hour
Administrator, or an authorized representative, will approve, modify,
or disapprove every additional classification action within 30 days of
receipt and so advise the contracting officer or will notify the contract-
ing officer within the 30-day period that additional time is necessary.
d. In the event the contractor or subcontractors, as appropri-
ate, the laborers or mechanics to be employed in the additional
classification or their representatives, and the contracting officer do
not agree on the proposed classification and wage rate (including the
amount designated for fringe benefits, where appropriate), the
contracting officer shall refer the questions, including the views of all
interested parties and the recommendation of the contracting officer,
to the Wage and Hour Administrator for determination, Said
Administrator, or an authorized representative, will issue a determina-
tion within 30 days of receipt and so advise the contracting officer or
will notify the contracting officer within the 30-day period that
additional time is necessary
e. The wage rate (including fringe benefits where appropriate)
determined pursuant to paragraph 2c or 2d of this Section IV shall be
paid to all workers performing work in the additional classification
from the first day on which work is performed in the classification,
3. Payment of Fringe Benefits:
a. Whenever the minimum wage rate prescribed in the contract
for a class of laborers or mechanics includes a fringe benefit which
is not expressed as an hourly rate, the contractor or subcontractors,
as appropriate, shall either pay the benefit as stated in the wage
determination or shall pay another bona fide fringe benefit or an
hourly case equivalent thereof,
b. If the contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate, does not
make payments to a trustee or other third person, he/she may
consider as a part of the wages of any laborer or mechanic the
amount of any costs reasonably anticipated in providing bona fide
fringe benefits under a plan of, program, provided, that the Secretary
of Labor has found, upon the written request of the contractor, that
the applicable standards of the Davis -Bacon Act have been met. The
Secretary of Labor may require the contractor to set aside in a
separate account assets for the meeting of obligations under the plan
or program,
Form FHWA- 1273 (Rev. 3-94) Pago 3
4, Apprentices and Trainees (Programs of the U.S. DOL) and
Helpers-,
a. Apprentices,
(1) Apprentices will be permitted to work at less than the
predetermined rate for the work they performed when they are
employed pursuant to and individually registered in a bona fide
apprenticeship program registered with the DOL, Employment and
Training Administration, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, or
with a State apprenticeship agency recognized by the Bureau, or if a
person is employed in his/her first 90 days of probationary employ-
ment as an apprentice in such an apprenticeship program, who is not
individually registered in the program, but who has been certified by
the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training or a State apprenticeship
agency (where appropriate) to be eligible for probationary employ-
ment as an apprentice,
(2) The allowable ratio of apprentices to journeyman -level
employees on the job site in any craft classification shall not be
greater than the ratio permitted to the contractor as to the entire work
force under the registered program. Any employee I isted on a payroll
at an apprentice wage rate, who is not registered or otherwise
empic, Tas stated above, shall be paid not less than the applicable
wage rate listed in the wage determination for the classification of
work actually performed. In addition, any apprentice performing work
on the job site in excess of the ratio permitted under the registered
program shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the
wage determination for the work actually performed. Where a
contractor or subcontractor is performing construction on a project in
a locality other than that in which its program is registered, the ratios
and wage rates (expressed in percentages of the journeyman -level
hourly rate) specified in the contractor's or subcontractor's registered
program shall he observed.
(3) Every apprentice must be paid at not less than the rate
specified in the registered program for the apprentice's level of
progress, expressed as a percentage of the journeyman -level houdy
rate specified in the applicable wage determination. Apprentices
shall be paid fringe benefits in accordance with the provisions of the
apprenticeship program, If the apprenticeship program does not
specify fringe benefits, apprentices must be paid the full amount of
fringe benefits listed on the wage determination for the applicable
classification. If the Administrator for the Wage and Hour Division
determines that a different practice prevails for the applicable
apprentice classification, fringes shall be paid in accordance with that
determination,
(4) In the event the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training,
or a State apprenticeship agency recognized by the Bureau, with-
draws approval of an apprenticeship program, the contractor or
subcontractor will no longer be permitted to utilize apprentices at less
than the applicable predetermined rate for the comparable work
performed by regular employees until an acceptable program is
approved.
b, Trainees:
(1) Except as provided in 29 CFR 5,16, trainees will not be
permitted to work at less than the predetermined rate for the work
performed unless they are employed pursuant to and individually
registered in a program which h a s received prior approval, evidenced
by formal certification by the DOL, Employment and Training
Administration.
(2) The ratio of trainees to journeyman -level employees on
the job site shall not be greater than permitted under the plan
approved by the Employment and Training Administration, Any
employee listed on the payroll at a trainee rate who is not registered
and participating in a training plan approved by the Employment and
Training Administration shall be paid not less than the applicable
wage rate on the wage determination for the classification of work
actually performed. In addition, any trainee performing work on the
job site in excess of the ratio permitted under the registered program
shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage
determination for the work actually performed.
(3) Every trainee must be paid at not less than the rate
specified in the approved program for his/her level of progress,
expressed as a percentage of the journeyman -level hourly rate
specified in the applicable wage determination. Trainees shall be
paid fringe benefits in accordance with the provisions of the trainee
program, If the trainee program does not mention fringe benefits,
trainees shall be paid the full amount of fringe benefits listed on the
wage determination unless the Administrator of the Wage and Hour
Division determines that there is an apprenticeship program associ-
ated with the corresponding journeyman -level wage rate on the wage
determination which provides for less than full fringe benefits for
apprentices, in which case such trainees shall receive the sarne
fringe benefits as apprentices.
(4) In the event the Employment and Training Administra-
tion withdraws approval of a training program, the contractor or
subcontractor will no longer be permitted to utilize trainees at less
than the applicable predetermined rate for the work performed until
an acceptable program is approved.
c. Helpers:
Helpers will be permitted to work on a project if the helper
classification is specified and defined on the applicable wage
determination or is approved pursuant to the conformance procedure
set forth in Section IV.2. Any worker listed on a payroll at a helper
wage rate, who is not a helper under a approved definition, shall be
paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage determina-
tion for the classification of work actually performed.
5. Apprentices and Trainees (Programs of the U.S. DOT)-.
Apprentices and trainees working under apprenticeship and skill
training programs which have been certified by the Secretary of
Transportation as promoting EEO in connection with Federal -aid
highway construction programs are not subject to the requirements
of paragraph 4 of this Section IV_ The straight time hourly wage rates
for apprentices and trainees under such programs will be established
by the particular programs. The ratio of apprentices and trainees to
journeymen shall not be greater than permitted by the terms of the
particular program.
6, Withholding:
The SHA shall upon its own action or upon written request of
an authorized representative of the DOL withhold, or cause to be
withheld, from the contractor or subcontractor under this contract or
any other Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any
other Federally -assisted contract subject to Davis -Bacon prevailing
wage requirements which is held by the same prime contractor, as
much of the accrued payments or advances as may be considered
necessary to pay laborers and mechanics, including apprentices,
trainees, and helpers, employed by the contractor or any subcontrac-
tor the full amount of wages required by the contract, In the event of
failure to pay any laborer or mechanic, including any apprentice,
trainee, or helper, employed or working on the site of the work, all or
part of the wages required by the contract, the SHA contracting officer
may, after written notice to the contractor, take such action as may be
necessary to cause the suspension of any further payment, advance,
or guarantee of funds until such violations have ceased.
7. Overtime Requirements-,
No contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the
contract work which may require or involve the employment of
laborers, mechanics, watchmen, or guards (including apprentices,
trainees, and helpers described in paragraphs 4 and 5 above) shall
require or permit any laborer, mechanic, watchman, or guard in any
workweek in which he/she is employed on such work, to work in
excess of 40 hours in such workweek unless such laborer, mechanic,
watchman, or guard receives compensation at a rate not less than
one -and -one-half times his/her basic rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in such workweek,
8. Violation:
Liability for Unpaid Wages; Liquidated Damages: In the event
of any violation of the clause set forth in paragraph 7 above, the
contractor and any subcontractor responsible thereof shall be liable
to the affected employee for his/her unpaid wages. In addition, such
contractor and subcontractor shall be liable to the United States (in
the case of work done under contract for the District of Columbia or
a territory, to such District or to such territory) for liquidated damages.
Such liquidated damages shall be computed with respect to each
individual laborer, mechanic, watchman, or guard emplo Iri
violation of the clause set forth in paragraph 7, in the sum of MO for
each calendar day on which such employee was required or permit-
ted to work in excess of the standard work week of 40 hours without
payment of the overtime wages required by the clause set forth in
paragraph 7.
9. Withholding for Unpaid Wages and Liquidated Damages:
Page 4 Form FHWA-1273 (Rev. 3-94)
The SHA shall upon its own action or upon written request of any
authorized representative of the DOL withhold, or cause to be
withheld, from any monies payable on account of work performed by
the contractor or subcontractor under any such contract or any other
Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any other
Federally -assisted contract subject to the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act, which is held by the same prime contractor,
such sums as may be determined to be necessary to satisfy any
liabilities of such contractor or subcontractor for unpaid wages and
liquidated damages as provided in the clause set forth in paragraph
8 above.
V. STATEMENTS AND PAYROLLS
(Applicable to all Federal -aid construction contracts exceeding
$2,000 and to all related subcontracts, except for projects located on
roadways classified as local roads or rural collectors, which are
exempt,)
1. Compliance with Copeland Regulatlons (29 CFR 3)**
The contractor shall comply with the Copeland Regulations of the
Secretary of Labor which are herein incorporated by reference.
2. Payrolls and Payroll Records-,
a. Payrolls and basic records relating thereto shall be
maintained by the contractor and each subcontractor during the
course of the work. and preserved for a period of 3 years from the
date of completion of the contract for all laborers, mechanics,
apprentices, trainees, watchmen, helpers, and guards working at the
site of the work.
b. The Payroll records shall contain the name, social security
number, and address of each such employee; his or her correct
classification; hourly rates of wages paid (including rates of contribu-
tions or costs anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits or cash
equivalent thereof the types described in Section 1 (b)(2)(B) of the
Davis Bacon Act); daily and weekly number of hours worked;
deductions made; and actual wages paid. In addition, for Appala-
chian contracts, the payroll records shall contain a notation indicating
whether the employee does, or does not, normally reside in the labor
area as defined in Attachment A, paragraph 1. Whenever the
Secretary of Labor, pursuant to Section IV, paragraph 3b, has found
that the wages of any laborer or mechanic include the amount of any
costs reasonably anticipated in providing benefits under a plan or
program described in Section 1 (b)(2)(B) of the Davis Bacon Act, the
contractor and each subcontractor shall maintain records which show
that the commitment to provide such benefits is enforceable, that the
plan or program is financially responsible, that the plan or program
has been communicated in writing to the laborers or mechanics
affected, and show the cost anticipated or the actual cost incurred in
providing benefits. Contractors or subcontractors employing
apprentices or trainees under approved programs shall maintain
written evidence of the registration of apprentices and trainees, and
ratios and wage rates prescribed in the applicable programs.
c. Each contractor and subcontractor shall furnish, each week
in which any contract work is performed, to the SHA resident
engineer a payroll of wages paid each of its employees (including
apprentices, trainees, and helpers, described in Section IV, para-
graphs 4 and 5, and watchmen and guards engaged on work during
the preceding weekly payroll period). The payroll submitted shall set
Out accurately and completely all of the information required to be
maintained tinder paragraph 2b of this Section V. This information
n-iay be submitted in any form desired. Optional Form WH-347 is
available for this purpose and may be purchased from the Superin-
tendent of Documents (Federal stock number 029-005-0014-1), U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The prime
contractor is responsible for the submission of copies of payrolls by
all subcontractors.
1 Each payroll submitted shall be accompanied by a "State-
rnent of Compliance," signed by the contractor or subcontractor or
his/her agent who pays or supervises the payment of the persons
employed under the contract and shall certify the following:
( 1 ) that the payroll for the payroll period contains the
information required to be maintained under paragraph 2b of this
Sect -ton V and that such information is correct and complete:
(2) that such laborer or mechanic (including each helper,
apprentice, and trainee) employed on the contract during the payroll
period has been paid the full weekly wages earned, without rebate,
either directly or indirectly, and that no deductions have been made
either directly or indirectly from the full wages earned, other than
permissible deductions as set forth in the Regulations, 29 CFR 3;
(3) that each laborer or mechanic has been paid not less
that the applicable wage rate and fringe benefits or cash equivalent
for the classification of worked performed, as specified in the
applicable wage determination incorporated into the contract.
e. The weekly submission of a properly executed certification
set forth on the reverse side of Optional Form WH-347 shall satis
the requirement for submission of the 'Statement of Compliance
required by paragraph 2d of this Section V.
f . The falsification of any of the above certifications may
subject the contractor to civil or criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C.
1001 and 31 U3,C- 231.
g. The contractor or subcontractor shall make the records
required under paragraph 2b of this Section V available for inspec-
tion, copying, or transcription by authorized representatives of the
SHA, the FHWA, or the DOL, and shall permit such representatives
to interview employees during working hours on the job. If the
contractor or subcontractor fails to submit it the required records or to
make them available, the SHA, the FHWA, the DOL, or all may, after
written notice to the contractor, sponsor, applicant, or owner, take
such actions as may be necessary to cause the suspension of any
further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds. Furthermore,
failure to submit the required records upon request or to make such
records available may be grounds for debarment action pursuant to
29 CFR 5.12.
V1. RECORD OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, AND LABOR
1, On all Federal -aid contracts on the National Highway System,
except those which provide solely for the installation of protective
devices at railroad grade crossings, those which are constructed on
a force account or direct labor basis, highway beautification contracts,
and contracts for which the total final construcfion cost for roadwa
and bridge is less than $1,000,000 (23 CFR 635) the contractor shah
a. Become familiar with the list of specific materials and
supplies contained in Form FHWA-47, "Statement of Materials and
Labor Used by Contractor of Highway Construction Involving Federal
Funds," prior to the commencement of work under this contract,
b. Maintain a record of the total cost of all materials and
supplies purchased for and incorporated in the work, and also of the
quantities of those specific materials and supplies listed on Form
FHWA-47, and in the units shown on Form FHWA47,
c. Furnish, upon the completion of the contract, to the SHA
resident engineer on Form FHWA-47 together with the data required
in paragraph 1 b relative to materials and supplies, a final labor
summary of all contract work indicating the total hours worked and
the total amount earned,
2. At the prime contractor's option, either a single report covering
all contract work or separate reports for the contractor and for each
subcontract shall be submitted.
1t11. SUBLETTING OR ASSIGNING THE CONTRACT
1, The contractor shall perform with its own organization contract
work amounting to not less than 30 percent (or a greater percentage
if specified elsewhere in the contract) of the total original contract
price, excluding any specialty items designated by the State.
Specialty items may be performed by subcontract and the amount of
any such specialty items performed may be deducted from the total
original contract price before computing the amount of work required
to be performed by the contractor's own organization (23 CFR 635)
a. Its own organization" shall be construed to include only
workers employed and paid directly by the prime contractor and
equipment owned or rented by the prime contractor, with or without
operators. Such term does not include employees or equipment of
Form FHWA-1273 (Rev, 3-94) Page 5
a subcontractor., assignee, or agent of the prime contractor,
b. "Specialty Items" shall be construed to be limited to work
that requires highly specialized knowledge, abilities, orequipment not
ordinarily available in the type of contracting organizations qualified
and expected to bid on the contract as a whole and in general are to
be limited to minor components of the overall contract.
2. The contract amount upon which the requirements set forth in
paragraph 1 of Section VII is computed includes the cost of material
and manufactured products which are to be purchased or produced
by the contractor tinder the contract provisions.
3. The contractor shall furnish (a) a competent superintendent or
supervisor who is employed by the firm, has full authority to direct
performance of the work in accordance with the contract require-
ments, and is in charge of all construction operations (regardless of
who performs the work) and (b) such other of its own organizational
resources (supervision, management, and engineering services) as
the SHA contracting officer determines is necessary to assure the
performance of the contract,
4. No portion of the contract shall be sublet, assigned or otherwise
disposed of except with the written consent of the SHA contracting
officer, or authorized representative, and such consent when given
shall not be construed to relieve the contractor of any responsibility
for the fulfillment of the contract. Written consent will be given only
after the SHA has assured that each subcontract is evidenced in
writing and that it contains all pertinent provisions and requirements
of the prime contract.
11111. SAFETY: ACCIDENT PREVENTION
1. In the performance of this contract the contractor shall comply
with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws governing safety,
health, and sanitation (23 CFR 635). The contractor shall provide all
safeguards, safety devices and protective equipment and take any
other needed actions as it determines, or as the SHA contracting
officer may determine, to be reasonably necessary to protect the life
and health of employees on the job and the safety of the public and
to protect property in connection with the performance of the work
covered by the contract.
2. It is a condition of this contract, and shall be made a condition
of each subcontract, which the contractor enters into pursuant to this
contract, that the contractor and any subcontractor shall not permit
any employee, in performance of the contract, to work in surround-
ings or under conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or danger-
ous to his/her health or safety, as determined under construction
safety and health standards (29 CFR 1926) promulgated by the
Secretary of Labor, in accordance with Section 107 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333).
3. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1926.3, it is a condition of this contract that
the Secretary of Labor or authorized representative thereof, shall
have right of entry to any site of contract performance to inspect or
investigate the matter of compliance with the construction safety and
health standards and to carry out the duties of the Secretary under
Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(40 U,S-C, 333).
IX, FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNING HIGHWAY PROJECTS
In order to assure high quality and durable construction in confor-
mity with approved plans and specifications and a high degree of
reliability on statements and representations made by engineers,
contractors, suppliers, and workers on Federal -aid highway projects,
it is essential that all persons concerned with the project perform their
functions as carefully, thoroughly, and honestly as possible. Willful
falsification, distortion, or misrepresentation with respect to any facts
related to the project is a violation of Federal law. To prevent any
misunderstanding regarding the seriousness of these and similar
acts, the following notice shall be posted on each Federal -aid
highway project (23 CFR 635) in one or more places where it is
readily available to all persons concerned with the project.
NOTICE TO ALL PERSONNEL ENGAGED ON FEDERAL -AID
HIGHWAY PROJECTS
18 U&C, 1020 reads as follows:
"Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United
States, or of any State or Territory, or whoever, whether a person,
association, firm, or corporation, knowingly makes any false state-
ment, false representation, or false report as to the character, quality,
quantity, or cost of the material used or to be used, or the quantity or
quality of the w" performed or to be perforated, or the cost thereof
in connection with the submission of plans, maps, specifications,
contracts, or costs of construction on any highway or related project
submitted for approval to the Secretary of Transportation; or
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement, false representa-
tion, false report or false claim with respect to the character, quality,
quantity, or cost of any work performed or to be performed, or
materials furnished or to be furnished, in connection with the
construction of any highway or related project approved by the
Secretary of Transportation; or
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or false representa-
tion as to material fact in any statement, certificate, or report
submitted pursuant to provisions of the Federal -aid Roads Act
approved July 1, 1916, (39 Stat. 355), as amended and supple-
mented;
Shall be fined not more that $10,000 or imprisoned not more than
5 years or both. ro
X. IMPLEMENTATION OF CLEAN AIR ACT AND FEDERAL
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
(Applicable to all Federal -aid construction contracts and to all related
subcontracts of $100,000 or more.)
By submission of this bid or the execution of this contract, or
subcontract, as appropriate, the bidder, Federal -aid construction
contractor, or subcontractor, as appropriate, will be deemed to have
stipulated as follows:
1 - That any facility that is or will be utilized in the performance of this
contract, unless such contract is exempt under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq., as amended by Pub.L. 91-604),
and under the Federal daterPollution Control Act, as amended (33
U, S - C - 12 51 et seq , as amended by Pu b. L . 92-50 0), Executive Order
11738, and re_g_Wations in implementation thereof (40 CFR 15) is not
listed, on the date of contract award, on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) List of Violating Facilities pursuant to 40
CFR 15.20,
2, That the firm agrees to comply and remain in compliance with all
t h e requirements of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act and Section 308
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and all regulations and
guidelines listed thereunder.
3. That the firm shall promptly notify the SHA of the receipt of any
communication from the Director, Office of Federal Activities, EPA,
indicating that a facility that is or will be utilized for the contract is
under consideration to be listed on the EPA List of Violating Facilities.
4. That the firm agrees to include or cause to be included the
requirements of paragraph I through 4 of this Section X in every
nonexempt subcontract, and further agrees to take such action as t h e
government may direct as a means of enforcing such requirements.
X1. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION,
INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION
1. Instructions for Certification - Primary Covored Transac-
tions:
(Applicable to all Federal -aid contracts - 49 CFR 29)
a. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective
primary participant is providing the certification set out below.
b. The inability of a person to provide the certification set out
below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this
covered transaction. The prospective participant shall submit an
explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below.
The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with
the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this
transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary participant
to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such a
person from participation in this transaction.
c. The certification in this clause is a material representation
of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or
agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later deter-
mined that the prospective primary participant knowingly rendered an
erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the
Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this
Page 6 Form FHWA-1273 (Rev. 3-94)
transaction for cause of default.
d. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate
written notice to the department or agency to whom this proposal is
submifted if any time the prospective primary participant learns that
its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become
erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
e. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred," "suspended,"
ne "iligible,'ower "ltier covered transaction," "particiant," "person,"
0p.
primary covered transaction,�1 it princ""proposal, proposal, and "voluntarily
excluded," as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the
Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive
Order 12549. You may contact the department or agency to which
this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those
regulations,
f. The prospective primary participant agrees by submitting this
proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered
into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transac-
tion with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible,
or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction,
unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this
transaction.
9. The prospective primary participant further agrees by
submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled "Certifica-
tion Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary
Exclusion -Lower Tier Covered Transaction," provided by the
department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without
modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicita-
tions for lower tier covered transactions.
h. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered
transaction that is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the
certification is erroneous, A participant may decide the method and
frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each
participant may, but is not required to, check the nonprocurement
portion of the "Lists of Parties Excluded From Federal Procurement
or Nonprocurement Programs" (Nonprocurement List) which is
compiled by the General Services Administration,
i, Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to
require establishment of a system of records in order to render in
good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge
and information of participant is not required to exceed that which is
normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of
business dealings.
j. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph f of
these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly
enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is
suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available
to the Federal Government, t h e department or agency may terminate
this transaction for cause or default.
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility
and Voluntary Exclusion --Primary Covered Transactions
1. The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its
knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
a. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered
transactions by any Federal department or agency;
b. Have not within a 3-year period preceding this proposal
been convicted of or had a civil judgement rendered against them for
commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtain-
ing, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or
local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of
Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement,
theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making
false statements, or receiving stolen property;
c. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly
charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or local) with
commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph 1 b of
this certification; and
d. Have not within a 3-year period preceding this applica-
tion/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State or
local) terminated for cause or default.
2. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to
any of t h e statements in this certification, such prospective participant
shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
2. Instructions for Certification -Lower Tier Covered Transac.
Lions:
(Applicable to all subcontracts, purchase orders and other lower
tier transactions of $25,000 or more - 49 CFR 29)
a. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective
lower tier is providing the certification set out below.
b. The certification in this clause is a material representation
of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was
entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier
participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition
to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the depart-
ment, or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue
available remedies, including suspension andlor debarment.
c. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immedi-
ate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if
at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its
certification was erroneous by reason of changed circumstances,
d. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred," "suspended,"
'.ineligible," "primary covered transaction "participant 'person,"
"principal," "'proposal," and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this
clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage
sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may
contact the person to which this proposal is submitted for assistance
in obtaining a copy of those regulations.
e. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting
this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be
entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered
transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered
transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with
which this transaction originated,
f. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by
submitting this proposal that it will include this clause titled "Certifica-
tion Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary
Exclusion -Lower Tier Covered Transaction," without modification, in
all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier
covered transactions.
g. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered
transaction that is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the
certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and
Form FHWA-1273 (Rev. 3-94) Page 7
frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each
participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement
List.
h. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to
require establishment of a system of records in order to render in
good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge
and information of participant is not required to exceed that which is
normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of
business dealings,
i, Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 9 of
these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly
enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is
suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
partici tion in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available
to t h e �ederaI Government, the department or agency with which this
transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including
suspension and/or debarment.
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility
and Voluntary Exclusion —Lower Tier Covered Transactions;
I - The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of
this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred,
suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or volun-
tarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal
department or agency,
2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify
to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective
participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
XIL CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF CONTRACT FUNDS
FOR LOBBYING
(Applicable to all Federal -aid construction contracts and to all
related subcontracts which exceed $100,000 - 49 CFR 20)
1. The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting
this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief,
that:
a. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be
paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing
or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress,
or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the
awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant,
the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative
agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement.
b. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have
been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting
to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member
of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of
a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant,
loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and
submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,* in
accordance with its instructions.
Z. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which
reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into,
Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making orentering
into this transaction imposed by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Any person who
fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty
of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such
failure.
3. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her
bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the language of this
certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts, which exceed
$100,000 and that all such recipients shall certify and disclose
accordingly.
Page a Form FHWA-1273 (Rev, 3-94)
ATTACHMENT A - EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE FOR
APPALACHIAN CONTRACTS
(Applicable to Appalachian contracts only.)
1. During the performance of this contract, the contractor under-
taking to do work which is, or reasonably may be, done as on -site
work, shall give preference to qualified persons who regularly reside
in the labor area as designated by the DOL wherein the contract work
is situated, or the subregion, or the Appalachian counties of the State
wherein the contract work is situated, except:
a. To the extent that qualified persons regularly residing in
the area are not available,
b. For the reasonable needs of the contractor to employ
supervisory or specially experienced personnel necessary to assure
an efficient execution of the contract work.
c. For the obligation of the contractor to offer employment to
present or former employees as the result of a lawful collective
bargaining contract, provided that the number of nonresident persons
employed under this subparagraph 1 c shall not exceed 2 0 percent of
the total number of employees employed by the contractor on the
contract work, except as provided in subparagraph 4 below,
2. The contractor shall place ajob order with the State Employ-
ment Service indicating (a) the classifications of the laborers,
mechanics and other employees required to perform the contract
work, (b) the number of employees required in each classification,
(c) the date on which he estimates such employees will be required,
and (d) any other pertinent information required by the State Employ-
ment Service to complete the job order form. The job order may be
placed with the State Employment Service in writing or by telephone.
if during the course of the contract work, the information submitted by
the contractor in the original job order is substantially modified, he
shall promptly notify the State Employment Service.
3. The contractor shall give full consideration to all qualified job
applicants referred to him by the State Employment Service, The
contractor is not required to grant employment to any job applicants
who, in his opinion, are not qualified to perform the classification of
work required.
4. If, within 1 week following the placing of a job order by the
contractor with the State Employment Service, the State Employment
Service is unable to refer any qualified job applicants to the contrac-
tor, or less than the number requested, the State Employment
Service will forward a certificate to the contractor indicating the
unavailability of applicants. Such certificate shall be made a part of
the contractor's permanent project records. Upon receipt of this
certificate, the contractor may employ persons who do not normally
reside in the labor area to fill positions covered by the certificate,
notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph Ic above.
5. The contractor shall include the provisions of Sections I
through 4 of this Attachment A in every subcontract for work which is,
or reasonably may be, done as on -site work.
Form FHWA-1273 (Rev. 3-94) page 9
a too ti
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting
2010 Schedule of Fees
(Standard A — except California)
Effective: February 17, 2010
1. Personnel
Charges will be made at the following rates for time spent in pro'Ject management,
consultation or meetings related to the project, conducting field inspections, sampling,
evaluations, review and analysis of field and laboratory data, report preparation and
review, design, travel time, etc.
Time spent on projects in litigation, in depositions and providing expert testimony will be
charged at the standard rate times 2.0. Technician and Support Personnel time for work
over 8 hours per day and on holidays, Saturday and Sunday will be charged at the
standard rate times 1.5.
A. Professional (Engineer, J, Scientist and Pro Geologist, istProject Management)
Staff I
Staff 11.
Prof ect
Sen ior
Principal/Project Manager
..Senior Principal/Senior Project Manager
Chief Engineer/Scientist
Special Rate Personnel*
$7 LOO/hour
$77.00/ hour
$86.00/hour
$109.00/hour
$155.00/hour
$159.00ihour
$194.00/bOLir
,Separate Schedule
Special Rate Personnel identified by name (such as certain Senior Principals with
specialized expertise) will be billed at a special rate identified for individLial
projects.
B. Technical Services (Engineering and Science)
Technician I
Technician 11
Senior Technician I
Senior Technician 11
Principal Technicians and Specialty Technicians (i,e.,
persons holding specialized certifications)
Project Administrator/Project Coordinator/Subcontract
Administrator/Project Accountant
Technical Writer/Document Processor
CARD/Draftsperson (includes PC/CAD) I
CADD/Draftsperson (includes PC/CAD 11
Admin I
Admin 11
$45.00/hour
$55.00/hour
$60.00/liour
$70.00/hour
Separate Schedule
$75.00/hOUr
$78.00/hour
$66.00/hour
$ 10 1.00/hour
$40.00/hour
$52.00/hour
2010 Schedule of Fees
Standard A
In
C. Surveying Services
Field Surveyor I
Field Surveyor 11
Survey Technician I
Survey Technician 11
Survey Party Chief
D. Information Management
Software -Engineer ' Data Technician
Senior ' Software Engineer
Business Analyst
E. Contract Labor
$43 .00/hour
$47.00/hour
$67.00/hour
$72.00/hour
$75 .00/hour
$92.00/hour
$132.00/hour
$162.00/hour
$132.00/hour
From time to time, MACTEC retains outside Professional and Technical labor on a
temporary basis to meet peak workload demands. Such contract labor will be charged
at regular Schedule of Charges rates.
Note-, Personnel rates shown in the above fee schedule apply to project charges through
January 20, 2011. On January 21 st of each subsequent year, labor rates invoiced on
projects will be increased by 3.5% to reflect annual cost of labor increases.
Expenses
A. Travel Expenses
1. Transportation: Company pickup truck/personal vehicle, per mile - $0.445
a. Company pickup truck per day - $75
b. Common carrier or car rental multiplied by (as covered in 7.3.1 of the
Contract to the amounts authorized by Section 112.061, Florida Statutes)
2. Per Diem expenses: direct expenses in accordance with Florida State Statutes.
B. Disposal of Hazardous Waste Samples
Samples of waste will be disposed by permitted methods after a determination is
made that the waste is defined by RCRA to be hazardous. Due to the requirements
for some hazardous assessments, disposal and invoicing of incurred expenses may
take place after invoicing of the originally contracted work.
2
20 10 Schedule of Fees
Standard A
C Equiptent/ Other Expenses
Digital Field Documentation Equipment (cameras, water
level & measuring tapes, GPS units, etc.)
Geophysical Equipment
Geotechnical & Environmental Monitoring & Sampling
Equipment
Special equipment or supplies, permits, shipping charges,
special printing or other items not customarily provided by
MACTEC will be charged at cost multiplied by 1. 15
D. Communications
Separate Schedule
Separate Schedule
Separate Schedule
In-house costs for long-distance phone, telex, telecopier, postage - project labor
charges x 5%.
Ill. Subcontracts
Subcontract services will be invoiced at cost multiplied by 1. 15.
11
MACTEC Engineen*ng and Consulting
2010 Schedule of Fees
(,Standard A — except California)
Effective: February 17,2010
Specialized Personnel
Charges will be made at the following rates for Specialty Engineering time spent in
consultation or meetings related to the project, conducting field inspections, evaluations,
review and analysis, litigation, travel time, etc. These specialty engineers will be
identified prior to work being performed and only when specialty work is requested.
A. Specialized Professional Personnel (Registered Engineers (PE), or other professional
registration as may be required for the specialty.)
Senior Metallurgist (Professional Engineer, CWI)
$194.00/hour
Registered Engineer for Litigation, Depositions, Testimony
$295.00/hour
Senior Structural Engineer (PE)
$194.00/hour
Senior Materials Engineer (PE)
$194.00/hour
Senior forensic Engineer for Failure Analysis (PE)
$1.94. . 00/hour
Senior Environmental Engineer Specialist (PE)
$1.94.00/hour
Special Rate Personnel will be identified by name at the time of request (such as
certain Senior Principals with specialized expertise)
B. Equipment / Other Expenses
(Does not include personnel)
Digital Field Documentation Equipment (cameras'
water level & measuring tapes, GPS units, etc.)
Geophysical Equipment (GPR equipment)
Underwater Camera Equipment/Video up to 50 feet
depth and low turbidity.
Environmental Monitoring & Sampling Equipment
(Dust, OVA, Air Monitoring, Noise Meter, Light
meter)
Special equipment or Supplies, permits, shipping
charges, special printing or other items not
customarily provided by MACTEC
$75/day (min 2 days)
$ 1, 1 00/day (min 2 days)
$1,900/day
$ 100 to $450/day
Depending on the equipment
and scale required.
Actual cost x 1, 15
/�MACTEC
STANDARD FEE SCHEDULE - FIELD SERVICES AND TESTING
Consultant
Description
Units
Unit Price
MACTEC
Double Ring Infiltrometer ------------
EA
$450.00
MACTEC
Adsorption Test - Drilled Core
EA
$85.001
MACTEC
]Part,
Agg< 0.075MM (-200)
............... EA
$40.00
MACTEC
Size Analy. Of soil
EA
$30.00
MACTEC
Asphalt Cores (Interstate) . .. . .... ... . .. .... ....
.... EA
$40.001
MACTEC
Atterberg Limit
EA
$80.00
MACTEC
-ATV-STD. Tires
EA
$600.00
MACTEC
Auger borings/soundings
FT
$9.00
MACTEC
iBuhr Spec. Gravity
EA
$55.00
MACTEC
Chloride Ilon in Soils
EA
$45.00
MACTEC
Comp Strength conc. Cyl. ..................
PER CYL
$15.00
MACTEC
Conc 3x6 spec comp strength
PER CYL
$15-00
MACTEC
Consolidation
EA
$675.00
MACTEC
Corrosion Classification
SAMPLE
$175.00
MACTEC
CPT 0-50
PER FT
$9.50
MACTEC
CPT 100-1500
PER FT
$12.00
MACTEC
CPT 150-200'
PER FT
$15.00
MACTEC
CPT 50-1001
PER FT
$10-50
MACTEC
Crosshole Sonic Logger (CSL)
EA
$350.00
MACTEC
Cure concrete Specimen (only)
............ EA
$10.00
MACTEC
i'D50 Determination
EA
$50.00
MACTEC
Drilled Conc. Cores w/wo rebar
EA
$1 MOO
MACTEC
Elect, bond & resist of water
EA
$50M
MACTEC
Extra SPT -Land 0-50'
PER SAMPLE
$2&00
MACTEC
Extra SPT - Land 100-150'
PER SAMPLE
$40.00
MACTEC
Extra SPT - Land 50-100'
PER SAMPLE
$31.00
MACTEC
Extra SPT - Water 0-501
PER SAMPLE
$37.50
MACTEC
Extra SPT -Water 50-1001
PER SAMPLE
$48.00
MACTEC
Extra SPT - Water 100-1 50P
...............
PER SAMPLE
..............
$44.00
MACTEC
Field Permeability
$425.00
MACTEC
Field vane test
$300.00
MACTEC
Grain -size analysis
$50-00
MACTEC
Ground Penetrating Radar (CPR}
FIR
$260.00
MACTEC
Grouting
FT
$6.00
MACTEC
. . . ................
Gyratory Compaction Asphalt Specimen (1 Pill)
$80.00
MACTEC
Install Monitor well T-1 1
. . . ....................... . .....
$38.00
MACTEC
Install Peizonmeters
$25.00
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
Consultant
.MACTEC
.MACTEC
MACTEC
MACTEC
MACTEC
MACTEC
MACTEC
MACTEC
MACTEC
MACTEC .
MACTEC
.. . .. . ........... . . .... . . ..... . ...... .. ......... ... .
Description
. .... . .
Install Slope indicator casing
LA Abrasion
LBR
Liquid Limit of Soil
LIVIRK Carbonates & organic - Irnrk
Max Spec. Gravity
Mobilization - Truck Mount Drill Rig
Moblization - Cone Truck
Modified Proctor Moist -Den. 1 01b - 18" Drop
Moisture Content
. . ............
MOT Cones/Flags (50 each)
...................................
MOT Flagger
Units
........
DAY
HR
Unit Price
$25-00
$185.001
$300-00
$65.00
$11 O.OQ
$110.00
$450.001
$450,00
$235.00
$45.00
$50.00
PER SALARY/MULTIPLIER
MACTEC
...... ........ ... ..
MOT Mobilization
$180.00
.MACTEC
MOT Supervisor
HR
PER SALARY/MULTIPLIER
.MACTEC
Organic Content Ign Oven
$40.00
,MACTEC
Part. Size Analy. Of soil
$100.00
MACTEC
PDA Rental
DAY
$600.00
MACTEC
. . . .................
PDA-Wave Equation
$375.00
MACTEC
Percolation
TEST
$400.00
MACTEC
Perm. (Constant Head)
TEST
. . .........
$400-00
MACTEC
Perm. (falling head)
TEST
$400.00
MACTEC
Petrograhic exam of hard'd concrete
F-A
$1 A0.00
MACTEC
PH of water
EA
$20.00
MACTEC
Pile Integrity Tester (PIT)
$300.00
MACTEC
Plastic lira it / index of soil
EA
$50.00
MACTEC
Quant extract. Bit. Pay. Mxt.
EA
$125.00
MACTEC
Rk Core 0-50' 4"
FTC.
MACTEC
IMACTEC
Rk Core 100-150'4"
FT
$60.00
MACTEC
Rk Core 150-200' 4
FT
$65.00
MACTEC
Rk Core 50-100' 4"
FT
$55.00
Soundness Test (5 cyc) .. ..............
$225.00
MACTEC
Sp Grav & absp test - coarse
EA
$95-00
MACTEC
Sp gran & Absp Test - fine agg
EA
$95.00
MACTEC
Specific Gravity
EA
$75.00
MACTEC
SPT > 100'Land
FT
$19.00
MACTEC
SPT > 100' Water
FT
$35.00
MACTEC
SPT 0-50'Water
FT
$21.00
MACTEC
SPT 50-100'Land
FT
$15.00
-MACTEC
SPT 50-100'Water
FT
$25.00
MACTEC
SPT 0-50' Land
FT
$12-50
MACTEC
Standard Proctor Mosit.-dens. 5.5lb-1 2" drop
EA
$180.00
MACTEC
Sulphate content in soils
EA
$75.00
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
Consultant
. . ........
Description
. . .. .. ..................... .... . . . .
Units
. ...........................
Unit Price
..........................
MACTEC
. ............
Ternp Casing 3"
FT
.. ............. ......................
$10-00
MACTEC
Temp Casing 4"
FT
$12.00
MACTEC
Temp Casing 6"
FT
$14.00
MACTEC
Test Drilled cores comp strength
EA
$2T00
MACTEC
Triaxial CD, per point
PER POINT
$245.00
MACTEC
Triaxial CD, per point
PER POINT
$180.00
MACTEC
Triaxial DU, per point
PER POINT
$180.00
MACTEC
Unconfined Compression Test
EA
..........
$125.00
MACTEC
...............
Undisturbed samples
EA
$50.00
MACTEC
Unit Wt. & voids -egg. Test
EA
$50-00
IMACTEC
Work boat
................. ... ........
DAY
$1,500.0
. .. .... ........ 2J
By:
Jacqueline Hart, Manager Construction Services
13-Jan-10
Date
N 0 T SEW *5 :
1, These are MACTEC's Standard Fees whether performed by private or governmental clients unless otherwise
negotiated.
11ACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
MACTINC I
ACORD, CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MWDDtyyyy)
PRODUCER i121281209E
commercial mercial Lines... (770) 850-0050 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
�IIS Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc. HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
4401 Northside Parkway, Suite 400 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES SELOW,
Atlanta, GA 30327
INSURED MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. & MACTEC, Inc.
5845 N.W. 158th Strut
Miami Lakes, FL 33014
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIL #
INSURER A. Zurich American Insurance Co 15535
INSURERS. SteadWt Insurance Company 28387
INSURER C: L yd's, London
INSURER I:
fNStJRER E•
COVERAGES
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ►4Ht�1iE FCiFt THE PCiLICY PERIOD Ii+,ICjICA►TEQ, NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY
CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED
ED OR
MAY PERTAIN, TIME INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
POLICIES, AGGREGATE
LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS
ONS OF SUCH
LTR TYPE INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER
I�?L�Y EFFEC POL—tC EXPRA"nt�N
GENERAL LIABILii"Y
�' GL0225862812
LINIMS
X COMMERCIAL GENERAL L"ILITY
09/01109 o9101110
EACH OCCURRENCE $
1,000,000
DAMAGE TO ejNTIzD
�'
t'I�00
CLAIMS MADE OCCUR
MED F tP ' ane M'r�nl
.€
PERSC' NAL. a ACV INJURY �
1,000, 000
GEN'L AGGREGATE L.fi�e41"i' APPLIES PER:
GENERAL AGGREGATE +
Z000.C�
POLICI PRCT LOC
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGO S
2,000, 00
A AUTOMOBILE uABILITY SAP225$8291�
X 09101109 Q911�1f1£t
ANY A�aT���11r?�
COMBINED LIMIT �
ALL OWNED AUTOS
rsINCA„E
)
�,� A�
SCHEDULED AUTOS
r.ODLYJURY
X MIRED AUTOS
} �
X NON -OWNED AUTOS
BODILY INJURY
(Pet a cddwA) �
PROPERTY DAMAGE
GARAGE LOBRLtTY
Per dent; $
ANY AUTO
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT S
OTHER THAN EA ACC $
8 EXCESSft,NM8RELLA LIASILI7Y SE0855238600 U9/01/09
AUTO ONLY;""'""""""""
AGO �
09/01/10
OCCUR CLAIMS MADE
EACH OCCURRENCE $
4.000,t�
AGGREGATE
4,000,E
DEDUCTIBLE
$
RETENTION
$
A WORKERS COMPENSATION AND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY WC225863012 (AOS) Q91Q11�9 G�9it�111t�
�
x WC STATi� OTH-
ANY PRO�PFtIE�"OI��+,�'t�'riIER9ExECUT[1�E �111�283354Ql2 j,{II�`�ilif'� D�1�11fl9 �9i�'�11C�
OFFICERiMEMMSER EXCLUDED?
E.L. EAICt"IACClI;3EtyT $
I..t1�
If yes, �fibe undw VVC943289901 (Guam) 0910'It09 1�91Q111 �
SPECIAL PROVISIONS bets
E.L. DISEASE . EA EMPLOYEE $
�.�I,
OTHER
C Professional
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $
1,000,i�
QF054509 D911�11�9 a9Id11111......
i.lability
$1,000,000 Each CIOI"
S2.000.000 Ag9nrgee
DESCRIPTION PTION TIONS t L C?+C ATICiN31 VIL�HiCLE$ f EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT f SPECIAL PRovt$R
s
RE, PROP09M IAM To 129 - Monroe County On Call Englneerincg Services Contract Evidence of Insurance
CERTIFICATE HOLDER t"AN['Ii t ATtnil
Monroe County
Attn: Clad( Briggs
1100 Simonton St,, Room 216
Key West, FL 33040
ACORD 25 2001/08) 1 of 2
S14OULD ANY OF THE A8OVLr DESCRIBED PCtUCIS3 BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRAMN
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS 1►YRfMN
NOTICE TO THE CERTIFiCATE HOLDER NAMW TO T14E LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO 00 34 SHALL
IMpo$e NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR
REPRIESENTATt"S.
AUT14OR= REPRESENTATNE
0 ACORD CORPORATION 1988
POLICYNUMBER:57CESOF1487 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 20 37 07 04
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
ADDITIONAL INSURED -OWNERS, LESSEES OR
CONTRACTORS a COMPLETED OPERATIONS
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following. -
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
SCHEDULE
Name Of Additional Insured Person(s)
Or Organziation(s):
iLotaticn And Description Of Com,31ated Onarnflesnift t
Monroe county
1 Board of County Comm 'ss, Re,: All Operations of the Named 1100 Simonton Street loners Insured.
Key West, FL 33040
Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above
will be shown in the Declarations.
Section It - Who Is An Insured Is amended to in-
clude as an additional Insured the person(s) or or.
ganization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with
respect to liability for "bodily injury" or "property
damage" caused, in whole or in part, by "your work"
at the locaflon designated and descn-bed In the
schedule of this endorsement Performed for that ad.
ditional Insured and included In the "products-com.
Pleted Operations hazard".
CG 20 37 07 04 Copyright, ISO Properties, Inc., 2004 Page I of 1
UNIFORM