Item Bah
�14
0 of onroe { BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�� Mayor Heather Carruthers, District 3
,v
( (,„S Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent, District 2
-Me Florida Keys ) � �` �'
�r Danny L. Kolhage, District I
David Rice, District 4
"`"�"'` Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
County Commission Meeting
November 14, 2016
Agenda Item Summary #2363
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Sustainability
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Rhonda Haag (305) 453-8774
9:00 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction for the County's Canal Restoration
Program, determining if and how to proceed with a plan to restore 300 impaired canals in Monroe
County, of which 229 reside in unincorporated Monroe, and how to finance the various costs of
implementing such a program.
ITEM BACKGROUND: The County first moved forward with a Canal Restoration program in
2012, when the first phase of the Masterplan was approved as a result of a $100,000 grant from
FDEP. The second phase of the Masterplan development followed soon after with a $100,000 grant
from FDEP. The formal FKNMS Canal Advisory Subcommittee was formed and they began to hold
regular public meetings and reviewed the submissions of information provided by AMEC as the
Canal Masterplan was developed. Virtually every canal in the county, including all the
municipalities, was visited and tested for water quality. Of the 502 canals visited, 300 were
considered impaired and are not meeting State water quality standards.
In early 2013 the BOCC made the bold move to move forward with $5 million in demonstration
projects, and later that year approved the list of the top 15 worst canals in Monroe County. Amec
was given approval in 2014 to move forward with the design of the demonstration projects. The
original restoration projects were to improve the water quality on 6 canals in Key Largo, Big Pine
Key, and Geiger Key. The objective of the pilot program was to test the efficacy of four different
types of technologies (or combinations thereof) on the canals (backfilling, organic removal, air
curtains, and culverts) and use the improved canals as a predictor for permitting ability, cost and
water quality gains to be achieved. A fifth technology, pumping, was also considered, but due to the
high cost of electricity to power the pumps, that technology and project in Eden Pines on Big Pine
Key was temporarily set aside until additional research into alternative technologies could be
conducted. (The report on alternative technologies for Eden Pine was recently provided).
EPA provided a $300,000 grant to FIU to conduct pre and post water quality and benthic monitoring,
so that an independent scientific evaluation could occur to evaluate the effectiveness of the
demonstration projects. FIU has been conducting water quality research for decades in the nearshore
waters of the Florida Keys.
In January 2015 the first demonstration project began, the culvert connection between Geiger Key
Canal 4470 and 4472, for the lump sum price of $199,641.59. Charlie Toppino and Sons were
awarded the contract. A 24 inch by 38 inch reinforced concrete elliptical culvert was installed under
the road to connect the two dead end canals. The culvert was totally submerged in the canal, to avoid
transporting in seaweed from one canal to the other. The work completed 90 days later. The culvert
was opened and residents noted an immediate increase in the clarity of the water, and an increase in
the numbers of fish in the canal. Unfortunately that spring and summer brought heavy loading of
seaweed worldwide, including into these canals, and residents complained and thought the culvert
was the cause. The County temporarily plugged the culvert to evaluate the situation. In the
meantime, FlU continued to test the waters, and their research showed an immediate improvement in
the levels of oxygen when the culvert was opened and an immediate decline when it closed. Later
that year, AMEC issued a report, which stated that the submerged culvert was not in any significant
way contributing to the seaweed loading in the canals, and offered various options for moving
forward. The County selected the option of opening the culvert, and Toppino removed the plug.
Again, there was a large increase in the amount of flow through the culvert. Research has indicated
a continued increase in the amount of oxygen in the canals.
On March 2015 the second project began, the canal 429 Key Largo backfilling project for $1.36
million. A canal that was nearly 39 feet deep had little oxygen but large amounts of noxious
hydrogen sulfide gas at its bottom depth. Adventure Environmental was selected as the contractor.
Over 890 truckloads of clean fill were brought down from the mainland to fill the canal. The
material was placed on a vacant lot and immediately transported by conveyor belt onto a barge in the
canal, where it was carefully placed in the canal. A few short weeks later in July 2015 the project
was completed, and the canal went from a depth of about 39 feet to 7.5 feet. This new depth allows
full tidal flow through the water column. The monitoring results showed immediate oxygen
improvement and homeowners were overjoyed at the immediate increase in the numbers of fish,
manatee, and other marine life. Seagrass has already begun to grow in the 1 foot layer of sand that
was added to the bottom of the canal to promote such growth. This project requires no operations
and maintenance as no air curtain is needed. The placement of the canal is such that the prevailing
winds do not bring in floating seaweed, as is common with so many other canals.
In May 2015 the third and fourth projects began, the removal of organic muck from canal 4266 in
Dr's Arm on Big Pine Key and canal 4290 on Avenue J in Big Pine Key. Huge amounts of seaweed
had floated in over the past 50 years, choking the canals and causing an accumulation of 5 feet of
decaying muck. This decaying organic material had used up the oxygen from the waters, and the
residents were left with two of the poorest quality, most noxious smelling canals in the county. Some
residents stated they couldn't rent or sell their homes on the canals. JND Thomas was hired for the
$1.9 Million project, and the removal of muck by vacuum dredge began. The water filled muck was
transported to what looked like a small city of various pieces of dewatering equipment, where it was
processed and the solid organic material removed and the clean water returned to the canal. Not only
were 108 truckloads of muck removed, but so were numerous loads of junk and debris that had
accumulated at the bottom of the canal from the various storms over the years. An air curtain was
then installed at the mouth of canal 4266 to keep out the floating seaweed that so heavily plagues the
canals in the area. The homeowners original weed gate was reinstalled on canal 4290. After
completion of both projects in mid-2016, immediate improvements were noted by the residents.
They could once again enjoy sitting on the canal shores. Scientific improvements are slower to
come, as nutrients from wastewater remain in the waters. A 5 foot wall of muck also remains at the
mouth of the canals and extends into the bay. It is hopeful that these canals will improve over the
next two years in water quality, seagrass growth and abundance of sea life.
In April 2016 the fifth and sixth projects began, the installation of two air curtains on canals 4266
and 4287. The County entered into a contract with Earth Tech Enterprises, Inc. for $202,384 to
remove an existing ineffective weed barrier system and install a new air curtain system on Canal
4266 (that had previously received a muck removal restoration technique), and to install a new air
curtain system at Canal 4287 (located between Atlantis Drive and Hollerich Drive in Big Pine Key).
Work began in April and concluded in June 2016. Thus far the air curtains have worked well at
keeping out the floating seaweed and the water quality and seagrass is being tested by FIU. The
amount of time since completion is not yet long enough to offer any scientific conclusion, although
as stated, there is no longer floating seagrass choking these two canals.
Also in April 2016 the seventh demonstration project began, a second culvert installation in Tropical
Bay Estates on Big Pine Key. This project consisted of installing a submerged 60-inch circular
reinforced concrete culvert connecting two segments of Canal 4277 located in Tropical Bay Estates,
Big Pine Key. Work completed in June 2016, and monitoring efforts are underway.
For canal 4277 in Eden Pines, a report has been recently received from AMEC that describes
potential technologies that may be considered as alternates to the original pumping technology
selected.
The property owners on these restored canals have already and will continue to realize benefits as a
result of the restoration work, including but not limited to improved water quality, gains in overall
appearance of their property, increase in property values, and improved use of the canals for fishing,
swimming and other recreational uses.
Additional efforts are now needed to allow the County to continue the Canal Restoration Program.
Nearly 300 impaired canals remain, 229 in unincorporated Monroe. Additional monitoring is
needed to evaluate the technologies used in the original demonstration canals as well as potential
new technologies in order to gauge their effectiveness and make cost predictions for the future.
Testing of alternate technologies is important to determine if they are successful in restoring
impaired canals at lower costs than the traditional technologies. In addition, continued
demonstration projects will allow the County to determine how best to meet the requirements set
forth in the Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document (FKRAD) and thus avoid the imposition
of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) program. It has been 3 years since the BOCC first approved
the demonstration projects. We are now at the juncture where answers are needed to fundamental
questions regarding the future direction of the Canal Restoration Program.
Following are seven questions and recommendations staff proposes to the BOCC for consideration:
a. Shall Monroe County continue with the canal restoration program?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has developed a conservative, incremental approach for
moving forward with the restoration program.
b. Shall the Operations and Maintenance costs for the existing completed demonstration projects
he funded by an MSBU?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has provided a Resolution for approval directing staff to set
up an MSBU and collect special assessments for the O&M costs of the completed demonstration
projects.
c. Shall Monroe County use FYI Stewardship funds in the amount of $1.5 million for the canal
restoration program?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has provided a Resolution for approval directing that the
FYI Stewardship funds be used for the canal restoration program.
d. Shall Monroe County use the RESTORE funds for the canal restoration program?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has provided a Resolution for approval directing that
RESTORE funds be used for the canal restoration program.
e. Shall Monroe County staff move forward with the 6 new demonstration projects at an estimated
cost of $2 Million, using Stewardship and RESTORE funds?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has presented a Resolution for approval directing staff to
move forward with the 6 projects.
f. Shall Monroe County evaluate use of an MSTU to fund program management costs estimated at
$1 Million to pay for master program planning, effectiveness monitoring, empirical data collection
on water connectivity, outreach, program administration, design of alternative technologies and
design and construction of potential new restoration projects so that the FKRAD requirements can
he met and a TMDL may he avoided?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has presented a Resolution for approval directing staff to
continue to research and evaluate moving forward with an MSTU for such purposes.
g. Shall Monroe County staff continue with program planning so that an evaluation can he further
developed for a more accurate cost of the entire program, currently estimated at $300M-$700M, and
to develop methods for overall costs savings, effective restoration technologies, more accurate site
and technology data, and to continue to apply for grants to help pay for a portion of such costs?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has developed a conservative, incremental approach for
moving forward with the restoration program.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
03-21-12: Approval of a $100,000 Grant from FDEP to fund Phase 1 of the Canal Management Master Plan
and also authorized execution of a task order with AMEC under the on -call professional engineering services
contract to develop Phase 1.
09-19-12: Approval of a $100,000 EPA grant that funded Phase 2 of the Canal Master Plan.
03-20-13: Approval of $5 million for the canal restoration demonstration projects.
10-16-13: Approval of the top 15 canals, selection of 6 canals for the demonstration projects, and a 90 day
limitation on the homeowner approval period.
05-21-14: Approval of a contract with AMEC to design the demonstration Canals.
10-10-14: Approval to enter into a contract for $199,641.59 with Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc. for the
construction and installation of a culvert on Canal 4472 on Geiger Key, the 3rd ranked canal project in the
Canal Management Master Plan. $78,291.00 is being funded through DEP Grant S0273. Approval requested
to have the County fund the balance of the $121,350.59 construction cost
01-21-15: Approval to enter into an Agreement with Adventure Environmental, Inc. for $1,360,000.00 for
construction of the canal backfilling demonstration project at Canal 429, Key Largo.
04-15-15: Approval to enter into a contract with JND Thomas for removing organic muck material from
Canal 4266 in Doctor's Arm Big Pine Key and Canal 4290 on Avenue J in Big Pine Key, utilizing vacuum
dredging, in an amount not to exceed $2,031,762.
01-20-16: Approval to enter into a contract with Earth Tech Enterprises, Inc. for $202,384 to remove an
existing ineffective weed barrier system and install a new air curtain system on Canal 4266 (located in
Doctor's Arm Big Pine Key); to demolish portions of an existing ineffective weed barrier and install a new air
curtain system at on Canal 4287 (located between Atlantis Drive and Hollerich Drive in Big Pine Key).
01-20-16: Approval to enter into a contract with Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. for $423,957.00 for installation of a
60-inch circular concrete reinforced pipe culvert in order to increase the natural tidal flushing on canal 4277
in Tropical Bay Estates, Big Pine Key.
04-11-16: Canal BOCC Workshop 41 to discuss the need for a Canal Restoration Program, Regulatory
Requirements, preliminary financing strategies, and need for a long term implementation and funding plan.
10-19-16: Discussed the options to 1) Stop all canal restoration efforts and terminate the program. Do not
fund any Operations and Maintenance costs on completed canals or canals in -process of restoration and 2)
Move forward with a discussion at a minimum of the financing options for the Demonstration Projects
Operations and Maintenance costs. To pursue Option 2, it is necessary for staff to move forward a resolution
that would be heard at the December 2016 BOCC regular meeting.
11-22-16: Authorize entering into a contract with Adventure Environmental, Inc. for $1,524,040 for the C83
canal restoration project in Key Largo, which includes muck removal, backfilling, and air curtain installation.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue to move forward.
DOCUMENTATION:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: Not Applicable
Expiration Date: Not Applicable
REVIEWED BY:
Rhonda Haag
Completed
11/07/2016 10:00 AM
Pedro Mercado
Completed
11/07/2016 12:22 PM
Budget and Finance
Completed
11/07/2016 1:09 PM
Maria Slavik
Completed
11/07/2016 1:13 PM
Kathy Peters
Completed
11/07/2016 7:12 PM
Board of County Commissioners
Pending
11/14/2016 10:00 AM
11/11/2016
Discussion and direction for the County's Canal
Restoration Program
■ Determining if and how to proceed with a plan to restore 300 impaired
canals in Monroe County, of which 229 reside in unincorporated
Monroe County, and
How to finance the various costs of implementing such a program.
11/11/2016
Projects
Committed
In Process
• Design/Permit, Homeowner Approvals. Construction Inspections $ 1,271,787
• Backfilling Project - Sexton Cove, Key Largo
$ 1,360,000
• Culvert Installation - Geiger Mobile Homes, Geiger Key
$ 121,000
($100,000 additional paid by DEP)
• Organic Removal - Drs. Arm & Ave J, Big Pine Key
$ 1,901.804
• Culvert Installation - Tropical Bay, Big Pine Key (BPK) $ 373,957
(plus $50,000 additional paid by DEP)
• Air Curtains w/2 years O&M - Drs. Arm & Atlantic Estates, BPK
$ 303,084
• Monroe County Permitting Fees
$ 33,445
• Organic Removal/Backfilling/Air Curtain/O&M - Rock Harbor, KL
$1,559,040
• Air Curtain - Ave J, BPK ($50,000 additional to be paid by DEP)
$ 50,000
• Master Plan Additional Assessment (plus $110,582 from EPA grant),
$ 177029
• Canal Funding Mechanism Development , -,,
$ 5,000
$5,365,078
$1,631,069
TOTAL COMMITTED AND IN PROCESS: $6,996,147 BUDGET REMAINING:
$3,853
2
11/11/2016
1 . Culverts
■ The natural tidal flow immediately improved water clarity and increased fish
populations
Geiger Key #472 After Culvert Installation
Geiger Key #472 Before Culvert
Ph— po. by FN
11/11/2016
2. Backfilling
■ Return of sea life, revegetation of canal bottom
Homeowner Quotes From Key Largo Backfilling Project:
a. "The canal is coming alive! We've been seeing mullet, snapper, jacks, barracuda,
manatees over the past month. Today another milestone; I heard a commotion in the canal
and looked out to see a school of snapper chasing a shrimp. The shrimp was jumping for all
it's worth trying to getaway. After four jumps a snapper finally ate it. Then a few minutes later
I saw two more shrimp jumping out of the water trying to avoid the snapper. All this happened
in broad daylight about noon. "
b. "Today I snorkeled in the canal, and am happy to report that I could see the bottom, all
over!! AND - fish. All sizes of snapper. Schools of finger mullet. Barracuda. "
c. 'We have noticed lots of fish, big and small in our canal. The Manatees seem to like the
more shallow water, 6 of them show up just about every day_"
Canal #29 Before Backfilling
3. Organic Removal and Air Curtains
■ Immediate improvement in elimination of hydrogen
sulfide odor and improved water clarity
• Significant reduction in seaweed entrapment in canal
■ Removal of years of accumulated trash and debris
Canal #29 After
Backfilling
Ph— W — by RU
Homeowner Quotes From Doctors Arm Big Pine Key Organic Removal Project:
a. 'We could not be more pleased with the results of the project. The canal, which was
rated as one of the worst in the Keys, is now clean and has a new sand bottom which will
encourage marine life growth and habitation. The canal cleaning results have been
excellent, and restoration work on my lot was performed as promised."
b. 'As owners of property on this canal since 1985, we are pleased to observe and report
the significant improvement in both the water quality and quality of life that have occurred
as a result of the completion of this project. I'm here to report, from someone who lives on
this canal, that it worked, and it worked well. The air is no longer fouled with gasses from
the canal, and we were able to sit outside, breath clearly, and even watch fish swim."
4
11/11/2016
Environment and Recreation
a) Non -impaired "qood" canals can be used for recreation
b) Fishable and swimmable
2. Tourist Economy
a) Tourists want clean water on rental housinq
b) Tourists want to use nearshore waters for water sports
3. Home Values
a) Poor water quality affects home values
b) Some homes in Biq Pine could not be rented or sold due
to foul odor of canals
4. Health
a) Canals that don't flush and have rotting seaweed may contain
bacteria. viruses and noxious hydrogen sulfide and methane
gases
. The coral reef tract in the Florida Keys is the third
largest barrier reef in the world, and the only livinq
barrier reef adjacent to continental US
2. More than two million individuals per vear visit the
Florida Kevs to enjoy water related activities,
includinq snorkelinq, divinq, and fishing
3. These water related activities support 70% of tourism
in the Florida Keys
4. The Florida Keys reef environment qenerates more
than 70,000 jobs and $6 billion dollars in economic I
activitv annually
61
11/11/2016
J. The Keys are considered the "fishinq capital of the
world," generatinq hundreds of world records and
billions of dollars of economic impact
14
7.
Coral reef areas and seagrass beds provide critical
nursery and feedinq habitat for many commercially and
recreationally valuable fish and shellfish species, such
as qrouper, snapper, stone crab, and spiny lobster
Coral reef and seaqrass health is directlV linked to near
shore marine water quality• Both corals and seagrasses
thrive in areas where water is clear, low in nutrients.
and hiqh in dissolved oxygen; }�
lrr+er Keys -accumulated seaweed
Sun nerland •trapped seaweed
2/3 of
the
canals
have
either
"Poor"
or
"Fair"
Water
Quality
Middle Keys - trapped seaweed
Lack of flushing
R
11/11/2016
Key Colony Beach
Key Haven
Currently
only 1/3
of the
canals
have
"Good"
Water
Quality
Duck Key
Conch Key Sugar Loaf
. Demonstration Projects Operations & Maintenance
($86,960/year for the initial 7 projects)
2. Engineerinq services to continue master program planning efforts
provide match for program and project grants ($350,000/vear)
3. Program Administration ($100,000)
4. Community Outreach ($30,000)
5. Effectiveness monitoring of existinq restorations for water qualitv
and sea life ($100,000 - $300,000/year, will increase with more
projects. Current EPA monitorinq grant funds run out in FY16)
6. Construction and testinq of alternative technologies that may
reduce the costs of restoration ($30,000 - $350,000/year)
%. Some number of new construction projects so that Reasonable
Assurance requirements can be met and TMDL avoided
• May include new projects potentially funded by homeowners, qrant match,
Stewardshin RFSTORF ACT, and/or other sources (amount to be determined)
7
11/11/2016
13-58 privately owned,.., t -
parcels per canal Air Organic Culvert Back- Culvert Air
Curtain Removal fill Cleanout Curtain
O&M
29 Sexton Cove Key Largo X $ 0
83 Rock Harbor Key Largo X X X $20,840
266 Doctors Arm Big Pine X X $20,840
277 Tropical Bay Big Pine X $1,800
287 Atlantic Estates Big Pine X $20,840
290 The Avenues Big Pine X X $20,840
472 Geiger Key Mobile Home X $1,800
Total Annual Estimated O&M Costs for Initial 7 Demonstration Projects: $86,960
Based upon estimated activities for 10 years Annual electric $6,000. $10,500 annual 6 maintenance visits. plus $4,340
annualized equipment replacement Costs based upon current demonstration contract rates and should be able to
be reduced with economies of scale. Costs do not include administrative costs or effectiveness monitoring. New
projects for Year 1 O&M will also incur additional maintenance of $7.000 per year.
1.1
11/11/2016
29 Sexton Cove Key Larg Backfillin
$1,300,00
$0
83 Rock Harbor Key Largo ombinatio
$1,500,00
$20,84
Air Curtain/Organic
Removal/Backfilling (new)
266 Doctors Arm Big Pine (BPK) Air
$1,300,000
$20,840
Curtain and Organic Removal
BPn
277 Tropical Bay Estate�;�
287 Atlantic Estates BP
A
290 The Avenues Big Pine Air Curtain
$800,640
$20,840
and Organic Removal
472 Geiger Key Mobile Homes Culvert $199,000 $1,800
Total Annual Cost Year 3-10 for Initial 7 Demonstration Projects: $ 86,960
' Based upon estimated activities for 10 years including air curtain equipment replacement. Annual electric $6,000, $10,500 annual 6
maintenance visits, $4,340 annualized equipment replacement. Costs based upon current demonstration contract rates and
should be able to be reduced. Costs do not include administrative costs or effectiveness monitoring. New projects for Year 1 O&M
will also incur additional maintenance of $7,000/year.
9
11/11/2016
How the program is implemented — economies of scale will lower
cost (multiple projects at one time, group by technique and area)
2. Collection of additional site assessment data
a) Corinq data may reduce organic thickness estimates
b) New 2013 DEP Dissolved Oxygen standard and additional Reasonable
Assurance assessment may chanqe # of impaired canals
3. Regulatory Mandates
a) Current Comp Plan requires backfillinq after organic removal
4. Demonstration Project Effectiveness
a) Determine which technoloqies are most effective
b) Determine if combination technoloqies are needed
5. New Alternative Technologies - may siqnificantiv reduce costs
a) Ability to permit
6. Operations and Maintenance costs - may reduce with economies of
scale
. Stop the canal restoration program, close out all projects
■ No O&M to be provided to existing projects
2. Fund only the O&M of the existing demonstration projects
3. Continue forward with program planning and matching funds
for grants and RESTORE and creation of an MSTU to fund $1
million annually
4. Continue with some new restorations to be funded by the
RESTORE and Stewardship Acts, grants and/or homeowner funds
5. Master planning for the entire canal restoration program to
develop more accurate costs and an implementation plan
10
11 /11 /2016
2. Shall the Operations and Maintenance costs for the existing
completed demonstration projects be funded by an MSBU?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has provided a Resolution for
approval directing staff to set up an MSBU and collect special
assessments for the O&M costs of the completed demonstration
projects.
11
11/11/2016
3. Shall Monroe County use FY17 Stewardship funds in the
amount of $1.5 Million for the canal restoration program?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has provided a Resolution for
approval directing that the FYI Stewardship funds be used for the
canal restoration program.
12
11/11/2016
J. Shall Monroe County staff move forward with the 6 new
demonstration projects (4 in -situ aeration, 1 backfill, and the
C83 combination) at an estimated cost of $2 Million, using
Stewardship and RESTORE funds?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has presented a Resolution
for approval directing staff to move forward with the 6 projects.
6. Shall Monroe County evaluate use of an MSTU to fund program
management costs estimated at $1 Million annually to pay for
master program planning, effectiveness monitoring, data
collection, outreach, program administration, design of
alternative technologies and design and construction of
potential new restoration projects so that the FKRAD
requirements can be met and a TMDL may be avoided?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has presented a Resolution
for approval directing staff to continue to research and evaluate moving
forward with an MSTU for such purposes.
13
11/11/2016
7. Shall Monroe County staff continue with program planning so
that an evaluation can be further developed for a more accurate
cost of the entire program, currently estimated at $300 Million -
$700 Million, and to develop methods for overall cost savings,
effective restoration technologies, more accurate site and
technology data, and to continue to apply for grants to help pay
for a portion of such costs?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Additional research and data must
be developed before a comprehensive program implementation plan
and the associated costs of such a plan can be presented and funding
methods identified or recommended.
14