Item M2X0 1XII V 10101131105 10 1-01 94
Meeting Date: January.21, 2015 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes No X Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley 289-2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider an ordinance by the Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners amending the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan by creating Policy 202.8.6 to
improve the water quality in the artificial canals characterized as having poor or fair water quality within the
2013 Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan by providing for organic material removal, by public
entities (county, state, or federal),, of previously dredged artificial canals to depths greater than minus six (-6)
feet mean low water and backfilling to a depth of six (6) feet — eight (8) feet and to allow the implementation of
two (2) demonstration canal restoration pilot projects by public entities (County, State or Federal) to remove
organic material from previously dredged artificial canals to depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low
water without backfilling and conducting water quality monitoring. (Legislative Proceeding)
ITEM BACKGROUND: Monroe County in association with State and Federal Agencies has been working
together to develop a management process for addressing the restoration of the canals in the Florida Keys,
including:
• Implementation of the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2MHILL 2000) and Monroe
County Stormwater Master Plan (CDM 200 1); and
• Completing the Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment project, providing an
inventory of existing canals and a broad overview of potential technologies (MACTEC 2003); and
• Development and implementation of a comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan.
In March, 2012, the Canal Subcommittee of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) Water
Quality Steering Committee initiated work on Phase I of the Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP):
• Develop a basic conceptual framework for canal restoration and management that is comparable to the
frameworks used in the County's existing wastewater and storrnwater master plans; and
• Identify a short-list of high -priority canal restoration projects which can be implemented by the County
and other Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) participants over the next several years.
In 2013, AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc, completed the Monroe Counly Canal Management Master
Plan (CMMP) for Monroe County, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the FKNMS WQPP Steering
Committee and the WQPP Canal Restoration Advisory Committee. One of the recommended management
strategies included in the CMMP is the removal of accumulated organic material from sorne of the canals that
exhibit fair to poor water quality. Organic removal consists of removing (dredging) the decomposed weed wrack
material present at the bottom of a canal.
Currently, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan prohibits new dredging and does not allow maintenance
dredging within areas vegetated with scagrass beds or characterized by hardbottorn communities (e,g, benthic
communities) except for maintenance in public navigation channels, The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
also limits maintenance dredging to a depth of minus six (-6) feet mean low water. This amendment is being
proposed to evaluate the technologies recommended in the CCMP, including the removal of organic material
from deep canals, as the organic material on the canal bottom consumes large amounts of dissolved oxygen and
depletes the viability of a canal's ecosystem as well as the adjacent near shore waters.
On September 17, 2014, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a public hearing to
review and discuss the proposed amendment regarding canal restoration and recommended revisions to the
amendment to include: a requirement for a public hearing before the BOCC for development approval for
organic material removal by vacuum dredge to depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low water; water
quality monitoring for a 2 year period to determine organic removal project effectiveness and water quality
reports from the Water Quality Committee before expanding the Comprehensive Plan to other canal projects or
private applicants. The BOCC voted to transmit the amendment to the State Land Planning Agency.
The goal of the proposed amendment was to provide the County the ability to issue permits for the removal of
organic material below -6ft mean low water for water quality improvement projects, using various strategies,
such as backfilling. To ensure the proposed amendment fully addressed the restoration strategies to improve the
water quality in the canal systems and complete 2 demonstration pilot canal restoration projects; this clarified
amendment has been drafted for BOCC consideration to transmit to the State Land Planning Agency.
On December 12, 2014, the State Land Planning Agency issued its Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) report on the proposed amendment. The ORC report includes one objection that the policy
does not establish criteria for using a method other than hydraulic dredging and a recornmendation to address
the objection by revising the "policy criteria to clarify that the purpose of the public hearing is to provide a
decision point for the BOCC and inform the public regarding rationale as to the reasons that the preferred
mechanism (hydraulic dredging) will not be utilized." In response to the ORC Report, Monroe County has
revised the proposed policy to clarify the purpose of the public hearing.
If the BOCC votes to transmit the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to the State Land Planning Agency,
the State Land Planning Agency will then review the proposed amendment and issue an Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, addressing any issues with internal consistency, data and
analysis, or consistency with the statutes or the Principles for Guiding Development, Upon receipt of the ORC
report, the BOCC will have up to 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not
adopt the amendments.,
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
On September 17, 2014, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to review
and discuss the proposed text amendment regarding canal restoration, recommended revisions and voted to
transmit the amendment to the State Land Planning Agency.
On October 17, 2014, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to review and
discuss the proposed text amendment regarding canal restoration and voted to transmit the amendment to the
State Land Planning Agency
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
I I I
it] 1W W MUNN dr.11W13201INUM,
COST'TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty AZ OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEME
Rick Scott
GOVERNOR D E, 4�
FLORIDA DEPARTMENTef
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
December 12, 2014
The Honorable Danny Kohlage, Mayor
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
530 Whitehead Street, Suite 102
Key West, F L, 33040
Dear Mayor Kohlage:
Jesse Panuccio
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
The Department of Economic Opportunity has completed its review of the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment for Monroe County (Amendment No, 14-3ACSC), which was
received and determined complete on October 28, 2014. We have reviewed the proposed
amendment in accordance with the state coordinated review process set forth in Sections
163.3184(2) and (4), Florida Statutes, (F.S.), for compliance with Chapter 163, Part 11, F.S.
Review comments received by the Department from the appropriate reviewing agencies are
also enclosed.
The attached objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report outlines our
findings concerning the amendment, We have identified an objection and have included
recommendations regarding measures that can be taken, to address the objection.
The County should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the
proposed amendment. Also, please note that Section 163,3184(4)(e)1, F.S., provides that if the
second public hearing is not held within 180 days of your receipt of the Department of
Economic Opportunity report, the amendment shall be deemed withdrawn unless extended by
agreement with notice to the Department of Economic Opportunity and any affected party that
provided comment on the amendment. For your assistance, we have enclosed' the procedure's
for final adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment.
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity I The Caldwell Building f 107 E. Mattison Street I Tallahassee, FL 132399-412,0
866TILA2345 185D.245.7105 1850.921.3223 Fax I www,FforidaJobs.oEg I hmDL.Ivvitter._Qom/rt-DE0 I WWW. face book cQm/FLO ED
An equal opportunity employer/program. Auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities. Ali voice
telephone numbers on this document may be reached by persons using TTYTrDD equipment via the Florida Relay Service at 711.
The Honorable Danny Kohlage, Mayor
December 11, 2014
Page 2 of 2
If You have any questions related to this review, please contact Rebecca Jetton, at (850)
717-8494, or by email at Rebecca.Jetton@deo.myflorida.com.
Sincerely,
Ana Richmond
W"6- 911ma
Enclosures: Agency Comments
Procedures for Adoption
cc: '-4hristine Hurley, Growth Management Director
Mr. James F. Murley, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Couincil
MONROE COUNTY 14-3ACSC
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Q. Consistencv with Cho nter 'L63 Part 11 a 380, Part I
k����ter
The Department has the following objections and comments to the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment:
Objection: Monroe County has proposed revisions to objective 202.8 and the supporting
policies that address dredging within the Florida Keys, The focus of the proposed
amendment is to allow maintenance dredging to depths greater than 6 feet. These
strategies have been proposed in order to improve water quality in the Florida Keys. Policy
202.8.6 states that hydraulic (vacuum) dredging shall be considered the preferred method
and requires a public hearing before the Board Of County Commissioners if hydraulic
dredging is not proposed to accomplish the organic material removal. However, the Policy
does not establish criteria for using a method other than hydraulic and does not establish
the purpose for the public hearing.
Authority: Section 163.3177(1), 163-3177 (4)(a); 163.3178 (2)(b); 380-0552(7)(a), (b), &
(e), Florida Statutes (F.S.)
Recommendations: The County should revise its policy criteria to clarify that the purpose
of the public hearing is to provide a decision point for the Board of County Commissioners
and inform the public regarding rationale as to the reasons that the preferred, mechanism
(hydraulic dredging) will not be utilized. Additionailly, the County should adopt meaningful
and predictable criteria for evaluating the method of dredging to be used. Such criteria
could include, as a minimum, landward access to the canal, availability of mooring locations
for equipment/barges, overhead obstructions, and composition of material to be removed.
Comment 1: Adopt a lone term goal to backfiff canails that are deeper than 6 feet whenever
economically feasible and funding permits.
Comment 2: identify the canal that will be monitored at the tenth year interval and that
the County will Pay for the ten-year monitoring plan and activity,
n
A 1 • , b Rij I,
Section 1633284(4), Florida Statutes
ZZ2NE
NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: Please submit three complete copies of all
comprehensive plan materials, of which One complete paper copy and two complete electronic
copies on CD RO,M in Portable Document Format (PDF), to the Department of Economic
Opportunity and one copy to each entity below that Provided timely comments to the local
government: the appropriate Regional Planning Council; Water Management District;
Department of Transportation; Department of Environmental Protection; Department of State;
the appropriate county (municipal amendments only); the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (county plan
amendments only); and the Department of Education (amendments relating to public schools);
and for, certain local governments, the appropriate military installation and any other local
government or governmental agency that has filed a written request.
SUBMITTAL LETTER: Please include the following information in the cover letter transmitting the,
adopted amendment:
Department of Economic Opportunity identification number for adopted amendment
package;
Summary description of the adoption package, including any amendments proposed but
not adopted;
ordinance number and adoption date;
Certification that the adopted amendment(s) has been submitted to all parties that
provided timely comments to the local government;
Name, title, address, telephone, FAX number and e-mail address of local government
contact;
Letter signed by the chief elected official or the person designated by the local
government,
ADOPTION AMENDMENT PACKAGE: Please include the following information in the
amendment package:
Effective: June 2, 2011 (Updated March 11, 2013)
in the case of text amendments, changes should be shown in strike-through/underline
format;
in the case of future land use map amendment, an adopted future land use map, in
color format, clearly depicting the parcel, its existing future land use designation, and its
adopted designation;
A copy of any data and analyses the local government deems appropriate.
Note: if the local government is relying on previously submitted data and analysis, no additional
data and analysis is required;
Copy of executed ordinance adopting the comprehensive plan amendment(s,);
Suggested effective date language for the adoption ordinance for state coordinated review:
The effective date of this plan amendment, if the: amendment is not timely challenged,
shall be the date the Department of Economic Opportunity posts a notice of intent
cleterming that this amendment is in compliance. If timely challenged, or if the state
land planning agency issues a notice of intent determining that this amendment is not in
compliance, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning
agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted
amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or
land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has
become effective. if a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration
Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a
resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the
Department of Economic opportunity.
List of additional changes made in the adoptedi amendment that the Department of
Economic opportunity did not previously review;
List of findings of the local governing body, if any, that were not included in the ordinance
and which provided the basis of the adoption or determination not to adopt the proposed
amendment;
Statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes not previously reviewed
by the Department of Economic Opportunity to the ORC report from the Department of
Economic Opportunity.
lq
Eifective; June 2, 2011 {updated March 11, 2013)
I- �
Ftff4.r1T.rW17-.
From;
Hight, Jason <JasonRght@MyFWC.corn>
Sent;
Thursday, November 20, 201411:28 AM
To:
DCPexternalagencycomments; hurIL-y-christine@monroecounty-fl.gov
Cc:
Wallace, Traci; Chaibre, Jane; Krueger, Marissa
Subject:
Monroe County 14-3ACSC (Monroe 14-2 ACSQ
Dear Ms!. Hurley,
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staffhas reviewed the proposed comprehensive
plan in accordance with Chapter 163-3184(4), Florida Statutes. We have no comments, recommendations, or
objections related to fish and wildlife or listed species and their habitat to offer on this amendment.
If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Jane Chabre either by phone at (850) 410.
5367 or by email at PA/C -'ons vationPlarmiq&Servscest�hf�.cnr , If you have specific technical
questions, please contact Marissa Krueger at (561) 882-5711 or by email at Maris Xrueger((i).iU
s , AKc.conl.
Jason Hight
Biological Administrator IJ
Office of Conservation Planning Services
Division of Habitat and Species Conservation
620 S. Meridian Street, MS 5B5
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
office: 850-413-6966
cell: 850-228-2055
Eubanks, Rax
From:
Stahl, Chris <Chris,StahI@dep.stateJI.us>
Sent:
Monday, November 17, 2014 10:36 AM
To:
DCPexternalagencycomments
Cc:
Craig, Kae; santamaria-mayte@monroecounty-ft,gov
Subject:
Monroe County 14-3ACSC — Proposed
To: Ray Eubanks, Department of Economic Opportunity
Re., Monroe County 14-3ACSC — Review of Proposed Comprehensive Plan; Amendment
The Office of intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has
reviewed the above -referenced amendment package under the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The
Department conducted a detailed review that focused on potential adverse impacts to important state resources and
facilities, specifically- air and water pollution; wetlands and other surface waters of the state; federal and state-owned
lands and interest in lands, including state parks, greenways and trails, conservation easements; solid waste; and water
and wastewater treatment.
Based on our review of the submitted amendment package, the Department has found no provision that, if adopted,
would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject to the Department's jurisdiction.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions,
Chris Stahl
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS 47
Tallahassee, FL 3 23 99 -3�000
(850) 245-2169
ii
SOUTHFLORIDA
November 21, 2014
Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator
State Land Planning Agency
Caldwell Building
11017 East Madison, MSC-160
Tallahassee, FL 323991
Ik/F A AT
Vubject: Monroe County, DEO # 14-3ACSC
Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package
z
11 1 1 i AMU. -
Sincerely,
Dean Powell
ksalm'dr,1I
RM
C, Christine Hurley, Monroe County
Rebecca Jettoni, DEO
Terry Manning, SFWMD
Jim Murley, SFRPC
3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 - (56-1) 686-BBM o FL WA-fs 1-8W432-2045
Mailing Addrm: R OBox 24680, West Palm Beach, FL M416-4,680 - wwwsfKrnd,pv
OFFICP OF THE COMM'ISSIONBA
(850) 617-7700
THs CAPITOL
400 SOUTH i" ONROE STREET
TAjzAaAs$ I;, Fl= RIDA 32399-0800
FLoR DA DEPARTMENT 0-F ACRICULTURE AND E'0NSU 1ER SE: V ice, s
November 24, 2014
VIA US MAIL(Santamaria-mayte@monroecounty-fl.gov)
Monroe County Growth Management division
Attn: Christine Hurley
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite #400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Clear Ms. Hurley,
The Florida Department Of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the' Departmental") received the above -
referenced proposed comprehensive plan amendment on October 27, 2014 and has reviewed it
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes to address any potential adverse impacts to.
important state resources or facilities related to agricultural', a+quacultural, or forestry resources In
Florida if the proposed amendment(s) are adopted. Based on our review of your county's submission,
the Department has no comment on the proposal.
If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 55"10-2289,
Sincerely,
r
5tormle Knight
Sr. Management Analys el
Office of Policy and Budget
cc: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
(SLPA #: Monroe County 14-3 ACSC)
1-800-HELPFLA
Firlda www.FreshFromFlorida.com orida.com
91V WIT
Department ofEconomfe Opportunity
Community Planning and Development
107 East Madison Street
Caldwell Building, MSC 160
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
SubJect: Comments for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Monroe County, 14-3ACSC
The Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, completed a review of the
ProPosed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Monroe County, 14-3ACISC The District has reviewed the amendment package per Chapter 163 Florlda Statutes and' has found no impacts to transportation resources and facilities Of state importance.
Please! contact Ken Jeffries at 305-470-5445 if You have any questions
concerning our response.
Sincerely,
Ken Jeffries
Transportation Planner
Cc: Harold Desdunes, PE, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6
Aileen Boucle, AICP, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6
Lisa Colmenares, AICP, Florida Department of Transportation, District to
Mayte Saintamaria, Monroe County
w%vw.dot.siatejj.us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 ORDINANCE 2015
8
9 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
10 COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010
11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CREATING POLICY 202.8.6 TO ALLOW
12 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CANAL RESTORATION PROJECTS BY
13 PUBLIC ENTITIES (COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL) WHICH
14 INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF ORGANIC MATERIAL OF
15 PREVIOUSLY DREDGED ARTIFICIAL CANALS CHARACTERIZED
16 AS HAVING POOR OR FAIR WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE 2013
17 MONROE COUNTY CANAL MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN TO
18 DEPTHS GREATER THAN MINUS SIX (-6) FEET MEAN LOW WATER;
19 PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
20 CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
21 THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF
22 STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
23 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
24
25
26 WHEREAS, water quality issues involving manmade canals have been evaluated by the U,S,
27 Environmental Protection Agency (Kruczynski 1999), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
28 (FKNMS 2007), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2008); and
29,
30 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) was completed on
31 September 20, 20,13; and
32
33 WHEREAS, the Canal Subcommittee of the FKNMS Water Quality Steering Committee
34 initiated work on Phase 1. of the CMMP to: 1) develop a basic conceptual framework for canal
35 restoration and management that is comparable to the frameworks used in the County's existing
36 wastewater and stormwater master plans, and 2) identify a short-list of high -priority canal restoration
37 projects which can be implemented by the County and other WQPP participants over the next
38 several years; and
39
40 WHEREAS, canals with poor water quality have the potential to cause significant harm to near
41 shore marine waters upon which the community depends; and
42
43 WHEREAS, within the CMMP, approximately five hundred canals were examined and ranked;
44 171 canals received a Good water quality classification, 180 received a Fair classification, and 131
45 received a Poor classification; and
46
Ord. No. -2014
Pagel of
I WHEREAS, since the canals discharge directly into near shore Outstanding Florida Waters, in
2 the FKNMS, where DEP adopted a "zero -degradation" policy for marine waters, addressing on-
3 going canal water quality impairment is, of utmost importance; and
4
5 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 26 th day of August, 2014, the Monroe
6 County Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment; and
7
8 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 27th day of August, 2014, the Monroe
9 County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering the proposed
10 amendment and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners; and
11
12 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 17'1' day of September , the Monroe
13 County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing, considered the staff report, and
14 provided for public comment and public participation in accordance with the requirements of state
15 law and the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process, and recommended
16 revisions to the proposed amendment and voted to transmit the comprehensive plan text
17 amendment to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section
18 1.63.3184(l)(c), Florida Statutes for review and comment; and
19
20 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 17'h day of October, the Monroe
21, County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing, considered the staff report,
22 additional information clarification from staff and provided for public comment and public
23 participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted for
24 public participation in the planning process, and
25
26 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 17'h day of October, the Monroe
27 County Board of County Commissioners repealed Resolution Number 2 1 0a, - 201.4 and considered
28 a clarified proposed amendment regarding canal restoration and voted to transmit the
29 comprehensive plan text amendment to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies
30 as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(c), Florida Statutes for review and comment; and
31
32 WHEREAS, the BOCC makes the following Conclusions of Law: 1) the ordinance is
33 consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State
34 Concern; 2) the ordinance is consistent with the provisions and intent of the Monroe County
35 Comprehensive Plan; and 3) the ordinance is consistent with the provisions and intent of the
36 Monroe County Code; and
37
38 WHEREAS,, on December 1.2, 2014, the State Land Planning Agency issued its Objections,
39 Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report. The ORC report includes one objection that the
40 policy does not establish criteria for using a method other than hydraulic dredging and a
41 recommendation to address the objection by revising the "policy criteria to clarify that the purpose
42 of the public hearing is to provide a decision point for the BOCC and iqform the public regarding
43 rationale as to the reasons that the preferred inechanism (hydraulic dredging) will not be utilized;"
44 and
45
46 WHEREAS, as a response to the ORC Report, Monroe County has revised the proposed
47 policy to clarify the purpose of the public hearing.
Ord. No. -2014
Page 2 of 5
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
2 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
3
4 Sectionl. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows:
5 (Deletions are str-ieken three and additions are underlined.)
6
7 Objective 202.8
8 By januafy 4, 199-7,—Monroe County shall � maintain Land Development Regulations
9 which implement county policies preventing the continued loss of benthic resources,
to improving water quality and controlling pollutant discharges into surface waters from dredge
11 and fill activities.
12
13 Policy 202.8.1
14 Monroe County shall support state and federal policies and regulations concerning the
15 permitting of dredge and fill activity, except in those instances where more stringent
16 regulations adopted by Monroe County shall be maintained.
17
18 Policy 202.8.2
19 No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County.
20
21 Policy 202.8.3
22 No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or
23 characterized by hardbottom communities, except for maintenance in public navigation
24 channels.
25
26 Policy 202.8.4
27 In order to facilitate establishment and prevent degradation of bottom vegetation, maintenance
28 dredging in artificial waterways shall not exceed depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean
29 low water. This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe
30 Harbor.
31
32 Policy 202.8.5
33 All dredged spoil resulting from maintenance dredging shall be placed on permitted upland
34 sites where drainage can be contained on -site.
35
36 Policy 202.8.6
37 Due to the physical.,, structure, depth, and orientation of existing canals, water quality problems
38 have been caused which cannot be improved with wastewater treatment and stormwater
39 management practices alone. To implement the 2013 Monroe County Canal Management
40 Master Plan and improve water quality in artificial canals, the County is developing canal
41 restoration projects to i=rove tidal flushing, increase dissolved oxygen concentrations as
42 identified in the surface water guality criteria in Ch. 62-302..530, F.A.C.and remove
43 accumulated nutrients and decomposing organic material.
44
45 Canal restoration projects, developed to determine the effectiveness of water quality strategLes
46 of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Proram, which are
47 performed or funded by public.entities (County, State, or Federal) for organic material removal
Ord. No. -2014
Page 3 of 5
1. and backfilled to a depth of Eft - 8ft, or an alternative depth as determined by best available
2 scientific data and authorized by the state and federal permitting agencies, from artificial canals
3 characterized as having poor or fair water quality within the 2013 Monroe County Canal
4 Management Master Plan are exempt from the provisions in Policy 202.8.4.
6 Two (2) demonstration pilot canal restoration projects will remove .....decomposing organic
7 material from previously dredged artificial canals (down to, the bedrock) without backfilliDL.
8 To, evaluate the effectiveness of this removal strategy, without any backfilling, and to
9 determine if water quality can be restored and maintained, water quality monitoring of these
10 two (2) organic removal pilot projects shall be conducted at a two (2) year point of time and a
1.1 ten (10) year point of time after completion of the pilot projects. After the two (2) year and ten
12 (10) year monitoring, the County shall request a water quality report from the Water Quality
13 Protection Program (WQPP) to determine the pilot proiects' effectiveness in imp'fovlU
14 dissolved oxygen Concentrations, as identified in the surface water quality criteria in Ch. 62-
15 302.530, F.A.C., in the two (2) organic removal pilot projects canals. If the WQ�PP, does not
16 provide the water quality report, the County shall fund and conduct the water quality report. If
17 the water quality report for the two (2) year monitoring indicates improved water quality,
18 additional canal restoration projects, beyond the two (2) pilot projects, to perform orRanic
19 material removal to depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low water without backfilling
20 to Eft-8ft may proceed.
21.
22 Upon determination of the two (2) pilot projects' effectiveness and an amendment to this
23 Policy, the exemLion to the provisions in Policy 202.8.4 may be expanded beyond public
24 entities (County, State, or Federal) for organic material removal of previously dredged artificial
25 canals characterized as having poor or fair water quality within the 2013 Monroe County Canal
26 Management Master Plan. The organic material removal shall be allowed to depths greater
27 than minus six (-6) feet mean low water, iLpermitted by Florida Department of Environmental
28 Protection or the Water ManaLyement District and the Armv Corn of Enaineers.
29
30 For this policy, hydraulic (vacuum) dredging shall be considered the preferred means of
31 removal of the organic material, If hydraulic dredging is not proposed to accomplish the
32, organic material removal, a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
33 (BOCC) shall be...required prior to issuance of a county permit. The BOCC shall hold a public
34 hearing on the request to use an alternative dredging methodology and shall consider the cost
35 rationale, compatibility, complications and public comments. The public hearing shall provide
36 the applicant the opportunity to address the issues regarding the roposed canal restoration
p
37 project, including but not limited to, sediment size, logistical/accessibility limitations,
38 obstructions and/or equipment constraints. The BOCC may grant, grant with conditions or
39 deny the request to use an alternative dredging methodQloy .
,y-
40
41 Policy 202.8-.6.7
42 No "after -the -fact" permits shall be issued that violate Monroe County dredge and fill
43 regulations. All illegal structures and fill shall be removed and damages mitigated.
44
45
Ord. No. -2014
Page 4 of 5
I Policy 202.82.7.8
2 Monroe County shall develop a schedule of monetary penalties that provides for fair and
3 equitable penalties for all dredge and fill violations. Penalty revenues obtained from these
4 violations shall be set aside and used specifically for water quality enhancement projects,
5
6 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or
7 provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by
8 such validity.
9
10 Section 3. Reveal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
11 conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
12
13 Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Planning and
14 Environmental Resources Department to the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163
15 and 380,Florida Statutes.
16
17 Section 5. Filing and Effective Bate. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the
18 Secretary of State of Florida, but shall not becorne effective until a notice is issued by the State
19 Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance, and
20 if challenged until such challenge is resolved pursuant to Chapter 120, F.S.
21
22 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
23 at a regular meeting held on the day of -, 2015,
24
25 Mayor Danny L. Kolhage
26 Mayor Pro Tee Heather Carruthers
27 Commissioner George Neugent
28 Commissioner David Rice
29 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
30
31 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
32 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
33
34 BY
35 Mayor Danny L. Kolhage
36
37 (SEAL)
38
39 ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK MONROE COUNT LTTORNE
A y D 1
40 OVE' ) O.FCRM:
41
STEVEN T. WILLIAMS
42 ASSISTANT COUNT ATTORNEY
43 DEPUTY CLERK to S_
44
Ord. No, -2014
Page 5 of 5
2
3 (�4-xv-
4 MEMORANDUM
5 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
6 We strive to be caring, professional arid, air
To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Through: Christine Hurley, Growth Management Division Director
From: Ada Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Michael Roberts, Sr. Administrator/Environmental Resources
Date: December 17, 2014
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CREATING POLICY 202.8.6 TO ALLOW THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF CANAL RESTORATION PROJECTS BY PUBLIC
ENTITIES (COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL) WHICH INCLUDE THE REMOVAL
OF ORGANIC MATERIAL OF PREVIOUSLY DREDGED ARTIFICIAL, CANALS
CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING POOR OR FAIR WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE
2013 MONROE COUNTY CANAL MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN TO DEPTHS
GREATER THAN MINUS SIX (-6) FEET MEAN LOW WATER; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY
AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Meeting: January 21, 2015
Create Policy 202.8.6 to facilitate canal restoration projects and 2 demonstration projects in order to
implement the 2013 Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan and improve the water quality
in the canal systems of the Florida Keys.
Monroe County in association with State and Federal Agencies has been working together to
develop a management process for addressing the restoration of the canals in the Florida Keys,
including:
• Implementation of the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2MHlLL 2000)
and Monroe County Stormwater Master Plan (CDM 2001); and
11
• Completing the Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment project,
providing an inventory of existing canals and a broad overview of potential technologies
(MACTEC 2003); and
• Development and implementation of a comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan.
In March, 2012, the Canal Subcommittee of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS)
Water Quality Steering Committee initiated work on Phase I of the Canal Management Master Plan
(CMMP):
* 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 Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) participants over the next
several years.
In 2013, AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc, completed the Monroe Count), Canal
Management Master Plan (CMMP) for Monroe County, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the FKNMS WQPP Steering Committee and the WQPP Canal Restoration Advisory Committee.
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP), Sept. 20, 2013
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 200?),
and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2008). As summarized in the
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (2011), these issues include anthropogenic (caused by humans)
pollutant loadings from on -site sewage disposal and stormwater runoff, and accumulation of
nonanthropogenic 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 111, 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.
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
The CMMP describes the current situation, as follows:
Canals with poor water quality have the potential to cause significant harm to near shore marine
waters upon which the community depends. Water quality impairments within canals are most often
associated with low dissolved oxygen (DO) as a result of accumulated organic matter or lack of
flushing. However, some evidence indicates that nutrient enrichment from surrounding development
has lead to biological imbalances (e.g., algal blooms) that further exacerbate the problem.
Approximately five hundred canals were examined and ranked using a combination of Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) tools and water quality field reconnaissance to develop the best possible
assessment. In total, 171 canals received a Good water quality classification, 180 received a Fair
classification, and 131 received a Poor classification.
Since the canals discharge directly to near shore Outstanding Florida Waters in the FKNMS, where
DEP adopted a "zero -degradation" policy for marine waters, addressing on -going canal water quality
impairment is of utmost importance.
These projects are important to protect the near shore water quality of Monroe County, which has
extensive resources and protected areas including four National Wildlife Refuges and the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
'7m
Florida Keys Management Areas
G,lf
Of
Mexico
NATIONALPAP.F:
*
STATE RECR.FATION ARFA
7-EiwO de N=W r^R!:
Ii-Log Frey Swre RerrlaamArm
'- Il iZ 7;ado¢sl Pah
+- Iky Tw PNanmal Pat1
STATE MSTORIC SITE
1+ faun Ise,• Saar Hix C 5u!
N ATICN AL _XfARr;E SA'�CTUAY-Y
1 S Fm 7ad-y r r�lo Store Humor Sw
]ier LatFo Navoml \Usme Sattxo�•
Lroe }sn• tiavoasi 1Ssvvme Sm�aey'
STATE 7'MEM ATER ULHAEr OGIC4L PRESERVE
_
16- Sm Pu& Stm iiadexs w ArrhmlopuI Pre v
NAIIONAL RTlDi REFI.'GE
Cmro Lake R',F, Rd
SITE
- a m Ml
- Navomt Iser Lac R'iEdlife P
ISTATE wGEOlACF-I
� �- R"tadeg F;eg Fmvl Reef Sate CxaiapW Sur
Ca R-W. H_M...l R"elAifr_t u
STATE BOTA:%:1L Sr E
Wiley Kist 140o R'd&* Retap
Salt Boaamral Sire
9- Li�lsue lin Sop Bormiril Sire
STATE DpAmR�K
AQLCk2'IC PBfSEs?\F
'.sr b� C-1 Reel Sww Park
.a Bsra+ve Bar' Ca¢d Sword Aq=m Pteune
HammMF
:2-n.ti;. tPrrk
Lgk
Honda Sk2
_�- m A4=&Pe
,Uaiao.aan,wra;�:.e w.xnr t�..tre'an ast
Baku
Smrk Slmd
Bq Pim Rey
S--�—d K y
Chun Y: B_ Ch
Ciidjm Sey .
SU&ffI They
--------------
L
----.... Sold:
.&.
S J`'
• �-.• a •.• • a f ♦'+ 1C,%
i
Flonda y . 4
Bm io .
3
]famcwabe F:r.
LmE F:n
xrch F:e}'
k Fey
F:[y
sec
IOLOMETERS
eLES
+! a +! m w
3
The benthic resources of the Florida Keys include over 1 million acres of seagrass and the only
living coral reef in the continental United States (the 3rd largest living coral barrier reef in the world).
Existing Comprehensive Plan Policies
One of the management strategies included in the CMMP is the removal of accumulated organic
material from some of the canals that exhibit fair to poor water quality. Currently, the Monroe
County Comprehensive Plan prohibits new dredging and does not allow maintenance dredging
within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom communities (e.g. benthic
communities) except for maintenance in public navigation channels. The Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan also limits maintenance dredging to minus six (-6) feet mean low water.
Policy 202.8.2 No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County.
Policy 202.8.3 No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or
characterized by hardbottom communities except for maintenance in public navigation channels.
Policy 203.2.3 Effective upon plan adoption, Monroe County shall:
1. Prohibit new dredging in the Florida Keys; and
2. Prohibit maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds except for maintenance
dredging in public navigation channels.
This amendment is being proposed to allow the implementation of canal restoration pilot projects
by public entities (County, State or Federal) which include the removal of organic material by
vacuum dredge from artificial canals characterized as having poor or fair water quality within the
2013 Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan to depths greater than minus six (-6) feet
n
I mean low water. As detailed in the CMMP, many of these canals were originally excavated deeper
2 than Eft, subsequently the accumulated sediments extend well below the -6 MLW limit contained in
3 the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Evaluating the demonstration project for the removal of organic
4 material from deep canals is important as the organic material on the canal bottom consumes large
5 amounts of dissolved oxygen and depletes the viability of a canal's ecosystem as well as the
6 adjacent near shore waters. The physical removal of accumulated organic sediments can reduce the
7 consumption of oxygen and improve water quality.
On August 26, 2014, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed
amendment and recommended approval to the Monroe County Planning Commission.
12 On August 27, 2014, the Monroe County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment
13 and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners, with a specific amendment to
14 limit the organic material removal by vacuum dredge and the exemption to the dredge depth of
15 minus six (-6) feet mean low water to projects performed or funded by public entities.
17 On September 17, 2014, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) reviewed
18 and discussed the proposed amendment regarding canal restoration and recommended revisions to
19 the amendment to include: a requirement for a public hearing before the BOCC for development
20 approval for organic material removal by vacuum dredge to depths greater than minus six (-6) feet
21 mean low water; water quality monitoring for a 2 year period to determine organic removal project
22 effectiveness and water quality reports from the Water Quality Committee before expanding the
23 Comprehensive Plan to other canal projects, oc• private applicants. The BOCC voted to transmit the
24 amendment to the State Land Planning Agency.
25
26 The goal of the proposed amendment was to provide the County the ability to issue permits for the
27 removal of organic material below -6ft mean low water for water quality improvement projects,
28 using various strategies, such as backfilling. To ensure the proposed amendment fully addressed the
29 restoration strategies to improve the water quality in the canal systems and complete 2
30 demonstration pilot canal restoration projects; this clarified amendment has been drafted for BOCC
31, consideration to transmit to the State Land Planning Agency.
32
33 On October 1.7, 2014, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to
34 review and discuss the proposed text amendment regarding canal restoration and voted to transmit
35 the amendment to the State Land Planning Agency.
36
37 On December 12, 2014, the State Land Planning Agency issued its Objections, Recommendations,
38 and Comments (ORC) report on the proposed amendment, The ORC report includes one objection
39 that the policy does not establish criteria for using a method other than hydraulic dredging and a
40 recommendation to address the objection by revising the "policy criteria to clarify that the purpose
41 of the public hearing is to provide a decision point for the BOCC and inform the public regarding
42 rationale as to the reasons that the preferred mechanism (hydraulic dredging) will not be utilized."
43 In response to the ORC Report, Monroe County has revised the proposed policy to clarify the
44 purpose of the public hearing,
5
2 111. PROPOSED AMENDMENT
3 (Deletions are stfieken thfe and additions are underlined.)
4
5 Objective 202.8
6 By jantiar-y 4, 1997,Monroe County shall adept maintain Land Development Regulations which
7 implement county policies preventing the continued loss of benthic resources, improve water qunlit
8 and controlling pollutant discharges into surface waters from dredge and fill activities.
9
10 Policy 202.8.1
11 Monroe County shall support state and federal policies and regulations concerning the permitting of
12 dredge and fill activity, except in those instances where more stringent regulations adopted by
13 Monroe County shall be maintained.
Policy 202.8.2
No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County.
18 Policy 202.8.3
19 No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or
20 characterized by hardbottom communities, except for maintenance in public navigation channels,
21
22 Policy 202.8.4
23 In order to facilitate establishment and prevent. degradation of bottom vegetation, maintenance
24 dredging in artificial waterways shall not exceed depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low
25 water. This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe Harbor.
Policy 202.8.5
All dredged spoil resulting from maintenance dredging shall be placed on permitted upland sites
where drainage can be contained on -site.
31 Policy 202.8.6
32 Due to the physical structure, depth,_. and., orientation of existing canals, water quality -problems have
33 been caused which cannot be improved with wastewater treatment and stormw.ater management
34 practices alone. To implement the 2013 Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan and
35 improve water quality in manmade canals, the County is developing canal restoration projects to
36 improve tidal flushing, increase dissolved oxygen concentrations as identified in the surface water
37 quality criteria in Ch. 62-302.53O F.A.C. and remove accumulated nutrients and decomposing
38 organic material. Canal restoration projects, developed to determine the effectiveness of water
39 quality strategies of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program,
40 which are performed or funded by public entities (County, State, or Federal) for organic material
41 removal by maintenance dredge and backfilling to a del2th of Eft - 8ft from artificial canals
42 characterized as having . ......... poor or fair water quality within the 2013 Monroe County Canal
43 Management Master Plan are exempt from the provisions in Policy 202.8.4.
Two (2) demonstration pilot canal restoration projects will remove decomposing organic material
down to the bedrock by maintenance dredging without backfilling. To evaluate the effectiveness of
EI
this removal strate2v, without anv backfillin2, and to determine if water aualitv can be restored and
2 maintained, water quality monitoring in accordance with the surface water quality criteria in Ch. 62-
3 302,530, F.A.C., of these two (2) organic removal pilot projects shall be conducted 2 two years and
4 ten (10) years after completion of the maintenance dredge pilot projects. After the. .2 two year
5 monitoring period and ten (10) year monitoring, the County shall request a water quality report from
6 the Water Quality Protection Program Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee to determine the
7 pilot projects' effectiveness in improving dissolved oxygen concentrations, as identified in the
8 surface water gu.ality criteria in Ch. 62-302.530, F.A.C., in the two (2) organic remov.al..pilot projects
9 canals and whether water gunlit y has been restored and maintained. If the water quality report for
10 the two (2) year period indicates imroved water guality, additional canal restoration projects,
11 beyond the two (2) pilot projects, to perform organic material removal by maintenance dredge to
ri
12 depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low water without backfilling to Eft-8ft may proceed.
14 Upon determination of the two (2) pilot projects' effectiveness and an amendment to this Policy, the
15 exemption to the rovisions in Policy 202.8.4 may be expanded beyond public entities (County,
16 State, or Federal) for organic material removal by maintenance dredge from artificial canals
17 characterized as having poor or fair water quality within the 2013 Monroe County Canal
18 Management Master Plan. The organic material removal shall be allowed to depths greater than
19 minus six (-6) feet mean low water if permitted by Florida Department of Environmental Protection
20 or the Water Management District and the Armv Corr) of Envineers.
21
22 For this policy, hydraulic (vacuum) dredging shall be considered the preferred means of removal of
23 the organic material. If hydraulic dredging is not proposed to accomplish the gEganic material
24 removal.,_a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) shall be required
25 prior to issuance of a county permit. The BOCC shall hold a public hearing on the request to use an
26 alternative dredging methodology and shall consider the cost, rationale, compatibility, complications
27 and public comments. The public hearing shall provide the applicant the opportunity to address the
28 issues regarding the proposed canal restoration project, including but not limited to, sediment size,
29 to istj cal /accessibility limitations, obstructions and/or equipment constraints. The BOCC may grant,
30 grant with conditions or deny the req.ues.t to use an alternative dredging methodology.
Policy 202.8-.6.7
No "after-the-i77ct" permits shall be issued that violate Monroe County dredge and fill regulations.
All illegal structures and fill shall be removed and damages mitigated,
36 Policy 202.8-.7.8
37 Monroe County shall develop a schedule of monetary penalties that provides for fair and equitable
38 penalties for all dredge and fill violations. Penalty revenues obtained from these violations shall be
39 set aside and used specifically for water quality enhancement prqjects.
Section 373.403, F.S. Definitions. —When appearing in this part or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted
pursuant thereto, the following terms mean:
(8) "Maintenance" or "repairs" means remedial work of a nature as may affect the safety of any dam,
impoundment, reservoir, or appurtenant work or works, but excludes routine custodial maintenance.
N
(13) "Dredging" means excavation, by any means, in surface waters or wetlands, as delineated in s.
373,421 (1), It also means the excavation, or creation, of a water body which is, or is to be, connected to
surface waters or wetlands, as delineated in s. 373.421(1), directly or via an excavated water body or series
of water bodies.
(14) "Filling" means, the deposition, by any means, of materials in surface waters or wetlands, as delineated
in s. 373.421(1).
Section 403.061, F.S. Department; powers and duties. —The department shall have the power and the duty
to control and prohibit pollution of air and water in accordance with the law and rules adopted and
promulgated by it and, for this purpose, to:
(24)(a) Establish a permit system to provide for spoil site approval, as may be requested and required by
local governmental agencies as defined in 's. 403.1822(3), or mosquito control districts as defined in s.
388.01 ](5), to facilitate these agencies in providing spoil sites for the deposit of spoil from maintenance
dredging of navigation channels, port harbors, turning basins, and harbor berths, as part of a federal project,
when the agency is acting as sponsor of a contemplated dredge and fill operation involving an established
navigation channel, harbor, turning basin, or harbor berth. A spoil site approval granted to the agency shall
be granted for a period of 10 to 25 years when such site is not inconsistent with an adopted local
governmental comprehensive plan and the requirements of this chapter. The department shall periodically
review each permit to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. Such review shall
be conducted at least once every 10 years.
(b) This subsection applies only to those maintenance dredging operations, permitted after July 1, 1980,
where the United States Army Corps of Engineers is the prime dredge and fill agent and the local
governmental agency is acting as sponsor for the operation, and does not require the redesignation of
currently approved spoil sites under such previous operations.
(37) Provide a supplemental permitting process for the issuance of a joint coastal permit pursuant to s,
161.055 or environmental resource permit pursuant to part IV of chapter 373, to a port listed in s. 311 .09( 1)
(this list includes Key West), for maintenance dredging and the management of dredged materials from
maintenance dredging of all navigation channels, port harbors, turning basins, and harbor berths. Such
permit shall be issued for a period of 5 years and shall be annually extended for an additional year if the
port is in compliance with all permit conditions at the time of extension. The department is authorized to
adopt rules to implernent this subsection.
403.803 Definitions. —When used in this act, the term, phrase, or word:
(2) "Canal" is a manmade trench, the bottom of which is normally covered by water with the upper edges of
its sides normally above water.
(3) "Channel"' is a trench, the bottom of which is normally covered entirely by water, with the upper edges
of its sides normally below water.
Section 403.813, F.S. Permits issued at district centers,; exceptions.--
(1) A permit is not required under this chapter, chapter 373, chapter 61-6,91, Laws of Florida, or chapter
25214 or chapter 25270, 1949, Laws of Florida, for activities associated with the following types of
projects; however, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, nothing in this subsection relieves an
applicant from any requirement to obtain permission to use or occupy lands owned by the Board of Trustees
of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or any water management district in its governmental or proprietary
capacity or from complying with applicable local pollution control programs authorized under this chapter
or other requirements of county and municipal governments:
(f) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, intake and discharge
structures, and previously dredged portions of natural water bodies within drainage rights -of -way or
drainage easements which have been recorded in the public records of the county, where the spoil material
is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the
N.
spoil material into the waters of the state, provided that no more dredging is to be performed than is
necessary to restore the canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, and previously dredged
portions of natural water bodies, to original design specifications or configurations, provided that the work
is conducted in compliance with s. 379.2431(2)(d), provided that no significant impacts occur to previously
undisturbed natural areas, and provided that control devices for return flow and best management practices
for erosion and sediment control are utilized to prevent bank erosion and scouring and to prevent turbidity,
dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during
maintenance dredging. Further, for maintenance dredging of previously dredged portions of natural water
bodies within recorded drainage rights -of -way or drainage easements, an entity that seeks an exemption
must notify the department or water management district, as applicable, at least 30 days prior to dredging
and provide documentation of original design specifications or configurations where such exist. This
exemption applies to all canals and previously dredged portions of natural water bodies within recorded
drainage rights -of -way or drainage easements constructed prior to April 3, 1970, and to those canals and
previously dredged portions of natural water bodies constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all
necessary state permits. This exemption does not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier
separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters. When no previous permit has been issued by the
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers
for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing rnanmadc canal or intake or discharge structure,
such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. The
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund may fix and recover from the permittee an
amount equal to the difference between the fair market value and the actual cost of the maintenance
dredging for material removed during such maintenance dredging. However, no charge shall be exacted by
the state for material removed during such maintenance dredging by a public port authority. The removing
party may subsequently sell such material; however, proceeds from such sale that exceed the costs of
maintenance dredging shall be remitted to the state and deposited in the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.
Rule 40E-4.051 Exemptions, From Permitting. Exemptions from permitting under Chapters 40E-4, 40E-40
and 40E-400, F.A.C. are set forth below. The performance of activities pursuant to the provisions of the
exemptions set forth in this section does not relieve the person or persons who are using the exemption or
who are constructing or otherwise implementing the activity from meeting the permitting or performance
requirements of other District rules, Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Department from taking
appropriate enforcement action pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S., to abate or prohibit any activity otherwise
exempt from permitting pursuant to this section if the Department can demonstrate that the exempted
activity has caused water pollution in violation of Chapter 403, F.S.
(2) Maintenance of Systems.
(a) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, basins, berths, and
intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained,
upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into
wetlands or other surface waters, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the
canal, channels, basins, berths, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and
provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious
substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply
to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970,
pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or
manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system frorn adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. Where
no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, the
Department, the District or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance
dredging of the existing manmade canal, channel, basin, berth or intake or discharge structure, such
maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water.
Mr
I Rule 18-21.003 Definitions.
2 When used in these rules, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
3 (46) "Private channel" means a channel that is dredged or maintained by private entities to provide access to
4 or from such locations as private residences, marinas, yacht clubs, vessel repair facilities, or revenue-
5 generating facilities,
6 (50) "Public channel" means a channel that is constructed or maintained by a public entity such as a federal or
7 state agency, local government, or inland navigation district listed in Chapter 374, F.S., or that is part of a
8 public navigation project, public water management project, or a deepwater port listed in Section
9 403.021(9)(b), F.S.
10 (52) "Public navigation project" means an activity primarily for the purpose of navigation which is authorized
I I and funded by the United States Congress or by port authorities as defined by Section 315.02(2), F.S.
12
Rule 62,-312.020 Definitions.
(7) "Dredging" is the excavation, by any means, in waters of the state. It is also the excavation (or creation) of
a water body which is, or is to be, connected to any of the waters listed in subsection 62-312.030(2), F.A.C,,
directly or via an excavated water body or series of excavated water bodies.
Rule 62-312.400 Intent.
(1) Part IV pertains to Outstanding Florida Waters, exclusive of all artificial water bodies, within Monroe
County, as identified in Rule 62-302.700, F.A.C., and is in addition to all other applicable Departmental
rules relating to environmental resource permit or grandfathered dredge and fill permit applications under
Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. Artificial water bodies shall be defined as any water body created by dredging,
or excavation, or by the filling in of its boundaries, including canals as defined in subsection 62-312.020(3),
F.A.C., and borrow pits or waters resulting from rock mining activities.
(2)(a) The Environmental Regulation Commission finds that the waters of the Florida Keys and other
Outstanding Florida Waters in Monroe County are an irreplaceable asset which require special protection,
(b) Further, the Florida Legislature in adopting Section 380.0552, F.S., recognized the value of the Florida
Keys to the State as a whole by designating the Keys an Area of Critical State Concern,, This rule
implements Section 403.061(34), F.S., and is intended to provide the most stringent protection for the
applicable waters allowable by law.
(3) Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7), F.S. (1986 Supp.), the specific criteria set forth in this section are
intended to be consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as set forth in Chapter 28-29, F.A.C.
(August 23, 1984), and with the principles set forth in that statute. However, the criteria in this rule does not
apply to all waters within the Florida Keys, These criteria do not apply to artificial waterbodies within the
Florida Keys, as described in subsection 62-312.400(1), F.A.C. In addition, the four foot water depth
restriction for piers which do not provide commercial marine supplies, or services and which are designed to
rnoor between three and nine boats are not applicable within the Outstanding Florida Waters that are within
the boundaries of the City of Key West or within Everglades National Park or areas north of the Park within
Monroe County, Docking facilities in those areas shall instead be subject to the three foot depth restrictions
specified in paragraph 62-312.420(2)(a), F.A.C. However, all other provisions of this part are applicable in
those areas.
Rule 62-312.410 General Criteria.
(1) Subject to the provisions of the mitigation section of this part (Rule 62-312,450, F.A.C.), no
environmental resource permit or grandfathered dredge and fill permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S.,
shall be issued for any activity in Outstanding Florida Waters in Monroe County if such activity:
(a) Alone or in combination with other activities damages the viability of a living stony coral community
(Scleraoctinia and Milleporina), soft coral community (Alcynoacea, Gorgonacea and Pennatulacea), macro,
marine algae community (Chlorophyta, Phaeophyta and Rhodophyta), sponge bed community (Porifera), or
10
marine seagrass, (Hydrocharitaceae and Cymodoceae) bed community. This prohibition shall not include
algae unattached to the bottom, nor shall it include algae growing landward of the mean high water line or
growing as an epiphyte or periphyte on woody plants. For the purposes of this Part a marine seagrass bed or
marine macroalgae community means an area dominated by the listed biota having an area] extent of at
least 100 square feet. This paragraph does not imply that the Department cannot restrict the impact on
smaller areas for such species based on other Department rules;
(b) Has been initiated or completed without benefit of an environmental resource permit or dredge and fill
permit required by the Department.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the mitigation section of this part (Rule 62-312,450, F.A.C.), no permit shall
be issued for the placement of fill in Outstanding Florida Waters in Monroe County unless expressly
authorized by this rule or unless the Department determines that under applicable rules a permit may be
issued in the following situations:
(a) Filling for projects which have been proposed by a governmental entity, public authority or public or
private utility; or
(b) Filling for any other projects located within the landward extent of wetlands identified solely by
vegetative dominance as described in paragraph 62-340.300(2)(b), F.A.C. Such areas do not include open
waters or wetlands identified by vegetative dominance as described in paragraph 62-340.300(2)(a), F.A.C,,
or by the provisions of paragraph 62-340.300(2)(c) or (d), F.A.C,
Rule 62-312.450 Mitigation.
Notwithstanding any of the prohibitions contained in this rule, the Department shall consider mitigation
pursuant to Section 373.414(l)(b), F.S., and applicable Department rules to determine whether the project
may otherwise be permittable. In any application for mitigation, the applicant shall demonstrate before
issuance of any permit for the construction of the intended project that the proposed mitigation will be
effective. Mitigation shall not be permitted where it appears after due considerations that construction of the
intended project will cause irreplaceable damage to the site.
I. Invitenem,
A. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the following Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the Monroe: County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure
the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
GOAL 202: The environmental quality of Monroe County's estuaries, nearshore waters
(canals, harbors, bays, lakes and tidal strearns,) and associated benthic resources shall be
maintained and, where possible, enhanced.
GOAL 203: The health and integrity of living benthic resources and marine habitat, including
mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs and fisheries, shall be protected and, where possible,
enhanced.
Objective 203.2: Monroe County shall protect submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses by
implementing regulations which will further reduce direct and indirect disturbances to
seagrasses.
I I
Objective 203.6: Monroe County shall coordinate development and implementation of
programs and regulations to protect the living benthic resources of the Florida Keys with
other federal, state and local authorities with jurisdiction over marine activities within the
Florida Keys.
GOAL 204: The health and integrity of Monroe County's marine and freshwater wetlands
shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced.
B. The amendment is, not inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the
Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan
with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles
shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation
from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that
local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical
state concern designation,
(b) Protecting shoreline and benthic resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations,
seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native
tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and
beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound
economic development.
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida
Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, prornoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural
environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character
of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.,
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
proposed major public investments, including:
i. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
ii. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
iii. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
iv. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
V. Transportation facilities;
vi. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
vii. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned
properties;
viii. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
ix. Other utilities, as appropriate.
12
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation,
maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage
collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and
maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems.
0) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and
operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss.
381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by
central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the
Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida
Keys.
(m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of
a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and
maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is not inconsistent
with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any
Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida
Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers:
163,3161(4), R& — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve
and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and
resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal
effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within
their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units
of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety,
comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and
services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their
jurisdictions
163-3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards,
and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental,
and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the
plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a
consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans
are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and
strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated,
modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not
the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the
comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land
IN
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive
plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards
for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of
more detailed land development and use regulations.
163.3177(6)(d)l.e., F.S. - Conserves, appropriately uses, and protects fisheries, wildlife,
wildlife habitat, and marine habitat and restricts activities known to adversely affect the
survival of endangered and threatened wildlife.
163.3177(6)(g)l., F.S. - Maintain, restore, and enhance the overall quality of the coastal zone
environment, including, but not limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values.
163.3177(6)(g)3., F.S. - Protect the orderly and balanced utilization and preservation,
consistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone
resources.
III. PROCESS
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the
transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff
recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not
recommend transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. If the amendment is transmitted to the
State Land Planning Agency, it then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has
180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the
amendment.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendment.
VII. EXHIBITS
1. Monroe County Canal Management Plan (CMMP), Sept. 20, 2013
1
Monroe Count' y�
Y
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
Prepared By:
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Prepared For:
Monroe County, EPA, the
WOPP Steering Committee and WOPP Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee
September 20, 2013
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) �, �
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................... iv
1.0 Background..................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose of Document.............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Review of Stakeholders..........................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Situation and Need..................................................................................................................1-2
1.4 Summary of Historic Efforts...................................................................................................1-4
1.5 Public Benefit and Participation..........................................................................................1-13
2.0 Project Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Overview of Scope..................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 What Defines a Canal?..........................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee.........................................................................2-2
2.4 CMMP Objectives....................................................................................................................2-2
2.5 Management Goals for Priority Issues.................................................................................2-3
3.0 Updated CMMP Database.........................................................................................................3-1
4.0 Keys -Wide Canal Water Quality Ranking................................................................................4-1
4.1 Overview...................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Process for Determining A Water Quality Classification...................................................4-3
4.3 Canal Ranking andNeed for Water Quality Improvement.................................................4-5
4.3.1 Water Quality Summary .................................................................................................4-5
4.3.2 Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet.......................................................................................4-5
4.4 Results......................................................................................................................................4-7
5.0 Best Management Practices for Canal Water Quality Improvement..................................5-1
5.1 Homeowner Stewardship.......................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Restoration Technologies......................................................................................................5-4
5.2.1 Weed Gates/Air Curtains/Physical Barriers................................................................5-5
5.2.2 Organic Removal.............................................................................................................5-6
5.2.3 Canal Backfilling..............................................................................................................5-7
5.2.4 Culvert Installation...........................................................................................................5-7
5.2.5 Circulation Pumping........................................................................................................5-8
5.2.6 Integrated Technology Application...............................................................................5-9
1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
amvQ
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
6.0 Adaptive Management Process................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Background..............................................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Evaluation of CMMP Adaptive Management Objectives..................................................6-2
6.2.1 Define Programmatic Issues and Goals......................................................................6-2
6.2.2 Plan and Prioritize...........................................................................................................6-3
6.2.3 Implement.........................................................................................................................6-3
6.2.4 Monitor..............................................................................................................................6-4
6.2.5 Evaluate............................................................................................................................6-4
6.2.6 Adjust................................................................................................................................6-5
7.0 Project Funding Mechanisms....................................................................................................7-1
7.1 Recurring Grant Programs.....................................................................................................7-1
7.2 Grant Application Checklist....................................................................................................7-1
7.3 Information Necessary to Complete Applications..............................................................7-2
7.4 County and Municipality Funding Sources..........................................................................7-3
7.5 2012 RESTORE Act Funding...............................................................................................7-3
8.0 Future Needs...............................................................................................................................8-1
9.0 Literature Cited............................................................................................................................9-1
TABLES
Table 1 - Residential Canal Attribute Table
Table 2 - Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
Table 3 Residential Canal Water Quality Summaries
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Florida Keys Location Map
Figure 6-1 Adaptive Management Framework
APPENDICES
Appendix A Residential Canal Homeowner Questionnaire
Appendix B Glossary of Canal Attributes Included in CMMP Database
Appendix C Poor Water Quality Ranking Sheets
ATTACHED CD
Google Earth Pro Canal Layer
GIS Shape files
Canal Attribute Table (Excel)
ArcGIS Map File
ii
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
amec'9
This comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) Phase 2 was commissioned by
Monroe County, with financial assistance from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), and with approval from the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS)
Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP). During development of the CMMP Phase 2, goals
and priority management issues established during the initial Phase 1 CMMP process were
reviewed and updated. In addition, the CMMP Phase 2 provides an expanded framework for
identifying and correcting water quality impairments within the entire Florida Keys canal
network. Approximately five hundred canals were examined and ranked as part of this effort
using a combination of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tools and water quality field
reconnaissance to develop the best possible assessment. The CMMP development process
was directed by the WQPP's steering subcommittee known as the Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee consisting of federal, state, and local agency members. This CMMP Phase 2
report is intended to provide the reader with a comprehensive overview of the entire CMMP
process, combining results from Phase 1 and Phase 2 into one document.
Canals within the Florida Keys have recently
received considerable attention from regulatory
agencies because many are associated with
poor water quality. C anals with poor water
quality have the potential to cause significant
harm to near shore marine waters upon which
the community depends. Water quality
impairments within canals are most often
associated with low dissolved oxygen (DO) as
a result of accumulated organic matter or lack
of flushing. However, some evidence indicates
that nutrient enrichment from surrounding
development has lead to biological imbalances
(e.g., algal blooms) that further exacerbate the
problem. In addition, other water quality problems
bacteria have also been identified.
including contamination from fecal coliform
In response to the documented water quality issues related to the Keys residential canals, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 2008 developed the Florida Keys
Reasonable Assurance Document (FKRAD) for the purpose of addressing both anthropogenic
nutrient loading and diminished DO concentrations within the canals. Through the
implementation of the FKRAD prescribed management activities (Wastewater Management,
Stormwater Management, and the adherence to Regulatory Guidelines), it was expected that
Monroe County would not be required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to
address either the nutrient loading or diminished DO concentrations in the residential canals.
In the 2011 FKRAD update, the DEP acknowledged that due to the varying nature of the
residential canals within Monroe County, the actual improvement in water quality from the
implementation of the three above referenced general management activities is unknown.
Furthermore, the 2011 FKRAD stated that without addressing the poor circulation, weed wrack,
organic sediments, water depth issues, and DO concentrations, the canals will likely not achieve
um
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
DEP Class III Marine Surface Water DO standards. Since the canals discharge directly to near
shore Outstanding Florida Waters in the FKNMS, where DEP adopted a" zero -degradation"
policy for marine waters, addressing on -going canal water quality impairment is of utmost
importance. It was identified by the WQPP Canal Subcommittee that the first step to address
this problem was to prepare a CMMP to provide an updated water quality assessment of all
residential canals within the Keys, develop a methodology to prioritize need for water quality
improvement, and identify appropriate restoration options.
One of the main objectives of the CMMP was to prioritize the residential canals within Monroe
County related to need for water quality improvements. A process was developed utilizing
water quality assessment data and physical conditions of the canals that influence the ability to
improve the water quality and benefit the public. The canals were classified by water quality
characteristics into "Good", "Fair", and " Poor' categories. Those canals receiving a " Poor'
classification were scored and ranked using specific canal attributes in order to provide a list of
high priority canals which were suitable for consideration of various public works restoration
projects. In total, 171 canals received a Good water quality classification, 180 received a Fair
classification, and 131 received a Poor classification. This included canals in all municipalities.
Canals receiving a P oor classification were considered as potential candidates for certain
restoration technologies. A preliminary technology selection process was developed utilizing
the identified source(s) of water quality impairment and the canal characteristics. This
preliminary technology selection will need to be field verified with an engineering evaluation in
the future in order to develop the most appropriate and cost effective restoration(s) for each
canal system. Restoration technologies reviewed in the CMMP include removal of accumulated
organics, incorporation of weed gates or similar weed barrier structures, addition of culverts,
construction of pumping systems, and backfilling. The physical removal of accumulated organic
sediments can reduce the consumption of oxygen and release of nutrients from deeper water.
Weed gates provide a low-cost method of minimizing the introduction of floating debris that
often accumulates and causes low DO and odor problems within dead end canals. In certain
locations, addition of new culverts can provide a low-cost solution to flushing of dead end
canals, while pumping requires more equipment, but can be implemented as needed to improve
circulation. Backfilling is one method that can be used to eliminate deeper layers of colder
saltier water which tend to be associated with low DO and elevated nutrient concentrations. In
some cases, multiple technologies may be used in combination to improve the ability to achieve
water quality goals.
Public participation is the key to the successful achievement of goals and objectives for water
quality improvement in the canals. I n addition to the implementation of the above discussed
restoration techniques, there are many best management practices (BMPs) that can be easily
implemented both by homeowners and business owners to protect water quality and require
only minimal use of public funds. BMPs vary from careful selection of fertilizers and landscape
plants to proper disposal of fish waste. I n addition to providing various BMPs, the CMMP
encourages public participation by providing homeowners with links to on-line information about
canal restoration efforts.
The CMMP provides an adaptive management process to aid in current and future actions.
Adaptive management is an iterative process where project goals are periodically re-evaluated
so the plans and priorities developed as part of the CMMP are consistent as new information
becomes available. Adaptive management also includes committee -based processes to review
iv
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation elements of the CMMP and make necessary
adjustments. This adaptive process is imperative to the success of the CMMP.
Several cooperative funding programs may be available for projects that could be contemplated
as part of the CMMP and include those from municipalities and agencies such as USEPA, DEP,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and A tmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and The Nature Center (TNC). Program eligibility requirements are
varied, but include use of innovative technologies, assistance with achievement of TMDL goals,
or simply reduction of non -point source pollution within impaired waters. Funding amounts can
range from several thousand dollars to several million. R ESTORE Act funding is another
significant source of funds for projects considered under the CMMP.
While the CMMP provides a comprehensive overview of the water quality conditions in the Keys
canals, this information will require updating over time. New information will become available
on effective technologies that should be incorporated into restoration planning. Implementation
of water quality improvements and protection of the Key's aquatic ecosystems will require the
full cooperation of all stakeholders and coordinated planning efforts.
v
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
amec,9
This report was produced as the final deliverable for the Monroe County Water Quality
Protection U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grant No. OOD03712. The project
description was to prepare a comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
database, update priority management issues and goals for the Keys -wide CMMP, and prepare
Keys -wide canal ranking criteria. The effort was referred to as Phase 2 CMMP. The updates
are based upon the work completed under a Phase 1 CMMP which was initiated under Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Grant # S0607. The final deliverable for the
DEP Grant was submitted on June 21, 2012 entitled `Monroe County CMMP Phase 1 Summary
Report' (AMEC 2012). This Phase 2 C MMP report is intended to provide the reader with a
comprehensive overview of the entire CMMP process, combining results from Phase 1 an d
Phase 2 into one document.
1.2 REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS) was established by Congress in 1990.
Under its authority, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
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. In 2012 t he WQPP Steering
Committee convened a Water Quality Canal
Subcommittee to manage and ov ersee the
implementation of canal water quality improvements. The WQPP Steering Committee recently
formalized the Subcommittee which is now known as the Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee.
The CMMP was overseen by the WQPP Steering Committee and the Canal Restoration
Advisory Subcommittee (members shown in bold) who represent the public interest and
routinely conduct public meetings regarding the various aspects of program implementation:
• U.S. EPA
• U.S. National Park Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• NOAA
• DEP
1-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
• South Florida Water Management District
• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC)
• Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
• Florida Department of Health
• Florida Keys Environmental Fund
• Monroe County
• Municipalities
• Village of Islamorada
• City of Marathon
• City of Key Colony Beach
• City of Layton
• City of Key West
• A citizen knowledgeable about the WQPP
1.3 SITUATION AND NEED
The Florida Keys (Keys) located in Monroe County, Florida stretches
110 miles from just south of Miami, Florida to Key West, Florida. As
the only tropical archipelago within the continental United States, the
Keys after World War II became a popular destination for tourists and
residents alike. To accommodate the post war demand for seaside
living, Keys developers converted the coastal mangrove wetlands
which dotted the archipelago into waterfront property. Because
residents desired homes adjacent to the water with dock space for
boats and developers needed a source of fill material for construction,
dredged finger canals became an essential characteristic of Keys life.
Today, residential canals are a permanent part of the Keys landscape.
Pnvc.•.PaL �n�_,or au�r��-rn-,r �nor�.. .
amac,
Construction of residential canals in the Keys was initiated in the
mid-20th century, before resource managers fully understood
their impacts on I ocal water quality and the broader coastal
ecosystems. D epending upon how much fill material was
required at the time of development; contractors routinely
dredged the canals to a depth in excess of 20 feet. Most canals
were designed as long, multi -segmented, dead-end canal
networks which maximize waterfront property but resulted in little
or not idal flushing. Without adequate tidal flushing, the canals
from their onset accumulated oxygen consuming sediments,
nutrients and organic matter.
1-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
From 1950 to 1970, studies of residential canals that focused
on water quality were conducted throughout Florida. These
studies determined that canal construction created significant
water quality and biological degradation within both the canals
and the coastal halo. In addition to the findings published in
the aforementioned studies, residents of the Keys have
witnessed as teady deterioration of the water quality within
their canals. A few signs of the water quality degradation
reported by the residents included the darkening color of the
water, objectionable odors, floating sludge, and periodic fish
kills. Water quality degradation not only presents aesthetic
and ecological problems, but a publ is health threat as well.
Previous studies concluded that degraded canal water results
in not only the deterioration of the environmental quality of
receiving waters but also impacts the adjacent benthic
communities including seagrass and coral reefs (Lapointe and
Clark 1992; Lapointe et al. 1994; Lapointe and Matzie, 1992).
Subsequent studies attributed the decline in canal water
quality in Monroe County specifically to the anthropogenic
nutrient loading from both on -site waste water disposal and
storm water run-off.
amec,9
In response to the documented water quality issues related to the Florida Keys residential
canals, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 2008 developed the
Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document (FKRAD) for the purpose of addressing both
anthropogenic nutrient loading and diminished dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations within the
canals. Through the implementation of the FKRAD prescribed management activities
(Wastewater Management, Stormwater Management, and t he adherence to Regulatory
Guidelines), it was expected that Monroe County would not be required to establish Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to address either the nutrient loading or diminished DO
concentrations in the residential canals.
In the 2011 FKRAD update, the FDEP acknowledged that due to the varying nature of the
residential canals within Monroe County, the actual improvement in water quality from the
implementation of the three above referenced general management activities is unknown.
Furthermore, the 2011 FKRAD stated that without addressing the poor circulation, weed wrack,
organic sediments and water depth issues, DO concentrations in the residential Keys canal will
likely not achieve Class III Marine Surface Water DO standards. Since the canals discharge
directly to near shore Outstanding Florida Waters in the FKNMS, where DEP adopted a "zero -
degradation" policy for marine waters, addressing on -going canal water quality impairment is of
utmost importance. It was identified by the WQPP Canal Subcommittee that the first step to
address this problem was to prepare a Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) to provide an
updated water quality assessment of all residential canals within the Keys, develop a
methodology to prioritize need f or water quality improvement, and identify appropriate
restoration options.
1-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame
t,
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
1.4 SUMMARY OF HISTORIC EFFORTS
In order to effectively understand the water quality issues related to the residential canals within
Monroe County, the unique history and characteristics of the canals must be understood and
addressed. This section summarizes relevant guidance documents and peer reviewed
publications on the canal systems and near shore waters of the Florida Keys as they pertain to
water quality. The following annotated bibliography summarizes the documented issues related
to water quality within the project area, as well as the recommended or ongoing course of
actions taken on behalf of the interested parties to remediate the impaired conditions:
• In Kruczynski's 1999 report titled "Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources,
Effects and Solutions" the author provided the following background information on a
number of water quality issues and potential management actions in the canals and near
shore waters of the Keys:
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 may also result in adding additional
nutrients to the adjacent waters.
o Canal systems and bas ins with poor water
quality are a potential source of nutrients and
other contaminants to other near shore 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.
1-4
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
amec,9
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 near
shore waters are affected by human -derived nutrients from sewage. Improved
sewage treatment practices are needed to improve canal and other near shore
waters. Impacts further from shore that may be due to human -derived nutrients
may be reduced or eliminated by cleaning up near shore 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.
that canals greater than four to five feet deep regularly experienced
water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (<4 mg/1).
The study reported
violations of State
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 i nformation 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
1-5
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame
t,
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
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 addi tional summary of known water -quality problem
areas, focusing on wastewater -related sources and bas ed 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 DEP in 1997 regarding future wastewater permitting practices and the
elimination of existing cesspits. The CH2MHILL (2000) report identified and prioritized a
total of 45 hi gh 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 s tormwater management decisions on nut rient 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.
The CIAM is based on a s teady-
state, spreadsheet -based tidal
flushing algorithm that estimates
pollutant concentrations in canals
based on pol lutant loads from
stormwater and wastewater
discharges and t idal fluxes from
near shore waters. To develop the
algorithm, data acquisition efforts
targeted previous canal water
quality studies, near shore water
quality data, and the magnitude of
tidal fluctuations. The module was
applied to ten canal systems that
were selected based on t he
availability of water quality data and the presence of representative sources of
wastewater and s tormwater pollutant loadings, including residential and commercial
1-6
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
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 (Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus) 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. U nder 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
concentrations were reduced by about a quarter, and TSS concentrations showed a
minor reduction (6%).
Loads discharged from the canals to near shore 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
1-7
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
report did not address the canal assessment module. I t 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 decision -making has 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 num ber of the highest -priority water quality 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.
1-8
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
amec,9
The FKNMS (FKNMS 2007) published as even -step canal management strategy,
focused on reducing water quality problems in canals and reducing nutrient loading to
other surface waters from canal systems, as
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. T hese
physical features can lead
to low flushing and the
buildup of weed wrack,
which consumes oxygen
and releases nutrients as
part of its overall sanctuary management
it decays. T he FKNMS"
(2007) strategy proposes uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-- uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu buuu uuuuuuu uuuuu. �uuuuuuuuuuuuu�,
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 dev eloped in coordination with plans for
dealing with stormwater and wastewater pollution from cesspits and septic tanks.
More recently, DEP has funded the development of Reasonable Assurance (RA) plans for
the surface waters of the Keys, as an alternative to the development of TMDLs. RA plans
were developed for the Upper, Middle and Lower Keys by CDM and URS (2008a, b, c).
The RA plans note that "halo zone" waters surround the Keys out to 500 meters offshore,
and "near shore" 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 phos phorus), and F lorida 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." T he reports note that,
because far -field sources dominate the nutrient concentrations in near shore waters, the
recommended water quality target in the near shore 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
near shore 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.
1-9
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
The Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Documentation Update of 2011 (CDM 2011)
outlined extensive waste water and s torm water restoration activities to address the
nutrient impairments. However, it states that DEP 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 was the cited reasons.
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
activities. The project included two phases. Phase 1was 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 t o 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 (Briceno 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 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 (Briceno and Boyer 2009).
Non -parametric Mann -Whitney tests indicated statistically significant (p<0.05) declines in
TN as a result of the wastewater treatment system while TP, DO (surface and bottom)
and CHLA concentrations increased in almost all sites. These changes were partially
related to region wide variability as well as local condition and/or remediation actions. At
the time of this study, State of Florida Rule 62-302.530, for Class III marine waters,
specifies that DO "shall never be less than 4.0 mg/1". 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 (Briceno and
Boyer 2009).
1-10
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
�7 -
amec
The Florida impaired water rule at the time of the Little Venice study stated that an
estuary is impaired if the annual mean CHLA concentration is greater than 11 pg/l.
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/1) and Phase
2 (2.14 pg/1). The overall increase during Phase 2 was statistically significant (Briceno
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 (Briceno
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
did the mouths. S tations in worse condition in Phase 1 ex perienced 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 EPA, the DEP and
the community of Marathon.
Since the completion of the first phase of the
waste water improvements at the Little Venice
neighborhood, Monroe County and as sociated
municipalities have undertaken an extensive
effort to provide wastewater treatment throughout
the entire Keys. A summary of the percent
connected by wastewater service area is
provided below. Currently the average percent
connected within the County is approximately 77
percent. It is anticipated that implementation of
the wastewater treatment plans will be complete
by 2015. Efforts to install stormwater
management systems are underway and w ill
increase in numbers as new projects are
completed and as additional funding becoming
available.
Cana/ Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Service Area
EDUs
Connected
Percent
Connected
Ocean Reef (NKLUC)
1,884
1,884
100%
Key Largo (KLWTD)
14,572
11,923
82%
Islamorada
8,483
1,055
12%
Layton (FKAA)
351
351
100%
Duck Key / Conch Key (FKAA)
1,454
1,167
80%
Key Colony Beach
1,502
1,502
100%
City of Marathon
5,812
4,607
79%
Cudjoe (FKAA)
8,600
0%
Big Coppitt (FKAA)
1,726
1,417
82%
Bay Point FKAA
437
420
96%
Stock Island
2,750
2,650
96%
Key West
24,075
24,075
100%
Total
71,646
51,051
77%
Sources:
Status of Wastewater Implementation, Monroe County, July 201
Monthly Utility Update, City of Marathon, August 2013
hftp://fi-monroecountv.civicplus.com/DocumentCenterNiew/5974
hftp://www.ci.marathon.fl.us/download/download.php?id=5159
1-12
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) ��
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
eO
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
1.5 PUBLIC BENEFIT AND PARTICIPATION
The Florida Keys canal network is a vital economic element within all Keys communities
because it provides access to a host of Florida's most valuable and unique natural resources.
While the canals provide access to the resources, they are also a conduit for direct introduction
of pollutants into surrounding waters which can negatively impact the near shore marine
environment upon which the community depends. Because of the close proximity to water of all
the Keys landmass, nearly everyone living or visiting the Florida Keys will have some impact on
the surrounding water quality. This CMMP is intended to provide the public with an
understanding of the issues affecting water quality within the Keys and will identify opportunities
for water quality improvement through public participation. In addition, the CMMP describes
various opportunities for public involvement throughout the stakeholder planning process.
Florida is the only state in the continental United States to have extensive shallow coral reef
formations near its coasts. Coral reefs create specialized habitats that provide shelter, food and
breeding sites for numerous plants and animals, including spiny lobster, snapper and other
commercial and recreational species. The Florida Reef Tract (FRT) stretches 358 miles from the
Dry Tortugas National Park off of the Florida Keys to the St. Lucie Inlet in Martin County.
Roughly two thirds of the Florida Reef Tract lies within the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary (FKNMS) (FDEP, 2013). The aforementioned portion within the Monroe County is
the only section of the Florida Reef Tract that is located within the Gulf of Mexico's waters. As
such, the stakeholders within Monroe County are charged with the responsibility of managing
North America's only barrier coral reef. Furthermore, the socioeconomic importance of the reef
to Monroe County was documented in a 2007 -2008 socioeconomic study performed by the
FKNMS which concluded that more than 33,000 jobs and $2.3 billion dollars in annual added
revenue are directly attributed to Florida Reef Tract (National Marine Sanctuaries, 2013).
Information concerning canal water quality
improvements is being disseminated through
Monroe County's website
http://www. monroecounty-
fl.gov/index.aspx?N ID=598. A homeowner
questionnaire has been prepared and is included
in Appendix A or can be accessed on the
Monroe County website for interested canal -front
homeowners to provide feedback on their canal
water quality conditions. The public is welcome
to attend the WQPP Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee meetings held periodically.
a
1-13
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) ��
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
eO
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
2.0 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 OVERVIEW OF SCOPE
The CMMP scope covers a comprehensive water quality assessment of the entire Florida Keys
canal system to include the following elements:
• Review of project history
• Define project goals and objectives
• Update of CMMP database
• Implementation of adaptive management process
• Development of Keys -wide canal ranking criteria
• Overview of sustainable BMPs
• Research project funding mechanisms
• Evaluate future needs
2.2 WHAT DEFINES A CANAL?
The CMMP is intended to provide the Keys community with an understanding of how the canal
systems are affected by the surrounding environment and how improved management practices
can benefit water purposes ur For the p p quality. .... � „ .... ...... .. �� ��
" P
of this CMMP the term canal refers to a l�
manmade residential waterway system,f
usually linear, with a common outfall or �
mouth providing landowners with
navigational access to the adjoining near. r ,,
shore water body. Most Keys canals are
associated strictly with residential `I
development as described in Section 1.3.
During the completion of the CMMP it was
noted that the list of residential canals that,
were to be evaluated also included some
non -canal features, which have been
labeled in the database as `other' water
bodies. `Other' water bodies refer to canals
that were not developed or not maintained,
or are natural features such as
embayment's and retention ponds.................................................................Q..:,..°..,.,..,.,..,.,..,.,..,.,..,.,..,..
2-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Canals are often connected with `boat basins' or marinas where multiple vessels are docked at
the same time. For the purposes of the CMMP, marinas are assumed to be commercial
operations and are not included in the residential canal assessment. Boat basins, depending on
their size, connection to a canal, and proximity to residential properties, may or may not be
included as part of the canal systems evaluated in this CMMP. While they are not technically
canals, boat basins share many of the same attributes as the adjoining canals and al I of the
Best Management Practices described in this CMMP will apply regardless of their inclusion in
this report. Although some boat basins are included, boat basins associated with the Keys
canals are not comprehensively identified and ranked as part of this report. Further assessment
will be required to fully inventory and assess all of the boat basins in the Keys.
2.3 CANAL RESTORATION ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE
As discussed in Section 1.2, the WQPP Steering Committee established the Canal Restoration
Advisory Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to provide scientific and objective oversight to the
CMMP project. Subcommittee members consist of representatives from the following agencies:
• Federal: EPA, NOAA
• State: DEP, FFWCC
• County: Monroe County
• Cities: Islamorada, Key of Colony Beach, Layton, Marathon, Key West
• Other: Florida Keys Environmental Fund
The Subcommittee meets regularly to review progress on the project and to recommend the
appropriate action as necessary to facilitate implementation of various project tasks.
2.4 CMMP OBJECTIVES
Phase I of the CMMP developed a s et of project goals and objectives that were initially
approved by the Subcommittee in 2012. These goals and objectives were reviewed by the
Subcommittee again as part the 2013 Phase 2 CMMP and were approved without change.
An objectives statement was developed 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.
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:
2-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
amac,
"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."
2.5 MANAGEMENT GOALS FOR PRIORITY ISSUES
Priority management issues and associated management goals were developed to guide the
CMMP canal restoration process. The priority management issues that were identified and
adopted by the Subcommittee are as follows:
• Water Quality — Eutrophication and DO -Related Issues
• Water Quality — Organic Material (e.g., Weed Wrack)
• Sediment Quality
• Habitat Quality
• Public involvement in the canal management process
The initial goals for the identified priority management
issues were developed based on discussion with the
Subcommittee during a meeting held on April 27, 2012.
The Phase 1 goals for the priority management issues
were reviewed with the Subcommittee during the
December 2012 kick-off meeting for Phase 2 CMMP.
No changes to the list of issues were proposed. The
following are the goals for the five priority management
issues adopted for the CMMP. The goals are intended
to be protective of living resources, technically
defensible, quantifiable (where possible), readily
measurable, and challenging but achievable.
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. Class III criteria are
applicable to the canals which includes use for fish consumption, recreation, 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.
2-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) �, �
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Issue 2. Water quality — Organic Matter (e.g., Weed Wrack) Issues
Goal: In canal systems whose location makes them susceptible to receiving large inputs of
seagrass leaves and other `weed wrack' from near shore 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.
2-4
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) ��
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
eO
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
3.0 UPDATED CMMP DATABASE
The purpose of the GIS database is to provide a central location to store information for the
residential canals in Monroe County so that an evaluation of potential water quality impacts and
selection of an app ropriate treatment technology can be made. The GIS database also
provides a mechanism to automatically assign attributes based on spatial location.
2012 Update to the 2003 Database
The canal layer that was developed for the
2003 Water Quality GIS Database required
significant updating due to software
updates and compatibility issues. Multiple
changes were necessary; the most
significant of which being the lack of a
spatial reference assigned to the canal
layer. T he DEP Albers HARN spatial
reference that was utilized during the
digitization of the canal features was
assigned to the layer; allowing the layer to
map properly in GIS environments with a
different spatial reference.
The canal features were digitized utilizing
six inch resolution aerials obtained from the
Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT). The modifications to the original
canal layer were captured as auxiliary
layers to facilitate identification of the
modifications. Distinct layers for added
canals, deleted canals, and merged canals
were created. Additionally, the added canals that were commercial/industrial (marinas) were
extracted from the added canals layer and allocated into a unique layer. Additionally, a layer
identifying boat basins was created.
The EPA data warehouse STORET was accessed to obtain all surface water quality samples
for the Florida Keys. The tabularized sample data was utilized to develop a po int layer
containing the sampling type and results in an attribute table. The latitude and longitude
provided in the tabularized data was utilized to provide spatial reference for the data points.
The water quality data collected between 1996 and 2011 as part of the Water Quality Protection
Program was obtained from the program website and incorporated into the database as well.
Additionally, the point layer summarizing the Environmental Resource Permit applications
provided on the DEP geo-data directory was utilized to identify bubble curtains and weed gates.
3-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
The canal database contained many attribute columns from the 2003 Canal Inventory and
Assessment that were considered no I onger necessary and w hich made the attribute table
cumbersome to review. The following list contains the attributes being selected to remain in the
updated CMMP database. An explanation of each attribute is provided in Appendix B.
• Canal Name
• Bayside vs. Oceanside
• Area (acres)
• Length (feet)
• Area to Length Ratio
• Perimeter (feet)
• Description of near shore feature (channel, shallow, spoil area)
• Canal outfall water body
• Energy at mouth
• Number of convolutions
• Number of mouths
• Orientation of mouth(s)
• % developed
• Historic water quality monitoring data
• Distance to FKNMS monitoring station
• Sewage service area/WWT District/connection status
Summary of Deficiencies Identified in CMMP Phase I
Phase I of the CMMP identified several data deficiencies in the project geo-database, primarily
lack of depth information, absence of organic thickness, and limited canal specific water quality
data. In order to address these limitations, a countywide bathymetric survey was completed as
documented in the June 13, 2013 Bathymetric Survey Report (AMEC, 2012). The bathymetric
survey quantified the organic thickness and canal depth utilizing a single beam dual frequency
echo sounder.
In order to obtain canal specific water quality data, a countywide field survey of the canals was
completed. A summary of the canal field survey methodology and resulting ranking criteria is
provided in Section 5.
Phase 2 Update to the Database
Numerous attributes were added to the project geo-database to further characterize the water
quality and physical conditions of the residential canals in Monroe County. The following is a
summary of the attributes that have been add ed to the database. An explanation of each
attribute is provided in Appendix B.
• Tidal Range
• Degree of Stagnation
• WBID
• WBID impairment for dissolved oxygen
• Number of parcels
• Aerial observation of seaweed
3-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
• Existing water quality treatments
• Dissolved oxygen and turbidity readings from 2013 surveys
• Water quality summary from 2013 surveys
• Date of 2013 surveys
• Phase 2 Category
• Canal Ranking Number
• Recommended Technology
o Weed gate
o Culvert
o Culvert maintenance
o Backfilling
o Organic Removal
o Pumping
• Municipality or Unincorporated Monroe County
• Field comments
• Canal bottom elevation (minimum, maximum, and average)
• Average thickness of sediment
Table 1 provides a copy of the updated database for the residential canals in Monroe County.
The updated CMMP database can also be viewed through an associated CMMP Google Earth
KMZ file made available on the Monroe County web page or GIS shapefiles provided to Monroe
County with the CMMP deliverable.
3-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
4.0 KEYS -WIDE CANAL WATER QUALITY RANKING
4.1 OVERVIEW
One of the main objectives of the CMMP was to
prioritize the residential canals within Monroe
County related to need for water quality
improvements. A process was developed utilizing
water quality assessment data and physical
conditions of the canals that influence the ability to
improve the water quality and benefit the public.
The process included identifying the canals with
water quality that does not currently meet the State
of Florida's Class III Marine Surface Water
Standards. The impaired water quality in these
canals poses a direct threat to sensitive near shore
resources and could result in regulatory
enforcement if corrective action is not taken. In
order to meet the applicable water quality standard,
each canal with water quality impairments could
potentially require the implementation of one or
more restoration technologies.
amec,9
The 2012 GIS canal inventory database of Monroe County residential canals indicated
approximately 500 canals for potential water quality assessment and prioritization. A Keys -wide
canal water quality ranking process was developed that consisted of the following:
Completion of a Water Quality Assessment of the approximately 500 canals
Assignment of a Water Quality Classification of Good, Fair or Poor to each canal
Ranking Scoring Sheet applied to Poor Water Quality canals to further assist in
prioritizing need for water quality improvement.
A detailed description of the process is presented in the following sections.
Water Quality Assessment
Due to the large number of canals and pr ivate communities throughout Monroe County,
neighborhood canal networks were clustered together based on their proximity and common
physical characteristics. Representative canals were selected from within each cluster for
detailed water quality data collection and analyses. The similarities of the physical
characteristics of the canal clusters were verified through review of the GIS Canal Layer and
Canal Inventory Database as well as the 2013 Monroe County Canals Bathymetric Survey data.
4-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
amec
Phase 2 of the CMMP included an extensive field survey to collect water quality and biological
data that could be used in the ranking process. In addition to performing an assessment of the
selected canals, a "drive by" of each canal within the clustered network was performed to verify
the similarities of their aerial interpreted characteristics. The "drive by" process provided field
personnel with the opportunity to assess additional canals within the clusters if they determined
that the selected canals were not representative of each individually clustered canal.
The initial water quality assessment of the
canals relied upon an ev aluation of the
following data sources:
1. Available water quality data
2. Empirical observations recorded
during the Phase 2 canal
assessments
3. 2013 Monroe County Canal
Bathymetric Survey data
a
.-
Although additional sources of information were used to assess the water quality within each
canal, the primary method for determining a canal's water quality classification was through the
measurement of dissolved oxygen (DO). The DEP 2010 standards for DO concentrations in
Class III marine surface waters state that DO shall never be measured at less than 4.0 mg/L.
Furthermore, the DEP has stated that any Class III water body which displays DO levels less
than 4.0 mg/L should be classified as impaired. Class III surface waters includes the residential
canals located in Monroe County. The Phase 2 CMMP canal assessments measured DO at
various intervals throughout the canal's water column with the use of a calibrated YSI 556. DO
measurements were recorded on field data sheets in both mg/L and % saturation.
In addition to recording the water quality parameters
provided by the YSI 556, professional scientists
recorded visual observations detailing the absence or
presence of biological indicators of water quality. Due
to their specific sensitivities to environmental change,
algae, sponges, and t ropical fish were specifically
targeted for observation during the canal assessment
process. The following describes the process by which
sensitive resources were used as indicators of water
quality within the canals:
a. The presence of blue-green algae and brown
macro -algae were used as modifiers to indicate
sub -standard water quality. A Ithough blue-
green algae are not uncommon in residential
canals, excessive algal blooms which result in
algae covered substrate, floating mats, and
green tinted water columns were used as an
indication of diminished water quality.
4-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
b. The inability of green macro -algae (small plant -like organisms) to out compete blue
green algae in nutrient enriched environments made the observance of these small
plant -like organisms a useful indicator of good water quality.
c. Due to the extreme sensitivities of sponges, seagrasses, and reef fish to changes in
water quality, their observed presence within a canal was an effective indicator of good
water quality.
The third tool in summarizing canal water quality was clarity of the water column. "Water Clarity"
was used as a modifier to adjust a canals water quality summary based on an elevated turbidity
reading or visual observation with the use of polarized sunglasses.
4.2 PROCESS FOR DETERMINING A WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION
The initial step in the classification process involved a review of the DO readings collected for
each representative canal. Based on the above referenced regulatory guidance for Class III
water bodies, the lowest reported DO concentration within each assessed canal was
determined to be the appropriate value for determining a canal's water quality classification.
Due to the DO limiting conditions that exist within residential canals and the variability of a
single monitoring event, the primary ranking was either confirmed or modified based on the
biological observations performed during the Phase 2 CMMP canal assessment. The following
describes the process by which a canal was given a Water Quality Summary of either: Good,
Fair, or Poor:
• Good: If a canal displayed DO readings above 4.0 mg/L and di splayed no negative
biological characteristics, the canal was field classified as having Good water quality.
• Fair: If a canal displayed DO readings above 4.0 mg/L but displayed negative biological
characteristics, the canal was field classified as having Fair water quality.
• Fair: If a canal displayed DO readings between 3.0 and 4.0 mg/L but displayed positive
biological characteristics, the canal was field classified as having Fair water quality.
• Poor: If a canal displayed DO readings between 3.0 and 4.0 mg/L and but displayed
negative biological characteristics, the canal was field classified as having Poor water
quality.
• Poor: If a canal displayed DO readings less than 3.0 mg/L, the canal was field classified
as having Poor water quality.
4-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Water Quality Summary Classification Criteria
amec,9
DO Conditions
Biological Conditions
Water Quality Summary
> 4.0 m /L
Positive
Good
> 4.0 mg/L
Negative
Fair
3.0 — 4.0 mg/L
Positive
Fair
3.0 — 4.0 mg/L
Negative
Poor
< 3.0 mg/L
N/A
Poor
Due to unique conditions which prevented direct or visual access to a few residences or a
restricted area within Monroe County, some canals could not be monitored nor assigned a
Water Quality Summary based on representative canal data. If a non -assessed canal was
located within a DEP Water Body Identification area (WBID) that had previously been denoted
as being impaired, the canal was given a Water Quality Summary of Fair. As a result of the
aforementioned process, five residential canals on the 2012 canal list were not ranked during
the Phase 2 CMMP. Please note 14 "other' water bodies were given a `Not Applicable' (NA)
water quality summary because they were not residential canals and the Water Quality
Summary methodology did not apply.
Example of a Good Water Quality Canal
Example of a Fair Water Quality Canal
Example of a Poor Water Quality Canal
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) �,�
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
4.3 CANAL RANKING AND NEED FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
4.3.1 Water Quality Summary
The Water Quality Summary allowed the canals throughout the Keys to be ranked by need for
water quality improvement. The canals designated as Poor water quality canals were
determined to be in most need, followed by the Fair water quality canals. The canals designated
as having Good water quality were of least need for water quality improvements.
4.3.2 Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
AMEC created a C anal Ranking Scoring Sheet to assist in selecting canals for restoration
funding. The Phase 2 scoring sheet built on the initial scoring system developed during Phase 1
where organic matter accumulation was identified as a significant canal water quality factor.
Canals that routinely received seaweed loading throughout the year consistently displayed the
lowest oxygen levels of the Phase 1 assessed canals. Based on the findings of the Phase 1
CMMP, the previous ranking system divided "Severity of the Problem" into three subcategories:
DO readings, seaweed loading, and organic matter accumulation. Several additional factors
were considered as part of the Phase 2 ranking. The WQPP Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee, Monroe County and E PA approved the revisions to the scoring sheet. The
approved scoring sheet was comprised of six categories:
Category 1: Severity of the problem
Severity of the problem was broken out into the three sub -categories based on the findings
described in Phase I of the CMMP which detailed both the potential extent of the problem and
the influence of the contributing factors:
Sub -category 1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to + 5): Scoring was based upon the
presence or absence of a water quality problem and to the degree at which a problem
existed. If there was no observed issue associated with the degradation of water quality, the
canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem existed then sub -categories 1 B and 1 C were
skipped. If DO was measured in excess of 4 mg/L, there was no observed odor, and turbidity
was below 1 N TU's, the canal should be scored a 0. If either DO was measured between 2
mg/L and 4 m g/L, there was a noticeable odor, or turbidity was between 1 and 3 N TU's the
canal should receive a score of 3. If DO was measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3
NTU's, the canal should receive a score of 5.
Sub -category 1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring was based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading into the assessed canals. Canals that do not receive
seaweed loading received a score of 0. Canals that receive seasonal loading received a score
of 3 and canals that receive continuous inputs of seaweed were scored a 5.
4-5
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Sub -category 1C) Organic Matter Accumulation (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring was based on
the presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 2013 bathymetric data).
Canals that displayed a measured organic layer thickness of less than 0.5 feet received a score
of 0. C anals that displayed a m easured organic layer thickness between 0.5 and 1. 0 feet
received a score of 3 and canals that displayed a measured organic layer thickness greater than
1.0 foot should receive a score of 5.
Category 2: Habitat quality (scored from 0 to +5)
Scoring was based on the habitat characteristics of the assessed canal. ( Guidance: the
observed presence of tropical fish life within a stabilized canal was utilized to adjust the score
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae was used to adjust
the score upward. Additional flora and faunal observations were used in the scoring process
based on their known water quality characteristics).
Category 3: Potential for achievement (scored from -10 to +10)
The category was defined as the potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water,
sediment or habitat quality within the project canal. 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) could be applied for projects that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Category 4: Supplemental benefits (scored from -10 to +10)
The category was defined by the potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water,
sediment or habitat quality within the halo or near shore zone. Scoring 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 near shore zone.
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have deleterious
effects within the halo or near shore zone.
Category 5: Project constraints (scored from 0-10)
This category was defined by a project's implementability. 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.
Category 6: Public benefits (scored from 0 to +10)
The public benefit criterion was related to the number of users affected by the proposed project.
A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected by the project, a value of +4
means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of +7 means 45-79 users
would be positively affected by the project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be
positively affected.
Although all six categories were scored, severity of the problem, habitat quality, and potential for
achievement were weighted greater than the remaining categories due to their importance in
determining the need for improvement. An example scoring sheet included as Table 2 shows
the weighting factors the criteria.
we
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
amec
Following classification of canals into their respective water quality categories, canals with Poor
Water Quality Summaries were further prioritized for need for restoration utilizing the numerical
ranking from the Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet.
4.4 RESULTS
Upon ranking of the residential canals related to water quality as part of Phase 2 of the Monroe
County CMMP, 171 canals received the ranking of Good, 180 canals received the ranking of
Fair, and 131 canals received the ranking of Poor. Table 3 shows the Water Quality
Summaries.
The results of the Canal Ranking Scoring for the Poor Water Quality canals are also shown in
Table 3. The completed scoring sheets are included in Appendix C.
The results of the "Keys Wide Ranking" for each residential canal in Monroe County can either
be viewed through an associated CMMP Google Earth KMZ file made available through the
Monroe County web page or through the GIS shapefiles provided to Monroe County with the
CMMP deliverable.
Please note that the majority of the water quality assessments were performed during the winter
season. I t was assumed that a P oor water quality determination during the cooler winter
season would be conservative and that the same or worse condition would exist during the
summer. This assessment would thus identify the canals with the worst conditions. Some of
the canals evaluated as having Fair water quality based upon the cooler season data my show
greater impairment during the summer months and f all into the Poor water quality category.
Evaluating the seasonal influence on water quality was beyond the scope of this grant.
4-7
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) �, �
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
5.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR
CANAL WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
The Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in this section include things that
homeowners can implement to assist with limiting impacts to the canal water quality as well as
restoration technologies that will assist with water quality improvements. The restoration
technologies focus on increasing DO levels through reducing organic loading to the canals
and/or and improving canal flushing. The restoration technologies currently included in the
CMMP are technologies that have been permitted and implemented in the Keys. In addition to
the traditional BMPs discussed in this document, the potential for deploying alternative
technologies appears promising; however, additional research on their applicability to residential
canals and their impact within the coastal halo needs further investigation.
5.1 HOMEOWNER STEWARDSHIP
Educational Programs and Outreach
Numerous resources are available to assist both homeowners and business owners throughout
the Florida Keys with BMPs. T he Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
maintains an extensive database of technical BMP literature
epestateefleus/water/nonoint/usetm). One publication in particular is written
specifically for waterfront homeowners and is applicable to nearly all Keys residents
(hftp: //www. d ep.state.f1.us/water/non point/docs/n on oint/w o ®ook®finale f).
All homeowners, waterfront or not, have an important role to play in the achievement of water
quality restoration goals for the Keys canals. This will be true regardless of the success of local
projects like those proposed in this CMMP or regionally significant projects such as improved
wastewater or stormwater treatment. Individual homeowners and business owners can assist
the community simply by adopting, at a minimum, the following BMPs:
• Follow label instructions on all yard chemicals and maintain appropriate application
setbacks along shorelines
• Ensure that lawn care professionals practice appropriate level of care when applying
chemicals or working around the water
• Prevent grass clippings and other yard debris from entering stormwater systems and
canals
• Prevent fertilizers from reaching impervious surfaces like sidewalks or driveways where
runoff will carry it into the stormwater system or nearby canal
• Reduce overspray to driveways and sidewalks from irrigation systems
• Avoid cleaning fish or disposing of fish carcasses in canals
• Limit potential for soil erosion by adopting proper landscaping practices (Florida Yards
and Neighborhoods Program)
• Wash vehicles in locations where water will not run into storm drains or nearby canals
• Service vehicles routinely to prevent oil, antifreeze and other vehicle fluids from leaking
5-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
amec'9
The Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program, administered by the University of Florida
Institute of Food and A gricultural Science (IFAS) is also a useful resource for Keys residents
interested in improving canal water quality. This program offers helpful advice from identifying
drought -tolerant Florida -Friendly Landscape plants to small-scale homeowner construction
projects like backyard swales and rain gardens. T he Florida Yards and N eighborhoods
Handbook are available at http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/materials/FYN Handbook vSept09.pdf. The
Monroe County Extension Service and the Nature Conservancy can assist homeowners with
the appropriate plant selection which will reduce the amount of water, fertilizer, and other lawn
chemicals needed to maintain a healthy landscape. The web address for the Monroe County
Extension Service is http://monroe.ifas.ufl.edu/.
Management of Boats, Boat Basins, and Marinas
Throughout Monroe County, residents and tourists
alike utilize the finger canals, marinas, and boat
basins to store and maintain their personal
watercraft. One of the basic water quality
improvements boat owners can implement is
correct containment and disposal of sewage.
Y
Monroe County has contracted with Pumpout USA
to provide pump out services to recreational vessels
anchored in waters throughout the Florida Keys
within unincorporated Monroe County. Boaters can
call (305) 900-0263 to schedule a pu mp-out or
register on-line for routine pump -out service from
Pumpout USA at www.po-keys.com. B oaters
utilizing the service will be provided with a sticker to
be displayed on the vessel indicating participation in
the pump -out program and an orange flag to be
flown when in need of a pump out. This service also
covers recreational boats located at docks along the canals and is free to the public. In addition,
there is more than 30 other pump -out facilities, including both mobile and I and based
operations, located throughout the keys. The following link provides the locations of these
pump -out facilities: http://www.monroecounty-fl.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/l 155.
Boat maintenance is a necessary activity that must be conducted properly to minimize the
potential of degrading local waters. Without proper precautions, contaminants originating from
boats and boat maintenance activities can be transported to the local Keys waterways either
through stormwater runoff or by direct discharge from the boats or boat maintenance activities.
In order to improve Boater awareness, the FEP established the Pitch In and Pump Out program
(http://www.dep.state.f1.us/pitchin-pumpout/) to encourage operators of marinas and boa t
enthusiast to assist in the protection and cleanup of coastal waterways. Utilizing the following
BMPs and maintenance guidelines which were developed by the DEP, marinas and boat
owners can substantially reduce the amount of potential contaminants originating from both their
commercial and recreational activities:
5-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Maintaining Marinas and Boat Basins
• Sweep or vacuum around hull maintenance areas, roads, and driveways frequently
• Sweep parking lots regularly
• Plant turf or other vegetative cover between impervious areas and manmade basins or
canals
• Use porous pavement where feasible
• Install oil/grit separators and/or vertical media filters to capture pollutants in runoff
• Add filters to storm drains that are located near work areas
• Place absorbents in drain inlets
• Use chemical and filtration treatment systems only where necessary
• Install fish cleaning stations that include adequate disposal of fish parts.
Improperly disposed fish waste is a major source of pollutants within the Keys canal system and
Monroe County is addressing this issue as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed
language for the updated Monroe County Comprehensive Plan related to fish cleaning in canals
states:
Policy 202.2.2
Within one (1) year after adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Monroe
County shall evaluate options for reducing the amount of fish and lobster cleaning offal
that is discharged into canals. This evaluation should include public facilities such as
marinas and private areas such as private backyard docks.
Options to be considered, shall include, but not limited to:
(a) requiring that drains from fish cleaning tables be plumbed to a central sewer
system;
(b) requiring that carcasses be macerated for chum (put in bags and frozen for a
subsequent trip), deposited in an air -tight container for routine refuse pickup, or
hauled away by a commercial chum or trap fisherman on contract; and
(c) implementing an educational signage and awareness program.
Recreational fishermen and waterfront homeowners can assist Monroe County with this effort
by providing proper disposal of fish waste.
Boat Cleaning and Operation
• Wash boat hulls above the waterline by hand and remove boats when feasible from the
water for cleaning so debris can be collected and disposed of properly
• Attempt to wash boats frequently enough that the use of cleansers will not be necessary
• If using cleansers, select only those that will have minimal impact on t he aquatic
environment
• Switch to long-lasting and low -toxicity or nontoxic antifouling paints
• Avoid in -the -water hull scraping or any abrasive process done underwater that could
remove paint from the boat hull
• 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
• Minimize the impacts of wastewater from pressure washing
5-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame
t,
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
• Restrict boater traffic in shallow -water areas
Establish and enforce no wake zones to decrease turbidity, shore erosion, and shoreline
damage
As part of the DEP's effort to promote the use of the above
referenced BMPs, the Department has established a Clean
Marina Program (CMP) which details numerous ways boat
owners and commercial facilities can protect water quality
by implementing proper boat and boat storage
maintenance. The CMP is a voluntary designation program
with a proactive approach to environmental stewardship that
applies to boatyards which repair recreational and small
commercial vessels for Florida's waterways. Participants
receive assistance in implementing BMPs through on -site
and remote technical assistance. To become designated as
a Clean Marina, facilities must implement a set of
environmental BMPs designed to protect Florida's
waterways from nonpoint sources of pollution. These BMPs
address critical environmental issues such as sensitive
habitat, waste management, fish waste management, storm
water control, Will prevention and emergency
preparedness. This information is available at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cleanmarina/files/Clean Marina Action Plan Guidebook.0
5.2 RESTORATION TECHNOLOGIES
Many of the Keys canals exhibit water quality impacts that will require the implementation of
physical and mechanical restoration technologies. The restoration technologies presently under
consideration during the Phase 2 CMMP focus on improving the canal water quality conditions
of related to reduced dissolved oxygen and lack of flushing. They include:
• Removal of accumulated organics from within canals
• Weed gates, air curtains or other physical barriers to minimize additional organic
accumulation in the canals
• Culvert connections to facilitate flushing
• Pumping systems to facilitate flushing, and
• Backfilling to prevent occurrence of deep stagnant zones.
The following sections provide a brief description of each of the above listed technologies along
with the type of canal conditions where the technology is most suited. The canal attribute table
includes a preliminary selection of applicable technologies for each canal. The methodology
employed in the technology selection process is also discussed below. This selection is only
preliminary and will require a s ite-specific engineering evaluation to determine the best
restoration for each canal.
5-4
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
5.2.1 Weed Gates/Air Curtains/Physical Barriers
Technology Description
Weed gates can be either comprised of
mechanical devices or air curtains that
physically block seaweed from passing
through the device. Weed gates are
designed to prevent floating, wind -
driven flotsum from entering and
accumulating in man-made canals
where it typically sinks and f ouls the
water. Many of the existing homeowner
installed weed gates consist of a floating
arm that contains hanging flaps often
made of rubber. The gates are placed
at a canal mouth to prevent floating
seaweed from entering the canal. The
gate swings open when applied with
slight pressure to allow access for boat
traffic. An alternative design is a static
amac,
weed barrier comprised of pilings and plastic netting coupled with a section of a submerged air
discharge hose that creates an air curtain allowing boat traffic. The design of the weed gates
should consider the natural movement of seaweed along the shoreline and configured parallel
to land such that dead zones adjacent to the canal are not created where seaweed can
accumulate.
System components consist of pilings, plastic netting, air hose, air emitters, and a regenerative
blower. A staging area and a power supply (electric or solar panel) for the regenerative blower
are required. Some maintenance is required to ensure continued effective operation.
Application
Technologies that reduce the input of seaweed loading into a canal are most applicable to
canals that are subject to high loadings of seaweed and flotsam. The orientation of the canal
mouth and location in relation to open water affect the susceptibility to entry of wind driven weed
wrack. The configuration of the canal also affects whether the weed wrack will exit the canal or
be trapped in a `dead end' canal section.
A review of aerial photography was utilized as a preliminary method to indicate whether a canal
experiences weed wrack loading. However, aerial photography only provides a single snapshot
of a canal, and may not identify potentially impacted canals if the photography is not collected
during the appropriate time of year.
5-5
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
amec
The primary method for a canal to be selected for the consideration of the installation of a weed
wrack gate was if seaweed accumulation was visually observed during field site visits, if the
canal already had an existing weed wrack gate that was not functioning properly, or if
homeowner interviews indicated the presence of weed wrack loading. Additional homeowner
feedback concerning the weed wrack loading in their canals may increase the number of canals
in the database that should be evaluated for installation of weed gates.
5.2.2 Organic Removal
Technology Description
The decomposition of the weed wrack material that has settled on the canal bottom can
consume large amounts of dissolved oxygen, and can deplete the viability of a canal's
ecosystem and the adjacent near shore waters. O rganic removal consists of removing the
decomposed weed wrack material present at the bottom of a canal. Due to the fine particle size
of the decomposed weed wrack material, mechanical excavation of the organic material is not
feasible. Therefore, a hydraulic dredge is the preferred means of removal of the organic
material. A logistical limitation of the use of the hydraulic dredge is the large volume of
suspended sediment and extracted water that requires stabilization, and the space
requirements associated with the stabilization process. Typical hydraulic dredging projects
utilize constructed dewatering stabilization cells that are built with earthen berms. However, it is
anticipated that space limitations in the residential canal neighborhoods will require an
alternative method to dewater the dredged material such as geo-tubes. Geo-tubes are
comprised of specially formulated geo-
textile that allow for dredged material
to be placed into the geo-tube, and for
the entrained water to be dec anted
from the dredged material. Several
site characteristics must be evaluated
prior to implementation of an organic
removal project. These include
assessment of navigational capacity to
allow access of the dredging
equipment, available space for
dewatering staging area, access of
transportation vehicles to the staging
area, and characterization of the
sediments to determine appropriate
disposal options.
5-6
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame
t,
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Application
As discussed in section 3.0, AMEC conducted a Keys -wide bathymetry survey which provided
approximate soft sediment thickness data for the canals evaluated in this CMMP. Canals with a
soft sediment thickness greater than 0.75 feet were considered potentially suitable for organic
removal. Additional site -specific information such as percent organic content will be necessary
to verify potentially suitable canals.
5.2.3 Canal Backfilling
Technology Description
Canal backfilling would be performed in order to decrease
the depth of a c anal to promote flushing and
reduce/eliminate stratification. Prior studies have indicated
that approximately only the upper 6 f eet of the canals will
naturally flush in the shallow Keys near shore environment
(Kruczynski 1999). Filling in of abrupt changes in depth or
sink areas to six or eight feet would assist in eliminating
stagnation and increasing circulation. Flushing is typically
hindered by the fact that both the canal sill and the waters
surrounding the Keys are typically shallower than the canal
bottom. This difference in depth hinders mixing in the lower
depths of the canals. This option would work best in canals
where there was sufficient energy, either from tidal
fluctuations or wind force, to promote flushing at the canal
mouth once the deep stagnant zone has been eliminated.
Application
A canal was considered to be t he best candidate for backfilling if it was observed in the
bathymetric survey to exhibit an average canal bottom depth greater than 10 feet. Due to the high
unit cost of backfill, further hydrodynamic evaluation is suggested to determine the quantity and
placement of fill that is required to provide adequate flushing for a canal prior to initiating the
backfilling activities.
5.2.4 Culvert Installation
Technology Description
Culverts could be i nstalled between canals or between
canals and thin land strips to improve flushing within them
in a similar fashion to flushing channels. Based on canal -
specific hydrology, larger or smaller diameter culverts may
be more applicable. Culverts could be installed in any
lithology, but would still need an energy source to induce
flushing such as a channel at the outfall mouth.
5-7
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
amac,
It is recommended that culverts be equipped with manatee grates to prevent entry of wildlife or
humans. Culverts are prone to clogging and require maintenance.
Application
An inspection of the canal and shoreline features was completed utilizing aerial photo review. A
canal was selected as a candidate for the installation of a flushing culvert if it was apparent that a
connection between that canal and another or the near shore waters could potentially increase
flushing. Field verification of the applicability of a culvert installation will be required at each
proposed canal location. The GIS database also contains information on existing culverts that
were noted during field visits that required maintenance or modification to work effectively.
5.2.5 Circulation Pumping
Technology Description
Pumps can be installed to promote water circulation within a canal.
Water can be pumped into a ` dead end' canal from a mangrove
creek or near shore open water area to increase turnover of water in
the canal system. Pump installation must be designed to prevent
adverse secondary effects such as resuspension of sediments or
bottom scouring. Diffusion emitters can be utilized to prevent
excessive velocity and to assist in mixing. Pumping systems must be
designed in such a way that they do not produce negative impacts to
the near shore waters which are designated Outstanding Florida
Waters. An alternative design is to pump water out of the `dead end'
of the canal and discharge it to adjacent wetlands for filtration.
Circulation studies by a qualified engineer would be needed t o provide an effective design. In
order to design a pumping system certain design criteria are required. These include the volume
of water in the canal, the mixing characteristics within the near shore waters, and the flushing
provided by tidal movement.
Application
Canal physical features available in the canal attribute database that were identified as
contributing to water stagnation were utilized to calculate a `degree of stagnation' for each canal
to select locations that may require the installation of a circulation pump. The `degree of
stagnation' was calculated by first normalizing the values for area, length, number of
convolutions, and area to length ratio, where normalization was calculated by subtracting the
mean and dividing by the standard deviation for the respective attribute. A weighting factor of
0.25 was applied to the number of convolutions and the area to length ratio. The sum of all the
normalized values was then divided by the number of mouths and a tidal factor. The tidal factor
was determined from NOAA tide datums, and set to equal 1 if the average tidal range of the
canal was greater than 1.5 feet, 0.75 if the average tidal range was between 1.5 feet and 1 foot,
5-8
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
and 0.5 if the tidal range was less than 1 foot. The calculated value of `degree of stagnation'
was then normalized, so that canals that exhibited a degree of stagnation greater than one
standard deviation above the mean were considered to be s ignificantly stagnant, and that
increased circulation through a circulation pump (or culvert) would be required. Site specific
engineering evaluations of the applicability of pumping at these selected canals will be required.
5.2.6 Integrated Technology Application
The selection of the appropriate and m ost effective restoration for each canal may involve
multiple technologies and will require detailed site -specific engineering evaluation.
5-9
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) ��
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
eO
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
6.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
6.1 BACKGROUND
In June, 2012, the Subcommittee elected to proceed with an adaptive management process
using the following programmatic objectives as a framework for the Phase I CMMP:
• Definition of goals
• Planning and prioritization
• Implementation
• Monitoring
• Evaluation
• Adjustment.
The above objectives were approved without change by the Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee during the Phase 2 CMMP review process.
As part of the adaptive management process (Figure 6-1), each objective is periodically
revisited and evaluated to determine if adjustments are necessary.
Figure 6-1. Adaptive management framework
(Source: DOI and DOC, 2009)
Refine goals and indicators
• Ecoloarcal
• socioecanamic
• Partnership
performance
GOALS
ADJUST -- — -- — -- — -- - PLAN and PRIORITIZE
• Goals l Z • Policies
+ Strateges �� • Strategies
• Actions 1 \ • Practices
• Science • Priorrfize
`short and �1 \\� •Actions
long farm • Locations
- Resources
ti� • Align partner
Z resources
EVALUATE IMPLEMENT
1
• Actions • Coordinate partner
• Ecosystem change activities and resources
• Science far sufficient
• Partnership performance unplementalion
• Quarterly and annuafly _.__._.._.__. __.__.-.
MONITOR
• Action
• Ecvsystem change
• Partnership
performance
6-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) ��
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
eO
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
6.2 EVALUATION OF CMMP ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Each of the adaptive management steps are provided in the following sections as approved by
the Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee.
6.2.1 Define Programmatic Issues and Goals
o Issue 1. Water quality — Eutrophication and Dissolved Oxygen -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 near shore 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 i mprove 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
6-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
6.2.2 Plan and Prioritize
Phase 2 of the CMMP involves an evaluation of all of the approximately 502 Keys canals
in the GIS canal inventory database based on available water quality data and other
quantitative and qualitative information. Field data and other new information collected
as part of this phase was discussed in Section 3.
Prioritizing such a large number of canals required identification of geospatially similar
canal clusters which were typically organized by neighborhood canal networks.
Representative canals were then selected within each cluster for detailed water quality
data collection and analysis.
Water quality parameters characterized as part of this task included the following:
Dissolved oxygen concentration
Presence and type of algae or other biological indicator species
Water clarity
Dissolved oxygen concentration and relevant biological indicators were used to develop the
following canal water quality classification system discussed in Section 4.2:
Water Quality Summary Classification
DO Conditions
Biological Conditions
Water Quality Summary
> 4.0 mg/L
Positive
Good
> 4.0 mg/L
Negative
Fair
3.0 — 4.0 m /L
Positive
Fair
3.0 — 4.0 mg/L
Negative
Poor
< 3.0 mg/L
N/A
Poor
Canals with Poor water quality were determined to bet he most in need of water quality
improvement followed by those with Fair and Good rankings.
6.2.3 Implement
Monroe County, municipalities and property owners, will be responsible for implementing the
canal restorations. The overall direction and oversight of the implementation of the CMMP will
be by the members of the WQPP Steering Committee and its Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee (shown in bold), 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
• NOAA
6-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
• DEP
• South Florida Water Management District
• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC)
• Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
• Florida Department of Health
• Florida Keys Environmental Fund
• Monroe County
• Municipalities
• Village of Islamorada
• City of Marathon
• City of Key Colony Beach
• City of Layton
• City of Key West
• A citizen knowledgeable about the WQPP.
Recommended BMPs were discussed in Section 5. The results of implementation of those
restoration efforts can be evaluated and adjusted using the program's goals, objectives,
strategies and operational procedures.
6.2.4 Monitor
As noted by DOI and DOC (2009), monitoring is critical to document changes in environmental
conditions and allows tracking of the outcomes of management actions and progress toward
goals. Additional baseline monitoring has been conducted as a part of this evaluation, but has
been limited to water quality field data and physical characterization of each canal. Additional
more extensive field collected data and I aboratory-based water quality analyses are
recommended to provide further quantitative data which can be used to evaluate performance
of future restoration projects. A comprehensive water quality monitoring program is currently
being evaluated by the Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee.
6.2.5 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.
Evaluation criteria will consist of the following:
• Review FKRAD implementation progress
• Review updated water quality response variables as available
• Review WBID impairment status
• Evaluate changes to biological diversity within canals
• Evaluate performance criteria developed for new BMPs
• Review participation from stakeholders
•1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Formal evaluations should be performed periodically (e.g., every year) by the Canal Restoration
Advisory Subcommittee, with the results reported to the WQPP Steering Committee to provide
regular updates to administrators and s takeholders on the effectiveness of the canal
management program.
6.2.6 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. It is recommended that the adjustment
process includes the following steps:
• Refine methods based on outcome of BMP implementation activities
• Evaluate the cost effectiveness of BMP implementation activities
• Revise approach based on new technologies and improved scientific methods
• Adjust stakeholder responsibilities
• Develop revised goals.
6-5
Cana/ Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
7.0 PROJECT FUNDING MECHANISMS
7.1 RECURRING GRANT PROGRAMS
Attainment of sufficient project funding is one of the most challenging steps in any restoration
project. Once a lead agency is determined for a particular project, multiple federal and state
grant programs are available to support potential water quality and ecosystem improvement
projects considered for the Florida Keys canals. Each program has different eligibility and
matching requirements, but most can be appl ied to the various water quality or ecological
aspects of any project considered in conjunction with this CMMP. Agency managers for each
grant program should be contacted to provide the details necessary to write a successful
proposal. The table below identifies grant opportunities have been i dentified as potential
funding sources for Keys canal projects. Additionally EPA and DEP have special project funds
that are available for canal restorations.
Required
Required
Minimum
Project
Project
Grant Program
Agency
Deadline*
Match
Objective
Stage
EPA
Reduce Non -
Section 319
/DEP
May, 2014
40%
point pollution
Conceptual
EPA
Mar/Jul/Nov
Reduce Non-
60% Design
TMDL
/DEP
2013/2014
50%
point pollution
/ Permitted
South Florida
0%
Habitat
Coastal Program
USFWS
April, 2014
(encouraged)
Restoration
Conceptual
Community -
Based Matching
TNC/
Habitat
Grants Program
NOAA
April, 2014
50%
Restoration
Conceptual
National Coastal
Wetlands
Conservation
Habitat
Grant Program
USFWS
June, 2014
25%
Restoration
Conceptual
Urban Waters
Water Quality
Small Grants**
EPA
January, 2014
$2,500
Improvement
Conceptual
*2014 deadlines are estimated and programs resources are not guaranteed
** This grant applies only if project is considered a demonstration
7.2 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.
The elements below are provided as a quick reference to assist with assembling multiple
applications:
7-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
u Applicant Contact Information
u Project Location Details
u Type of Project
u Project Objective
u Project Synopsis
u Project Description
u Expected Project Benefits
u Project Work Plan
u Project Monitoring Plan
u Project Budget
u Amount Requested
u Applicant Matching Amount
u Cooperating Partners/Match
u Benefits to Community
L Community Involvement
L Project Milestones
L Project Deliverables
L Project Team
u Required Forms
u Literature Cited
u Appendices
7.3 INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE APPLICATIONS
The project information in the checklist can be obtained largely from the information provided
from the descriptions developed for each project considered. More detailed information such as
project milestones and deliverables will need to be dev eloped from the available project
information when available. 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.
The particular grant applicant will need t o determine the amount of matching funds and
cooperating partners available for their respective 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 r easonably 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 dev eloped
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.
7-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
7.4 COUNTY AND MUNCIPALITY FUNDING SOURCES
Funding for canal restorations can come from Monroe County and the five municipalities located
within Monroe County (Village of Islamorada, Layton, Key Colony Beach, Marathon and Key
West). Specific project scopes will need to be developed with the appropriate managers of
each government agency.
7.5 2012 RESTORE ACT FUNDING
The passage of the "Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and
Revived Economies of the Gulf coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act) could provide a
significant portion of the funding required to accomplish a multitude of projects geared toward
Keys canal water quality improvements. There are three different RESTORE Act funding
sources or `pots' that are potential sources of funding for canal restoration. The Federal Council
pot is potentially the largest of the pots. Monroe County submitted a project entitled "Monroe
County Canal and Stormwater Water Quality Improvements" to DEP (who has been assigned
the task of vetting Florida's projects) for evaluation for funding. The canal restoration project
budget requested was $27.5 million. The process of selecting projects to be funded through the
Federal Council has not been finalized as of the date of this report.
A second pot, the RESTORE Act Local Pot funding, will provide Monroe County with
approximately $2 million when funds become available. Monroe County has created a
RESTORE Act Local Advisory Committee to review, rank and recommend projects for the use
of these funds. RESTORE Act Local funding covers a broad range of eligibility requirements.
Monroe County has ranked these in order of project type preference as follows:
Monroe County RESTORE Act Local Advisory Committee Ranking of Allowable Uses
Use
Rank
Restoration and protection of natural resources, ecosystems,
fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, and coastal
wetlands
1
Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife and natural resources
2
Infrastructure projects benefitting economy or ecological
resources
3
Promotion of tourism in the Gulf region, including recreational
fishing
4
Workforce development and job creation
5
Coastal flood protection and related infrastructure
6
Improvements to state parks affected by Deepwater Horizon oil
spill
6
Implementation of federally approved marine/coastal management
plan
8
Promotion of consumption of seafood harvested from the Gulf
Coast region
9
Planning Assistance
10
7-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) �, �
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Monroe County RESTORE Act selection criteria are as follows:
• Proposals will be evaluated based on t hese criteria: 1) need for and benefits of the
project; 2) cost-effectiveness and financial feasibility; 3) technical feasibility/probability of
success; 4) timeliness of implementation and completion; 5) consistency with approved
public plans/public support; and 6) project management capacity.
• Applications received by the due date, and which meet at least one of the allowable
uses, will be reviewed and scored by the members of the Monroe County Local Advisory
Committee.
• The Committee will meet in one or more noticed, public meeting(s) (dates to be
determined) to discuss, evaluate and rank project submissions.
• The list of ranked projects will be presented to the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners which will make the final decision on project awards.
The third pot is the "Gulf Consortium pot." This funding will bypass the state of Florida and go
directly to the 23 counties of the Gulf Consortium. The application procedures have not yet
been developed. When the procedures are determined, applications can be s ubmitted for
funding for Canal Restoration projects.
7-4
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
8.0 FUTURE NEEDS
While this CMMP provided a comprehensive assessment of all Keys canals and includes a
framework for future progress, there are various elements which were either outside the project
scope or warrant further investigation. A list of data needs is provided to assist in future
additional work efforts and planning.
• Additional effort to identify and characterize boat basins should be considered as well as
certain canals which were inaccessible during the CMMP evaluation.
• Further assessment of canal bottom sediments to determine organic content and impact on
canal water quality would assist in better evaluating the need to remove these materials.
• Water quality investigations should be ongoing and expanded to include more frequent and
seasonal data collection and analyses to determine correlations between water quality
conditions and t ime of year and t o evaluate the impact on the CMMP Water Qualify
Summary Classifications.
• Significant weather related episodic events should be investigated to determine potential
migration of deep canal water and effect on the coastal halo.
• New and emerging water quality standards should be incorporated into the CMMP process.
• The CMMP database and canal rankings should be periodically updated with new
information.
• The Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee should consider enhanced coordination of
water quality collection efforts conducted by the DEP for WBID impairment determination
purposes.
• Restoration projects implemented as a result of this CMMP should be evaluated closely to
determine their effectiveness based on both water quality and ecological response factors.
Prior to project implementation, it will be important to determine a comprehensive baseline
condition. T he evaluation should consider a w ide range of parameters including water
quality conditions (both field and analytical), homeowner survey data, ecological field
surveys, habitat surveys, and assessments of both stormwater and wastewater inputs within
the project area.
• Emerging technologies should be evaluated for feasibility and effectiveness for improving
canal water quality.
• Greater homeowner and public outreach programs should be implemented.
• Research funding sources for canal restorations and submittal of application packages.
• Research into development of a methodology for canal restorations to become a part of
mitigation banking would provide a long term funding source for canal restorations.
8-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) �, �
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
9.0 LITERATURE CITED
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 2012. Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report.
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 2013. Technical Memorandum Task 1 Bathymetric Surveys
of Residential Canals.
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. K ey
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 U RS. 2008b. Northern Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation. FD EP.
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.
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 130508.
DOI and DOC. Washington, D.C. 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.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2013). Florida's Coral Reefs. Website
Accessed August 28, 2013 tt e// . epestate.fl uus/coastal/habitats/coral/
FDEP. 2011. Site -Specific Information in Support of Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for
Florida Bay — Draft. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. 52 p.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (2013).
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Socioeconomic Factsheet. Website Accessed August
28, 2013 ttp://sanctuaries.noaa.g v/science/socioeconomic/p fs/fk f i.p f
9-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
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.
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.
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 S FWMD. 2004. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement - Florida
Keys Water Quality Improvements Program. USACE, Jacksonville, FL and SFWMD, West
Palm Beach, FL. 214 p.
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.
DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) and D OC (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.
9-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
FIGURES
z
p
76
Y
•
�
•
J
Y
r�
e
c0
a
c
o
cv
N
or
� m
l
-
C
�a
:tm
r_
� O
N
O
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
TABLES
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
REFERENCE. The Inventory Is a listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 G IS Database
prepared by AMEC Evlrenment Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 1 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
---------------
---------------
NINE,
Illm
REFERENCE. The Inventory III listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 G IS Database
Prepared by AM EC Evl--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 3 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
REFERENCE. The Inventory III listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 G IS Database
Prepared by AM EC Evl--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 4 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
REFERENCE. The Inventory Is a listing of the residential canals Indentified N the 2003 CIS Database
prepared by AMEC Evl--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended N 2012. Page 5 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
REFERENCE. The Inventory III listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 G IS Database
Prepared by AM EC Evl--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 6 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
N t bat . to enter r, a I a Asp. dre to fine h a, odd art a strange N, fig,rati,
And-gh What displayed .... tort bi,l,gi,sl di—sity the DO — slightly dinnsh.d
J,d ... loped What mind To wN.. National Wildlife Nedra.
Neighborhood on s.P.r
Th. short art oddly shaped anal displayed pw—do,r q,ality and ,,tai,.d a sig,ifi—t dr, ... t of floating algal Tate
Canal displayed good —er q,ality Canal is .ry shot and arr— mth a jetty
Canal displayed good bi,di—sity and —o,r q,ality Ranked . Good
A long deep md. What mth Wtr—ly poor st.r q,ality
Canal I, shont and end, in a sTall boat basin Dissol o.yg.n I —le appeared s,ffi,i.nt for son T.as,rd int—al Aerator appears to be
Water q,ality pard—ter, displayed Wfir—ely — DO readings and Nor,bined mord presenNe of hire green algae Wndl reqnres restoration
Canal displayed poor ater anal ty hara,tensti,e at its pper ele,stions Tarind at dead end
Canal syster, displayed great —ter q,ality flora and Nand hara,tensti,e Syster, is NonneDed Old nafthal hannels and ,I,efts
Ando,gh the anal displayed slightly dininisided DO and lots of hire green algae the Wndl did ontained posifli biologi,al hara,tensti,s
Minor a ... Trial of organi,s del to Pool, Hater Tanna
Resident says the bottor, onto,r goes fror, 12-24 feet based on loWtion States arable N,Tdin effe,ti,e Canal displayed Wfir—ely DO at
Canal sh—ed poo—ster q,ality is deep and has a seal a ... —lation probler, Poor fl,shing
REFERENCE. The inventory is a listing of the residential canals indentified in the 2003 CIS Database
prepared by AIMED Environment Infrastructure, Inc, as amended in 2012. Page 7 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
Carat has pr.,i,,slyb... rst,r.d id--rit still displays slightly dininsh.d —1 Wl ... as Tai,t.,a...
®®®
Slightly dininsh.d DO
Carat display.d g,,d bi,l,gi,al harat.,sti,s: ld-- it did display slightly dininsh.d DO I. -Is
REFERENCE. The Inventory Is a listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 CIS Database
prepared by AMEC Envlrenment Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 8 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
A ... I displayed good at,, quality and f ... . h,,,,t,,i Los
Canal displayed good cater quality dba—b—ti,s
Canal displayed good at,, quality hdrd,L.nsfl,s Residents state that in the --i-tin. organic Tats begin to flesh up off the b,ft—
Net a canal It is a retention send
DEC mn.d land'?
DEP—ned land??
Due to the anals po,i,itvto the channel and its relative larqe idth and short loran the canal displaved qood ster qualitv charachenstics
DEP—ned land??
Although the ,ater quality par—eters indicated good dissolved o.ygen levels the canal Taintains a ,eed crack probler,
The canal is code and relatively short mind lots of Tangro,es throughout
Area displays good ,ater quality but no fish observed
The canal displayed good ,ater quality charactenstics do—er seal accur,ulation ,as noted at far reaches
Canal displayed good cater quality charachenstics
This is Little Venice duch ,as last of a A.Lensive Tontoring prograr, to docur,ent WO prover,ent to smer installation
Carl of Little Venice Canal displayed good ,ater quality,ould sor,e fish
Canal displayed good cater quality charachenstics
Ca nal d is pla yed go od ,ater qua lity R e si dent state s that cl arity I s usua 11 y v ery good
This card I ,as Lee e - dev el cps d and the r, outh ha s s Ined in K ey Cal ony Be son I s trying to get it opens d
REFERENCE. The inventory is a listing of the residential canals in hound ed in the 2003 G IS Database
prepared by AM EC Env i re nm out Infrastructure, Inc, as amended in 2012. Page 9 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
®-�
REFERENCE. The Inventory Is a listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 CIS Database
prepared by AMEC Evi--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 12 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
REFERENCE. The Inventory Is a listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 G IS Database
Prepared by AM EC Evl--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 13 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
REFERENCE. The Inventory Is a listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 G IS Database
Prepared by AM EC Evl--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 14 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
-------------
-------------
REFERENCE. The Inventory Is a listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 G IS Database
Prepared by AM EC Evl--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 15 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
REFERENCE. The Inventory Is a listing of the residential canals Indentified N the 2003 CIS Database
prepared by AMEC Evl--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended N 2012. Page 16 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
REFERENCE. The Inventory Is a listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 G IS Database
Prepared by AM EC Evl--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 17 of 18
TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE
REFERENCE. The Inventory III listing of the residential canals Indentified In the 2003 G IS Database
Prepared by AM EC Evl--t Infrastructure, Inc, as amended In 2012. Page 18 of 18
Table 2
Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Canal Number
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack Of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Backfilling Excavation, Pumping,, Alternative Treatment, Not Required:
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Taal Score
Comments
If there is no observed issue associated with the degradation of water quality, the
canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4 mg/L, there is no observed
IA)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below l NTTs, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
0
If either DO is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there is noticeable odor,
or turbidity is between l and 3 NTTs the canal should receive a scoreof 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds NTTs, the canal should
scorereceive a of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the
potentialryo gin
ent of load in the assessed canals.
5
0
Canals that receive seasonal load ing should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Meter Accumulation (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layer thickness between 0.5 and 1.0 feet should receive a score
of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 2013 bathymetric
data).
5
0
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of 5
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+S) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics of the assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae should
3
0
be used to adjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal observations
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive a scoreof 3.
should be used in the scoring process based on their known water quality
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
characteristics.)
score of 5.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the project canal (scored from -lot.+30)
Scoring values from 0 to represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or
2
0
protection within the project canal. Analogous negative scores In to -10) can be applied for projects that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
4) Paential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -lot. +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
1
0
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.
5) Project"implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
1
0
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
6) Public benefit (scored from Oto 10)
1
0
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected by
the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the project,
+10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score 0
TABLE 3
RESIDENTIAL CANAL WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES
Canal —Name
Mile Marker
Bayside
Ocean
side
Island—Name/Community
Area
Survey_Date
WQ_SUMMARY
Canal Ranking No
MUNICIPALITY
1 OCEAN REEF CLUB
State Road 905
X
OCEAN REEF CLUB
2/11/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
2 OCEAN REEF CLUB
State Road 905
X
OCEAN REEF CLUB
2/11/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
2 OCEAN REEF CLUB ADDED
State Road 905
X
OCEAN REEF CLUB
Ref 2 Added 2
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
2 OCEAN REEF CLUB ADDED 2
State Road 905
X
OCEAN REEF CLUB
2/11/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
3 OCEAN REEF CLUB
State Road 905
X
OCEAN REEF CLUB
Ref 5
Good
UNINCORPORATED
4 OCEAN REEF CLUB
State Road 905
X
OCEAN REEF CLUB
2/11/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
5 OCEAN REEF CLUB
State Road 905
X
OCEAN REEF CLUB
2/11/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
6 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 9
Good
UNINCORPORATED
7 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
5/10/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
8 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 9
Good
UNINCORPORATED
9 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
5/10/2013
Good
-
UNINCORPORATED
10 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
5/10/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
11 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 10
Good
UNINCORPORATED
12 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 10
Good
UNINCORPORATED
13 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
5/10/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
14 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 13
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
15 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 10
Good
UNINCORPORATED
16 KEY LARGO
112
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 10
Good
UNINCORPORATED
17 KEY LARGO
State Road 905
X
KEY LARGO
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
18 KEY LARGO
State Road 905
X
KEY LARGO
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
19 KEY LARGO
State Road 905
X
KEY LARGO
No access
NA
UNINCORPORATED
20 KEY LARGO
State Road 905
X
KEY LARGO
2/11/2013
Poor
45
UNINCORPORATED
21 KEY LARGO
106
X
KEY LARGO
2/12/2013
Poor
80
UNINCORPORATED
22 KEY LARGO
106
X
KEY LARGO
2/11/2013
Poor
81
UNINCORPORATED
23 KEY LARGO
106
X
KEY LARGO
2/11/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
24 KEY LARGO
106
X
KEY LARGO
5/9/2012
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
25 KEY LARGO
106
X
KEY LARGO
2/12/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
26 KEY LARGO
106
X
KEY LARGO
2/12/2013
Poor
101
UNINCORPORATED
27 KEY LARGO
106
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 26
Poor
90
UNINCORPORATED
28 KEY LARGO
106
X
KEY LARGO
2/12/2013
Poor
67
UNINCORPORATED
29 KEY LARGO
106
X
KEY LARGO
2/12/2013
Poor
92
UNINCORPORATED
30 KEY LARGO
106
X
KEY LARGO
2/11/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
31 KEY LARGO
105
X
KEY LARGO
2/12/2013
Poor
81
UNINCORPORATED
32 KEY LARGO
105
X
KEY LARGO
2/12/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
33 KEY LARGO
105
X
KEY LARGO
2/12/2013
Poor
96
UNINCORPORATED
34 KEY LARGO
105
X
KEY LARGO
2/12/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
35 KEY LARGO
105
X
KEY LARGO
6/11/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
36 KEY LARGO
105
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 37
Poor
80
UNINCORPORATED
37 KEY LARGO
105
X
KEY LARGO
6/11/2013
Poor
84
UNINCORPORATED
38 KEY LARGO
104
X
KEY LARGO
6/11/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
39 KEY LARGO
103
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 41
Poor
94
UNINCORPORATED
40 KEY LARGO
103
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 41
Poor
93
UNINCORPORATED
41 KEY LARGO
103
X
KEY LARGO
6/11/2013
Poor
93
UNINCORPORATED
42 KEY LARGO
103
X
KEY LARGO
6/11/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
43 KEY LARGO
103
X
KEY LARGO
2/19/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
44 KEY LARGO
103
X
KEY LARGO
2/19/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
45 KEY LARGO
103
X
KEY LARGO
5/9/2012
Poor
75
UNINCORPORATED
46 KEY LARGO
103
X
KEY LARGO
2/19/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
47 KEY LARGO
103
X
KEY LARGO
2/19/2013
Poor
79
UNINCORPORATED
48 KEY LARGO
103
X
KEY LARGO
6/11/2013
Poor
67
UNINCORPORATED
49 KEY LARGO
102
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 52
Poor
74
UNINCORPORATED
50 KEY LARGO
102
X
KEY LARGO
2/19/2013
Poor
81
UNINCORPORATED
51 KEY LARGO
102
X
KEY LARGO
2/19/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
52 KEY LARGO
101
X
KEY LARGO
2/19/2013
Poor
79
UNINCORPORATED
53 KEY LARGO
101
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 52
Poor
91
UNINCORPORATED
54 KEY LARGO
101
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 52
Poor
101
UNINCORPORATED
REFERENCE: The inventory is a listing of the residential canals indentified in the 2003 GIS Database
prepared by AMEC Environment Infrastructure, Inc., as amended in 2012. Page 1 of 9
TABLE 3
RESIDENTIAL CANAL WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES
Canal —Name
Mile Marker
Bayside
Ocean
side
Island—Name/Community
Area
Survey_Date
WQ SUMMARY
Canal Ranking No
MUNICIPALITY
55 KEY LARGO
102
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 51
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
56 KEY LARGO
101
X
KEY LARGO
4/17/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
57 KEY LARGO
102
X
KEY LARGO
2/19/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
58 KEY LARGO
101
X
KEY LARGO
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
59 KEY LARGO
99
X
KEY LARGO
4/17/2013
Poor
82
UNINCORPORATED
60 KEY LARGO
100
X
KEY LARGO
4/20/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
61 KEY LARGO
99
X
KEY LARGO
Ref 60
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
62 ROCK HARBOR
98
X
ROCK HARBOR
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
63 ROCK HARBOR
99
X
ROCK HARBOR
4/7/2013
Poor
69
UNINCORPORATED
64 ROCK HARBOR
98
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref 65
Poor
95
UNINCORPORATED
65 ROCK HARBOR
98
X
ROCK HARBOR
4/17/2013
Poor
84
UNINCORPORATED
66 ROCK HARBOR
99
X
ROCK HARBOR
4/7/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
67 ROCK HARBOR
98
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref 70
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
68 ROCK HARBOR
99
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref 69
Good
UNINCORPORATED
69 ROCK HARBOR
99
X
ROCK HARBOR
4/7/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
70 ROCK HARBOR
98
X
ROCK HARBOR
4/17/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
71 ROCK HARBOR
98
X
ROCK HARBOR
6/11/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
72 ROCK HARBOR
98
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref 74
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
73 ROCK HARBOR
98
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref 74
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
74 ROCK HARBOR
98
X
ROCK HARBOR
4/7/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
75 ROCK HARBOR
97
X
ROCK HARBOR
6/11/2013
Poor
73
UNINCORPORATED
76 ROCK HARBOR
97
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref 75
Poor
87
UNINCORPORATED
76 ROCK HARBOR ADDED
97
X
ROCK HARBOR
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
77 ROCK HARBOR
96
X
ROCK HARBOR
4/17/2013
Poor
69
UNINCORPORATED
78 ROCK HARBOR
96
X
ROCK HARBOR
5/9/2012
Poor
97
UNINCORPORATED
79 ROCK HARBOR
95
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref 81
Poor
68
UNINCORPORATED
80 ROCK HARBOR
95
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref 81
Poor
89
UNINCORPORATED
81 ROCK HARBOR
95
X
ROCK HARBOR
6/11/2013
Poor
89
UNINCORPORATED
81 ROCK HARBOR ADDED
95
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref to 82
Poor
87
UNINCORPORATED
82 ROCK HARBOR
95
X
ROCK HARBOR
6/11/2013
Poor
99
UNINCORPORATED
83 ROCK HARBOR
95
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref 82
Poor
102
UNINCORPORATED
84 ROCK HARBOR
95
X
ROCK HARBOR
Ref 82
Poor
103
UNINCORPORATED
86 ROCK HARBOR
95
X
ROCK HARBOR
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
87 ROCK HARBOR
94
X
ROCK HARBOR
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
88 ROCK HARBOR
94
X
ROCK HARBOR
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
89 ROCK HARBOR
94
X
ROCK HARBOR
6/10/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
90 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
4/17/2013
Poor
62
UNINCORPORATED
91 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
Ref 90
Poor
78
UNINCORPORATED
92 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
Ref 90
Poor
78
UNINCORPORATED
93 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
5/10/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
94 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
Ref 90
Poor
63
UNINCORPORATED
95 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
Ref 96
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
96 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
5/10/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
97 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
Ref 96
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
98 ROCK HARBOR
93
X
ROCK HARBOR
5/10/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
99 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
Ref 96
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
100 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
Ref 96
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
101 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
5/9/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
102 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
Ref 103
Poor
76
UNINCORPORATED
103 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
5/9/2013
Poor
79
UNINCORPORATED
104 TAVERNIER
93
X
TAVERNIER
Ref 103
Poor
68
UNINCORPORATED
105 TAVERNIER
92
X
TAVERNIER
5/9/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
106 PLANTATION KEY
91
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 107
Good
ISLAMORADA
107 PLANTATION KEY
91
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/9/2013
Good
ISLAMORADA
108 PLANTATION KEY
91
X
PLANTATION KEY
7/29/2013
Poor
81
ISLAMORADA
109 PLANTATION KEY
91
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 111
Fair
ISLAMORADA
REFERENCE: The inventory is a listing of the residential canals indentified in the 2003 GIS Database
prepared by AMEC Environment Infrastructure, Inc., as amended in 2012. Page 2 of 9
TABLE 3
RESIDENTIAL CANAL WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES
Canal —Name
Mile Marker
Bayside
Ocean
side
Island—Name/Community
Area
Survey_Date
WQ SUMMARY
Canal Ranking No
MUNICIPALITY
110 PLANTATION KEY
91
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/9/2013
Poor
62
ISLAMORADA
111 PLANTATION KEY
90
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/8/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
112 PLANTATION KEY
90
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/8/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
113 PLANTATION KEY
91
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/9/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
114 PLANTATION KEY
90
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/9/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
115 PLANTATION KEY
90
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 114
Fair
ISLAMORADA
116 PLANTATION KEY
90
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/9/2013
Poor
80
ISLAMORADA
116 PLANTATION KEY ADDED
90
X
PLANTATION KEY
7/29/2013
Poor
56
ISLAMORADA
117 PLANTATION KEY
90
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/8/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
118 PLANTATION KEY
90
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/8/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
119 PLANTATION KEY
90
X
PLANTATION KEY
6/10/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
120 PLANTATION KEY
89
X
PLANTATION KEY
4/20/2013
Poor
86
ISLAMORADA
121 PLANTATION KEY
88
X
PLANTATION KEY
4/20/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
122 PLANTATION KEY
88
X
PLANTATION KEY
7/29/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
123 PLANTATION KEY
87
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 123 Added
Fair
ISLAMORADA
123 PLANTATION KEY ADDED
87
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/8/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
124 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
125 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
126 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
127 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
4/5/2013
Poor
43
ISLAMORADA
128 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
129 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 127
Poor
40
ISLAMORADA
130 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
131 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
132 PLANTATION KEY
87
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 137
Poor
62
ISLAMORADA
133 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
134 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
135 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
136 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
137 PLANTATION KEY
87
X
PLANTATION KEY
5/8/2013
Poor
62
ISLAMORADA
138 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
PLANTATION KEY
4/5/2013
Good
ISLAMORADA
139 PLANTATION KEY
86
X
WINDLEY KEY
Ref 138
Good
ISLAMORADA
139 WINDLEY KEY ADDED
85
X
WINDLEY KEY
Ref to 139 Added 2
Poor
82
ISLAMORADA
139 WINDLEY KEY ADDED 2
85
X
PLANTATION KEY
7/29/2013
Poor
61
ISLAMORADA
140 UPPER MATECUMBE KEY
83
X
UPPER MATECUMBER KEY
7/29/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
141 UPPER MATECUMBE KEY
83
X
UPPER MATECUMBER KEY
7/29/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
142 UPPER MATECUMBE KEY
83
X
I UPPER MATECUMBER KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
ISLAMORADA
142 UPPER MATECUMBE KEY ADDEE
82
X
UPPER MATECUMBER KEY
7/29/2013
Good
ISLAMORADA
143 UPPER MATECUMBE
81
X
UPPER MATECUMBE
7/29/2013
Poor
85
ISLAMORADA
143 UPPER MATECUMBE ADDED
81
X
UPPER MATECUMBE
No access WQ est
Fair
ISLAMORADA
144 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
77
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
7/29/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
145 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
76
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
4/5/2013
Poor
87
ISLAMORADA
146 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
76
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
ISLAMORADA
147 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
76
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
4/5/2013
Poor
87
ISLAMORADA
148 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
76
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
4/5/2013
Poor
99
ISLAMORADA
48 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY ADDEE
76
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
7/29/2013
Good
ISLAMORADA
149 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
75
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
Ref 150
Fair
ISLAMORADA
150 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
74
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
4/4/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
151 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
75
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
Ref 150
Fair
ISLAMORADA
151 LOWER MATECUMBE ADDED 2
75
X
LOWER MATECUMBE
7/29/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
151 LOWER MATECUMBE ADDED
75
X
LOWER MATECUMBE
refer to 151 Added 2
Fair
ISLAMORADA
152 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
74
X
I
I LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
4/4/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
153 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
74
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
Ref 152
Fair
ISLAMORADA
154 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
74
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
4/4/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
155 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
74
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
3/8/2013
Fair
ISLAMORADA
156 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
74
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
Ref 155
Fair
ISLAMORADA
REFERENCE: The inventory is a listing of the residential canals indentified in the 2003 GIS Database
prepared by AMEC Environment Infrastructure, Inc., as amended in 2012. Page 3 of 9
TABLE 3
RESIDENTIAL CANAL WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES
Canal —Name
Mile Marker
Bayside
Ocean
side
Island—Name/Community
Area
Survey_Date
WQ SUMMARY
Canal Ranking No
MUNICIPALITY
157 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
74
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
4/20/2013
Poor
102
ISLAMORADA
158 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
74
X
LOWER MATECUMBE KEY
Ref 155
Fair
ISLAMORADA
159 LONG KEY/LAYTON
68
X
LONG KEY/LAYTON
3/8/2013
Good
LAYTON
160LONG KEY
68
X
LONG KEY
Ref 159
Good
LAYTON
161 LONG KEY
68
X
LONG KEY
Ref 159
Good
LAYTON
162 LONG KEY/LAYTON
66
X
LONG KEY/LAYTON
Ref 163
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
163 LONG KEY/LAYTON
66
X
LONG KEY/LAYTON
Phase I
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
164 DUCK KEY
61
X
DUCK KEY
3/8/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
164 CONCH KEY ADDED 2
63
X
CONCH KEY
3/8/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
164 CONCH KEY ADDED 3
63
X
CONCH KEY
3/8/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
164 CONCH KEY ADDED
63
X
CONCH KEY
5/10/2012
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
165 GRASSY KEY
57
X
GRASSY KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
MARATHON
166 GRASSY KEY
57
X
GRASSY KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
MARATHON
166 GRASSY KEY ADDED
60
X
GRASSY KEY
3/7/2013
Poor
97
MARATHON
167 CRAWL KEY
56
X
CRAWL KEY
3/7/2013
Good
MARATHON
168 CRAWL KEY
56
X
CRAWL KEY
3/7/2013
Good
MARATHON
169 MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
No access WQ est
Fair
MARATHON
170 MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Fair
MARATHON
171 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
No access WQ est
Fair
MARATHON
172MARATHON
55
X
MARATHON
Ref185
Good
MARATHON
173MARATHON
55
X
MARATHON
Ref185
Good
MARATHON
174MARATHON
55
X
MARATHON
Ref185
Good
MARATHON
175 MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
3/7/2013
Good
MARATHON
176MARATHON
55
X
MARATHON
Ref185
Good
MARATHON
177MARATHON
55
X
MARATHON
Ref185
Good
MARATHON
178MARATHON
55
X
MARATHON
Ref185
Good
MARATHON
179MARATHON
55
X
MARATHON
Ref185
Good
MARATHON
180 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
'other' water body
NA
MARATHON
181MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
Ref185
Good
MARATHON
182MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
Ref175
Good
MARATHON
183 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
No access WQ est
Fair
MARATHON
184 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Fair
MARATHON
184 MARATHON ADDED
52
X
MARATHON
Ref 184
Fair
MARATHON
185 MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
3/7/2013
Good
MARATHON
186 MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Fair
MARATHON
187MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref175
Good
MARATHON
188MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref175
Good
MARATHON
189MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref175
Good
KEY COLONY BEACH
190MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
Ref185
Good
MARATHON
191 MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Fair
MARATHON
192 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Good
MARATHON
193MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
Ref195
Good
MARATHON
194MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
Ref175
Good
MARATHON
195 MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
3/7/2013
Good
MARATHON
196 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
5/10/2012
Good
MARATHON
197MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
Ref195
Good
MARATHON
198 MARATHON
51
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Fair
MARATHON
199MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref192
Good
MARATHON
200 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
5/10/2012
Fair
MARATHON
201MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
Ref175
Good
MARATHON
202MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
Ref203
Good
MARATHON
203 MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Good
MARATHON
204MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
Ref203
Good
MARATHON
205MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref213
Good
MARATHON
206 MARATHON
51
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Good
MARATHON
208 MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Good
MARATHON
REFERENCE: The inventory is a listing of the residential canals indentified in the 2003 GIS Database
prepared by AMEC Environment Infrastructure, Inc., as amended in 2012. Page 4 of 9
TABLE 3
RESIDENTIAL CANAL WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES
Canal —Name
Mile Marker
Bayside
Ocean
side
Island—Name/Community
Area
Survey_Date
WQ SUMMARY
Canal Ranking No
MUNICIPALITY
209 MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
Ref 212
Good
KEY COLONY BEACH
210 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref 213
Good
KEY COLONY BEACH
211MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
Ref208
Good
MARATHON
212 MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Good
KEY COLONY BEACH
213 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Good
KEY COLONY BEACH
214 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref 213
Good
KEY COLONY BEACH
215 MARATHON
54
X
MARATHON
Ref 212
Good
KEY COLONY BEACH
216 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref 213
Good
KEY COLONY BEACH
217 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref 213
Good
KEY COLONY BEACH
218 MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref 213
Good
KEY COLONY BEACH
219MARATHON
53
X
MARATHON
Ref 213
Good
MARATHON
220MARATHON
51
X
MARATHON
Ref223
Poor
105
MARATHON
221MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
Ref227
Good
MARATHON
222MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
Ref227
Good
MARATHON
223 MARATHON
51
X
MARATHON
5/15/2012
Poor
88
MARATHON
224MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
Ref208
Good
MARATHON
225MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
Ref208
Good
MARATHON
226 MARATHON
52
X
MARATHON
No access WQ est
Fair
MARATHON
227 MARATHON
51
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Good
MARATHON
228 MARATHON
51
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Fair
MARATHON
229 BIG PINE KEY
29
X
BIG PINE KEY
1/30/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
230MARATHON
51
X
MARATHON
Ref232
Good
MARATHON
231 MARATHON
51
X
MARATHON
Ref232
Good
MARATHON
232 MARATHON
51
X
MARATHON
3/5/2013
Good
MARATHON
232 MARATHON ADDED
51
X
MARATHON
No access WQ est
Fair
MARATHON
232 MARATHON ADDED 2
51
X
MARATHON
No access WQ est
Fair
MARATHON
233 BIG PINE KEY
29
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 229
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
234MARATHON
51
X
MARATHON
Ref232
Good
MARATHON
235MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
Ref237
Poor
94
MARATHON
236 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Good
MARATHON
237 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Poor
90
MARATHON
238 BIG PINE KEY
29
X
BIG PINE KEY
1/30/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
239 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Fair
MARATHON
240 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
Ref 239
Fair
MARATHON
241 MARATHON
49
X
MARATHON
'other' water body
NA
MARATHON
242 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Poor
101
MARATHON
243 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
Phase I
Poor
72
MARATHON
244 MARATHON
48
X
MARATHON
No access WQ est
Fair
MARATHON
244 MARATHON ADDED
48
X
MARATHON
3/3/2013
Good
MARATHON
244 MARATHON ADDED 2
48
X
MARATHON
3/3/2013
Good
MARATHON
244 MARATHON ADDED 3
48
X
MARATHON
No access WQ est
Fair
MARATHON
245 MARATHON
48
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Fair
MARATHON
246 MARATHON
48
X
MARATHON
Ref 245
Fair
MARATHON
247 MARATHON
48
X
MARATHON
3/3/2013
Good
MARATHON
248 MARATHON
48
X
MARATHON
3/3/2013
Fair
MARATHON
249MARATHON
48
X
MARATHON
Ref250
Good
MARATHON
250 MARATHON
48
X
MARATHON
3/3/2013
Good
MARATHON
251 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Good
MARATHON
252 MARATHON
47
X
MARATHON
Phase I
Poor
71
MARATHON
253MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
Ref251
Good
MARATHON
254MARATHON
49
X
MARATHON
Ref264
Good
MARATHON
255 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
1/30/2013
Poor
59
UNINCORPORATED
256MARATHON(SPLIT)
49
X
MARATHON
Ref264
Good
MARATHON
256MARATHON
49
X
MARATHON
Ref264
Good
MARATHON
256 MARATHON ADDED
49
X
MARATHON
Ref264
Good
MARATHON
257 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Fair
MARATHON
REFERENCE: The inventory is a listing of the residential canals indentified in the 2003 GIS Database
prepared by AMEC Environment Infrastructure, Inc., as amended in 2012. Page 5 of 9
TABLE 3
RESIDENTIAL CANAL WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES
Canal —Name
Mile Marker
Bayside
Ocean
side
Island—Name/Community
Area
Survey_Date
WQ SUMMARY
Canal Ranking No
MUNICIPALITY
258 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
2/1/2013
Poor
79
UNINCORPORATED
259 BIG PINE
31
X
BIG PINE
3/6/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
260 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Fair
MARATHON
261 No Name Key
34
X
No Name Key
Phase I
Poor
74
UNINCORPORATED
262 BIG TORCH KEY
26
X
BIG TORCH KEY
3/6/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
263 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
3/6/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
264 MARATHON
49
X
MARATHON
3/4/2013
Good
MARATHON
265 No Name Key
34
X
No Name Key
3/6/2013
Poor
90
UNINCORPORATED
266 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Phase I
Poor
115
UNINCORPORATED
267 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 277
Poor
105
UNINCORPORATED
268 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
Ref 257
Fair
MARATHON
269 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
Ref 257
Fair
MARATHON
270 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 277
Poor
91
UNINCORPORATED
271 MARATHON
50
X
MARATHON
Ref 257
Fair
MARATHON
272 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 277
Poor
101
UNINCORPORATED
273 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
3/6/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
274 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 277
Poor
95
UNINCORPORATED
275 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 277
Poor
101
UNINCORPORATED
276 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 277
Poor
101
UNINCORPORATED
277 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
2/1/2013
Poor
111
UNINCORPORATED
278 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
1/28/2013
Poor
91
UNINCORPORATED
279 LITTLE TORCH KEY
29
X
LITTLE TORCH KEY
1/30/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
280 LITTLE TORCH KEY
29
X
LITTLE TORCH KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
281 LITTLE TORCH KEY
29
X
LITTLE TORCH KEY
1/30/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
282 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
2/1/2013
Poor
103
UNINCORPORATED
283 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 282
Poor
103
UNINCORPORATED
284 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
1/28/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
285 LITTLE TORCH KEY
29
X
LITTLE TORCH KEY
3/6/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
286 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
5/10/2012
Poor
86
UNINCORPORATED
287 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 288
Poor
112
UNINCORPORATED
288 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
1/28/2013
Poor
112
UNINCORPORATED
289 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
1/28/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
290 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
2/1/2013
Poor
106
UNINCORPORATED
291 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 289
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
292 LITTLE TORCH KEY
29
X
LITTLE TORCH KEY
1/30/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
293 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
2/1/2013
Poor
97
UNINCORPORATED
294 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
1/28/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
295 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 297
Poor
105
UNINCORPORATED
296 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 294
Good
UNINCORPORATED
297 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
2/1/2013
Poor
115
UNINCORPORATED
298 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 294
Good
UNINCORPORATED
299 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
2/1/2013
Poor
121
UNINCORPORATED
300 BIG PINE KEY
31
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 299
Poor
111
UNINCORPORATED
301 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 294
Good
UNINCORPORATED
302 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 294
Good
UNINCORPORATED
303 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
Ref 294
Good
UNINCORPORATED
304 SUGARLOAF KEY
20
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 307
Good
UNINCORPORATED
305 SUGARLOAF KEY
20
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 307
Good
UNINCORPORATED
306 SUGARLOAF KEY
20
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 307
Good
UNINCORPORATED
307 SUGARLOAF KEY
20
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
1/31/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
308 SUGARLOAF KEY
20
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 307
Good
UNINCORPORATED
309 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
1/28/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
310 RAMROD KEY
27
X
RAMROD KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
311 RAMROD KEY
27
X
RAMROD KEY
3/6/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
312 CUDJOE KEY MERGED
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
4/6/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
314 CUDJOE KEY
22
X
CUDJOE KEY
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
REFERENCE: The inventory is a listing of the residential canals indentified in the 2003 GIS Database
prepared by AMEC Environment Infrastructure, Inc., as amended in 2012. Page 6 of 9
TABLE 3
RESIDENTIAL CANAL WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES
Canal —Name
Mile Marker
Bayside
Ocean
side
Island—Name/Community
Area
Survey_Date
WQ SUMMARY
Canal Ranking No
MUNICIPALITY
315 322 BIG PINE KEY
32
X
BIG PINE KEY
3/7/2013
Poor
84
UNINCORPORATED
316 CUDJOE KEY
22
X
CUDJOE KEY
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
317 LITTLE TORCH KEY
29
X
LITTLE TORCH KEY
1/30/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
318 SUGARLOAF KEY
20
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
1/31/2013
Poor
66
UNINCORPORATED
319 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
320 SUMMERLAND KEY
25
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
4/5/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
321 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
322 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 341
Good
UNINCORPORATED
323 SUMMERLAND KEY
25
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
4/5/2013
Poor
72
UNINCORPORATED
324 CUDJOE KEY
21
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 336
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
325 SUGARLOAF KEY
20
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 318
Poor
71
UNINCORPORATED
326 CUDJOE KEY
22
X
CUDJOE KEY
1/31/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
327 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
328 SUMMERLAND KEY
24
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
4/17/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
329 CUDJOE KEY
21
X
CUDJOE KEY
Phase I
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
330 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 341
Good
UNINCORPORATED
331 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 341
Good
UNINCORPORATED
332 CUDJOE KEY
21
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 329
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
333 SUMMERLAND KEY
25
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
334 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 341
Good
UNINCORPORATED
335 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
4/6/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
336 CUDJOE KEY
21
X
CUDJOE KEY
5/11/2012
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
337 CUDJOE KEY
21
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 329
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
338 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 341
Good
UNINCORPORATED
339 LITTLE TORCH KEY
29
X
LITTLE TORCH KEY
1/30/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
340 CUDJOE KEY
21
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 329
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
341 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
4/6/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
342 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
343 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 355
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
344 CUDJOE KEY
21
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 329
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
345 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 349
Poor
88
UNINCORPORATED
346 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
347 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 355
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
348 BIG PINE KEY
30
X
BIG PINE KEY
No access WQ est
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
349 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
4/6/2013
Poor
88
UNINCORPORATED
350 RAMROD KEY
27
X
RAMROD KEY
3/6/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
351 SUMMERLAND KEY
25
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
4/5/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
352 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 355
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
353 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 349
Poor
88
UNINCORPORATED
354 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 349
Poor
84
UNINCORPORATED
355 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
4/6/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
356 SUMMERLAND KEY
25
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
Ref 365
Good
UNINCORPORATED
357 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 349
Poor
84
UNINCORPORATED
358 SUMMERLAND KEY
25
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
Ref 365
Good
UNINCORPORATED
359 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 349
Poor
74
UNINCORPORATED
360 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 355
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
361 SUMMERLAND KEY
25
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
Ref 365
Good
UNINCORPORATED
362 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 349
Poor
74
UNINCORPORATED
363 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 355
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
364 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 349
Poor
78
UNINCORPORATED
365 SUMMERLAND KEY
25
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
5/31/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
366 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 355
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
367 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 349
Poor
78
UNINCORPORATED
368 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 355
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
369 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 349
Poor
78
UNINCORPORATED
370 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 355
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
REFERENCE: The inventory is a listing of the residential canals indentified in the 2003 GIS Database
prepared by AMEC Environment Infrastructure, Inc., as amended in 2012. Page 7 of 9
TABLE 3
RESIDENTIAL CANAL WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES
Canal —Name
Mile Marker
Bayside
Ocean
side
Island—Name/Community
Area
Survey_Date
WQ_SUMMARY
Canal Ranking No
MUNICIPALITY
371 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 372
Poor
94
UNINCORPORATED
372 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
4/6/2013
Poor
90
UNINCORPORATED
373 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
4/6/2013
Poor
97
UNINCORPORATED
374 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 372
Poor
92
UNINCORPORATED
375 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 373
Poor
97
UNINCORPORATED
376 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 372
Poor
95
UNINCORPORATED
377 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 372
Poor
94
UNINCORPORATED
378 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 373
Poor
91
UNINCORPORATED
379 SUMMERLAND KEY
25
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
4/5/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
380 CUDJOE KEY
23
X
CUDJOE KEY
Ref 373
Poor
78
UNINCORPORATED
381 SUMMERLAND KEY
25
X
SUMMERLAND KEY
Ref 379
Good
UNINCORPORATED
382 SUMMERLAND
25
X
SUMMERLAND
Ref 379
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
383 SUMMERLAND
25
X
SUMMERLAND
Ref 379
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
384 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
1/31/2013
Poor
86
UNINCORPORATED
385 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
1/31/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
386 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 385
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
387 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 385
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
388 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
1/31/2013
Poor
48
UNINCORPORATED
389 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 385
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
390 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 403
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
391 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 385
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
392 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 403
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
393 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 403
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
394 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 385
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
395 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 403
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
396 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
4/18/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
397 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 385
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
398 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 396
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
399 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 403
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
400 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 385
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
401 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 403
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
402 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
4/18/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
403 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
4/18/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
404 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 402
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
405 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 402
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
406 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 403
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
407 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 403
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
408 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 403
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
409 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 412
Good
UNINCORPORATED
410 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 413
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
411 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
4/18/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
412 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
4/18/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
413 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
4/18/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
414 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
1/31/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
415 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 412
Good
UNINCORPORATED
416 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 411
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
417 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 414
Good
UNINCORPORATED
418 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 413
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
419 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 412
Good
UNINCORPORATED
420 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 414
Good
UNINCORPORATED
421 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 412
Good
UNINCORPORATED
422 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 414
Good
UNINCORPORATED
423 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 429
Good
UNINCORPORATED
424 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 414
Good
UNINCORPORATED
425 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 429
Good
UNINCORPORATED
426 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
'other' water bod
NA
UNINCORPORATED
REFERENCE: The inventory is a listing of the residential canals indentified in the 2003 GIS Database
prepared by AMEC Environment Infrastructure, Inc., as amended in 2012. Page 8 of 9
TABLE 3
RESIDENTIAL CANAL WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES
Canal —Name
Mile Marker
Bayside
Ocean
side
Island—Name/Community
Area
Survey_Date
WQ SUMMARY
Canal Ranking No
MUNICIPALITY
427 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 429
Good
UNINCORPORATED
428 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 429
Good
UNINCORPORATED
429 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
4/18/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
430 SUGARLOAF KEY
17
X
SUGARLOAF KEY
Ref 431
Good
UNINCORPORATED
431 SUGARLOAF
17
X
SUGARLOAF
4/18/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
432 SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
15
X
SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
Ref 433
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
433 SADDLEBUNCH KEYS MERGED
15
X
SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
5/11/2012
Poor
86
UNINCORPORATED
435 SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
14
X
SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
Ref 433
Poor
76
UNINCORPORATED
436 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
Ref 443
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
437 BIG COPPITT
10
X
BIG COPPITT
1/29/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
438 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
Ref 444
Good
UNINCORPORATED
439 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
4/19/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
440 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
Ref 443
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
441 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
Ref 444
Good
UNINCORPORATED
442 BIG COPPITT
11
X
BIG COPPITT
Ref 439
Good
UNINCORPORATED
443 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
5/31/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
444 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
4/19/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
445 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
Ref 444
Good
UNINCORPORATED
446 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
Ref 444
Good
UNINCORPORATED
447 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
Ref 443
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
448 BIG COPPITT KEY
11
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
Refer to 447
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
449 BIG COPPITT KEY
10
X
BIG COPPITT KEY
4/19/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
450 ROCKLAND
10
X
ROCKLAND
Ref 437
Good
UNINCORPORATED
451 BOCA CHICA KEY
7
X
BOCA CHICA KEY
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
452 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
No access
NA
UNINCORPORATED
453 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
No access
NA
UNINCORPORATED
454 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
No access
NA
UNINCORPORATED
455 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
456 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
Ref 466
Poor
86
UNINCORPORATED
457 KEY HAVEN
5
X
KEY HAVEN
1/29/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
458 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
Ref 466
Poor
71
UNINCORPORATED
459 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
Ref 466
Poor
86
UNINCORPORATED
460 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
461 KEY HAVEN
5
X
KEY HAVEN
1/29/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
462 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
463 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
'other' water body
NA
UNINCORPORATED
464 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
No access
NA
UNINCORPORATED
465 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
Ref 466
Poor
79
UNINCORPORATED
466 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
4/19/2013
Poor
81
UNINCORPORATED
467 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
Ref 466
Poor
74
UNINCORPORATED
468 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
Ref 466
Poor
70
UNINCORPORATED
469 KEY HAVEN
5
X
KEY HAVEN
1/29/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
470 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
4/19/2013
Poor
51
UNINCORPORATED
471 KEY HAVEN
5
X
KEY HAVEN
1/29/2013
Fair
UNINCORPORATED
472 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
Ref 475
Poor
100
UNINCORPORATED
473 KEY HAVEN
5
X
KEY HAVEN
1/29/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
474 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
Ref 475
Poor
100
UNINCORPORATED
475 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
4/19/2013
Poor
101
UNINCORPORATED
476 GEIGER KEY
10
X
GEIGER KEY
Ref 475
Poor
100
UNINCORPORATED
477 KEY WEST
3
X
KEY WEST
No access WQ est
Good
KEY WEST
478 STOCK ISLAND
4
X
STOCK ISLAND
1/29/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
479 STOCK ISLAND
4
X
STOCK ISLAND
1/29/2013
Good
UNINCORPORATED
480 KEY WEST
3
X
KEY WEST
WQ est
Good
I KEY WEST
REFERENCE: The inventory is a listing of the residential canals indentified in the 2003 GIS Database
prepared by AMEC Environment Infrastructure, Inc., as amended in 2012. Page 9 of 9
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
APPENDIX A
RESIDENTIAL CANAL HOMEOWNER QUESTIONNAIRE
1
Y �
Residential Canal Homeowner Questionnaire
1. Homeowner Information:
Name (Optional):
Email address:
Canal Location/Home Address:
Telephone M
2. What issues or concerns do you have with the water quality of your canal?
o Seaweed/flotsam
o Unclear water
o Bad odor
o Fish kills
o Do you swim in your canal: Yes No
o List other
3. Are there certain conditions or times of the year when the water quality in your
canal is worse (such as a certain wind direction or a seasonal influence)? Please
specify:
4. Is there, or has there been, any treatment systems associated with your canal?
o Yes
► •,
5. If yes to #4, please indicate the type of canal treatment system:
o Aerators
o Weed gates or bubble curtains
o Culverts
o List other
6. If yes to #4, is the system still operational?
o Yes
o No , please specify why not:
Is the system effective?
o Yes
o No , please specify why not:
Comment:
7. Do you think your canal needs additional water quality improvement?
o Yes
Comment:
8. Would you be willing to contribute to the cost to install a water quality
improvement system?
o Yes
o No
Comment:
9. Is there a Homeowner Association or other organization in your neighborhood
that may be willing to manage and pay for the operation and maintenance of a
water quality improvement system?
o No
o Yes
Name of Association:
Name of President:
Phone:
Email address:
Comment:
Return to: Rhonda Haag, hgag-rhondan-monroecountLfl.gov, telephone (305) 453-8774
Canal Management Master Plan, Monroe County, Florida
Nl j1�
Background
In November 2012, Monroe County, in association with AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.,
was awarded an EPA grant to complete a Canal Management Master Plan for the entire Keys.
The effort is underway and is scheduled for completion by September 2013. The management
plan will prioritize the water quality problems in all of the Keys canals and provide
recommendations for appropriate remedial measures for each canal. The Master Plan will
be a t ool for all Keys managers to assist in planning and budg eting for canal water quality
improvements.
You can assist in the effort by completing the attached questionnaire.
Please return the attached questionnaire to:
Rhonda Haag
Sustainability Program Manager
Monroe County, Government and Cultural Center
102050 Overseas Highway, Ste. 212
Key Largo, FL 33037
Bus: (305) 453-8774
Cell: (305) 395-9928
If desired, contact your County Commissioners about this program:
David Rice
Board of County Commissioners
District Four
Marathon Airport Terminal
9400 Overseas Hwy, Suite 210
Marathon, FL 33050
Phone: 305-289-6000
occis monroecounty-fleov
Heather Carruthers
Board of County Commissioners
District Three/Mayor Pro Tern
500 Whitehead Street, Suite 102
Key West, FL 33040
Phone: 305-292-3430
occis3 monroecount�-fleov
Danny Kolhage
Board of County Commissioners
District One
530 Whitehead Street; Suite 102
Key West, FL 33040
Phone: 305-292-3440
occis1 monroecounty-fleov
George Neugent
Board of County Commissioners
District Two/Mayor
25 Ships Way
Big Pine Key, FL 33043
Phone: 305-872-1678
occ is2 monroecounty-fl
Sylvia Murphy
Board of County Commissioners
District Five Commissioner
Murray Nelson Center
102050 O/S Highway, Suite 234
Key Largo, FL 33037
Phone: 305-453-8787
occ is monroecounty-fl
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY OF CANAL ATTRIBUTES INCLUDED IN
CMMP DATABASE
Canal Attribute Descriptions
Included in
Google Earth
Layer
Attribute ID
Description
Source / Methodology
A numerical sorting index so the the canals can be
A count index that was created using excel's fill feature once the updated GIS database had
SortIndex
ordered sequentially.
been imported into excel.
A text field identifying each canal. Naming convention
is the number of the canal followed by the area the
canal is located. Edits completed in 2012 consisted of
adding and merging canals. Therefore certain canals
Original canal name assigned to the canal features in the 2003 database. The re -digitized
X
Canal —Name
may be named ## Area Added/Merged
features created in 2012 we assigned the canal name using the spatial join feature in ArcGIS.
A point file identifying the mile markers for US 1 was used to manually assign a mile marker to
X
Mile Marker
US 1 mile marker that the canal is located near.
each canal by proximity
A polyline feature of US 1 was used to split a shoreline polygon feature, and the polygon
features located north of US 1 were used to select all of the canal features that were north of
US 1. The selected canals were exported as a separate layer titled bayside canals. The
attributes of the layer was exported to excel, and a VLOOKUP function was writtten to
X
Bayside
Indicates that the canal is located north of US 1
populate the column with an X if the canal was listed in the Bayside canal layer.
A polyline feature of US 1 was used to split a shoreline polygon feature, and the polygon
features located south of US 1 were used to select all of the canal features that were south of
US 1. The selected canals were exported as a separate layer titled Oceanside canals. The
attributes of the layer was exported to excel, and a VLOOKUP function was writtten to
X
Oceanside
Indicates that the canal is located south of US 1
populate the column with an X if the canal was listed in the Oceanside canal layer.
Island—Name/Community
The name of the island or community where a canal is
The text to columns feature was utilized to isolate the island name or community name utilized
Area
located.
in the Canal Name attribute
A canal was selected as a candidate for a weed gate if it was identified as exhibiting weed
Indicates that a canal is a candidate for the installation
wrack in the aerial imagery, during the 2013 field surveys, or in homeowner surveys. Canals
X
Weed —Gate
of a weed gate
that exhibited a good water quality summary (WQ_summary) were excluded.
A canal was selected as a candidate for a flushing culvert through inspection of the shoreline
Indicates that a canal is a candidate for the installation
and canal geometry features. Canals that exhibited a good water quality summary
X
Culvert
of a culvert
(WQ_summary) were excluded.
Indicates that a canal is a candidate for the
The potential need for maintenance of an existing culvert was identified during the 2013 field
X
Culvert_Maint
maintenance of an existing culvert
surveys. Canals that exhibited a good water quality summary (WQ_summary) were excluded.
A canal was selected as a canidate for backfilling if the bathymetric survey identified an
Indicates that a canal is a candidate for backfilling to
average canal bottom elevation (Ave EL) was less than -10 feet NAVD. Canals that exhibited
X
Backfill
increase flushing
a good water quality summary (WQ_summary) were excluded.
A canal was selected as a canidate for removal of organics if the bathymetric survey identified
Indicates that a canal is a candidate for the removal of
an average organic thickness (Ave_Org_Thick) greater than 0.75 feet. Canals that exhibited
X
Organic Rem
accumulated organics
a good water quality summary (WQ_summary) were excluded.
A canal was selected as a canidate for a circulation pump if the calculated degree of
Indicates that a canal is a candidate for the installation
stagnation (Deg_of_Stag) was greater than 1. Canals that exhibited a good water quality
X
Pumping
of a circulation pump
summary (WQ_summary) were excluded.
Describes existing treatment measures located within
X
Existing_Treat
a canal
Existing treatment measures identified during the 2013 field survey.
Included in
Google Earth
Layer
Attribute ID
Description
Source / Methodology
Calculated using the ArcGIS calculate geometry feature for the canal features that were re-
X
Area ac
Area of the canal in acres
digitized in 2012
This is the longest distance from the mouth to the
furthest end of the canal. Distance does not include
Manually measured values from the 2003 database that were incorporated into the updated
X
Length_ft
shorter length of fingers with the canal system.
database using the spatial join feature.
Calculated using the ArcGIS calculate geometry feature for the canal features that were re-
Perimeter_ft
Perimeter of the canal in feet
digitized in 2012
Calculated using the field calculator feature in ArcGIS, where the inputted formula was
A_L_Ratio
Ratio of area to length
A_L_Ratio=Area_Ac*43560/Length_ft.
This is the numerical value that was assigned
(visually) based on number of 90 degree turns. A full
90 degree turn has a value of 1; a 45 degree turn has
Manually measured values from the 2003 database that were incorporated into the updated
X
Num_of_Convolutions
a value of 0.5
database using the spatial join feature.
Number of mouths opening to open water. If the canal
Manually measured values from the 2003 database that were incorporated into the updated
X
Num of Mouth
is plugged the number is 0
database using the spatial join feature.
Calculated value that was determined using normalized values of area, length, number of
convolutions, and area to length ratio. Number of convolutions and area to length ratio were
multiplied by a weighting factor of 0.25. The sum of the weighted normalized values were
Degree of stagnation, a calculated value used to
divided by the number of mouths and a tidal factor. The calculated values were normalized,
X
Deg_of_Stag
estimate the degree of flushing.
and a value greater than 1 is assumed to represent canals that are stagnant.
Minimum elevation of the canal bottom in feet relative
Bathymetric survey data collected in 2013. Calculated by taking the minimum of an array that
X
Min —El
to NAVD 88
was generated by the canal name in excel.
Maximum elevation of the canal bottom in feet relative
Bathymetric survey data collected in 2013. Calculated by taking the maximum of an array that
X
Max —El
to NAVD 89
was generated by the canal name in excel.
Average elevation of the canal bottom in feet relative
Bathymetric survey data collected in 2013. Calculated by taking the average of an array that
X
Ave —El
to NAVD 90
was generated by the canal name in excel.
Bathymetric survey data collected in 2013. Calculated by taking the difference between the
average elevation of the high point array and the average of the low point array that was
X
Ave_Sed_Thick
Average thickness of sediment in the canal in feet
generated by the canal name in excel.
WBID
DEP assigned Water Body ID
Spatial join of WBID layer provided by the DEP.
An attribute for DO impairment was assigned to the DEP WBID layer. The attributes were
Indicates that the WBID that the canal is located in is
exported to excel, and a VLOOKUP statement was written to populate the column with an X is
WBID DO_Imp
impaired for dissolved oxygen
the WBID was listed as having an impairment for DO.
Date that the canal was surveyed for the 2013 field
Survey_Date
survey.
Manual entry.
A qualifier category to idenitify canals that are not
typical residential canals. Such as boat basins,
Canal —Category
natural channels, canals that have been filled.
Manual entry.
Water quality summary based on the findings of the
Manual entry. The determination of the water quality summary is provided in section 5 of the
X
WQ_Summary
2013 field survey.
CMMP Phase 2 Report.
Water quality ranking that was determined for canals
that exhibited poor water quality based on the 2013
X
WQ Ranking
field survey.
Manual entry
Manual entry. A - canal with weed wrack problems, B - canal with limited flushing, C - deep
Phase-2—Cat
Field observation modifier for the 2013 field surveys
stagnant canal, D - Good water quality
Lowest measured dissolved oxygen (DO) in the
canal's water column with the use of a calibrated YSI
X
DO_mg_L
556 in mg/L during 2103 field surveys
Manual entry
Measured turbidity in the canal during 2013 field
X
Turb_NTUs
surveys
Manual entry
Field Comm
Relevant notes obtained during field surveys.
I Manual entry
Included in
Google Earth
Layer
Attribute ID
Description
Source / Methodology
A parcel layer for Monroe County was spatially joined to the canal layer, and a COUNTIF
X
Parcels
Number of parcels bordering the canal
function was used to determine the number of parcels that bordered a canal.
A polygon feature of the wastewater service areas provided by the DEP was spatially joined
Service Ar
Wastewater treatment service area
with the canal layer.
Percent connected for the wastewater treatment
Updated reports for June 2013 were used to calculate the percent connected by service area.
Percent —Co
service area
A VLOOKUP statement was written to determine the percent connected for each canal.
A polygon feature of the wastewater service areas provided by the FDEP was spatially joined
WWT_Distri
Wastewater treatment district
with the canal layer.
The municipality in Monroe County were obtained through Tigerline, and spatially joined to the
canals. If the join did not populate the municipality name, then the canal was identified as
Municipality
Unincorporated and incorporated municipality
being located in unincorporated Monroe County.
Distance to nearshore FKNMS water quality
Dist_NS_WQ
monitoring station
Manually measured and entered values.
Indicates whether an inspection of the aerial imagery
was completed in order to identify the presence of
Aerial —inspection
weed wrack loading
Manual entry.
A weed wrack loading layer wascreated by tracing the extent of the visible weed wrack. The
Percent of the canal surface area that exhibited weed
weed wrack loading layer was spatially joined to the canal layer, and the percent covered by
Weed Loading
wrack loading
weed wrack was calculated using the field calculator feature in ArcGIS
The tidal range for the bay side and ocean side of each WBID was determined from NOAA
Tidal range of the nearshore waters for the canal in
tidal station datums. Separate VLOOKUP functions were developed for bay side and
X
Tid_Ran_Ft
feet
oceanside canals to lookup the tidal range by WBID number.
Determined for the 2003 database and incorporated into the updated database using the
Canal_Outf
Name of the outfall at the canal systems mouth
spatial join feature.
Visual observation from aerial photos of the shoreline
Manually measured values from the 2003 database that were incorporated into the updated
Percent_ Developed
that was developed
database using the spatial join feature.
This describes the energy of the body of water into
which the canal outfalls, for example, Florida Bay is
generally low energy as opposed to Tavernier Creek
Determined for the 2003 database and incorporated into the updated database using the
Energy_of_Outfall
which is medium energy.
spatial join feature.
Type of nearshore feature: channel, shallow, spoil
Determined for the 2003 database and incorporated into the updated database using the
Nearshore
area
spatial join feature.
Station number of the bay watch water quality
Determined for the 2003 database and incorporated into the updated database using the
Station —Nu
monitoring program
spatial join feature.
Orientation of canal mouth that was visually assigned
based on the direction (heading) you would be facing
Determined for the 2003 database and incorporated into the updated database using the
Orientation
if you were driving out of the canal to open water.
spatial join feature.
HO_Questionnaire
Indicates whether or not a homeowner questionnaire
has been completed for the canal.
Manual entry.
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
APPENDIX C
4w it
POOR WATER QUALITY RANKING SHEETS
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
20
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Backfilling Excavation, Pumping, Alternative Treatment, Not Required:
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
absence ofpro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0.15 mg/L
If either DO is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there is a noticeable
odor, or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B)Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No observed seaweed loading (Plugged Canal)
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
Not measured duet. assessibility
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
g
3
0
steep cat wallsmataro Pa Nly lined wit.
mangmvesinafrwareas
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canalsthat are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
0
2
0
The presence of a plug will prevent adequate tidal
flushing.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
potential exirts fornegatively impa Ring the
ValuThe
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
0
1
0
earshore environment if the Proposed renoation
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
efforts do not succeed.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
1
1
1
TheProPosed renoation techniques may require
that the plug be removed.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
tas Parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
45
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
21
Recommended Technology: Excavarind, Backfilliing, Pumping, Alternative Treatment
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at 0,12 hi at 10 bter elow wa
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
5
5
25
surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading in the assessed canals.
0
5
o
canal aces notrecei�e organicioaang from seawee
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
3
5
15
0.88feetof omanicacwmulation
data).
score of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
2
3
6
onesiae ofth--1 is lined with mangroveswhne
me isiinea
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
maiodty whh resmentiaihomes
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
5
2
10
Relatively deep but not overly long and discharges
-take surprire
protect ion within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to-10) can be applied for projects that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
oismargesinm an area of Lake Surprire surrounded
by
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
mangroves
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Noohseruea issues, Access notknown at mistime
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
1.
Parcel conminea 93
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
BO
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
22
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Backfilliing, Pumping, Excavation
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO Measured at 2,08 mg/L at S feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Minor seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
measured 1.40 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
q
3
12
Presenre of blue green algae ana boat basin within
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
the canal
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
3
2
6
Although it isa -ight canal, the presence ofasmal
boat basin may reduce the potential for success
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+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
6
1
6
There is only one additional canal near the area
where the mouth of the zssessed anal is bated.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
otherthan access, there al, pearto be no issues
im pa Ring the implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
28 Parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
81
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
26
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
a
Recommended: Backfilliing nd Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0,64 mg/L at S feet below the
water's surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
canal does not appearto receive seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TTeaveage measure a thiD:ness is e imatea at 1.02
fret
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
In a a ditiontothe canal being e.h,,Iy Iined with
Ifa canal Is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
5
3
15
onaetewalls,fl—mgalgal mats were observed
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
wxhinmecanal.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
Although the canal has multiple fingers, the canal is
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
relatively shore and hasan 1 depth frof canal of
12 et.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ali esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
5
1
5
The neighborhood hasseve.zI canals with mouths in
Dore m
t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
proximity cad, other.
nearshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
There are no known issues related to
implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindlcating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
70 parcels
The pu bile be nefit crite rion is re lated to the nu m her of use rs affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 use rs(parcels) wou Id be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
101
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
27
Recommended Technology: Weedgate, Excavation, Backfilliing, Culvert, Alternative
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Treatment
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
absence ofpro degree a
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0.64 mg/L in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and 1.Ofeet should receive a
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
5
5
25
3.5feet oforganicacwmulation
data).
score of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
2
3
6
oneside ofuem i islined with mangmveswhlle
me isiinea
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
maiodty whh resmentiaihomes
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
5
2
10
Relatively deep but not overly long and discharges
mm take snrarire
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
0ismargesinm an area of Lake Surprire surrounded
by
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
mangroves
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
No observed issues, Access notknown at mistime
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
1.
aar<ei conmined 93
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
90
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
28
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Backfilliing, Culverts, Weedgate, Excavation, Alternative Treatment
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO was measured at 2,46 mg/L at B feet below
the water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No observed seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Thickness of.y-ic layer wasmeaswea at 0.41 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
q
3
12
Pa Nly lined wits, mangroves. observeafioating
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
all matsmmnghontcenai
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
6
2
12
EMremely deep canal with one convolution and a
=mail boat barn
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
coan line is heavily developed anathere are seveai
Prrotection 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
neighboring cenais
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
6
1
6
umicea presence of mangroves along one side of
anal. Access has not been determined.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
28 parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
61
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
29
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Backfilliing nd Excavation
a
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 3.0 m g/L at 3 feet below
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Aote trial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No observed seaweed loading issues
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
Thickness of.r is y,, measured at 1.41 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
topical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue ,teen algae
5
3
15
canal is lined entirely with concreteb lkheaas
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
10
2
20
shore and might canal
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
5
1
5
coantinenear—thisheavilyaevelopea
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although access hasnot been determined,there
appearto be no complex issues related to permittin
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
zs Parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
92
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
31
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity Is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1.8 mg/L at 2feet below
water th—mir ce
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measure a at 0.98 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
q
3
12
onlya tewmangmvesanalimxea observeaaquatic
lifr
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
5
2
10
Depth is notan issaeana flushing appears to be p.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
5
1
5
Although the area surrounding the mouth has been
developed, there are no a aaitional canals
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
aischargning inm the nearshore zone
nearshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
aresenee of afew mangrovesmay require additional
permitting requirements
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
73 panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of usersaffected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
81
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
33
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0 hi at 10 feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
N. observed seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic layermeas.rea at 1.11 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a Qom bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
3
3
9
canal is parciallyli.eawith mangroves
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
tnng narrow canal that's aveage elevation is 8.89
fret
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
The assesrea canal is l."'d lust north of a
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
g
1
B
mangrove wetla.a. Also, there is..ly one aaani..a
protection n the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have de leterio us effects within the halo or
ca.al di —ring inm the nearshore.....
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, the main
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
6
1
6
impediment m permitting is likely m be the present
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
.f mangroves
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
62 Parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
96
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
36
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
a
Recommended Technology: Excavation nd Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2.72 mg/L in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not Deserved
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
1.49feetof organicacwmulation
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
y
3
12
canal is loafed acrossDr. mangrove-1-d
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
geiativeiy seorc anal wire no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
y
1
4
Seveai anais aisu,arge inm tee ame nearseore
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
environment
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
No oeservea issues, Access notknown at thistime
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
7aar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
BO
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
37
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,72 mg/L at 7 feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
no Deserved seaweed iozaing
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
5
5
25
organic iayerthia:ness measure a at 1.29 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
q
3
12
canal is entirely a eveiopea but does aisa,arge acros
from mangmvewetiana
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
It I, reiativeiy deep cvnai teat easno convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
4
1
4
canal di--, inm tee �me nearseore zone as
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
seveai other cvnais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Aimoage access�aesoe. been determinId, no know
t at this time
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
z6 aar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
84
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
39
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended Technology: Excavation
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1.51 mg/L in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed iozding not Deserved
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organicmidcnessmeasured at 2.46feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
5
3
15
Likely lined entirely with concrete se —I or
ewkheaa
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
shore cvnai wxh no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
5
1
5
Nearbycvnais ,iso influence nearshore
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
conditions
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
NODeserved issues, Access notknown at mistime
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
o
1
0
2Fareeis
he public be nefitcriterionls relatedtothe number of users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofOmeans 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
94
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
40
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended Technology: Excavation
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1.51 mg/L in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not Deserved
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organicthidcnessmeasured at 1.76feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
5
3
15
nicely lined entirely with concrete seawall or
bwl:heaa
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
16
shore canal wits, no convoluhons
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Nearby canals may also influence nearshore
es from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
4
1
4
conditions.Also, the mouth issurrounded on either
p otection 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
side by canals
arshor
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Noobserved issues, access not known at this time
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
1Fareels
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
03
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
41
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,51 at 2 feet bter elowthe wa
surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed i.-mg not observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
organic thickness not provided;however,
Measured organic layer thickness between 0.5 and 1.0 feet should received
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
.eighb.d.g cv I, maintained layers in excess.fl
f..t
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
5
3
15
u.ea with c. to b lkheaas or docks
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
16
sh- cv.ai with no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
Neighboring cv.ais aisu,arge loth the same
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....
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not be determined, there
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
appeart. be n. apparent issues rein dt.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
permitting.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
1Far�ei
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
03
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
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
Recommended: Pumping, Organic Removal, Backfill, and Culvert
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 3.24 mg/L during Phasel
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not Deserved
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcnessmeasur.d at O.63 feet.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
5
3
15
unea with �o to bulkheads or docks
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
4
2
B
Extremely long canal with multiple convolutions and
fingers.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
Neighboring canals aisu,arge ium the same
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....
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not be determined, there
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
appearto be no apparent issues rela dt.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
permitting.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
1.
z43 Panels
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
15
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
47
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Backfilliing and Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0.3 mg/L at 10 feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No seaweed related issues
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measured at 0.74 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
3
3
9
the banksare parcially lined wxh mangroves
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
5
2
10
A long deep canal with multiple convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
5
1
5
The nearshore zone has been heavily developed an
there are neighboring canals discharging inm the
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
ramearea
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
5
1
5
The presence otmangrovesana benmicresources
may imp implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
1.2 Far�els
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
19
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
48
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,06 mg/L at 6 feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
weed wrack Deserved
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic layerthidcness measured at 1.17 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
1
3
3
canal is parcially lined with mangroves
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
2
2
4
The utilization of the canal as a boat basin may
deminish impact of meh...
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
ali t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bea applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
3
1
3
canal discharges lnmanearshore zone that has bee
developed with single family homes.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, the
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
presence of mangmvesand benthil resources may
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
make permitting ditflwh.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
3Farcels
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
67
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
49
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended Technology: Backfill
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0.6]mg/L in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Minor seaweed loading in reference cenai
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
0
5
0
organicthilcnessmeasurea at 0.28teet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
g
3
9
unea witna 1-inahon of vegeation and
6wkheaas
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
16
Sh-canalwithnoco1-h—
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
Nearshore mangrove weuana loafed m the..nho
the
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
anal mourn.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
No o61ervea issues, Access not known at thishme
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
2aar�eis
he public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
74
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
50
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
absence ofpro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1.28 mg/L at l0 feet
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
minor seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measured at 0.85 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
1
3
3
Pa Nly lined whh mangroves ana conrains
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
seagasses
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
5
2
1.
Although canal is not long, it does have multiple
small fingers
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
althe halo Or nearshore zone. Analogous L Ot0-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo Or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
5
1
5
The canal dismarges inmanearsbore zone that has
been partially developed wim singleramily homes.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
1
1
1
Thepresenre of seagrasses within the mnai sy
may make implementability dil
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
so Parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
81
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
52
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0,67mg/L ata depth of 12
feet
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Minor seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
0
5
0
organiclay.rthidc..ssmeasurea at 0.23 fi.thiu:
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
u..a..tirelywlth .o..r.t. s.awall
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
A relatively short canal that has multiple fingers. Th
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
6
2
12
additional fi.g.rsr.ay impact the renoatio.s
effectiveness.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
Protect I n the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that wou Id have deleterious effects within the halo or
5
1
5
The nearshore zone hash... heavily developed wit
single family homes.
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, there are
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
.o 1,.... issues related m the permil and
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
29 panels
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
79
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
53
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended Technology: Backfill
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0.6]mg/L in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Mi.., seaweed loading in reference ce.ai
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
orga.i1thidc..ssm.as.r.d at 0.83fe.t
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
unea with hwkh.ads
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
shore ce.ai with no .o.�oi.tio.s
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuCanal
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
discharges into the same nearshore zone as
n.igh6ori.gca.aIsa.dth...arsh... zone hash...
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
developed with single family homes.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Noohserued issues, Access..tk.... at thi, u.,
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
9aar<.is
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected bythe
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
91
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
54
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended Technology: Weedgate, Backfill
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0.6]mg/L in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Mi.., seaweed loading in reference ce.ai
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
orga.ilthidc..ss measured at 0.l.3sfe.t
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
unea with hwkh.ads
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
shore ce.ai with no .o.�oi.tio.s
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuCanal
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
discharges into the same nearshore zone as
n.igh6ori.gca.aIsa.dth...arsh... zone hash...
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
developed with single family homes.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Noohserued issues, Access..tk.... at thi, u.,
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
saar<.is
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected bythe
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
101
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
59
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at 0,21 hi at 3 ft below the
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
5
5
25
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
no Deserved seaweed loading
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
3
5
15
organic iayerteia:ness measure a at 0.93 feet
data).
score of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accord) ngly, the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
q
3
12
Pa NIyvegeatea eankanathe ce I easan
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
accmm�iation of einegreenaigae
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
6
2
12
Canal was conrnnctea wire one convolution
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
canal di--, di—lyacrossDr. mangrove
a
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
othertean accessaname minimaipresence of
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
ang rovest6ere are no known issues.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
umxea numeer of parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
82
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
63
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing, Culverts, Pumping
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 3,32mg/L at S ft below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No Deserved seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layermeasarea at 0.94 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Alteoage tee canal is partially vegetated, tee large
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
4
3
12
presence of Laudon eluegreen algaeaauce the
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
canals eaeirat value
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
q uallty characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
3
2
6
ree anal mainainsan active marina nearrcs end
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
Prrotection 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
5
1
5
oismarges inmanearseore envo-onmentteat
receives inPats from reveal neigeeodng canals
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Tee presence of a marina may compliate tee
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
6
1
6
implementation of tee Pro posed renoation
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
tec6nigaes
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
124 Panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
69
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Key Largo
Canal Number
64
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended Technology: Excavation, Backfill
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1.95 mg/L in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed loading in reference canal
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organicthidcnessmeasured at t.tsteet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
unea wxh hwkheaas
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
16
Sh- canal wim no mnvoiuh—
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuCanal
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
1
1
1
dismarges into me same nearshore zone as
neighhoringcenaisandthenearshore zone has In...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
developed wim single family homes.
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
No observed issues, Access not known at thistime
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
aaar<eis
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
05
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
65
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1.85 mg/L at 3 feet below
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
nnini—I iouaing
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic iayermia:u11s measured at O.6sft
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
2
3
6
nnua, ofthe ceuai is iiuea with mangroves
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
6
2
12
oddly shaped mnai with only minorconvoiutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
aesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
canal aisu,argesium an area that hasouiy peen
aeveiopea
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
`_Nly
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
6
1
6
The presence of seveai mangroves within the mnai
may im Ithe proposed rertoation
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
3a parcels
he public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
84
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
75
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,52 hi at 15 feet below
the water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No observed seaweed loading issues
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
organic layerthidcness measure a at 0.30 tees
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
5
3
15
unea entirely whh concrete walls and mainaines
aeep,+aterpocl:ets
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
Portions of the canal that are more shallowerthan
Scoring values from Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
othersappe 1dingood condition. Also,canalonly
has one m inorconvolution
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
5
1
5
Nearshore area where the canal discharges is only
developed
Prrotection 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
parcially
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Ahhongh access hasnot been determined,there
appearto be no issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
39 panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
13
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
76
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended Technology: Excavation, Backfill
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
absence ofpro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1.52 mg/L in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
Minor seaweed loading in reference canal
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organicthidcnessmeasured at o.53feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
q
3
12
with the exceptionofine emance, the canal is line
u p canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
entirely with concrete walls
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
Although the canal has no convolutions, then moot
is oddly shaped
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from Oto+S represent lowto moderate potential, whilevaluesfrom+6to+10 represent above-averageto high potential,to provide improvement and/or
2
1
]
Canal discharges into an area that has been partially
developedandwhere two additional canals also
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
aisd,arge
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Noohserued issues, Access notknown at this time
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
34 panels
he public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
B]
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
]]
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Culverts
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at 2.4 at 9 feet below water
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
3
5
15
surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No observed seaweed loading
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and 1.Ofeet should receive a
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
5
0
data).
score of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
q
3
12
All gh.-ly lined with steep concrete/lime mcl:
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
walls,me canal displayed diverse fish population
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
A relatively shallow canal that currently has 2 mouth
and few convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
9
1
9
No neighboring canals and only a few nearby
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
residences
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
No obvious issues related to however,
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
]
per.iting;
cess ha snot been determined, could require going
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
beneath existing roadway
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
1.
z69 parcels whhin me condo community
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected bythe
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
69
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
78
Recommended Technology: Excavation, Backfill, Weedgate, Culvert
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
absence ofpro degree a
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2.34 in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
observed seaweed loading but does not ap pearl
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a scoreof 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
4
5
20
be major
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
3
5
15
organicthidcnessmeasured at 0.96feet
data).
score of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or bluegreen algae
5
3
15
With th,--ph.. of ti,e dpa lined emao ti,e
islioea
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
canal entirely wrc6 concrete will
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
E#remely deept canal maintains multiple fingers.
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
2
2
14
Exi,tingaeamres opa rineffective in achieving
t lion goals.
protectIon wi projec gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects projec
thin the project Analogous t 0to-10 bea applied t that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
all esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
Supplemental benefits are difflwlt to measure bare
the techniques
t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bea applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
on proposed
nearshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
e
1
8
No observed issues, access not known at this time
dlfflcu lty of access. Scon ng ranges from 0 to+10, with O l ndlcati ng significant dlfflcu hies l n l m pie mentation and 10 i ndlcati ng re lative ease of l m pie mentation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
6s Parcels
The pu bile be nefit crite rion is re sated to the nu m her of use rs affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 use rs(parcels) wou Id be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users wou id be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users wou id be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
07
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
79
(For acriterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended Technology: Backfill, Weeds —
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 3.69 in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Minimal seaweed loading bared on reference canal
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
organicthilcnessmeasurea at 0.32feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
3
3
9
Ones id, ofine canali, vegetated
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
Relatively short and rtaight canal that is only
partally developed.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
Nearshore zone hasonlypartiallybeen developed
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although a�eess hasnot been determined, thereare
no known issues at this time.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
vFar�els
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
68
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
80
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Backfilliing, culverts, Pumping, Alternative
Treatment, Not Required:
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 3,69 at 6 feet bter elowthe wa
surface in the reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading in the assessed canals.
3
5
15
seaweed loading observed during the tune 11,2013
site visit in the refrrenre canal.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organ! cs Mater Accu mulation(scored from 0to+5) See ri ng l s base d o n t he
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
3
5
15
organic layer thid:necc wacmeacwed at 0.85 feet.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
ua canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
5
3
15
canal is lined entirely with seawall and hacan
abundance of binegreenalgaepresent
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
6
2
12
Scoring bared on the relative shortnessand
staightness of the canal
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ali
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
5
1
5
oicmargec inmanearchore environment that has
been developed
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
relatively
nearshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
B
All
Although access hacnot been determined,thereare
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of l implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
21 Parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
89
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
81
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Backfilliing, Culverts, Pumping, Alternative
Treatment, Not Required:
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 3,69 at 6 feet bter elowthe wa
surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading in the assessed canals.
3
5
15
seaweed loading observed during the June 11,2013
sit"kit
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
3
5
15
organic layerthidcne—, measured at O.68
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
5
3
15
canal is lined entirely with seawall ana hasan
abanaanceof blaegreenalgaepresent
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
6
2
12
Scoring bared on the relative shortnessand
staightness of the canal
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ali esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
5
1
5
oismarges inmanearshore environment that has
been developed
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bea applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
relatively
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
B
Although access hasnot been determined,thereare
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
25 Parcels
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
89
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
81 Added
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0,89 at 3 feet bter elowthe wa
surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Receives seaweed loading ona season al basis
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
2
5
10
organic layerthicknessnot measured but organic
loading anticipated
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
3
3
9
shore canal mat dismarges inm mangrove island
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
8
2
15
The canali,1-ightand not overly long
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
The wart line is heavily developed with residential
homes.Also, neighboring canals dismarge withina
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
dore proximity
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
e
All
Although access hasnot been determined,th...
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
9parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
8]
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
82
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Culvert, Excavarind, Backfill
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0,89 at 3 feet bter elowthe wa
surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Receives seaweed loading ona season al basis
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layermeasarea at 0.55 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
canal is entirely lined with concreteb lkheaas
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
8
2
15
The canali,1-ightand not overly long
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
The wart line is heavily developed with residential
homes.Also, neighboring canals aikharge withina
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
uore proximity
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
5
1
5
The presenre of contaminants wnhinthe sediment
may impaR disposal
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
3t parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
99
Lobster Lane
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
83
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
a
Recommended: Weedgate, Excavation, nd Backfill
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0,89 at 3 feet bter elowthe wa
surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading in the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Reference ca nalrereive, seaweed loading ona
seasonal basis
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a scoreof 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcnessmeasuredat0.87fi—
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
The canal is lined wxh concrete bwkheaas
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
8
2
15
The canali,1-ightand not overly long
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
The wart line is heavily developed with residential
homes.Also, neighboring canals discharge withina
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
dore proximity
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
B
All
Although acres hasnot been determined,thereare
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
3t parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
102
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Rock Harbor
Canal Number
84
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
a
Recommended: Weedgate, Excavation, nd Backfill
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0,89 at 3 feet bter elowthe wa
surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading in the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Reference ca nalrereive, seaweed loading ona
seasonal basis
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a scoreof 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measured at 0.78 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
the canal is lined wxh concrete bwkheaas
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
e
2
15
The canali, 1-ightand of medium length
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
5
1
5
The wart line is heavily developed with residential
homes.Also, neighboring canals discharge withina
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
dore proximity
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
B
All
Although acres hasnot been determined,thereare
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
zs parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
303
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Tavernier
Canal Number
91
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
a
Recommended: Backfilling nd Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2.3 mg/L at B feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No Deserved seaweed loading in reference cenai
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
3
5
15
organic iayerthia:ness measure a at O.65 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
canal is lined wxh �on�ret ewkheaa
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
Althought tee canal is deep wire an aveage depth o
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
B
2
16
19 feet, it isa rPoIativeiy shore 1 with no
nvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe
5
1
5
canal isioataa�ong side additional cenais mataiso
aisu,arge int
halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
protection In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
nearshorezone.
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, there
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
appeart In, oeservea issues,I—dt.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease oflmplementation.
impiementaeiiity.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
a
1
q
16 parreis
he public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affect edbytheproposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
]B
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Tavernier
Canal Number
90
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Backfilling
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2.3 mg/L at B feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
No observed seaweed loading
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and 1.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
organic layer thickness measured at 0.21 fret
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
canal is lined wxh concrete hwkheaa
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
Althought the canal is deep with an aveage depth o
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
20 feet, it isa remIativeiy shore canal with no
nvolutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe
q
1
a
canal isloatea along side additional canals matalso
aisd,arge into
halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
protection In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
nearshorezone.
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, there
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
appearto be ohsereed issues relateam
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease oflmplementation.
implementahility.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
18 parcels
he public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affect edbytheproposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
62
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Tavernier
Canal Number
92
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
a
Recommended: Backfilling nd Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2.3 mg/L at B feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No Deserved seaweed loading in reference cenai
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
3
5
15
organic iayerthia:ness measure a at 0.76 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
canal is lined wxh �on�ret ewkheaa
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
Althought tee canal is deep wire an aveage depth o
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
B
2
16
23 feet, it isa rPoIativeiy shore 1 with no
nvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe
5
1
5
canal isioataa�ong side additional cenais mataiso
aisu,arge int
halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
protection In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
nearshorezone.
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, there
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
appeart In, oeservea issues,I—dt.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease oflmplementation.
impiementaeiiity.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
a
1
q
21P-111
he public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affect edbytheproposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
]B
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Tavernier
Canal Number
94
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
a
Recommended: Backfilling nd Culvert
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2.3 mg/L at B feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No Deserved seaweed loading in reference cenai
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
organic is , thia:ness measure a at 0.33 tees
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
canal is lined wxh �on�rete ewkheaa
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
Althought tee canal is deep wire an aveage depth o
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
B
2
16
20 feet, it isa receIativeiy shore 1 with no
nvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe
5
1
5
canal isioataa�ong side additional cenais mataiso
aisu,arge int
halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
protection In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
nearshorezone.
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, there
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
appeart In, oeservea issues,I—dt.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease oflmplementation.
impiementaeiiity.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
21 parre1s
he public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affect edbytheproposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
63
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Tavernier
Canal Number
102
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,03 mg/L at S feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No observed seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measure a at 0.55 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
ua canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
5
3
15
tnng narrow deep canal whh no observed nat—I
fratures
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
6
2
12
Denrely populated canal with a small convolution at
me emance
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ali esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
q
1
4
The coanlinehasbeen aenselypopulateaanatwo
aisu,arge into the
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
additional canals samearea
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although access hasnot been aeterminea,th...
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
so aar<els
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
76
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Tavernier
Canal Number
103
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,03 hi at S feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No observed seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measure a at 0.72 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
5
3
15
tnng narrow deep canal wI h no observed nat—I
fratures
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
6
2
12
Denrely populated canal with a small convolution at
me emance
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ali esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
q
1
4
The coanlinehasbeen aenselypopulateaanatwo
aisu,arge into the
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
additional canals samearea
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although access hasnot been aeterminea,th...
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
9s Far�els
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
70
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Tavernier
Canal Number
104
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing, Pumping
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,03 mg/L at S feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No observed seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measure a at 0.55 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
ua canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
5
3
15
IT—narrow deep canal whh no observed nat—I
fratures
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
In addition to maintaining multiple fingers and
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
2
2
4
nvoluh—, the presence of a boat basin near the
arof the canal may impact the effectiveness of me
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.
rermation
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ali esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
The coanlinehasbeen aenselypopulateaanatwo
additional canals aisu,arge into me samearea
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although access hasnot been aeterminea,thereare
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
so Parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
68
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key
Canal Number
108
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1.12 mg/L
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organiclayertbidmess is measured at 2.03 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
small barn is lined whh �or,�rete bwl:heaas.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
4
2
8
site-illremaina boatbasin
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Inaeasedtidal fluxthat involvesa canal with a
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
0
1
0
nna may haven negative impact on the r,earshor
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
zone.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
e
Ahhough access hasr,ot been determined,th...
no known issues related to pmlect implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
1Far�els
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
81
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key
Canal Number
110
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
a
Recommended: Backfilliing nd Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,49 mg/L at 9 feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organiclayertbidmess is measured at 0.51 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Althoughthecanal is partially line with buttonwood
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
q
3
12
ana whitemangmves, an abundance ofbluegreen
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
algae wasobserveagmwing inure canal.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
4
2
e
In addition to having multiple convolutions, the Cana
incluaesa marina as one of its residents
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Inaeasedtidal fiuxthat involvesa canal with a
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
0
1
o
nna may haven negative impact on me nearshor
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
zone.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
nhhough access hasnot been determined,thereare
no known issues related to pmlect implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
3s Parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
62
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key
Canal Number
116
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Excavation, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO was measured at 2,97mg/L at 2 feet below
the water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not Deserved
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
3
5
15
organic is , thia:r,ess was measure a at 0.61 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
q
3
12
unea mostly with concrete b lkheaas
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
S-ight canal that discharges into a rtmng channel
whia, shouia polin iy impact the reswts
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
Caoai discharges inmaoearshore environment that
has been developed
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
only parciaiiy
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Ahhoughacress hasoot eeeoaetermioea, thereare
no known issues related to pmlect implementation.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
st aareeis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
BO
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key
Canal Number
116 Added
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Recommended: Pumping
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
pro degree a
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0.02 mg/L
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
0
5
0
organic layerthidcness not measured.
data).
score of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
3
3
3
Inaaationm poorvismility,me canal ismostlylinea
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
whh cnncretebwkheaas.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
The canal mnsirts of multiple fingersand
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
a
2
e
convolutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
2
1
2
the effect of increasing me flushing ofa boat basini
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
own.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although access hasnot been determined,thereare
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
is Panels
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
56
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key
Canal Number
120
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Culverts, Backfill, Pumping, Excavation
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0,73 hi at 7 feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
3
5
15
organic layerthidcnessmeasur.d at O.67 feet.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
q
3
12
Inaaationm poorvismility,me canal ismonlylinea
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
whh cnncretebwkheaas.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
a
2
e
The canal mnsirts of multiple fingersand
convolutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
The mouth of the canal discharges into the bay near
Values from Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
B
1
8
a largermangroveweuand.Also,there are no
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
additional canals within the area.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access hasnot been determined,th...
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
zz3 Panels
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affect edbytheproposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
B6
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key
Canal Number
127
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Culverts, Aerator
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 3,71 mg/L at 2 feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
canal is currently plugged
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
organic is , thia:oess was oot A-. be measured
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
5
3
15
canal isai triiy developed and the —din..
ofinepiaggea mnai isoot sairhierormadoenre
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
3
2
6
improvement win require the removal of the ping
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
0
1
o
genorioga piaggea mnai may havea snore term
impact me
Prrotection 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
negative on nearshore environment
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
0
1
o
1he1e1toatioo ofa piuggea mnai wouia require
regular,, -
difficulty difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
73 aar<eis
he public be nefitcriterionls relatedtothe number of users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofOmeans 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
43
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key
Canal Number
129
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Culvert
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 3,71 mg/L at 2 feet below the
water surface in the reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
canal is currently piuggea
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
0
5
0
organic is , thia:nr-ss was not A-. he measured
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
5
3
15
Th--ition ofthepl.gg:, mnai knot suirahiefo
manneiite
up canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
3
2
6
improvement win require the removal of the plug
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
aesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
0
1
o
genoringa piaggea mnai may havea shore term
impact me
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
negative on nearshore environment
nearshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
0
1
o
Therer[oationofapiuggeacanai wouia require
regulatory approval
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
22 aaroeis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
40
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key
Canal Number
132
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,17 mg/L at S feet below the
water surface in the reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not Deserved
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
organic la , thickness was measured at 0.37 tees
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Almoagh me canal is lined with a concrete bulkhead
Ifa canal IsIned withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
5
3
15
mere were indi-ions mature b-thiczone may
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
includeseagassesand green macro algae
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
q uallty characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
4
2
B
the largesize canal is also being used asa In —earn
protect ion within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to-10) can be applied for projects that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bea applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
B
1
B
The canal dismargesinm a largely undeveloped area
of Plantation Key
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
The potential forseagassesm be present would
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
subnantNly impact mmp eiiementabiiity of the
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
pureed
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
331
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
62
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key
Canal Number
137
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Backfilliing, Culverts,
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,17 g/L at S feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
organic la , thickness was measured at 0.29 tees
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Almough me canal is lined with a concrete bulkhead
Ifa canal IsIned withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
5
3
15
mere were indi-ions mature b-thiczone may
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
includeseagassesaud green macro algae
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
q uallty characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
4
2
B
the largesize canal is also being used asa boat barn
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
B
1
B
The canal dismargesinm a largely undeveloped area
of Plantation Key
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
The potential forseagassesm be present would
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
subnautNly impact mmp eiiementabiiity of the
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
pureed
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
3s Fareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
62
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key (Islamorada)
Canal Number
139 Added
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Organic Removal and Aeration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
absence ofpro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at L6l mg/L in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic layerthidcness measured at 1.22 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
The boat basin is lined with �on�rete bwkheads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
5
2
1.
The small basin was construRed with one
convolution.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
2
1
2
The effect of increasing me flushing ofa boat basini
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
own.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although acres hasnot been determined,thereare
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
q9 panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
82
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Plantation Key (Islamorada)
Canal Number
139Added 2
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Organic Removal and Aeration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at L6l mg/L
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not Deserved
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
organic is , thid:nr-ss measured at 0.29 ieet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
5
3
15
The Boat Basin is lined with �on�reteb lkheads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
There are no �onvoiations.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
2
1
2
Theenea of increasing me flushing ofa Boat basini
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
own.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although access hasnot been determined,thereare
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
st aareeis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
61
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Lower Matecumbe
Canal Number
145
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at L52 mg/L
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layertbidcness measure a at 0.73 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
2
3
6
eoat basin,+as mostly lined with red mangroves.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
6
2
12
rbe boat barn basa choke point nearm mourn.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
rbe etfea of incroasea flashing basnot been
determined.
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Altbongb access basnot been aeterminea,tbereare
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating re lative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
9Farcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
85
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Lower Matecumbe
Canal Number
145
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 2,99 mg/L at 6 feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measure a at 0.n feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
canal lineda -ld eutiremeut with te
up canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
bulkheads anath—,+asap observed acwmuiation
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
of blue green algae.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
q uallty characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
2
2
14
The canal was 1—t—ea with only one convolutio
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
all esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
The canal aisu,argesium an area of the coanliue
that is..Iypa NIyaevelopea
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t Oto-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the haloor
nearshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although access hasuut been aetermiuea,th...
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of l implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
37 Far�els
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
B]
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Lower Matecumbe
Canal Number
147
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Excavation, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,72 mg/L at S feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No observed seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic layertbidcness measure a at 1.08 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
downward. Accordi ng ly, the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
5
3
15
Narrow deep canal d no observed1.t I
teatw�anaan abnnaanrx of binegreenalgae
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
Scoring
2
2
14
The canals elevation is 8.6J and there are n
convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
6
1
6
rbeaaiarxnt coanline basonly been minimally
developed
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Altbongb acrxss basnot been aeterminea,th...
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
19 panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
B]
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Lower Matecumbe
Canal Number
148
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed ate
g
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,89 mg/L at S feet below
the water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading in the assessed canals.
0
5
o
seaweed loading wa s not observed during the April
s, 2013 field visit
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organ! cs Mater Accu mulation(scored from 0to+5) See ri ng l s base d o n t hence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
5
5
25
Theorganiclayerwas measured 1.68 teetthid:
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Thecanal is lined with entirely with cenaete
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
5
3
15
ea,wiisana there is an abundance of blue green
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
algae.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The canal was construRed with no convolutions but
there are individual slips
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe
8
1
e
The canal dischargesinto an area of the coanline
that has developed
protection In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t Oto-10 bea applied t that would have deleterious effects within the haloor
onlyparciallybeen
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
B
All
Although access hasnot been determined,th...
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of l implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
23 panels
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
99
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Lower Matecumbe
Canal Number
157
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,95 mg/L at 2 feet below
the water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
5
5
25
The organiclayerwas measure a at 1.56 teetthia:
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue ,seen algae
3
3
9
one shleofthecanal islinea with red mangroves
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
The installation of the culvert would enhance fiushin
within the oddly shaped canal
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
9
1
9
The canal aisu,argesinm an area of the coanline
by
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
pmteRea a rock jetty
nearshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access hasnot been aeterminea,thereare
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of l implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
9s Parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
102
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Grassy Key
Canal Number
166 Added
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Backfilliing, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO was measured at 2,79 mg/L at B feet below
the water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
INinorseaweed accumulation in me rearof me canal
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organ! cs Mater Accu mulation(scored from 0to+5) See ri ng l s base d o n t hence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
5
5
25
Theorganic layerwasmeasured at 1.12 feet thid:.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
The canal symm is mostly lined with concrete
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
q
3
12
bulkheads and displayeaalargeaccumulatiou of blu
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
green algae.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
5
2
10
The canal was construRed with multiple fingersat
the norchean end of the island.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
B
1
B
Theadiarentcoar[linehasbeen only pa Nly
developed.
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although access hasuot been determined,thereare
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
3s Fareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
97
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Marathon Key
Canal Number
220
(For acriterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Organic Removal, Culvert, Weeds —
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,65 mg/L during Phase I in
reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
5
5
25
Su6sTantial week wad: issue in reference ca nal
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
Omani, la , thickness was measured at 1.13 ieet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
The canal is only Partially lined with ,on,rete
If a canal Is Ined with a tom bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
3
3
9
6wkheaas whnea large Porcion hasremainea
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
vegehted with mangroves.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
Short narrow canal that has only been partially
developed.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
The nearshore zonemme wen Dime canal hasnot
been developed.
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
5
1
5
The largenumb,, f mangmvesmay,q.irealarger
mitigation tort than similar canals.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
10 Panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
105
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Marathon Key
Canal Number
223
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
absence ofpro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at L65 mg/L during Phasel
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
5
5
25
Su t-tial week wrack issue
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic iayerthid: was measured at 0.97 ieet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
The canalis only pa Nlylined with concrete
If a canal Is Ined with a tom bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
3
3
9
6wkheaac whnea large porcion hacremainea
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
vegehted with mangroves.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
5
2
10
The oddly shaped canal may impaR the effectivenes
of its rermation.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
5
1
5
The canal disd,arges inm thesame nearshore
two
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
environment ac aaationai canaic.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
5
1
5
The largenam6erof mangmvesmay,q.ireaiarger
mitigation tort than similar canals.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
25 Pareeis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
BB
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Marathon
Canal Number
235
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Backfill, Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,04 mg/L at S feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
4
5
20
subr[antial weed. —I, observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic layerthidcness measured at 1.34 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
4
3
12
TTecanal is lined withamis flip ap and concrete.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
5
2
10
Problem is related to seaweed loading but the canal
does included small boat basin.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ali esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
Nearshore environment includes the presenre of
boatbasins.
t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t Oto-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the haloor
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
multiple
nearshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Noknown issues related t. m 11mentability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of l implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
3Paree11
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
94
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Marathon
Canal Number
237
Recommended: Weed gate, Backfill, Organic Removal
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at 2,04 mg/L at S feet below the
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
3
5
15
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
q
5
20
Subrtantial weed wrack observed
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
3
5
15
organic iayerthia:necc measured at 0.59 feet
data).
score of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
g
3
9
Thecanai is lined whha is of-g-tion ana
bwkheaac
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
concrete
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
15
arobd- is related m seaweed loading
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
q
1
4
Nearshore environment inciudecthe presence of
boatbasins.
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bea applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
multiple
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
No known issues related to implementability other
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
]
than the limited presence of mangroves on one side
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
of the canal
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
20 aareeic
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
90
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Marathon
Canal Number
242
Recommended: Organic Removal nd Backfilliing
a
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at 2,69 hi at B feet below the
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
5
5
25
water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
5
5
25
organic iay.rthia:o.ssm.asu..a at 1.14 feet.
data).score
of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
Th.sm.sofm. moaiare �ined.otireiy wxh .00.r.t
bwkh.aas.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
6
2
12
rh. moat maioaios numerous moaaiarhom.s.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
The moat aisu,arg.siom an area of the.oaniio.
thathasonIyparcia�Iyb... developed.
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been assesred, there appea
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
the no issues r.iata t the,,...,.d,d
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
temnoiogies.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
zoo aar<.is
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affect edbytheproposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
101
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Marathon
Canal Number
243
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
a
Recommended: Pumping nd Backfilliing
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at less than4 mg/L during Phase
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
3
5
15
I.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
3
5
15
organic iayerthid:nessmeasu..d at 0.56 feet.
data).score
of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
Theshles ofthe mnai are lined entirely with co t
bwkheaasanaare biuegreenaigae.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
1overeain
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
The canal is used as a marina for large boats and
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
3
2
6
mnrnuchon vessels.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
The continued use of me canal asa marina may
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous L 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
reduce the potential forsupplemental benefits.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been assesred, there appea
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
the no issues related t the,,...,.d,d
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
temnoiogies.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
20 Parcels
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affect edbytheproposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
12
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Marathon
Canal Number
252
Recommended: Weeds —and Backfilliing
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at less than4 hi during Phase
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
3
5
15
I.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Based on r.sia.ntsana op.amrs comments.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
0
5
0
organic iay.rthia:n.ssm.asu..a at O.a6 feet.
data).
score of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
Th.sm.s ofm. canaiare �ined.ntireiy wxh concret
bwkh.aas.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
a
2
B
serves asa
rh. canal boatbasin.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
The canal aisu,arg.sinm an area of th. coaniin.
thathasonIy NIyb... developed.
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Pa
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been assesred, there appea
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
t_ no issues r.iat.a m the recommended
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
temnoiogies.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
t3 Parcels
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affect edbytheproposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
11
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
255
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO was measured at 2.8 mg/L at S feet below
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
seaweed loading appeared m ini—I
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and 1.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
0
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
3
3
9
nnorethan one canal siaeis lined with mangroves
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
5
2
10
Although canal is not eMrem ely deep, it does have
mutiple fingers
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
5
1
5
Limited due m the presence of her. that pmteRs
the
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
anneI
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been assesred, there appea
his criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
m he no I"."relatea t. reeo..enaea
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
technologies.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
ss panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
59
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
258
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Culvert, Backfilling, Pumping
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 3,88 mg/L at 3 feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
4
5
20
observed seaweed loading problem, but only
porcions of me anal mainaineaa wee a wad:
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
organic la , thickness was measure a at 0.36 tees
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordi ngly, the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
2
3
5
canal is parcially lined whh mangrovesana Hasa
aired
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
eonnedionma mangrove wetland.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
Although the anal's avenge depth isappmximately
filet, it waseonrnadea with mwtiple flngers.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
8
1
e
rheassesrea anal aismarges inmacoasTalarea
mat hasbeen money lefrunaevelopea.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
9
1
9
Previous etforcsm renoreme anal nave been
permitted
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
ss Panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
79
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
No Name Key
Canal Number
261
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Culvert, Culvert Maintenance, Backfill, Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at lessthan 4.0 hi during
Phase I fthe CMMP.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Minimal seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measured at 0.95 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
2
3
6
the canal is lined wxh Pine trees
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
In addition to maintaining multiple fingers and
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
2
2
4
nvoluh—, the presence of a boat basin near the
arof the canal may impact the effectiveness of the
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.
rermation
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ali esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
The c.-Iinehasbeen denselypopulatedandt
aisd,arge into me
t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
additional canals samearea
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
5
1
5
Plied, on NO Name xey typimlly receive additional
tiny
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
ttz Panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
14
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
No Name Key
Canal Number
265
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Backfilliing, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,44 mg/L at 2 feet below the
water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
a
5
20
Fxi,ting mutt... partially limits the amount of
seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
organic layerthidcness was measure a at 0.37 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Although the canal is partially lined with nat—I
If a canal Is lined with a tom bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
q
3
12
features, meaccamalation of all mats substantial
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
decreased its quality.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
q uallty characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
The rtaight canal is only sparsely populated and is
muat ea neara nature preserve.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+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
B
1
B
There are no additional canals loateaalongtheeas[
side of the island.
nearshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
5
1
5
ab"t' iooatea on NO Name uey are swtiniea
re than the surrounding keys
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of l implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
22 aarcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
90
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
266
Recommended: Excavarind, Backfilliing, Culvert
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at lessthan 2.0 hi during
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
5
5
25
Phase I
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
orturbidity is between 1 and 3 NTU'sthe canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/Lor turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score off.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from Oto+S) Scoring is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
5
5
25
observed ce ntinuous seaweed lozaing
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
3
5
15
organic layertbidcness measure a at 0.86 feet
data).score
of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
5
3
15
Narrow anal wxb no observed nataalteamr�ana
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score
amid: weed wad:
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
3
2
18
The anal dism
sboula enhance flushing
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
5
1
5
The mourn otme anal aismarges into the manner
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
nearan aaiacent anal
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Altbongb access basnot been aeterminea,th...
All
known issues related to implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
3J Panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
115
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
267
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at LS m g/L at S feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
2
5
10
loading ap geared continuous but weea.—I, was
not mid:
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic layerthidcness measure a at zl3 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
The canal is lined wxh concrete bwkheaac
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
The canal is short and rtaight wim only a few home
bated on it.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
The nearshore zone receives inputs from numerous
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
There are no known issues related to
implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
12 Fareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
305
2.1 is parts larger system of canals
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
270
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at LS m g/L at S feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
2
5
10
loading ap geared continuous but weea.—I, was
not mid:
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measure a at O.s9 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
TTe canal is lined entirely with concrete bwkheads
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
15
The canal is short and rtaight wim only a few home
bated on it.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
The nearshore zone receives inputs from numerous
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
There are no known issues related to
implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
9Fareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
91
21. is part a larger system of canals
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
272
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at LS m g/L at S feet below the
water surface in the reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
2
5
10
loading ap geared continuous but weea.—I, was
not observed m be mid:.
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic layerthidcness measure a at 1AG feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
The canal is lined wxh concrete bwkheaac
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
15
The canal is short and rtaight wim only a few home
bated on it.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
The nearshore zone receives inputs from numerous
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
There are no known issues related to
implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
9Fareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
301
212 is parts larger system of canals
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
274
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing, Culvert
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at LS m g/L at S feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
2
5
10
loading ap geared continuous but weea.—I, was
not mid:
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
organic layerthidcness measure a at 0.95 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
The canal is lined wxh concrete bwkheaac
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
15
The canal is short and rtaight wim only a few home
bated on it.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
The nearshore zone receives inputs from numerous
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
There are no known issues related to
implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
to camels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
95
214 is part a larger system of canals
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
275
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at LS m g/L at S feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
2
5
10
loading ap geared continuous but weea.—I, was
not mid:
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic layerthidcness measure a at 2.26 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
The canal is lined wxh concrete bwkheaac
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
15
The canal is short and rtaight wim only a few home
bated on it.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
The nearshore zone receives inputs from numerous
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
There are no known issues related to
implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
9Fareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
301
215 is parts larger system of canals
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
276
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at LS m g/L at S feet below the
water surface in reference canal
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
2
5
10
loading ap geared continuous but weea.—I, was
not mid:
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic layerthidcness measure a at 1.19 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
The canal is lined wxh concrete bwkheaac
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
The canal is short and rtaight wim only a few home
bated on it.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
The nearshore zone receives inputs from numerous
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
There are no known issues related to
implementability
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
sFareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
301
21. is parts larger system of canals
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
277
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Backfilliing, Culverts, Pumping
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at LS mg/L at S feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
a
5
20
loading ap geared co ntinuous but weea.—I, was
not mid:
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic iayerthiu:ness measure a at 1.15 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
topical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
g
3
0
various Parts ofthesyltl. eith lined with
bwkheaas
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
mangmvesorconaete
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
5
2
1.
The synem hasnumI—, flngersana convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ales from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
5
1
5
The i.tcznai sysmm isme Dory cvnai mat
aismarges inmaParciaiiy developed nearshorezone
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
The large stand of mangroves, may require
mitigation
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
ss Pameis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
111
277 is parts larger system of canals
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
278
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing, Culverts, Pumping
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured 1,78 mg/L at 9 feet below the
water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
organic layerthidcness measure a at 1.03 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
ua canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
5
3
15
canal is lined with �ou�rete bulkheads and brown
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
cmalgae wasobserveagmwiug whhiume canal.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
4
2
8
The intensly developed canal y,tem includessevera
flngersaua multiple couvolutious.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Due to the canal configuration, it is not possible at
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
0
1
0
this timem determine what if any impact the canal
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
mahou may have on the nearshore environment
nearshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, there are
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
8
uo known issues related mimplementability at this
dlfflcu lty of access. Scon ng ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 l ndlcati ng significant dlfflcu hies l n l m pie mentation and 10 i ndlcati ng re lative ease of l m pie mentation.
hme.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
494 Panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users wou id be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users wou id be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
91
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
282
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 2,57 at 3 feet bter elow wa
surface, Turbidity measured at 3,92
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Fxining treatment measures limits im pact of
seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
Theorganiclayerthickness was measure a at 1.29
feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
canal is al entirely lined with concrete
f a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. ALLOrd ng y, the presence of brown algae or b lle�reen algae
q
3
12
bulkheads. Al- the presence of brown macmaI
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
wasnoteaasgmwing inure canal.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
canal is relatively shore with Dory two convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
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 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
5
1
5
The wart line is lined with residential homes which
win temper the renoations impactomsid, the cana
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
itself.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Neighborhood is rtmngly behind the idea of canal
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
6
1
6
noahon but a where would require landowner
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
approval
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
he public be nefitcriterion is relatedtothe number of users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofOmeans 0-9use rs(parcels) would be positively affected
bythe project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected bythe project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected bythe
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
U parcels
overall Score
103
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
283
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of problem and to the degree at which problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 2,57 at 3 feet bter elow wa
.,face arefer nd t.,bidien cety x,ed at 3.92 in the
nal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Fxilh.g treatment measures limhsim pact of
seaweed loading.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
The.rganiclayerthickness was measure a at 1.29
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
canal is alm.n entirely lined with co.crete
f a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. ALLOrd ng y, the presence of brown algae orb .e�reen algae
q
3
12
bulkheads. Al- the presence of brown macmaI
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
was.oteaasgmwi.g inure ca.al.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
canal is relativeiy shore with only two convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
5
1
5
The wart line is lined with residential homes which
wintempertherenoationsimpactoutsidetheI—
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
itself.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Neighborhood is strongly behind the idea of canal
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
6
1
6
noahon beta culverc w..ld require landowner
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
approval
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
nparcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
1.3
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
286
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Culverts, Backfill, Pumping
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
absence ofpro degree a
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at p.sa mg/L
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
o
Fxining treatment measures limits im pact of
seaweed loading.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthickness was measured at 0.82
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
5
3
15
canal is al entirely lined with concrete
bwkheaas
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
5
2
10
Canal was developed with multiple fingersand
convolutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
Thecoar[linehasonly Parcianybeen developed.
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Neighborhood is rtmngly behind the idea of canal
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
noahou but wlverc would require land owner
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
approval
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
7t parcels
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
B6
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
287
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0,56 mg/L at a depth of 8 feet
belowthe water surface in the reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed loadi ng i n the assessed canals.
5
5
25
sabmnrial weed wad: observed in refrrenre anal.
Canals that receive seasonal loadi ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthidc was measure a at 0.83
fret
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
canal is lined entirely with concrete bwkhead,.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
8
2
16
The anal mainta ins no convolutions and discharges
mma rtmng channel.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
The anal discharges into the same nearshore zone
neighboring anal, and the coartline
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
d,aact kh,zIly taps floating seaweed.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
0
1
0
There are no knowni„ne, related m permitting or
implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
z6 Faael,
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
112
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
288
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0,56 hi at a depth of 8 feet
below the water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
5
5
25
substantial weed wad: observed
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthickness was measure a at 0.84
fret
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
canal is lined entirely with concrete bulkheads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
e
2
16
Canal was conrtruRed with no convolutions and
di,1ha esinma rtrone channel.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
The canal discharges into the same nearshore zone
neighboring anal, and the coartline
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
d,aactedrtially taps fixating seaweed.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
0
1
0
There are no knownissnes related m permttting or
implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
3J panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
112
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
290
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate nd Organic Removal a
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,32 mg/L at 4 feet below
the water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Althoagh the threat of sea wee a loading is c—t—,
ir[ing treatment measures have parcially mitigated
the observed problem.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a scoreof 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
sc e of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
Theorganiclayerthid:ness was measure a at 1.02
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
f a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. ALLOrdngy, the presence of brown algae or blle�reen algae
5
3
15
The canal is lined entirely with concrete bulkheads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
The canal was const—ld with no convolutions and
discharges inm a channel with a strong current.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Several canals discharge into the same nearshore
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
ali t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t Oto-10 bed applied t that would havedeleterious effects withinthe haloor
pro ec Ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projec s
3
1
3
onmemana the accumnlan—fseaweeaalon
nVlthe aaiacent coastline is d,aactedrncofine
ast t canals loation.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although access has not been determined, there are
All
known issues related to implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
a
1
q
t3 parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
106
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
293
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 0,59 mg/L at S feet below
the water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading in the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Fxi,ting treatment m easures nave pa Nly mitigated
the observed seaweed loading problem.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthickness was measure a at 0.73
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
f a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. ALLOrdngy, the presence of brown algae or bue�reen algae
5
3
15
canal is entirely lined with concrete bulkheads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
The canal was construRed without convolutions and
discharges inma channel witba rtrong wrrent.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
3
1
3
The assesrea canal discharges inm the reme
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
nearehore:one as sevealaaational canals.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
9
1
9
All
Although access hasnot been deter mined, thereare
known issues related to implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
t9 panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
97
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
295
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 0,17mg/L at 3 feet below
the water surface in the reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Existing measures nave assist"a in th—d-tion of
seaweed loading.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TT"organiclay"rthickn"ss was measure a at 1.26
to"t.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
5
3
15
Th" anal is entirely lined wits, concrete b.Ikh"aas.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
9
2
18
A snort canal that was construRed without any
onvolutionsana aisu,arg"s inma Wrong wrrent.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
Canal discharges into the same nearshore zone as
"veal a aaitional anal, and the accumulation of
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
seaweed along m" coar[lin" is d,aaor"dsho.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
9
1
9
nhhough ac""ss hasnot been a" t"rmin"a,th"."are
no on.issuesrelated top ql implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
saaa"Is
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
105
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine Key
Canal Number
297
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 0,17mg/L at 3 feet below
the water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Existing measures nave assist"a in th—d-tion of
seaweed loading.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TT"organiclay"rthickn"ss was measure a at 1.26
to"t.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
Th" dual is entirely lined with concrete bunch"ads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
9
2
18
The canal which was construRed without any
convolutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
4
1
4
Canal discharges into the same nearshore zone as
"veal a aaitional analsaua the accumulation of
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
seaweed along the coar[lin" is d,aaore iltic.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
9
1
9
Ahhough ac""ss hasnot been a" t"rmin"a,th"."are
no known issuesrelated top ql implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
is Faa"Is
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
115
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
299
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Backfilliing, Culverts, Pumping, Alternative
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Treatment, Not Required:
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at 0,09 hi at 3 feet below
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
absence ofpro degree a pro
5
5
25
water surface and turbidity was observed at
10,14 NTUs
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/Land 4mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
5
5
25
canalrerelve, signiflant seaweed loads
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
5
5
25
Th—ir is layerthidcness t.s7feet
data).
score of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
canal is entirely lined whh �or,�ate seawalls
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
15
aeiativeiy rtaight anal that discharges ir,m channel
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.
Supplemental Benefits
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 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
Surrounded by reveal nearby canals that discharge
�nm the same area. Also, seaweed acwmuiates
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
along the coastline.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
No knawnissnes related m p11 ining;however,
ess has not fully been determined
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
a
1
q
zo parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
121
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
300
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
a
Recommended: Weed gate nd Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of problem and to the degree at which problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 0,09 mg/L at 3 feet below
water surface and turbidity was observed at
10,14 NTUs in the reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading in the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Fxining a theannnal loaang.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
Tbeorganic layerthidcness 1.23feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
canal is entirely lined wxh �on�ate seawalls
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
15
aeiah iyrtaight anal that discharges into drannel
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
Surrounded by reveal nearby canals that discharge
mm the same area. Also, seaweed acwmulates
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
along me coastline.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
or lcnawn issues related m permhting;however,
ess has not fully been determined
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
a
1
q
20 parrels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
111
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Big Pine
Canal Number
315-322
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 0,65 hi at 4 feet below
the water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
nainorseaweed loading Deserved during sit isit
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiciaye hidcness was measured at 0.79
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Aithoagh tee cenai wa =.only lined with vegetation
If a canal Is lined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
1
3
3
including red.angmves, mid: all mats were
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
obs ,dflo h.gi.the mnai.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
2
2
14
Heavily vegetated multi -fingered canal mat
dismarges inma nrong manner.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
6
1
6
The mnai dismargesinto an area mat has only been
aeveiopea.
Prrotection 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
parciaiiy
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
6
1
6
The signitiant presence of.angmves may
omplicate permitting.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
zaa.eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
84
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Sugarloaf Key
Canal Number
318
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,53 mg/L at 2 feet below the
water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
canalrereive, very minor seag—,loading.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthickness was measure a at 0.91
fret
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward. Accord) ngly, the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
1
3
3
The densely vegetated canal has an accumalatiun of
bluegreenalgae.
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
The developed canal was con D—d with
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
e
2
16
partially
no convulntions and discharges dire-ly inma
channeI with a s[mng current.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
Canal discharges into a nearshore zone that is mortl
undeveloped and only receives inpu bs one
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
additional canal.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cos[, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing uti llties or
6
1
6
Theabnnaance of mangroves may impact
permitting.
difficulty ofaccess. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In lm plementation and 10 indicating relative ease oflm plementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
2Fareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 use rs(parcels) wou Id be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 inoicafes that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
66
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Summerland Key
Canal Number
323
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,31 mg/L at 6 feet below the
water's surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not Deserved.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
3
5
15
Theorganiclaye,thickness was measured at 0.80
fret
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
1
3
3
The canal is densely vegehted and the,,ference
canal eaaanacwmulation of elnegreenalgae.
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
Although, the partially developed canal was
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
5
2
10
Red with no .nvolutit., and discharges
dill'D into a channel with a-ong.,,,nt, tee
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.
residents inRude.mme,aal fl—n—n.
Supplemental Benefits
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 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
B
1
8
Ca nal discharges into a nearshore zone that is m tl
undeveloped and only receives inputs Dr.one
p otection 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
additional canal.
arshor
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
Thepresen,,of.mmerial flsherman may im ,t
anal re to -ion activities.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
a
1
q
is Parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
72
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Sugarloaf Key
Canal Number
325
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,53 mg/L at 2 feet below the
water surface in reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
canalrereive, very minor seag—,loading.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).score
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthickness was measure a at O.68
fret
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
1
3
3
The canal is densely vegetated and therefrrenre
canal haaanaccmm�lation of binegreenalgae.
ua canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
The developed canal was con D—d with
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
B
2
16
partially
no convulnurn, and discharges dire-ly inma
channeI with a s[mng current.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
6
1
6
Canal discharges into a nearshore zone that is mortl
undeveloped and only receives i"i""bom one
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
additional canal.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cos[, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing uti llties or
]
1
]
Theabnnaance of mangroves may impact
permitting.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In lm plementation and 10 indicating relative ease of lm plementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
vFareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 use rs(parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 inoicafes that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
]3
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
345
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,23 mg/L at S feet below the
water surfae in thereference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Nino.sea weed ioadine in the reference ce nai.
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
prese nce of accu m u lated organic matter l indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
Theorganiciayerthidcness was measured at 1.08
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
The cenaiis entirely lined witha�on�ret, hwi:head.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The short canal was con D—d with no
cenvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
Thecanaidisd,argesintanearshore environment
matreceives loading from numerous cenais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Aithoaeh access has not peen determined, there are
known issues related t implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
is aar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
BB
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
349
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,23 mg/L at S feet below the
water surfae.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TTeorganiciayerthidcuess was measured at 1.12
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
The ceuaiis eutireiy lined witnaconcrete bulkhead.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The short canal was con D—d with no
eou�oiutious.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
TTecanaidischargesintauearshore environment
matreceives loading from numerous ceuais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access has not peen determined, there are
known issues related t implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
14 aar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
BB
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
353
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,23 mg/L at S feet below the
water surfae in thereference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TTeorganiciayerthidcness was measured at 1.19
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
The cenaiis entirely lined witha�on�ret, bwkhead.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The short canal was con D—d with no
mnvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
TTecanaidischargesintanearshore environment
matreceives loading from numerous cenais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access has not peen determined, there are
known issues related t implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
lz aareeis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
BB
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
354
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weeds —and Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,23 mg/L at S feet below the
water surfae in thereference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TTeorganiciayerthidcness was measured at 1.03
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
The cenaiisentirely lined witha�on�ret, hwi:head.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The short canal was con D—d with no
mnvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
TTecanaidischargesintanearshore environment
matreceives loading from numerous cenais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access has not peen determined, there are
known issues related t implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
7aar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
84
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
357
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,23 mg/L at S feet below the
water surfae in thereference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TTeorganiciayerthidcness was measured at 1.07
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
The cenaiis entirely lined witha�on�ret, bwkhead.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The short canal was con D—d with no
mnvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
TTecanaidischargesintanearshore environment
matreceives loading from numerous cenais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access has not peen determined, there are
known issues related t implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
saareeis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
84
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
359
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,23 mg/L at S feet below the
water surfae in thereference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed ioadine
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiciayerthickness was measured at 0.88
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
The cenaiis entirely lined wimaconcret, hwi:head.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The short canal was con D—d with no
mnvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
Thecanaidisd,argesintanearshore environment
matreceives loading from numerous cenais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Aithoneh access has not heen determined, there are
known issues related t implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
9aar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
74
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
362
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,23 mg/L at S feet below the
water surface in the reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed ioadine
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiciayerthickness was measured at 0.84
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
The cenaiis entirely lined wimaconcrete hwi:head.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The short canal was con D—d with no
mnvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
Thecanaidisd,argesintanearshore environment
matreceives loading from numerous cenais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Aithoneh access has not heen determined, there are
known issues related t implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
9aar<e1,
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
74
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
364
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,23 mg/L at S feet below the
water surfae in thereference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed ioadine
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiciayerthickness was measured at 1.48
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
The cenaiis entirely lined wimaconcret, hwi:head.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The short canal was con D—d with no
mnvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
Thecanaidisd,argesintanearshore environment
matreceives loading from numerous cenais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Aithoneh access has not heen determined, there are
known issues related t implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
13 aar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
]B
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
367
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,23 mg/L at S feet below the
water surfae in thereference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiciayerthickness was measured at 0.53
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
The cenaiis entirely lined wimaconcret, hwi:head.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The short canal was con D—d with no
mnvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
Thecanaidischargesintanearshore environment
matreceives loading from numerous cenais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access has not heen determined, there are
known issues related t implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
is aar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
]B
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
369
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weedgate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,23 mg/L at S feet below the
water surfae in thereference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed loading
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiciayerthickness was measured at 0.61
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination ofeither rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward.Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
5
3
15
The cenaiis entirely lined wimaconcret, hwi:head.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
2
2
14
The short canal was con D—d with no
mnvoiutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
althe halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
Thecanaidischargesintanearshore environment
matreceives loading from numerous cenais.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access has not heen determined, there are
known issues related t implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
21 aar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
]B
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
371
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Culvert, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,13 mg/L at 10 feet below
the water surface in reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed loadi ng i n the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Resident mtedthat the loading wasseasonal in
reference canal.
Canals that receive seasonal loadi ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
prese nce of accu m u lated organic matter i indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthickness was measured at 0.53
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
3
3
9
canal is lined wxh numerous mangroves
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
Although it is extremely deep, the canal is short with
no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
q
1
4
The mouthof the canal discharges into an area that
in dore
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
�s proximitymsevealaaiacent canals
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
6
1
6
Permitting and mitigation regwrementsassociated
mangrove
difficult faccess. Scoring from 0to+10, with O indicating significant difficulties In implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
y o granges g signi p g re p
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
tt panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
94
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
372
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Culvert, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,13 hi at 10 feet below
the water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Resident mteathat me loading wasseasonal.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthickness was measure a at 0.55
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
3
3
9
canal is lined wxh numerous mangroves.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
the canal is short and was construRed with no
convolutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
q
1
4
The mouthof the canal aikharges inm an area that
in dore
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
�s pmximitymsevealaaiacent canals
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
6
1
6
Permitting and mitigation requirememsassociatea
mangrove
y o granges g signi p g re p
difficult faccess. Scoring from 0to+10, with O indicating significant difficulties In implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
0
9Far�els
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
90
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe
Canal Number
373
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate nd Organic Removal a
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,37mg/L at 3 feet below the
surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
obsereea buildup of seaweed uearthe rear ofthe
cauai.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a scoreof 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TTeorganiciayerthiacness was measure a at 1.6z
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
q
3
12
TTecauaiismostly lined with concrete bulkheads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
16
The canal was const—ld with no convolutions and
aisrar ages in the ocean.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
all t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous L Oto-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the haloor
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
The mnai aisu,argesiumauearshore environment
th. ivesinputs from neighboring cauK
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
B
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
All here are
Ahhoughacress hasuot dt determined, tility.
known issues related to implementability.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
11 aareeis
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
W
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
374
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Culvert, Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,13 mg/L at 10 feet below
the water surface in reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed loadi ng i n the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Resident mte t the loading wasseasonai in
reference canal.
Canals that receive seasonal loadi ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
prese nce of accu m u lated organic matter i ndlcated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclaye hia:ness was measure a at 0.54
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
2
3
6
canal ispa Nly iinea with mangroves.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
Ti,e canal is In with no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
The mouthof the canal aikharges loth an area that
in dore
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
�s proximitymsevealaaiacent canals
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
Fermrung and mitigation regwrementsassociatea
mangrove
y o granges g signi p g re p
difficult faccess. Scoring from 0to+10, with O indicating significant difficulties In implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
tt aar�eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
02
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe
Canal Number
375
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate nd Organic Removal a
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,37mg/L at 3 feet below the
surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
obsereea buildup of seaweed uearthe rear ofthe
cauai.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a scoreof 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TTeorganiciayerthiacness was measure a at 2.03
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
q
3
12
TTecauaiismostly lined with concrete bulkheads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
16
The canal was const—ld with no convolutions and
aisrar ages in the ocean.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
all t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous L Oto-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the haloor
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
The mnai aisu,argesiumauearshore environment
th. ivesinputs from neighboring cauK
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
B
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
All here are
Ahhoughacress hasuot dt determined, tility.
known issues related to implementability.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
is aareeis
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
W
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
376
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Culvert, Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,13 mg/L at 10 feet below
the water surface in reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed loadi ng i n the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Resident mteathat the loading wasseasonai in
reference canal.
Canals that receive seasonal loadi ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
prese nce of accu m u lated organic matter l ndlcated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganic yerthickness was measure a at 0.74
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
3
3
9
canal is lined wxh numerous mangroves
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
The canal is In with no convolutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
4
1
4
The mouthof the canal aikharges into an area that
in dore
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
�s proximitymsevealaaiacent canals
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
Fermrung and mitigation regwrementsassociatea
mangrove
y o granges g signi p g re p
difficult faccess. Scoring from 0to+10, with O indicating significant difficulties In implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
14 aar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
95
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe Key
Canal Number
377
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO measured at 1,13 mg/L at 10 feet below
the water surface in reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed loadi ng i n the assessed canals.
3
5
15
Resident mtedthat the loading wasseasonal in
reference canal.
Canals that receive seasonal loadi ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
prese nce of accu m u lated organic matter l indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthickness was measured at 0.89
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
3
3
9
canal is lined wxh numerous mangroves
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
Although it is extremely deep, the canal is short with
no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
alesfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
q
1
4
The mouthof the canal discharges into an area that
in dore
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous t 0to-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
Protecton In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
�s proximitymsevealaaiacent canals
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
6
1
6
Permitting and mitigation regwrementsassociated
mangrove
difficult faccess. Scoring from 0to+10, with O indicating significant difficulties In implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
y o granges g signi p g re p
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
t6 panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
94
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe
Canal Number
378
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate nd Organic Removal a
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,37mg/L at 3 feet below the
surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
observed buildup of seaweed uearthe rear ofthe
cauai.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a scoreof 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TTeorganiciayerthiacness was measure a at 2.19
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a cold bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
2
3
6
TTe mnai is mostly vegetated wits, mangroves.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
e
2
16
The canal was const—ld with no convolutions and
aisrar ages in the ocean.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
all t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous L Oto-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the haloor
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
The mnai aisu,argesiumauearshore environment
mat receives in puts from neighboring canals.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
8
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
All here are
Ahhoughacress hasuot dt determined, tility.
known issues related to implementability.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
vaar,eis
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
91
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Cudjoe
Canal Number
380
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfill
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,37mg/L at 3 feet below the
surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
observed buildup of seaweed uearthe rear ofthe
cauai.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a scoreof 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiciayerthickness was measure a at 0.53
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
1
3
3
The mnai is mostly vegeatea.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
e
2
16
The canal was const—ld with no convolutions and
aisrar ages in the ocean.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
esfrom Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
all t the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous L Oto-10 bed applied t that would have deleterious effects within the haloor
pro ec ion In gous negative scores ( )can pp le projects
2
1
2
The mnai aisu,argesiumauearshore environment
that receives in puts from neighboring canals.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
B
All
Although access has not been determined, there are
known issues related to implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefh (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
q
14 aaReis
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
78
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Sugarloaf (Lower)
Canal Number
384
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing, Culverts, culvert Maintenance
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,82 mg/L at 2 feet below
the water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
1
5
5
Minor seaweed loading observed.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
Ti,eorganiclaye hid:ness was measured at t.ts
fret
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
topical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Almoagh the anal is loafed adiaeentm US 1, the
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue ,teen algae
1
3
3
anal,y,mm is almone entirely lined with
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
mangroves.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
The existing problem appears di—ly related to the
Scoring values from Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/Or
2
2
14
buildup of organic matterand reduced flushing
assonated with the buildup of vegetation at the
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.
culverc..
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
There are numerous anal, that di,charge inm the
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
near,hore envo-onment.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5)Project "implementability"(scored from 0-10)
Although there are numerous mangroves within the
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
ea,alre moaiflation ofine exiting treatment
may —M in the implementability of the
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
pmlett.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
2s Farrel,
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 use rs(parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
86
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Sugarloaf (Lower Sugarloaf)
Canal Number
388
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Culvert Maintenance, Alternative Treatment
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 3.04 at 2 feet below the
water surface
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed load) ng l n the assessed canals.
0
5
0
No Deserved seaweed issues
Canals that receive seasonal load) ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and 1.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
0
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
g
3
0
onside of th. anal is lined with mangroves while
the islin.a ewl:h.aas
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
om.rsm. with concrete
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
6
2
12
Enhancing .xild 9 culvert should improve flow but
the canali, oddly shaped
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
Th. surrounding c ,dine is heavily developed
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
5
1
5
present. of mangroves may require mitigation and
additional permitting requirements
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
24 parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
48
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Saddlebunch Keys
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
a
Recommended Technology: Culvert Maintenance nd Organic Removal
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,48 mg/L in thereference
canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not Deserved
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter Indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TTe.rga.iclayerthick.ess was measure a at 1.04
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality(scored from Oto+S) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (6 uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
up canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae
4
3
12
Alm..gh me m 11,a .,fly ...I ea,vege tea
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for l mprovement and/or
6
2
12
The long and narrow canal was con D—d with no
c.nv.lutl.n,.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
Theca.al aisdrarges i.m the nearshore.... at tw
l.ati.ns.
Prrotection 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
sepaate
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, the
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
prese.re.f an exini.g treatment measure should
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
r.�.�r.aethe aifnwhy in permltti.g the pr.ie.t.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
76 panels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
B6
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Saddlebunch Keys
Canal Number
435
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended Technology: Culvert Maintenance nd Organic Removal
a
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,48 mg/L in thereference
canal in reference canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not Deserved in reference ceuai
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiciayerthickne„wa, measured at 0.56
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics ofthe assessed canal. (Guidance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
Ifa canal is lined withacombination of either rip rap, concrete sea wallsor
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blueseen algae
4
3
12
Thecauaii, mo,tiy lined with �uu�rete Bulkhead,.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canaseels that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
e of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
B
2
16
The short canal was const—ld with no
eunvoiution,.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
Prrotection 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
3
1
3
Thecanaidi,charge, inmtheuear,horezone that
rece.ve, input, firm ueigheodug ceu K
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
Although access has not Been determined, there are
All
known issues related to implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
2
1
2
76 aar<ei,
he public benefit criterion is related tothe numberof users affected bythe proposed project.Avalue ofO means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
76
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
456
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Backfilliing, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a pro
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,74 mg/L at a depth of 5
feet below the water surface in the reference
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/Land 4mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
canal.
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed loadi ng i n the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Minor seaweed observedacwmulating in the
reference canal.
Canals that receive seasonal loadi ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
prese nce of accu m u lated organic matter i ndlcated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthickness was measured at 0.82
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
4
3
12
canal is mostly lined with concrete bwkheads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
6
2
12
shore canal with no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+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
4
1
4
the canal dischargesinto an area that receives in put
from numerous canals.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access hasnot been determined, thereare
known issues related to implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating re lative ease of l m pie mentation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
saareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
B6
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
458
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Backfilliing, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a pro
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,74 mg/L at a depth of 5
feet below the water surface in the reference
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/Land 4mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
canal.
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed loadi ng i n the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Minor seaweed observedacwmulating in the
reference canal.
Canals that receive seasonal loadi ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
prese nce of accu m u lated organic matter i ndlcated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
Theorganiclayerthickness was measured at 0.47
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
4
3
12
canal is mostly lined with concrete bwkheads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
6
2
12
shore canal with no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+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
4
1
4
the canal dischargesinto an area that receives in put
from numerous canals.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
e
1
B
All
Although access hasnot been determined, thereare
known issues related to implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating re lative ease of l m pie mentation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
saareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
71
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
459
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofa problem and to the de at problem exists.
pro degree a pro
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,74 mg/L at a depth of 5
feet below the water surface in the reference
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/Land 4mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
canal.
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed loadi ng i n the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Minor seaweed observedacwmulating in the
reference canal.
Canals that receive seasonal loadi ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
e of 3.
prese nce of accu m u lated organic matter i ndlcated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayerthickness was measured at 0.56
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is Ined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
4
3
12
canal is mostly lined with concrete bwkheads.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
6
2
12
shore canal with no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+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
4
1
4
the canal dischargesinto an area that receives in put
from numerous canals.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access hasnot been determined, thereare
known issues related to implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating re lative ease of l m pie mentation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
JFareels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
B6
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
465
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
absence ofpro degree a pro
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,74 mg/L at a depth of 5
feet below the water surface in the reference
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/Land 4mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
canal.
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
pote ntial entry of seaweed loadi ng i n the assessed canals.
2
5
10
Minor seaweed oeserveaacwmuiating in the
reference canal.
Canals that receive seasonal loadi ng shou Id receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
prese nce of accu m u lated organic matter i indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiciaye hiacness was measure a at 0.51
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
ua canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
1
3
3
canal is pa NIyvegetated with red mangroves and
aisu,argesinma island.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
mangrove
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
6
2
12
shore canal with no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
the canal aisu,argesatreaiy inma mangrove isiana.
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access has not peen determined, there are
known issues related to implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
saar<eis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
70
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
466
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing, Culverts
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,74 mg/L at a depth of 5
feet belowthe water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
2
5
10
INinorseaweea observed accumulating in the canal.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
5
5
25
TTeorganiclaye hickness was measure a at 0.82
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
downward. According ly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
o
3
o
The canal lined almon entirely with mangroves and
coura�uesuumemus uatualfrathres.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
4
2
B
Oddly shaped canal was construRed with 2 fingers
and mwtiple couvolutious.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
Prrotection 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
4
1
4
The canal rnucture aisu,arges ium an area that
receives iuputsfiom numerous canals.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
5
1
5
Thee#eusive uatualfeatures ofthe canal synem
may make permitting dil
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
3s aarcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
81
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
467
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofpro degree a pro
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,74 mg/L at a depth of 5
feet below the water surface in the reference
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/Land 4mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
canal.
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
seaweed loading Deserved on aerial prom.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
Theorganiclaye hickness was measured at 0.37
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
ua canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
1
3
3
canal is pa NIyvegetated with red mangroves and
aisd,argesinma island.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
mangrove
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
6
2
12
shore meal with no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
2
1
7
The canaldischarges dire Iyintoa mangrove island.
Also, there may ee seagrzsses loczted directly
p otection 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
outside the canal.
arshor
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
All
Although access has not Been determined, there are
known issues related to implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
to parcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
74
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
468
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence ofpro degree a pro
a problem and to the de at problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
5
5
25
DO was measured at 1,74 mg/L at a depth of 5
feet below the water surface in the reference
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/Land 4mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
canal.
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
18) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
3
5
15
seaweed loading Deserved on aerial prom.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
score of 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
0
5
0
Theorganiclaye hickness was measured at 0.49
fret.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
ua canal Is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
1
3
3
canal is pa NIyvegetated with red mangroves and
aisd,argesinma island.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
mangrove
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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 +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
6
2
12
shore meal with no convolutions
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or
2
1
]
The canaldischarges dire Iyintoa mangrove island.
Also, there may ee seagrzsses loczted directly
p otection 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
outside the canal.
arshor
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
8
1
B
All
Although access has not Been determined, there are
known issues related to implementability.
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Oindicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
0
1
o
saaroels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
70
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
470
Recommended: Backfilliing, Culverts
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO was measured at 2.9 mg/L at 10 feet below
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
3
5
15
the water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
1B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring Is based on the
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a score of 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
0
5
0
seaweed loading not observed.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on thence
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
0
5
0
The organiclayerwas measured at O.as feet.
data).score
of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
2
3
G
canal is lined wltha combination of concrete
bwkheaasanamangmves.
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receivescoreof3.
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
The canal was -It, with multiple fingers and
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
5
2
1.
convolutions.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
3
1
3
The impact of meincreasea on tiaalflasl, on me
has been determined.
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 not
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although one side of the canal is lined with
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
mangmvesand access l—, beendetermined,
there_-
i
here are no additional ssues known related to
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from Oto+lO, with Olndlcating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of Implementation.
implementability.
Benefit
61 Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
94 aarcels
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
51
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
472
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
a
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing, nd Culvert
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,13 mg/L in thereference
canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
4
5
20
ob—d seaweed wad: problem withi.th,ce I.
seaweed isespeaproblem inure summer
Dour= I. in ththe reference cenai.
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a scoreof 3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scor ng is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
sc oreof 3.
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Theorganiclayer,w, measure a at 0.86 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
ua canal is lined with a combination of either rip rap, concrete sea walls or
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receiv eof3.
downward. Accordingly,the presence of brown algae or blue green algae
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
5
3
15
canal lined whh �on�rete sea,wiisana observed
presence ofbmwn maom�igae
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
16
The canal was construRed with no convolutions and
aisl,arges into the ocean.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
Aiargeportionofthe surrounding �oaniine is
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
uninhabited
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, there are
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
wrrentiy no known issues related to
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
impiemenrabiiity.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
21P-111
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
100
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
474
Recommended: Weed gate nd Backfilliing
a
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at 2,13 mg/L in thereference
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
3
5
15
canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
observed seaweeawradcp1.bI1m tbinthecanai
Canalsthat receiveseasonal loadingshould receive a scoreof3.
potential entryofseaweed loading in the assessed canals.
4
5
20
espeaaiiy in mesnmmermonmsin me reference
anal.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layerthlckness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from Oto+S) Scoringls based onthe
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
presence ofaccumulated organic matter (as indicated bythe 20f36athymetric
3
5
15
Theorganiciayerwas measure a at 0.86 feet
data).
sc e of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
canal iinea wxb �on�rete seawaiisana presence of
brown
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
maom�igae
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canalsthat are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
16
The canal was construRed with no convolutions and
aisl,arges into the ocean.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
Aiargeportionoftbe surrounding �oaniine is
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
uninhabited
arshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Alt6oug6 access has not been determined, there are
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
wrrentiy no known issues related to
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
impiemenrabiiity.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
21P-111
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
100
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
475
Recommended: Weed gate, Excavation, Backfilliing
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at 2,13 hi at 7 feet below the
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
3
5
15
water surface.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
ob—dseaweed wad: problem withinme canal
Canals that receive seasonal loading should receive a scoreof 3.
potential entry of seaweed loading In the assessed canals.
4
5
20
espedany in the summer months
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layer thickness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 20f36athymetric
3
5
15
TTeorganiciayerwas measure a at 0.52 feet
data).
score of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
If a canal Is lined with a coin bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
canal lined with concrete seawaiisana presenre of
brown
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
maoro�igae
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
Canals that are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
quality characteristics.)
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
Although canal has multiple fingersand convolutions
Scoring values from Oto+S represent low to moderate potential, while valuesfrom+6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for Improvement and/or
6
2
12
the presence otou`aweed appearsto be the main
ce of impairment
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
Aiargep-ionofth. surrounding e aline is
uninhabited
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
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
2
1
2
Aithonghryrtress has not been determined, there are
enllY no known permitting issues
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating re lative ease of implementation.
Benefit
ii Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
10
1
10
93 pameis
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
overall Score
101
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Geiger Key
Canal Number
476
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Recommended: Weed gate, Organic Removal, Backfilliing
Technologies
Severity of Problem
Score
Weighting Factor
Total Score
Comments
If there Is no observed Issue associated with the degradation of water quality,
the canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem exists proceed to Criteria
No. 2.
If dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured in excess of 4mg/L, there is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
absence of a problem and to the degree at which a problem exists.
odor, and turbidity is below 1 NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
3
5
15
DO measured at 2,13 mg/L in thereference
canal.
If either DO Is measured between 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L, there Is a noticable odor,
or turbidity Is between 1 and 3 NTU's the canal should receive a score of 3.
If DO is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal
should receive a score of 5.
Canals that do not receive seaweed loads should receive a score of 0.
113) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the
potential entryofseaweed loading in the assessed canals.
4
5
20
observed seaweeawadcpmblemwhhintheanal
especially in mesummermonmsin me reference
anal.
Canalsthat receiveseasonal loadingshould receive a scoreof3.
Canals that receive continuous Inputs of seaweed should be scored a 5.
Measured organic layerthlckness less 0.5 feet should receive a score of 0
1C) Organics Mater Accumulation(scored from Oto+S) Scoringls based onthe
Measured organic layerthlckness between 0.5 and l.Ofeet should receive a
sc e of 3.
presence ofaccumulated organic matter (as indicated bythe 20f36athymetric
data).
3
5
15
Tbeomaniclayer,w, measure a at O.65 feet
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receive a score of
5
Habitat Quality
2) Habitat Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based on the habitat
Canals that are predominantly lined with natural features (i.e. mangroves or
characteristics oft heassessed canal. (G uldance: the observed presence of
vegetated banks) should be scored a 0.
tropical fish life within a stabilized canal can be utilized to adjust the score
canal lined with conaetebalkheaas-di, ence of
If a canal Is lined with a com bination of either rip rap, concrete seawalls or
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue seen algae
5
3
15
brown macmalgae was observed in the reference
should be used toadjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive score of3.
canal
observations should be used In the scoring process based on their known water
quality characteristics.)
Canalsthat are lined entirely with concrete seawalls or bulkheads should receive
score of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) 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
B
2
16
Theshort canal was con D—d with no
convolutions and aisa,argesinm the ocean.
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.
Supplemental Benefits
Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat qualitywithin the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
ValuesfromOto+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6to+10 represent above -average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
2
1
2
the anal aisu,arges into the same nearshore zone
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
as reveal aaational anals.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Although access has not been determined, there are
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting Issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or
B
1
B
currently no known issues related to
difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties In Implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
implementability.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored from 0 to 10)
4
1
4
12 parrels
he public benefitcriterion is related to the number of users affect edbytheproposed project. A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected
by the project, a value of+4 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of+7 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the
project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score
100
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
ATTACHED CD
GOOGLE EARTH PRO CANAL LAYER
GIS SHAPE FILES
CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE (EXCEL)
ARCGIS MAP FILE