Item N3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: August 21, 2013 Division: County Administrator
Bulk Item: No X Department: County Administrator
Staff Contact/Phone#: Rhonda Haag, 453-8774
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction on the canal restoration program and the
selection process as recommended by the Water Quality Protection Program's Canal Restoration
Advisory Subcommittee for use in selecting the top 15 canal restoration projects and the final 5
demonstration projects to be designed and constructed.
ITEM BACKGROUND: The WQPP Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee has been formally
meeting since April 11, 2013 to advise on issues related to the canal master plan and demonstration
projects. At the July 26, 2013 meeting the Subcommittee recommended criteria for selection of the
final demonstration projects.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
1. March 21, 2012 the BOCC granted approval and authorized execution of a Grant Agreement from
FDEP to fund Phase 1 of the Canal Management Master Plan and also authorized execution of a task
order with AMEC under the on-call professional engineering services contract to develop Phase 1.
2. June 20, 2012, the BOCC approved the grant application submitted to EPA, which requested
$100,000 in grant funds and specified a $10,000 match of in-kind services.
3. September 19, 2012, the BOCC approved the $100,000 grant agreement from EPA that funded
Phase 2 of the Canal Master Plan.
4. November 20, 2012 the BOCC approved a Task Order with AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure,
Inc. under the on-call professional engineering services contract to develop Phase 2 of a county-wide
Canal Improvements Master Plan.
5. February 20, 2013 the BOCC approved FDEP Grant S0640 providing $100,000 of funding of work
to perform bathymetric surveys and also approved a $100,000 Task Order with AMEC to perform the
bathymetric work.
6. March 20, 2013, the BOCC approved $5 million for the canal restoration demonstration projects.
7. May 15, 2013, the BOCC approved a $37,725 contract with AMEC to select the demonstration
projects, as a result of a request for quotes.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: Not applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No X
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: N/A
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM# CAD #
O ti
o
L
O
O E N
Vco
1
Lil
c� � w
4 _ LLJ
LU
.4i 0 Z
0
o
cn m
C� >
U)
U) >
O O
rill U) 0
ca co >, U
m � o � � w � �
�
N M
E o '0 m
m .C: C�
._ E EU 0
-Fu
0 w m 0
E .0 1 :3 cu cn
O O S O U a) - � oo M •�
V V Cl) z > z N � -c � v v
M 2!% Q LL0
O 0 > (U 0 N N .to
O >' >, —
to > . . w p >, .v
13 O ■ ■
Q 4-' °' °'
'> p M
LL a
N p rL L- (D C) C)
a. t
c M
CY � a
ca �
C�
■
A O
00
CD
- 1+• eon ��
Y "
• Cl)
cli
•
• S,
` 1 •
•
a
r N
� O
� r16r,
N r
v
i
4
1 i
� t
rR
k ry�
N fn
L
z� O
r
cu
a�
O N V70
. ..
� N
L
wco
cn
c6 N U O
4-0 �O ,) O
70 Op p � I�
O o " � � M
C� c) Q o
a� � N a�
� w — C
� E � M o n o
N -� U O m �
•_ ca o `er o oU
_ W V E 70
,� ° _0
N cacrc � O �, o � o
U ca 0 N O O cn
N CD- cu
— cn o '— �,
ca o J — O cU
.� L. V
'� n O O U
� 0 0 � m O N
CL
Cl) Z
t
I
t k-
y
S _
r`
I
W � Y
f 1�
OCLa
CL 'Aga
r
OC
L
V
r �
cu
cu
cn
(D 0
U) O N O
O +J N O
.C: 0)
O cu i o L. o _O
r-
v
� V }' � N
'� o L � O Q
z o O c cn
Cl) ., O 06 O
O a) — a c� 0
p � c�
_ - L
-� 0 � �
N i
N �
s
f
�
IIIRf
O
LM O
0 CL
c :4' o u)
O
4� 4.0N }, LL
V N m O U
O m a ? .N
M m O
O) o0 O >' O
C.� •t1� -� O .— to N
J C 0- U
Cl) N � M
?� • O
— to
CN O i 0 . . O , C: cn o
c& 0T U wCL
O C. M
Z a Ca
III gV
70
5"y13
40
70
�°. � 1.M' v! •
�► A co •�2:
«4 p
CL
1'
I
`T� e
I
0 ' o a�
cu
E E
L > > U
L �
O O C:
r CL C
v ,E ,E o
N O _0 �O N O
cu L
V ti = . o > > O U
CD
O cn m +�
O .L 0 W L CL
L
0 0 QC: C: r. C:Lc.L �0: O
0
0 4- .c L O O O U L
, � _ O
O N �, r CJ -0
v N E U) U) a a)
O 4 N N N E q
�- O L. O m ca ca a) a) ca
_ L O O O N N
C� �+ O — � �
O .E 4= < .—
L
M U. CU (u O �= O r. cu O O
M U) � U H c DO_ 0 w = _
Z V
Cl) ■ ■
r'
F
A
l 16c
.y
4�
O (D
=�-_' •� ♦., to
O p O U)
C6 to -� N
U N �
0
U) 0
N O _0 N
.v N U p •ca
06
O O
° O o O 0
.�+ C) W _ E: Q = 0
a�
U
U
_ Q
LO 0 0
.� j cu
O = N
H QL
U) o
N AW ( 0 0
v LO � E q
O E �, N CD lv�
0 E
a }' -
O -0 0 o •E
LO o - E
cr • - CD o
CL N cr U E U
O
F- 4-A LO M= 0 N
a�
s � � a,
- CU C) n E p 0
C� o � � 0 �, 0 o �
ca > .� > U P—A _�
cu
m > N U j cn U 0
L o +r i N 0
0 Q � p o c •cu
� � QOOC) o oco
Q Li
Q
C ■ ■
U L
O
FEEa)
}' r o � o
}r
co
cl) > U
O O co
0 o U) -0 a)
E 0
a) .
G� N OU
� U cB
�LO
CoO (3) Co
CoCL co L a)
_ 0 0 o C�
L cn � a) a)
O U ..
co 0
Co S
O v
L- U)
N +0 L
N �
N � LV U) _ U
� ca
O �
V
4-0
c� �' o
4-0 o �_ 7 o
0
0 co
N a-j a--� J a) O
0 a a) -0 _0Co
}' -O � a) L
�+ L a) N >1 � co a)
L � E � U U U E ca
O i a) � U U
L a) C: p
a) a) U
0 0)
� N >O O >, a) C`•
N
co 0 co 0
0. •— — — — — — — — — — —
co
4-1
v 0 0
Cl) W
s�
doctor
L
� � U
-0 U
O a
a) a) m m
a) o _0
E
C/) E _
x a) O —
Q CU � c�
Z O a)
cn p
L
to Fa 'T a) a
• m �*00 � —
s X U Q ° > o
L Lr) LO
Z a � D- a o
t/� U c� m
LL
cu w
0 -� w �, U coc w m O o
.� E °° cu
p N N -d
o E o m
Q o o C:
o � o
(D o E
Cl) m w o L ca cn > E
E 06 40- CL E
EU W ._ o U
�- W 0 C: 4 N
Cl) o f o o o o f 0
O o � o o = o
(� o o o �� o o cu
om o o m o f o
ti }, 60- co � � �LO � -
Cl)CL
8/20/2013
,' '` Monroe County
j Canal Demonstration Projects
Update 8-21 -13
Rhonda Haag
, k ilt, ‘ ij,"'
�e ,. ar } 1� a le . j 1.•
--ram, 'mop 7 'T `. i. ,:. ;Y
+ -;3414, r '
Canal Advisory Committee - Background
WQPP Steering Committee
Canal Advisory Subcommittee Members
Federal: EPA, NOAA f
r
State: DEP, FWC
County: Mayor Neugent
Cities: Islamorada, KCB, Layton, Marathon, " • szi
Key West Gus Rios-DEP
Other: Florida Keys Environmental Fund Mayor Neugent
Steve Blackburn-EPA
Advisory: Rhonda Haag —County
Wendy Blondin —AMEC
■Purpose: Select canal projects based on
criteria which is scientifically and objectively
based.
2
1
8/20/2013
Why is Canal Restoration Needed?
. w #.
•"Good" • — y
t ._,.. -"l --- r..: Water ,
Quality "1 '�i'
Canals
,r5'7:?i,i
Key Colony Beach Duck Key
... --.4-.
a . •
\ _ _01 700.213 r Ca t8.7073
Key Haven Conch Key Sugar Loaf
3
This is Why Restoration is Needed
lit, .
I* '' , - 1 t i z •n ,Poor" '"
#- AR Water
Quality -'.`
Y Canals
03 GI�03
Upper Keys—accumulated seaweed 'i••e 'eys— rappe• seawee.
r.S.f,-,.., "T; :.?0,,',."....4.‘•„ -.., 4 '. ':
i il''!! 11 li.,
y.,
2 t
Summerland—tra trapped seaweed 44 • `
Pp Lack of flushing
4
2
8/20/2013
Step 1 — Visit 502 Canals
0 Visit 502 Canals Keys Wide — County }¢'
and All Municipalities Included 1,
, •
Site visits of canals to assess site conditions . ',
and collect water quality data
Part of masterplan and bathymetric contract
work ($300,000 grant funds from EPA/DEP) --- 1 f
Canals grouped by Good (170*), Fair(180`) or
Poor(131). ,
*Tentative numbers, ongoing evaluation.
• Narrow the List to 332 Canals '
Include only canals in unincorporated Monroe t ►
Funds for selection of demonstration projects st, --.-,1,
from unincorporated Monroe County($37,700)
AMEC Performing the
Plugged canals not included canal Surveys
5
Step 1a: Review Types of Existing Barriers
,t ', i \
illi \\ IV
1 : '
,
•
`�.
t
i
6
3
8/20/2013
Step 1 B: Select Technologies for Demo Projects
• Objective: Obtain realistic permitting, {
;scheduling, and cost information for
restoration planning and grant purposes
• Technologies under current consideration:
• Removal of accumulated organics •
• Weed gates or air curtains to minimize
Aerator—Key Largo
additional organic accumulation
Culvert connections to facilitate flushing
• Pumping systems to facilitate flushing from back
to front . Y'
Backfilling to remove deep stagnant zones
• Aerators&Alternate technologies not under
current consideration
Weed Gate—Big Pine
111111111111111111
Step 2 — Selection Process for Top 107
• Narrow the List from 332 to 107 ?:3
Poor Water Quality Canals = ' Y'}LL�
• Criteria included only water quality
data: -
63,05:2013
Dissolved oxygen, turbidity and Marathon—accumulated seaweed
biological indicators utilized to assign a
water quality summary
rt
Canals grouped by Good, Fair or Poor
•Focus only on canals with Poor water R
quality
Big Pine—accumulated algae
8
4
8/20/2013
Step 3 — Selection Process fo Top 15
• Narrow the list from 107 to 15 .'
Selection of canals for prioritization for water , ''.ca L. lit...:!
quality improvement is on-going •.....
. Canals first grouped by Restoration Technology
Type • ,w`:
Criteria Approved by Canal Subcommittee
in Selection of Top 15:
Water and Habitat Quality Big Pine-trapped seaweed
• Potential for a restoration to provide improvement -,
within a canal
Potential for a restoration to provide improvement
to nearshore zone
• Ease of Implementation of restoration
Homeowner and public •• •- •
---------> •�Romeowner funding for construction not included
9
Step 4 — Public Comment
' Public Consensus:
Supportive of canal restoration
Effectiveness of technologies not yet --
proven
Homeowner funding of construction -` 1,
not recommended for demo projects m-`'''' f ...
Affluent communities should not - : t ; I,
receive preference 74:- ;-
Homeowner commitment to
operations & maintenance is essential
1u
5
8/20/2013
Step 5 Select the Top 5 Projects
▪ Further narrow the list from 15 to(Top 5
Already evaluated water quality
■Objective evaluation required
• One project for each technology
•Cost effectiveness
Project costs > $1.5 million excluded
u Advisory Subcommittee Recommendations:
• Do not include omeowner match in constructio
include .o eowner commitment for operatlo
& maintenance
� Big Pine Key—
Accumulated seaweed
11
Step 5 Con't - Selection Process for Top 5
Selection Criteria Approved by Canal Subcommittee to Select Top 5:
Ease of Permitting 50% Ease in Implementation 50%
Will a dewatering permit need to be obtained? •Sewer,water,data lines,or overhead electric lines in
• Will a ROW permit need to be obtained? the way of restoration construction
• Will canal specific sediment samples be •Identification of a required Construction Staging Area
required? •Maintenance of Traffic
• Will additional surveys need to be acquired?
•Clearing and Grubbing
• Will mitigation credits need to be obtained?
• Will canal specific water quality sampling be -Infrastructure Removal/Replacement
required?
• Will Sovereign Submerged Lands need to be \ ''
obtained?
• Will Archeological survey/permitting be required? y ,.
• Will hydrologic modeling be required? I N
• Will geotechnical investigation/report need to
obtained?
12
6
8/20/2013
[NEW SLIDE] Step 5 cont. - Homeowner Funding and
Responsibility for Maintenance & Operations Issues:
• Purpose of demo projects -obtain realistic permitting, scheduling,
and cost information
Won't know cost of maintenance if assign maintenance to homeowners at time
of installation
• Demos are on fast track. Water quality monitoring program is ready,
possible limited time period due to grant funds.
• Development of legal procedures to document,verify and lock-in homeowner
commitment and/or funding at front of projects could delay construction of all
projects 6 months or more
• County controls projects after installation to ensure maintenance is provided to
ensure accurate monitoring of results
• Suggest a 3 year time period for County to install and operate the
systems
�• Set up a financing system for homeowner O&M during this time
N • County will document the utility costs for operation of the systems
N
• Turn O&M over to homeowner at end of year 3
13
Step 6 — What's Next?
What's Next? '
• Top 5 Canals to be Selected by the
Canal Advisory Committee
• Top 5 to be presented to BOCC for final
approval
• Begin Water Quality and Benthic
Monitoring
if
-
IF
14
7
8/20/2013
Step 7: Continue Seeking Grant Funds
Grant Fund Summary
• $300,000 DEP & EPA for Masterplan '"'
& Bathymetric Work ,
I ; �
• $300,000 EPA for Monitoring \ '• •
• $100,000 DEP -yet to be determined $ 1-1,0
County and Municipal Summary
• $5 million from Monroe BOCC
• $100,000 from Islamorada for 6th
demo project in Village
• Total nearly $6 million
15
8