Item L3 � L.3
� � �, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of Monroe � ��r�i
�r � s�� Mayor Heather Carruthers,District 3
The Florida.Keys Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Coldiron,District 2
Craig Cates,District 1
David Rice,District 4
Sylvia J.Murphy,District 5
County Commission Meeting
May 20, 2020
Agenda Item Number: L.3
Agenda Item Summary #6830
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Sustainability
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Rhonda Haag (305) 453-8774
11:00 A.M.
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of preferred alternative and its options for the Tentatively
Selected Plan developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the partnership
agreement with USACE for investigating coastal storm risk vulnerability for the Florida Keys.
ITEM BACKGROUND: This item is to select the features and a preferred Alternative under the
Tentative Selected Plan (TSP) under the 3-year Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study
Agreement with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The TSP will assess the risk
to the Florida Keys from coastal storms, including storm surge, sea level rise, evolving weather
patterns, and other changing conditions which pose potential risks to Monroe County.
The Study was previously expanded to include all of the Florida Keys area, including the
municipalities, in addition to the U.S. 1 area. The Study is a collaborative partnership with Monroe
County and associated stakeholders with input from related agencies and the public. It is guided by
the USACE and undertaken in partnership with Federal, state and local government representatives
and other non-government organizations, academia, technical experts and interested parties.
The goals of the Study were to:
1. Provide a common operating picture of coastal risk to provide decision-makers at federal,
state and local levels with a comprehensive risk analysis for the Florida Keys.
2. Identify high-risk locations and characterize current and future hazards and develop depth
damage functions.
3. Evaluate and recommend risk reduction measures to address identified problems.
4. Review and incorporate adaptation or storm resilience project recommendations and
formulate projects as appropriate for future planning and funding.
The features being recommended under the TSP include structural measures, non-structural
measures and nature-based measures. These measures are to help reduce the County's risk and
vulnerability to storm surge. The following measures currently make up the suite of alternatives,
but are subject to change as the USACE obtains additional information:
Packet Pg. 2543
L.3
A. Structural Measures: reduce magnitude of water level and/or probability of flooding in an
area to reduce damage to structures in that area of reduced risk.
Structural Measures carried forward:
■ Shoreline Stabilization along US l: rock revetment designed to reduce damage,
especially erosion/washout, to the roadway
Structural Measures screened out include:
■ Breakwaters: high environmental impacts and costs compared to shoreline
stabilization
■ Canal Improvements: not able to provide significant damage reduction
■ Sea Walls: engineering limitations and high cost due to topography and geology —
lack of high ground to tie into
■ Floodwalls: engineering limitations and high cost due to topography and geology —
lack of high ground to tie into
■ Levees: engineering limitations and high cost due to topography and geology — lack
of high ground to tie into
■ Small Scale Ring Walls: geologic constraints would require T-walls which are not
cost effective
■ Storm Surge Barriers: lack of high ground for surge barrier tie-in
■ Beachfill/Dunes: extremely high cost due to distant sand sources ($76/cubic yard)
B. Nonstructural Measures: reduce damage to a specific structure and/or its contents, focus is
on reducing the consequences of flooding on that structure instead of reducing the amount or
probability of flooding. All nonstructural measures studied were carried forward.
Nonstructural measures for the Keys include:
Unincorporated Islamorada Layton Marathon Key West Key TOTAL
Monroe Colony
Beach
Elevation of 2823 701 46 1172 3928 418 9088
residences,
voluntary,
maximum
Floodproofing 266 147 10 234 272 11 940
of Businesses,
voluntary,
maximum
Acquisitions 80 47 0 45 40 22 234
of residences,
mandatory,
maximum
Warning N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
systems.
Emergency
Planning.
Land use
Planning
Packet Pg. 2544
L.3
C. Natural and Nature Based Features (NNBF): some natural features (ex. mangroves)
reduce wave energy and/or storm surge when implemented alone or in conjunction with
structural or nonstructural measures
Array of Alternatives: After screening, the measures were combined into an array of alternatives
and three primary alternatives were developed. Those primary alternatives were then combined into
larger alternatives, resulting in seven action alternatives that were evaluated.
ALTERNATIVES
Average Annual Total Average Total Annual
ALTERNATIVE Description Annual Cost BCR
Benefits (AAB) (AAC) Net Benefit
1 U.S. 1 $935,463 $1,382,528 $(447,065) 0.68
2 Critical $2,890,000 $444,000 $2,446,000 6.5
Infrastructure
Population/
3 $211,810,000 $113,528,216 $98,281,784 1.9
Development
U.S. 1 + Critical
4 $3,825,463 $1,826,528 $1,998,935 2.1
Infrastructure
5 U.S. 1 + Population/ $212,745,463 $114,910,744 $97,834,719 1.9
Development
Critical
6 Infrastructure + $214,700,000 $113,972,216 $100,727,784 1.9
Population/
Development
7 U.S. 1 + Critical
USACE Infrastructure+ $215,635,463 $115,354,744 $100,280,719 1.9
Recommended Population/
Alternative Development
8 No Action $0 $0 $0 0.0
*AAB —AAC = Total Annual Net Benefits (plan selection criteria)
Packet Pg. 2545
L.3
TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN "TSP": Note that the USACE has selected ALTERNATIVE
7, which includes U.S. 1 shoreline stabilization (revetment) in 6 areas, Nonstructural measures for all
residential and non-residential structures at risk: elevation, acquisition, and floodproofing and
Floodproofing critical infrastructure at risk.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS:
■ First Cost(65/35): 43,100,000,000
✓ 65% federal funding of project= $2,015,000,000
✓ 35%non-federal funding of project= $1,085,000,000
■ Total Average Annual Benefit: —$ 215,635,000
■ Benefit Cost Ratio is 1.9
FEASIBILITY REPORT: The end product of the Feasibility Study will consist of a final
Feasibility Report to include National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) documentation, which may
authorize new Federal projects for construction focused on protecting the Keys. If funds are
appropriated in the future, the federal government would finance 65% of approved projects. The
County and the municipalities would be responsible for 35%, which could come from local or State
funds. Projects are currently included in each of the municipalities, and Interlocal Agreements will
be needed to formalize their participation should the County and municipalities choose to keep the
projects in the TSP. If a project other than the project recommended by USACE as being within the
Federal Interest is selected, a"Locally Preferred Plan" option can move forward.
The end product will consist of a final Feasibility Report to include National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) documentation, which may authorize new Federal projects for construction focused on
protecting the Keys. The federal government would finance 65% of approved projects if funding
becomes available.
NEXT STEPS:
Date Task
May 2020 Briefing to Monroe BOCC for approval (Today)
Late May 2020 Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated EIS release
June 2020 Public meetings held in several locations throughout the Keys.
(Note: virtual public meetings are a requirement for the USACE in
moving forward until otherwise notified.)
May—July 2020 45-day review: public and agency, internal USACE technical and
policy review, Independent External Peer Review (contract)
September 2020 Agency Decision Milestone
Packet Pg. 2546
L.3
............ ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. .............
Spring 2021 USACE update back to Monroe BOCC
Spring 2021 Final Feasibility Report and Integrated EIS release
September 2021 Chief of Engineer's Report
Beyond 2021 Congressional authorization for construction; request for project
appropriations; agreements with non-federal entities necessary
for construction
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
09/19/18: Approval to enter into a Study Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
initiate a study partnership to investigate storm and sea level rise vulnerability for the U.S. 1 corridor
in Monroe County, funded up to $3 Million by the USACE; also, ratification of the Letter of Intent
submitted by the County Administrator; request for Chief Financial Officer to sign the Self-
Certification of Financial Capability; and authority for the County Attorney and the Mayor to sign
related documents.
05/22/19: Presentation update on the partnership agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for investigating storm and sea level rise vulnerability for the Florida Keys to provide the
recommended list of alternatives for moving forward.
02/06/20: Presentation under the partnership agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) for investigating coastal storm risk vulnerability for the Florida Keys, to present and
discuss the list of alternatives under the details of the recommendation for the Tentatively Selected
Plan for Monroe County as developed by the USACE.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Alternative 7 as recommended by the USACE.
DOCUMENTATION:
USACE Keys TSP BOCC briefing February 2020
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: September 19, 2018
Expiration Date: 3 years after the Effective Date
Packet Pg. 2547
L.3
Total Dollar Value of Contract: Please see below. Not to exceed $3.1 Billion
Total Cost to County: 35% cost share
A prior phase included a Study. The terms of the study would be that the County would pay
anything above $3 million for study costs. However, the study costs did not exceed $3 million
Current Year Portion: TBD
Budgeted:
Source of Funds: TBD
CPI: N/A
Indirect Costs: N/A
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: 35% local cost share
Revenue Producing: If yes, amount:
Grant: Yes
County Match: 35%
Insurance Required: No.
Additional Details: If the County selects an Alternative under the Tentatively Selected Plan, the
County will be responsible for 35% of the project costs, which may be shared by other sources and
the municipalities (for work in the incorporated areas), if and when the Project moves forward. At
this time the project cost is estimated not to exceed $3.1 Billion, leaving a local 35% cost share
requirement of$1,085,000,000 and the 65% federal cost share at$2,015,000,000.
REVIEWED BY:
Rhonda Haag Completed 05/05/2020 11:02 AM
Pedro Mercado Skipped 04/27/2020 11:27 AM
Cynthia Hall Completed 05/05/2020 12:14 PM
Purchasing Completed 05/05/2020 12:29 PM
Budget and Finance Completed 05/05/2020 2:57 PM
Maria Slavik Completed 05/05/2020 3:00 PM
Kathy Peters Completed 05/05/2020 7:31 PM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 05/20/2020 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 2548
0 840 - lean} !}'''q's a ) naga 'ja'aq s!a :}u9wgoe4} 4
�i �
N i
a
d '
GM ca
Go
aC
U
tC
V
L„
0
cm
CA
L
.®
.`
,
d
l +�
i7
I I III
,
}� - ,OL
i}}
Qw o
0 z
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4}
ca` LO
N
.0 �-+ � a
O
Cu m
t6 4) j 0 � �= cu 4�
.- . CL
� •-
4) a t13 1..
H O W N
0 .�.+
. = C 0
� m
CL
t� O O .
O O 4� t6 m m '> v t6
(L) O
P;
tllt4 �Yi � i I
4
t
�t
m
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4} �.
ca` LO
N
a
d '
aC
U
tC
■�
U) i r.
O O >% 49 .o
� C.
O0. Q .>
.� O }' O
a
x 0
i
,
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :4u9ua o }} N
ca` LO
N
a
CL
aC
� a
o�
Y
E
O_
O �
D_Q
N
W
G
d
O
d
N
> c
v o
A
c '�
v o
U �
C
t�
CL
cn
�r
lr}i d dC,4d
y,N, r m c c
� .` � o 0
104
cn >
dLo
Q
{i h pit ilk
OZO
Z Z H
a.
O Q
co
cf) aco
a
rz
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4} ch_
ca` LO
N
a
E
E
O Co
V
tI) to 0- -a OCo aj
co
N .� � a0
0 .+
O Co
— N
O O +�.+ M `� N Co >, �= E Q
N
p
LL CU a,,, V N •V
N O V O p
um E
N
s
i
' I
i
O 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4}
ca` LO
N
c: s, Y
OL� T a O C
�s r� o ++ a)
s, o
++
V O i O i N
c T
r tB A Q ycc
i s �1Q T Cc
cc
i tB i O
r to a
r i1 v N W E to to 2 +r
® r �€p'- o' to — O c- tB W > _ to
' P e a r O .� tB tB tB cc �_
of �<0 f ° q r LL U to .2 O O Z
6 o V) tB Q. ccO O O a
U- Z LL LL uj LL Q
to va x
to ate) N N
®D to +W+ N tB N ) i�;
i O a.+ . �, ++ ;�,,
Cc
tB _
® LLI
O p tB a) O
O O a) Q. It a) Q. 0
i cc O N ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Vas
® 0 0 0 0 O
� 0 0 0 Q O y
LLI
e1.=
4 1,
y -
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :4u9wqoe44V ,n
ca` LO
N
; V Cb
a) •cn .� C a) O tUC
> +� O cL
+p � O O � N a) a)
w— O a) • ca C Co
co a) a) O N V O V
O Co w— •N O
O ca N m
+•+
,c,A cc cc � � O E �
•� � ° o � a)
� y
a) cc o o E O
(D a) O .� O a) O +�•+
t6 y w— N tO.�
E O cn O
i U .
O
O O c6 ,� a N O OCU cn
a) Co
70A
c 0 0 V V N \ .�, Co
EC +., O +.+
H
ti f
1
'i �
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :4u9wq3e44V to
ci N
� O �
a
Cc N i
42
O N O
+r O O O N
N `� N V O o N N
0 0 0 N .O .0 O o o O -0 O O v
% O
N p y � N � _ S O U y
N .2 to _0 'OA O >+ N O r CN O
N V O � .0 � O O � ,V � �
N o 0 a 0 +� N - +r O -0 O O N
O o 0 0 Z O occ y O v 0 y .�
U N N N f 6 Z. N N
o i j 4- p c> >, p p f6 +:+ M r_ >
m i f6 > N i .y O N N N O N J
p 4- 0 O � N > � N o O N cc
N 0- -a +.+ N O ff,, N Cc >% y . . O a)
a) `� o co
-r f6
v N 0 c 0 0 -00
O O N O to
NLL C6 O LL 'BOA o p m N U O
N N i N o f o C� V CN
N >, io 0 o c6 V o N cy � °' °
CS O N N to W v i� 00 o W Lo N
a
f
® 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}uqua o }} A
ca LO
cri __ N a 00 C4
T-i
J ' O >
d N O a
N N O d
1CoN M M M v
a Lu LU N OO O ri fM It
t t 00 N a
N a) O O
I I CNN
O
C14 a)
ti " N [ LY v' O 41 S
O O s
a i as 00 -0
c - 41 O a)
C74 r N W W W E W =
v z z O O Q Q a) Q Q
.' a
III z
co
® -
k:
o n d
a
a �
¢o.
ID
04
CN
LU
0 V
1991 U! MMA
io r
i s
III �i
it
CIl�llllllllllllllllllll �'
f
1
® 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :4u9ua o }} co
»>s��� N
T
C>
��� tir, a
}' iu O- tB >' tB a)
CU
a) 0 O O tB F=
�
Q. Cc O O Q OA t a
O
4{. O 4.4 a) Cif t�
� Cc
44
4.4
i.+
N _
cc
to O N4. �
`�= O V >i
to N 'OA � � � ca � +.
V a)
to m as ao o +,
N
O O cc N
•— Q. N a) O O
tB O O C tB 0 V OA
++ ++ O N _
a) *' O to O a p
E O r- o a) O >, O a)
O oA}, to O C
oA E oA 0 tB 8 a)
> O O O � O A O
C a) a) �, LA
Cc
a)
� N O o r V � 4- � N i cc
V ' 'V 0
� — 4 'U OAS � � C v m 0 , O Q. �
� I I V a+ C to a••� to
co
c ® as >, � >, aO Cc � � C ca � �
a) C Co
a) oA oA O tB _ \ i t6 G 3
y C 60 ® � 0 co
d — o to L v C4 8 C 'tn E (n 'a
m va t� N m U. m oA N N m CC (n W -0 -0
a � 4t
I
z
I
11
a�
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4}
ca` LO
•� +.+ _ to c6
cc C c 4= w a
'1
N N c6 a O N OFr'` 0
O > a O _
Q (n %- 7 ,
�+
cc
O (n c6 _O cc _v v ccN N
L
O O �� (n N '�
m �
P
®
O Co7pA N o
�
O O
_N O c6 E W
W LL m W J
ti
t
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4} o
N
a
U
� = Co
to �
tB p
m N iA tB N
r
m j
0 i i 0 tB
Q V F � F V
t
i�
� I
a
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4} .
ci s" 0 70 A c4
t ' cc
E
ccN
t
O
S
Lij
�+ > V N O
t 1 N +:+
ccO
N
O w-
� 3t E
a) Z Co
>> Coca
�
t 1 o �OQ Q Q to
� ca
o a) N_ 0 cu N_ N
-{ G
cc cc
cc
O f6
O O O
N N r- N E 0
5 N �„r
_ _ N +CC .N V .N O N
h �' �� f��rh
- Q v to to N O
s;
r,4
r'
f
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}ugwgoe4} C*4
�! C
N a
0
V
c v (n
(n O f6 r
a) W �0
l � _v co to O
Jp
0�i
r € 0 -0 �a
0
W �
•V
ca
a
e
0
a L
LL
� U 0 O V
m a.+
ca Co
M a) 0
0 0
~ 7E5 0 .C� N %`—
Co
r
i
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :4u9wqoe44V co
ca to
to C4
y "1
r�
NcafoQo �.
r, r
in4-0
in O
Oco E
c N
N +N•+
CO C ,i c O 70A N �
c�
E N cc
O (a m
c�
EN `0
y Q O O
O +, �+ O +_+ O .� N
N }' .(n Q •� 70A
N � N
V N OO O
V W Q g L.L W
inol 21 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
,r
„I Y
s
t'
ati�r
r .
O 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4} #
coo Ln m rn rn Os o N
_! m o Cfl C-i — — o m Cb
a
z � � U
z Lf') O LO �_ 00 r U
CU �, cfl o ti co ti ti 1^*- O tC
CCT � rn M ~ C � u a
N cc _N
Q m �' N 0 ti C5 O N
m N
I Q co
Q
co co d N
O N 0 N N ti N Imo•- 4=
Lf)U Lr U o
c m � co °O � ri Ln m
pp o co o co
c
co o o ccoo CD to
c
Q cz CDLO Ln CD LC'3 Q
co
Lf')
� 00 N ti ti Q0 E CO
CM
C m N 0o N ct' LLt?„
co
U
_ C 2 Q
C6 O 6 t .«
2 G ,.0 2 C6 G )
0 2) O 'i O L .0 O ` O O Q
Ucu CDL j C t > '� O > r t3 O
0 a- O Uj �.- O a- O O t13: Z
uj m U t CL
L
� U
cu
Q
f '
{'``
mom—
ti�yl 'y'il i}
I
f+
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4}
ci N
_ CD CD CD- a.
- o CDa)
L O >
CU as 0
O C6 O p M as
Lci co
Q U o N a)
� � O L O
O L L� — pO N 1 a)
U p CU E
N 0 '0 0
-— n3
CD
C6 to— O U o >
l C6 as
_C6:,_' :*_, 1 a, c6
0
Cll C)
� L
_� �� Ca N 0
Q -ram+ 0 CEO _0 00
L Q-- Q p > as
CCU v �� U c`ooci Q -� E
Cn C.fl ui 0 00 _) . . � C) a)
ZD.E— Z CU Cll I..L LJL m
■ ■ ■ UJ ■ ■ ■
t
,
i
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4} to
ci N
O ac
_O to L-
(3)2� > M >
to O
O
O - Cll >
L- •= - O Ncz
cz
O �--� O -0 m
p C- � � Cll O
W to cz
� NN CZ v — U cn a) >
cz OO > U Q N
U to CO >+ Cll
U r— .� a) a) to cz O L
�_ Q� E E u) � L L N %O
CZ 0
Q Q O
CD- � +-' V Cn
O
E O .N N Cn Cn CIDN
U O U Ca O a) U cz � +-
O - Q Ca C�3 Ca O
O O
- O CZ
p > >
cz Q
+-
ll_ _
� U J U O � O O O cz Cll
Q U- J O CO to 0- Of
:
j
�l
t
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4} r,
N
O (� a '
Cll to L- cu Cll N a
O Ca
—
U _
Ca
O O O Ca to
O O U CID -=3 `-
.— O
Ca Ca CU O M z
> > (n
W LU ca z
r
---------------------
r
f �
f
{
w
S
3i �
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Agouq s! :}ugwgoe4} co
C4
J ., .
tm
76 co
pLU
0
Im
p11ZVIII
b c6 4aF
. �� . �A - ?
LU
�(
W ' 1
s s
Ca
co -� N
t
1 � I�����IIIIIIIII {
t
1�
4
i�
0 840A - lean} !}'''q's ) OZOZ Aienjqe_Aijouq s! :}u9wgoe4} a,
N
t r U
ml
r �
1
z.
v
a
1
S, k�
r 3 `
:'.
�i�iuly h'i