Resolution 221-2021Kevin Madok, cPA
a .:.
Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller— Monroe County, Florida
DATE: June 29, 2021
TO: Rhonda Haag, Director
Sustainahility
FROM: Sadly M. Ahr.mis, D.C.
SUBJECT: June 16" 2021 BOCC Meeting
AwK hcd, for your h:mdling, is an electronic copy of Item 02 Resolution adopting the
Canal Management Master Plan (CCMP) Guidance Document and Canal Ranking
Criteria pursuant to the requirements in Administration Commission Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C.,
(Comfy's new Area of Critical State Concern Canal Work Program) and approve the Canal
Restoration Project Ranking List.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact nw at ext. 3550. Thank you.
cc: County Attorney
Finance
File
KEY WEST MARATHON PLANTATION KEY
500 Whitehead Street 3117 Overseas Highway 88820 overseas Highway
Key West, Florida 33040 Marathon, Florida 33050 Plantation Key, Florida 33070
305-294-4641 305-289-6027 305-852-7145
PK/ROTH BUILDING
50 High Point Road
Plantation Key, Florida 33070
305-852-7145
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION NO. 221 - 2021
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVING THE UPDATE TO THE CANAL
MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN (CMMP) BY ADOPTING THE CANAL
RESTORATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE DOCUMENT AND BY ADOPTING THE
REVISED GUIDELINES TO SELECT CANALS FOR RESTORATION AND THE
CANAL RESTORATION PROJECT RANKING LIST.
WHEREAS, the Florida Keys are designated as an Area of Critical State Concern to protect the many
significant resources, including the protection and improvement of nearshore water quality; and
WHEREAS, the waters surrounding the Florida Keys of Monroe County, Florida, are situated
within the boundaries of the Florida Keys National Marine; and
WHEREAS, the waters surrounding the Florida Keys of Monroe County, Florida, are designated
as Outstanding Florida Waters; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) established a Water Quality
Protection Program in 1994 to maintain and restore the ideal water quality needed for the marine ecosystem
in the Florida Keys and the sanctuary waters; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in 2008, developed the
Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document (FKRAD) for the purpose of addressing both anthropogenic
nutrient loading and diminished dissolved oxygen concentrations within canals; and
WHEREAS, in 2012/2013, the County prepared a 2013 Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
which included an evaluation of virtually every canal in the county, including all the municipalities; and
WHEREAS, in 2012 over 500 canals were visited, tested and ranked for water quality, resulting in
300 canals being considered impaired and not meeting State water quality standards; and
WHEREAS, in 2013 FDEP water quality criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (DO) was modified from
the 4 mg/L (at any location at any time) threshold to a 42 percent saturation (based on 24-hr measurements
at a specified location); and
Page 1 of 6
WHEREAS, the FDEP methodology resulted in a change from 300 canals to 104 canals being
considered impaired and not meeting State water quality standards; and
WHEREAS, the County completed eight canal restoration demonstration projects to evaluate water
quality improvement and restoration options; and
WHEREAS, the County has evaluated and ranked the remaining 96 canal restoration projects in
unincorporated Monroe County for water quality improvement and restoration options; and
WHEREAS, as an Area of Critical State Concern, the County has a Work Program adopted by the
Administration Commission, providing tasks the County must complete, and
WHEREAS, Administration Commission Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C., became effective on November
26, 2020, and includes a Canal Restoration Implementation portion within the Work Program, and; and
WHEREAS, Rule 28-20.140 (5)(d)l., F.A.C., states: By December 30, 2020, Monroe County shall
update the 2013 Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) to include any updated water quality assessment
of canals, a methodology to prioritize need for water quality improvement, appropriate restoration options
and revised canal rankings based on new information; and
WHEREAS, Rule 28-20.140 (5)(d)2., F.A.C., states: By December 30, 2020, Monroe County shall
develop and adopt guidelines to select canals for restoration, including a process to evaluate the feasibility
of the project, the proposed restoration design (evaluate long-term cost-effective solutions) and associated
funding needs; and
WHEREAS, Rule 28-20.140 (5)(d)5., F.A.C., states: ByJuly 1, 2021, and each year thereafter until
2030, Monroe County shall identify canal restoration projects and implementation plans for each canal
project. Monroe County shall provide a list of selected canal restoration projects to the Department of
Economic Opportunity by October 1st of each year to be completed during the following work program
reporting period, and
WHEREAS, Monroe County has updated the Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) Guidance
Document and guidelines to select canals for restoration, pursuant to the requirements of Rule 28-20.140,
F.A.C., and
WHEREAS, the quality of nearshore waters, water bodies, wetlands, mangroves, seagrass(es), and
other natural native features of Monroe County, is critical to the environmental, economic, and recreational
prosperity of Monroe County, and to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of and visitors to Monroe
County; and
WHEREAS, it is a valid public purpose for Monroe County to restore and protect water resources;
and
WHEREAS, it serves a public purpose for Monroe County to approve the updated CMMP and adopt
the guidelines to select canals for restoration;
Page 2 of 6
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
AMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY:
Section 1. The recitals contained herein are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as if fully
set forth herein.
Section 2: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby approve the update to the Canal
Management Master Plan by adopting the Canal Restoration Program Guidance
Document attached as Exhibit I and by adopting the Revised Guidelines to Select
Canals for Restoration, attached as Exhibit 2 and approving the Canal Restoration
Project Ranking List, attached as Exhibit 3.
Section 3: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida at
a regular meeting of said Board on the 16" day of June 2021.
Mayor Michelle Coldiron
Mayor Pro Tern David Rice
Commissioner Craig Cates
Commissioner Eddie Martinez
Ctwunissioner Mike Forster
MADOK, CLERK
Yes
Yes
Absent
Yes
Yes
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
As Deputg Clerk Mayor Michelle Coldiron
A*NqRr�OE ((b /ITNRNEY
HOY FORD
P
ASSI&IRr7COUNrY ArMFINEY
Date 6/14/21 - -
N
l:J
—I'
_'_• i-•1
G
P
'J
t—
Page 3 of6
Exhibit 1
Canal Management Master Plan
Guidance Document
Page 4 of 6
Cana�l Restoration Prograrn
Guidance
Prepared for Monroe County, Florida
Wffln Funding frorn throe United States EPA (Grant No. OOD83418,)
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................
vi
1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................
1
1.1 History of the Existing Canal Restoration Program...........................................................
4
1.1.1 Restoration Success Evaluation.................................................................................
5
1.2 Purpose and Need of This Document...............................................................................
6
DocumentApproval................................................................................................................
6
Revision of Framework Agreement.........................................................................................
7
2.0 Canal Restoration Approval Framework...............................................................................
8
2.1 Policy/Concept..................................................................................................................
8
2.2 Program Obligations.....................................................................................................
8
2.2.1 Regulatory Driver.......................................................................................................
8
2.2.2 Program Compliance.................................................................................................
9
2.2.3 Feasibility of Project Implementation..........................................................................
9
2.2.4 Framework Acceptance.............................................................................................10
2.2.5 Public Engagement and Participation........................................................................10
2.3 Determining Project Applicability.....................................................................................10
2.3.1 Management Structure..............................................................................................10
2.3.2 Staff..........................................................................................................................11
2.3.3 Roles and Responsibilities........................................................................................11
2.3.4 Risks, Impacts, and Technical Review Analysis........................................................12
2.4 Determining Project Affordability......................................................................................12
2.4.1 Predicting Costs in the Future...................................................................................13
2.4.2 Repair and Replacement Costs.................................................................................14
2.5 Recommended Selection Process...................................................................................14
2.5.1 Workflow process......................................................................................................14
2.5.2 Oversight..................................................................................................................15
2.5.3 Record Keeping and Reporting.................................................................................15
3.0 Implementation of Canal Restoration Projects.....................................................................16
3.1 CMMP and Demonstration Program Canal Restoration Technologies .............................16
3.1.1 Weed Gates/Air Curtains/Physical Barriers...............................................................17
3.1.2 Organic Removal......................................................................................................18
3.1.3 Canal Backfilling........................................................................................................19
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
3.1.4 Culvert Installation.....................................................................................................20
3.1.5 Alternative Technologies...........................................................................................21
3.2 Identification and Acquisition of Canal Restoration Funds...............................................22
3.2.1 Grant Application Requirements................................................................................22
3.2.2 Information Necessary to Complete Applications......................................................24
3.2.3 Restore Act Funding.................................................................................................24
3.2.4 Florida Keys Stewardship Act....................................................................................25
3.3 Engineering Design Requirements..................................................................................25
3.3.1 Data Acquisition........................................................................................................26
3.3.2 Design Criteria..........................................................................................................29
3.4 Permitting Requirements and Barriers to Construction....................................................31
3.4.1 Permit Applications...................................................................................................32
3.4.2 Permit Information by Technology.............................................................................35
3.5 Factors Affecting Ease of Implementation........................................................................44
3.6 Construction Requirements.............................................................................................45
3.6.1 Initiating the Bid Process...........................................................................................45
3.6.2 Evaluation of Bids and Requisite Qualifications.........................................................45
3.7 Construction Oversight....................................................................................................46
3.7.1 Performance of Monitoring and Reporting Requirements..........................................46
3.7.2 Permit Modification....................................................................................................46
3.7.3 Permit Compliance....................................................................................................47
3.7.4 Construction Monitoring............................................................................................47
3.7.5 Biological Construction Monitoring............................................................................48
3.7.6 Best Management Practices for Canal Restoration Projects.....................................48
3.8 Operation and Maintenance............................................................................................50
3.8.1 Operations and Maintenance Program......................................................................52
3.8.2 Cost of Operation and Maintenance..........................................................................53
4.0 Effectiveness of Restoration Technologies..........................................................................56
4.1 Biological Improvements..................................................................................................56
4.2 Documented Improvements.............................................................................................57
5.0 Strategies for Improving Cost Efficiency..............................................................................59
5.1 Project Grouping...............................................................................................................60
5.1.2 Benefits of Grouping Similar Projects........................................................................60
5.1.3 Area Focused Restorations.......................................................................................62
5.2 Establish Standard Engineering Designs.........................................................................63
Monroe County Canal Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
5.3 Permit Fast Tracking.......................................................................................................63
5.4 Development of an Approved Contractor and Unit Price Lists..........................................64
5.4.1 Standardized Qualification Process Based on Project Type......................................64
5.4.2 Pre -approve Sources of Materials.............................................................................65
5.4.3 Pre -Established Unit Prices.......................................................................................65
6.0 Literature Cited or Relied Upon...........................................................................................66
APPENDIXA...............................................................................................................................69
APPENDIXB...............................................................................................................................76
Tables
Table 1 Canal Restoration Projects - US Army Corp of Engineers Permit Numbers ................... 4
Table 2: List of Demonstration Project Success Monitoring Canals ............................................ 6
Table 3: Feasibility checklist for potential canal restoration partners .......................................... 9
Table 4: Work flow process and roles and responsibilities........................................................11
Table 5: Restoration technology technical requirement data needs...........................................28
Table 6: Canal Restoration Permitting Agency Information.......................................................31
Image Number
Description
Page Number
Image 1
Florida Keys Early 20th Century
1
Image 2
Weed wrack build up within canal
2
Image 3
Great egret (Ardea albs)
3
Image 4
WQPP Canal restoration scoping meeting
15
Image 5
Weed gate (bubble curtain)
17
Image 6
Bubble curtain control panel
17
Image 7
Hydraulic dredge removing sediments
18
Image 8
Placement of fill material into deepwater canal
19
Image 9
Culvert installation
20
Image 10
Conceptual application of alternative technologies
21
Image 11
Allocation of the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund
25
(source: restorethegulf.gov)
Image 12
Survey equipment used for the collection of bathymetric
26
data
Image 13
In -water benthic survey
27
Image 14
Collection of sediment cores
28
Image 15
Demonstration Project Canal 277 Big Pine, culvert
45
installation
Image 16
Florida key deer, No Name Key
48
Image 17
Multiple turbidity curtains prevent degradation of
49
Outstanding Florida Waters
Image 18
Bubble curtain control panel and compressors
53
Image 19
Bubble curtain diffusers
55
Image 20
Sugarloaf key
62
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADCP's Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
CMMP Canal Management Master Plan
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FAC Florida Administrative Code
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIU Florida International University
FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
FKRAD Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document
FKSA Florida Keys Stewardship Act
FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
HOA Homeowners Association
JaxBO US Army Corps of Engineers -Jacksonville issued Biological Opinion
Keys Florida Keys
LP Letter of Permission
M&R Maintenance and Repair
MOT Maintenance of Traffic
MSBU Municipal Services Benefit Unit
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Association
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PBO Programmatic Biological Opinion
R&R Repair and Replacement
RESTORE Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived
Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act
RFI Request for Information
RFP Request for Proposal
RFQ Request for Quote
RTT Request to Tender
SP Standard Permit
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USGS United States Geologic Survey
WBIDs Water Body ID's
WQPP Water Quality Protection Program
iv
Monroe County Canal Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
DEFINITIONS
Authorized
The authorized representative or program manager will have been
Representative
appointed by the participating entity so serve as their canal restoration
or Program
program manager. They will also serve as the point of contact between the
Manager
participating entity and the WQPP.
Mitigation Bank
Mitigation banking is a practice in which an environmental enhancement
and preservation project is conducted by a public agency or private entity
("banker") to provide mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts within a
defined region (mitigation service area).
Mitigation Plan
The Mitigation Planning process, and resulting mitigation plan, includes
identification of impacts to protect resources and assessment and
evaluation leading to the development of a comprehensive mitigation
strategy for compensation of assessed impacts through on -site or off -site
mitigation.
Participating
The organization (e.g. municipality and Monroe County) that has decided
Entity
to restore the water quality in a canal and agrees to adhere to the
principals developed under the auspice of the FKNMS WQPP.
Project
Work to assist the project management team with the coordination of
Coordinator
resources, equipment, meetings, and information. They organize projects
with the goal of getting them completed on time and within budget. Shall
make recommendations to the participating entity's program manager
regarding approval or disapproval based on the information provided by the
project sponsor.
Project Sponsor
The individual within the participating entity's organization with overall
accountability for the canal restoration project. The Project Sponsor is
primarily concerned with ensuring that the project delivers the proposed
benefits
Standards
Environmental stewardship upheld throughout the lifecycle of a canal
restoration project that ensures a rule for the measure of quantity, weight,
extent, value, or quality
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Construction of residential canals in the Florida Keys was initiated in the mid-20th century, before
resource managers fully understood their impacts on local water quality and the broader coastal
ecosystems. Depending 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 no tidal flushing. Without adequate tidal flushing, the canals from
their onset accumulated oxygen consuming sediments, nutrients and organic matter.
The Monroe County Canal Water Quality Restoration Program has established under the auspice
of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS) Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) a set of guiding principles geared toward
improving canal water quality while ensuring no degradation of the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and the residential communities of Monroe County. The guiding principal behind the
Monroe County Canal Water Quality Restoration Program and its participating partners is the
responsible use and protection of the natural environment through conservation and sustainable
practices.
This guidance document presents an efficient and effective managerial process for the
implementation of canal water quality projects within Monroe County, FL. This document assumes
that within the County any suitably equipped and established organization (e.g. municipality and
Monroe County) that has decided to restore the water quality in a canal and agrees to adhere to
the principals developed under the auspice of the FKNMS WQPP can do so.
Determining the applicability of a project starts with building strong, constructive, and responsive
relationship with the project's designated sponsor, key stakeholders and subject matter experts.
In order remain consistent with program's established principals, this guidance document
recommends that a participating entity appoint a suitable representative that will be in charge of
approving their program's canal restoration projects. Descriptions of proven canal water quality
restoration technologies and conditions under which they apply are provided herein. For each
technology, design, permitting, and construction differ based on the extent of the issue and site
conditions. In describing the applicability of each technology, "lessons learned" are included to
assist the participating entity in successfully planning and implementing their restoration project.
The restoration of water quality in Monroe County's residential canals is a complex and costly
venture that requires a long term commitment from its participating entities. Through the
development of the demonstration projects, Monroe County and its local partners have
documented areas where costs and project schedules can be managed to reduce the expense
associated with implementing and operating canal restoration projects. For instance, cost
efficiencies increase when formal implementation plans are adopted with known budgets and
funding sources. Plans, project timelines, and budget for implementation provide important insight
that set expectations for contractors and engineers. This allows contractors and engineers to plan
for consistent utilization of construction crews. Additionally, dredging companies and engineering
contractors will recognize efficiencies by continuous mobilization within the County. As funding
for the long-range operations becomes consistent from year to year, economies of scale will
influence the management of restorations.
A most effective methodology for creating efficiencies is to plan: plan for restoration design and
construction implementation; plan for community engagement and canal stakeholder input; plan
vi
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
for short-term and long-term operation and maintenance; and plan for financial management of
all costs. An example of how planning can result in reduced project schedules and implementation
costs is permitting. It is assumed that fast tracking of environmental and construction permits for
canal restoration projects is not viable. This is due to environmental sensitivities and the
abundance of protected natural resources in the Florida Keys. However, the process of obtaining
applicable permits in a timely manner is assisted through the implementation of the guidance
discussed in this document which involves working in partnership with the applicable regulatory
agencies so that they become familiar with the key aspects of the projects that could lead to
delays in the process. The management principles listed herein are proven drivers of efficiencies
and cost reduction.
Through the development of the Monroe County Canal Water Quality Restoration Program, a
comprehensive canal attribute table that contains specific information detailing the physical
characteristics of each canal located within the County (i.e. size, shape, depth, etc.) has been
developed and is available to participating entities for review. The restoration technologies
completed as part of the Monroe County Demonstration Program focused on improving dissolved
oxygen concentrations and addressing the lack of canal flushing. The restoration technologies,
which are described in this document, have proven successful in addressing water quality issues
and the aesthetics associated with degraded canals.
vii
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Florida Keys (Keys) located in Monroe County, Florida stretches approximately 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.
Construction of residential canals in the Keys was
initiated in the mid-20th century, prior to resource
managers fully understanding their impacts on
local water quality and the broader coastal
ecosystems. Depending 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 no tidal flushing. Without
adequate tidal flushing, the canals from their onset
accumulated oxygen consuming sediments,
nutrients and organic matter.
From 1950 to 1970. studies of residential canals
In response to the documented water quality issues in the Florida Keys, in 2008 the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in collaboration with local stakeholders
developed the Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document (FKRAD) for the purpose of
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
addressing anthropogenic nutrient loading from on -site waste water disposal and stormwater run-
off within the nearshore waters. 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 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 FDEP 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 Restoration Advisory 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 for water
quality improvement, and identify appropriate restoration
options.
Image 2: Weed wrack build up within
Relationship to Existing Federal/State Plans: The canal
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 provides
for federal protection of commercial fisheries species and protection of essential fish habitat,
which are both present in the Florida Keys. Canal restoration measures will help improve water
quality which is vital to supporting a sustainable fish population reverse a declining fish population.
The FKNMS was established by Congress in 1990. Under its authority, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association (NOAA) and the FDEP manage all waters and natural and cultural
resources surrounding the Florida Keys.
The Sanctuary's Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) was mandated by Congress and
developed jointly by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NOAA, the State of
Florida, and Monroe County. Centralized waste water system development has been a focal effort
of the Sanctuary and its WQPP over the last several years. Now that these efforts are well
underway, the WQPP recognizes that addressing the impaired water quality in the canals is the
next focus. In 2007, the FKNMS developed a canal water quality improvement strategy. In 2012
the WQPP Steering Committee convened a Water Quality Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee to manage and oversee the implementation of canal water quality improvements.
Benefits to Natural Resources: The near shore tidal waters of the Florida Keys are a fragile,
extremely valuable and unique ecosystem that supports many species of commercial importance,
including the snapper -grouper complex, red drum, stone crab, and spiny lobster. Essential fish
habitat in the Florida Keys includes critical breeding and hatchling habitats such as the extensive
seagrass beds in Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico and coral reefs in the southern Atlantic
Ocean. These habitats are extremely sensitive to sedimentation, turbidity, and nutrient loading —
all problems that have been attributed to, in part, by the water quality of the Keys' canal systems.
2
Monroe County Canal Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Economic Benefits: Monroe County is home to
Image 3: Great egret (Ardea albs) the largest portion of the Florida Reef Tract,
which is located in the coastal waters of five
south Florida counties (Monroe, Miami -Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin). NOAA
estimates the annual economic value of the Florida Reef Tract at $8.5 billion. The value is
inclusive of $4.4 billion in local sales, $2 billion in local income. NOAA further attributes more than
70,000 full and part-time jobs to the Florida Reef Tract's existence (FKNMS Undated). Of the
70,000 jobs, more than 33,000 of those jobs are located in Monroe County alone (FKNMS 2013).
As previously noted, the Keys provide habitats and critical spawning grounds for many of the
commercially and recreationally -harvested fish species that populate the Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic Ocean waters. The Keys are considered the `fishing capital of the world', generating
hundreds of world records and billions of dollars of economic impact. Key West is also the 20th
most valuable commercial fishing port in the nation. Improved canal and near shore water quality
will help to sustain and improve these natural resources that serve as the economic base for
Monroe County.
Work Accomplished to Date to Address Water Quality Impairment: A total of $900 million has
been spent replacing inefficient septic tanks and cesspits with centralized waste water treatment
plants and collection systems. In addition to implementing waste water and storm water
improvements, Monroe County, through County and EPA grant funding, has developed a Canal
Management Inventory that prioritized the need for improvement of the water quality in the canals
and identify appropriate restoration techniques. A demonstration program was completed
between 2014 and 2016 that evaluated the implementation of the initially selected technologies
(described in Section 3.0). Additionally, EPA grant funding has been used to evaluate additional
technologies applicable to canal restoration.
,C]
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
1.1 History of the Existing Canal Restoration Program
In 2013, Phase II of the Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) was completed
that evaluated the conditions of the Keys canals, prioritized the need for water quality
improvement, and identified appropriate restoration options for each canal. The CMMP selected
technologies that could address the specific Class III water quality exceedances (dissolved
oxygen and nutrients) within the canals and surrounding near shore waters.
Depending upon the specific canal(s) selected, one or a combination of techniques were
proposed. The CMMP provided an initial technology selection as well as, the ranking for
prioritization and selection.
In response to the recommendations of the CMMP, Monroe County in 2014 allocated
approximately $5 million for the restoration of water quality in seven residential canals within
unincorporated Monroe County. The Village of Islamorada and City of Marathon soon joined in
the county -wide Canal Restoration Demonstration Program by committing funds for
demonstration canal restorations.
Although a preliminary ranking of canals had been performed as part of the CMMP, the first step
in implementing the demonstration program was to objectively and scientifically select canals for
water quality improvements. The ranking processes implemented by the County and
municipalities was approved by the WQPP Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee.
Since the initial seven demonstration canal restorations were proposed by Monroe County, the
canal restoration program has grown to include 15 residential canals throughout Monroe County
and the participating municipalities (Table 1).
Table 1 Canal Restoration Projects - US Army Corp of Engineers Permit Numbers
Participating
Canal
Location
Technology
Permit Number
entity
Number
Monroe County
#472
Geiger Key, FL between
Culvert
SAJ-2014-01041
Venus and Mars Lanes
NW -IF
Village of
#137
Islamorada, FL in Treasure
Air Curtain
SAJ-2014-02190
Islamorada
Harbor
GP-MIB
Monroe County
#29
Key Largo, FL Sexton Cove
Backfilling
SAJ-2014-02871
between Pigeon and Bunting
(SP-MIB)
Drives
Monroe County
#266
Big Pine Key, FL between
Organic Removal
SAJ-2014-03356
Witters and Bailey Lanes
(Vacuum Dredging of
(SP-MIB)
muck) and Air Curtain
Monroe County
#290
Big Pine Key, FL between
Organic Removal
SAJ-2014-03356
Avenue I and J
(Vacuum Dredging of
(SP-MIB) permitted in
muck), Air Curtain
conjunction with
Canal #266
Monroe County
#287
Big Pine Key, FL between
Air Curtain
SAJ-1984-00653
Atlantis Drive and Hollerich
Drive
Monroe County
#277
Big Pine Key, FL Killdeer
Culvert
SAJ-2015-03343
and
Monroe County
#83
Rock Harbor, between
Organic Removal and
SAJ-2016-01918
Grouper Lane and Cuda
Backfill
(SP-MIB)
Lane
El
Monroe County Canal Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Participating
Canal
Location
Technology
Permit Number
entity
Number
Monroe County
#75
Key Largo, between Ocean
Backfilling
SAJ-2017-00605
Drive and Coral Way
NW-MIB
Village of
#145
Lower Matecumbe, Cortez
Air Curtain
Not Available
Islamorada
Drive
Village of
#148
Lower Matecumbe, Sea
Air Curtain
SAJ-2016-02776
Islamorada
Lane
GP-MIB
Village of
#132
Plantation Key, North Drive
Injection Well
Under Review
Islamorada
City of Marathon
#221/#222
Marathon, 89t" Street
Culvert
Not Available
City of Marathon
#256
Marathon, Calle Ensueno
Maintenance
Under Review
Dredging / Mangrove
Trimming
City of Marathon
#257
Marathon, Spoonbill Drive
Culvert / Berm Break
SAJ-2018-01783
1.1.1 Restoration Success Evaluation
As part of the Canal Restoration Demonstration Program, Florida International University (FIU)
assessed the effectiveness of the various technologies implemented by Monroe County and its
partners by comparing treated canals against nearby, unaltered controls over a period of three
years. The Canal Restoration Demonstration Program effectiveness studies were performed by
FIU's Seagrass Ecosystems Research Laboratory and Southeast Environmental Research
Center. A total of 19 canals were included in the Water Quality Monitoring Project for
Demonstration of Canal Remediation Methods. For 18 of the 19 canals involved in the monitoring
project, there were designated experimental controls that included adjacent canals of similar
dimensions and orientation. The studies began prior to the installation of the first technologies in
2014. The list of canals along with their location and designated technological remediation method
are presented in Table 2.
Seagrass Ecosystems Research Laboratory (Biological and Benthic Conditions)
The 2018 study by FIU's Seagrass Ecosystems Research Laboratory title Status of Residential
Canal Benthic Habitats in the Florida Keys and the Effectiveness of Remediation Technologies
(Project Report) monitored the effectiveness of restoration technologies by using organisms such
as seagrass, macro -algae, and fish as indicators of success. In addition to discussing the
prevalence of biological organisms, the project report also includes a discussion regarding the
source and composition of the accumulated organic material in the canal bottoms.
Southeast Environmental Research Center (Water Quality Monitoring)
The Southeast Environmental Research Center studied the effects of restoration technologies on
meeting State of Florida water quality standards. The Southeast Environmental Research
Center's 2018 study titled, The Water Quality Monitoring Project for Demonstration of Canal
Remediation Methods: Florida Keys, documented FIU's efforts at developing a monitoring
program that could determine the effectiveness of the restoration technologies at improving canal
water quality.
A summary of the effectiveness studies completed by FIU's Seagrass Ecosystems Research
Laboratory and Southeast Environmental Research Center is provided in Section 4.0 of this
document.
5
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Table 2: List of Demonstration Project Success Monitoring Canals
Canal ID
Location
Description
Technology
Completed
29
Key Largo
Demo
Backfilling
Yes
28
Key Largo
Control for 29
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
137
Plantation
Demo
Weed Gate
Yes
132
Plantation
Control for 137
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
148
Lower Matecumbe
Demo
Weed Gate
Yes
147
Lower Matecumbe
Control for 148
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
266
Big Pine
Demo
Organic Removal +
Weed Gate
Yes
263
Big Pine
Control for 266
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
277
Big Pine
Demo
Culvert
Yes
282
Big Pine
Control for 277
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
278
Big Pine
Demo
Pumping
No
287
Big Pine
Demo
Air curtain
Yes
288
Big Pine
Control for 287
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
290
Big Pine
Demo
Organic Removal +
Air Curtain
Yes
293
Big Pine
Control for 290
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
459
Geiger
Demo
Culvert
No
458
Geiger
Control for 459
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
472
Geiger
Demo
Culvert
Yes
476
Geiger
Control for 472
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
1.2 Purpose and Need of This Document
This guidance document was produced as the final deliverable for Monroe County in support of
EPA Grant No. OOD83418. As previously referenced, Monroe County as well as, the Village of
Islamorada and the City of Marathon, beginning in 2014, have implemented a series of technology
driven demonstration projects focused on the restoration of water quality in residential canals.
The purpose of this document is to establish a framework for the selection and implementation of
canal restoration projects and identify aspects of the program that can be improved so that the
initiative can take fullest advantage of the limited funding resources available.
Currently, each canal proposed for restoration is presented to the Water Quality Protection
Program Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee for their approval. Upon acceptance of this
guidance document by the WQPP, proposed canal restoration projects will no long need to be
presented to the WQPP or the Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee for their concurrence.
Due to the number of canals that could potentially be restored and technical aspects of the
restorations, and the requirements to allocate and spend certain funds within a set timeframe;
upon acceptance of this document, the County and municipalities will be able to move forward
with canal restoration projects in a more efficient manner.
Document Approval
On November 13, 2019, this guidance document received approval from the WQPP Steering
Committee. In order to maintain consistency and transparency with the program's public outreach
and community engagement, this document upon finalization shall be made available to the public
through Monroe County's Canal Restoration website.
N.
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
Revision of Framework Agreement
This guidance document will be in effect once approved by the EPA. The guidance may be
reviewed/updated at the request of any municipality or entity that has agreed to adhere to the
recommendations and principals outlined in this document.
7
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
2.0 CANAL RESTORATION APPROVAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Policy/Concept
The Monroe County Canal Water Quality Restoration Program has established under the auspice
of the FKNMS WQPP a set of guiding principles geared toward improving canal water quality
while ensuring no degradation of the FKNMS and the residential communities of the Florida Keys.
2.2 Program Obligations
1. Restoration projects should strive to address existing pollution in canals and should utilize
methods that do not result in water quality impacts to groundwater or nearshore waters;
2. Comply with all applicable Federal, state and local environmental laws, statutes,
regulations and other environmental requirements;
3. Contractors shall endeavor to protect water quality beyond what is described in the
applicable permit conditions;
4. Assess potential environmental impacts associated with the design, construction and
operation prior to commencing work;
5. Minimize solid waste generation and the potential release of pollutants into the
environment first through source reduction, secondarily through reuse and recycling, and
finally through treatment and disposal;
6. Maintain policies and processes for the safe and efficient use, tracking, storage and
disposal of materials and waste products;
7. Strive to obtain the best value by considering life cycle environmental impacts along with
cost and functional performance of the restoration technologies;
8. Reduce resource consumption by eliminating wasteful practices and promoting efficient
use, and by evaluating and implementing feasible and practical conservation measures;
and
9. Maintain a working relationship with stakeholders.
2.2.1 Regulatory Driver
The FKRAD was approved by the FDEP for Nutrients in 2008 and provided to the EPA in February
2009. The FKRAD was updated in 2017 for two major reasons:
�:3
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
• To provide the status of the management activities defined in the original RAD, and
• To address DO impairments in certain segments or Water Body ID's (WBIDs) in the Florida
Keys.
It is expected that the Nutrient FKRAD will support placement of the Florida Keys in category 4b
for nutrients (i.e., impaired but a TMDL is not required because the waterbody will attain the
narrative nutrient criterion as a result of completed or proposed measures as part of an approved
Reasonable Assurance) and support placement of the DO impaired segments in category 4e (i.e.,
impaired but recently completed or ongoing management activities are underway to restore the
water body). Surface water quality criteria for the State of Florida can be found at Florida
Department of State website: Ihtf s:ff .fllirulles.oir f atewa flf�ullelNo.as tiitlle SUIf�If Acil::::::%
p..................I......................................................................................................................g.......g..........................................y........................ ................................... .................p.................................................................................................................................
20WA 111::::If�%2Q�OUAII.....II I X%20S I AINIC:�AIf�IC:�S II IC:� Q� .� Q�. If the waterbodies not meeting the
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
DO water quality standard do not show improvement in subsequent assessments, TMDLs may
be needed to specifically address DO. However, the implementation of this program could be
sufficient to either update the FKRAD to address DO, not just nutrients, or maintain the
assessment category 4e designation.
2.2.2 Program Compliance
The concepts and policies detailed herein were included to ensure that entities who endeavor to
abide by the principles listed in this document are able to successfully implement canal restoration
projects.
2.2.3 Feasibility of Project Implementation
It is recommended that before any entity proceeds with their initial canal restoration they conduct
a feasibility analysis of their management processes to ensure their capacity to review proposed
projects, manage the implementation of canal restoration technologies, monitor the success of
canal restoration projects post restoration, and fund the construction and operations and
maintenance. The steps are detailed in Table 3.
Table 3: Feasibility checklist for potential canal restoration partners
Managerial Steps
Participating Entity's Responsibilities
Project Selection
Verify the water quality in the proposed canal is degraded and needs improvement
through the implementation of restoration technologies.
Document the source of impairment.
Identify why the selected restoration technology will improve water quality
Technical Review of
Documentation
Maintain staff or technical consultants that are qualified to evaluate the perspective
restoration technologies
Site Access
Confirm homeowners are willing to sign access agreements.
Canal Ownership
Confirm who "owns" by right the canal to be restored. Ownership varies throughout the
County.
Funding
Verify funding for the design and permitting, restoration, and operations and
maintenance.
Operations and
Maintenance
The responsible entity for the operations and maintenance of the proposed restoration
shall be a viable party for the entire Iifec cle of the project.
Roles and Responsibilities
Identify and clarify the roles and responsibilities of all participating partners,
participatinq entity, and project approvers.
Cost Analysis
Documentation
Establish long-range costs and document within the funding plan the performance
standard to be achieved and maintained.
9
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
2.2.4 Framework Acceptance
The framework or policy recommendations outlined in this document do not constitute a contract.
However, adherence to the principals detailed herein establish an intent to follow established
methods and protocols previously reviewed by the FKNMS WQPP Canal Sub -committee and
implemented by the Florida Keys Canal Water Quality Restoration Program.
2.2.5 Public Engagement and Participation
Stakeholder engagement is the basis for building strong, constructive, and responsive
relationships that are essential for the successful management of a project. The Florida Keys
Canal Restoration Program and its participating partners shall be willing to work collaboratively
with peoples living within the geographic vicinity of a proposed canal restoration.
Monroe County and municipalities have hosted a series of public meetings designed to engage
the public at every step in the development of the Canal Restoration Program. As part of US EPA
Grant #OOD26914, Monroe County in 2015 administered an outreach program that actively
engaged the public and regulatory community. The outreach program was comprised of three
public presentations held at community centers in the upper, middle, and lower keys. As a follow
to the March 2015 presentations, Monroe County in August 2015 hosted on -site educational
seminars at two active canal restoration projects. Since the completion of the outreach program
in 2015, the public has remained engaged in the development of the program through the Canal
Restoration Advisory Subcommittee meetings and County hosted workshops. Additionally,
Monroe County, FL has created a webpage devoted solely to canal restoration. The website
assists interested parties by presenting the programs latest developments and provides a library
of materials associated with the programs development. Additionally, the canal restoration
website provides links to canal focused scientific resources and databases.
I� !I...I..::.f...f..................................::.ni iniroec u�i ..y::::. ll..::.0.2rf fQgJn a.1::::.lfe slair iia i
Input in the completion of this document is key to continuing the canal restoration program's long
term strategy of working with residents, municipalities, and stakeholders who have an interest in
ensuring that the water quality in the residential canals remain compliant with the state water
quality standards.
2.3 Determining Project Applicability
It is recommended that each participating entity appoint an authorized representative (i.e.
program manager) that will be in charge of approving their program's canal restorations. The
appointed representative from the entity shall identify and review potential canal restoration
projects. Determining the applicability of a project starts with building strong, constructive, and
responsive relationship with the project's designated sponsor, key stakeholders and subject
matter experts. Establishing a comprehensive understanding of the program is key to managing
scope and expectations based on current and future funding levels.
2.3.1 Management Structure
Consistent with the policy and the objectives and principles described herein, it is recommended
that the participating entity establish a management program complete with project managers,
10
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
coordinators, and planners that will be responsible for reviewing and evaluating the validity of
perspective canal restoration projects.
2.3.2 Staff
Team members shall be able to perform the actions in a competent and efficient manner.
Personnel within the participating entity with direct responsibility for the project's approval and
performance will have the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to perform their work,
including current knowledge of the regulatory requirements. Personnel will also possess the
knowledge, skills, and experience to implement the specific measures and actions required under
this guidance document.
2.3.3 Roles and Responsibilities
It is recommended that participating entities' align their canal restoration policies with this
guidance document and that participating entities provide annual updates to WQPP and
representative public on the status of restoration projects. Charting the relationships of various
partners can clarify the appropriate roles and responsibilities for project implementation. This
example (Table 4) of a potential Monroe County project demonstrates the complexity of roles and
responsibilities of canal restoration in general. It is recommended that the work flow process
(2.3.1) include similar details.
Table 4: Work flow process and roles and responsibilities
Partners Roles Documentation
Funding Operations Oversight Tools
EPA Grants
Florida DEP Grants
USACE
FKNMS
SFWMD
State
Legislature
Homeowners
Adjacent to
Canals
Monroe
County or
Participating
Entity
Technical Assistance Regulations
Technical Assistance Regulations/Permit
s
Not Applicable
Project Authorization
Permitting
Not Applicable
Project Authorization
Permitting
Not Applicable
Project Authorization
_
Permitting
Appropriation
Define
responsibilities and
Terms in
Legislation
authority
• Taxes
• Fees
• Special
Assessments
• Special Tax
District oversight
• Special
assessments
• User fee
management
• Budget
management
• Maintenance of
treatment systems,
• Inspections,
• Volunteer clean up
• Capital Program
Management for
Restoration
• Annual Inspection
• Emergency
Management for
extreme weather
hazard
Inspection reports
• Ordinances
• MOA with
homeowners
• Inspections and
enforcement
• Implementation
of design,
• Grant Awards, Grant
Report Audits, Permits
• Grant Awards,
• Grant Reports
• Audits, Permits
• Clean Water Act 404d
Permit
• Special Use Permit
• ERP
• Adopted bills; funds
management tools
• Memorandums of
Agreement;
• Preventative
Maintenance Plans,
• Special Assessment
Rolls
• Annual reports on canal
restoration progress
• Annual reports on
enforcement
11
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
• Grant application • Public education permitting, and
construction
The participating entity, in collaboration with appropriate and relevant third parties, will establish,
maintain, and strengthen as necessary an organizational structure that defines roles,
responsibilities, and authority to implement this guidance document. Specific personnel, including
management representative(s), with clear lines of responsibility and authority should be
designated. Key environmental and social responsibilities should be well defined and
communicated to the relevant personnel and to the rest of the participating entity's organization.
2.3.4 Risks, Impacts, and Technical Review Analysis
The process of identifying risks and impacts will consist of an adequate, accurate, and objective
evaluation and presentation of the proposed canal restoration project, prepared by competent
professionals. For projects posing potential impacts to infrastructure and the environment, or
where technically complex issues are involved, participating entities may need to involve external
experts to assist in the risks and impacts identification process.
The extent of project review required for each proposed canal restoration should give due
consideration to the complexity of the subject matter and relevance of the proposed restoration.
The program manager shall assign one or more individuals, sufficiently knowledgeable in the
relevant field, to provide technical review (if required) for a proposed project. The program
manager may assign the technical review to themselves, if they have sufficient background in the
scientific subject of the work, and if the complexity, potential controversy and significance of the
work do not warrant broader review. The project coordinator for the respective entity shall make
recommendations to the program manager regarding approval or disapproval based on the
information provided by the project sponsor.
It is recommended that the technical reviewers document issues with proposed canal restoration
projects, including any pertinent details. Additionally, it is recommended that staff document the
process by which the issue was resolved. If the participating entity determines that knowledge of
the issue and solution would benefit the Florida Keys Canal Restoration Program partners, they
should feel free to communicate their lesson learned with the program's participants.
2.4 Determining Project Affordability
Canal restoration projects represent a major long-term investment on the part of the participating
entity. It is imperative, the costs of doing so are fully understood as early in project planning
process as possible. While a participating entity may have sufficient funds to implement a canal
restoration project, they may not have sufficient funds or funding mechanisms necessary to
maintain the project long-term. It may be that the future costs ultimately affect the overall financial
viability of project. The key to conducting a meaningful cost analysis of a canal restorations life
cycle is to identify and quantify all costs associated with a canal restoration project. This includes
an evaluation of the initial implementation costs as well as, those that occur throughout the life of
the project. The common approach is to select a time horizon based on the needs of the project
or community and to factor in replacement costs. For canal restoration projects in particular, the
life of the project could be in perpetuity; however, in the case of infrastructure projects, a time
frame of 10 or 15 years is commonly used based on past experience with various technologies.
12
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
One way of accurately estimating all costs over the life of the project is to determine the initial
costs and the future costs. Initial costs comprise all planning, acquisition, and labor costs needed
to implement the canal restoration project. The future costs may include but not be limited to costs
for energy, financing, O&M, and replacement costs. A key component of predicting the long-term
costs associated with a restoration project is understanding inflationary pressures such as how
energy costs and replacement costs might increase.
In determining project affordability, the key is to identify the
full range of costs over time and to arrive at an estimate of
cash flows out (expenses related to the system) and cash
flows in (energy savings, taxes related to the service, HOA
fees, etc.) for each year over the life of the project. It is
recommended that when developing a conceptual
restoration plan, the participating entity begin questioning
and comparing equipment vendors on the capital and
operating costs of equipment and services they provide.
Example budgetary planning sheets from typical restoration
projects are provided as Appendix A.
2.4.1 Predicting Costs in the Future
If a particular restoration technology requires O&M or has a
high replacement cost, it is important for the participating
entity to understand how those aspects of the project
management would affect not only the affordability of the
Ii,'Y Ih.r ii crap a„,ea;.-, I o r,a IC.iio u,,,t costs:,
• Labor costs (internal staff,
consultants, contractors,
etc.);
• Design (Engineers);
• Potential equipment:
culverts, diffusers, pumps,
control boxes, etc.);
• Fill material and disposal
costs; and
project and but the levels funding support necessary beyond
its implementation costs. Furthermore, if a participating entity is not able to permit and construct
a project within a year or two of the projects conceptual development, project costs must take into
account the actual implementation timeline in order to, plan for adequate sources of funding,
inflation impacts, and other project expenses that would be incurred during the year of
construction (whether it is 3, 5, or 10 years from now). To assist in controlling costs, one option is
to get a vendor under contract during the planning stage and seek out price guarantees. It is
important to develop models that predict future project costs (construction, O&M, replacement,
energy, etc.) and to update the models periodically to address how supporting revenues need to
be adjusted as well. While using the value today's dollars and prices in predicting future costs is
often done, it is recommended that participating entities adjust their future cost predictions for
inflation.
There are a host of ways to estimate inflation. One is to look at established cost or price indices
as a starting point for your estimate. The Consumer Price Index, is often use to calculate the
"inflation" rate. However, there are also industry standards that are useful for determining how
inflation can affect future construction costs. A method that specifically applies to capital
infrastructure projects is the Construction Cost Index (CCI). The CCI is calculated by
Engineering News -Record and tracks the change in price for a specific combination of
construction labor, steel, concrete, cement and lumber using data from 20 cities across the United
States. The price for this combination of construction labor and materials is probably much closer
to the actual costs that a participating entity may pay for its canal restoration projects. NOTE: Due
13
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
to the remoteness of the Florida Keys, costs associated with deliveries and mobilizations may be
under represented.
2.4.2 Repair and Replacement Costs
Vital to the long-term success of a canal restoration program is the responsibility of a participating
entity to clearly identify the process for both a system's operation and maintenance as well as,
how repair and replacement (R&R) issues would be handled beyond a technology's construction
and installation. This includes how replacement costs will be planned for in case of a catastrophic
event or extreme weather phenomenon. This includes where repair and replace funds come from,
and how such funds would be distributed. As noted above, whether the long-term O&M is funded
through an instrument such as a Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) or an HOA fee, the taxes
or fees would need to be adjusted over time to account for inflation. If the need for replacement
is associated with a Presidential Disaster Declaration, costs for replacement may be recouped
through the Public Assistance and Individual Assistance programs authorized by the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
2.5 Recommended Selection Process
These guiding principles and processes shall not be construed as regulations issued by a
governing body but rather an advisory process that ensures that participating entities are
conducting the programs in alignment with the Canal Restoration Program. Proposed restoration
projects should be submitted for review to the participating entities program manager for project
approval. It is recommended that the program manager for a participating entity serve as the point
of contact between the participating entity and the WQPP on any updates involving current and
future projects.
2.5.1 Workflow process
The initial request for review shall contain these elements:
• A brief overview of the project work from the feasibility
analysis,
• A justification statement for the project request,
• Goals and Objectives (what is the purpose of doing the
work),
• Name of the Project Sponsor,
• Scope of Work,
• Partnership roles, responsibilities and involvement,
• Verification of canal ownership,
• Commitment of the canal adjacent property owners to grant access,
• Initial estimated cost,
14
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
• Long-term operations plan, and
• Identified funding source with request approval from the Annual Budget process if
applicable.
2.5.2 Oversight
Oversight is essential to ensuring a canal restoration's
success, as well as proper stewardship of the
community's resources. Management oversight of the
selection, review, and implementation of restoration
projects will be the responsibility the performing entity
and it's appointed representative. It is recommended
that the participating entity develop the following
processes:
Establish a compliance program to ensure
proper engineering systems and budget
controls,
Image 4: WQPP Canal restoration scoping
meeting
• Regularly evaluate the operations and maintenance of a canal restoration; and
• Ensure that the participating entity can financially support the long-term operations and
management.
2.5.3 Record Keeping and Reporting
Each participating entity will be responsible for providing the FKNMS WQPP with updates on the
status of canal restoration projects they have chosen to implement. This could be through either
updates from the participating entities at WQPP meetings or through emailed communications
(e.g. newsletters, website updates, etc.) to the WQPP members. All monitoring data collected by
participating entities will be made available to stakeholders should they request information on
the success of said projects.
15
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood•
December 12, 2019
3.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF CANAL RESTORATION PROJECTS
Establishing the cost of canal restoration is dependent upon several key factors including but not
limited to the following:
1) The current water quality condition of the proposed canal;
2) The suitability of restoration technologies to address the documented water quality issues,
3) Issues related to the ease of permitting,
4) The willingness of adjacent homeowners to provide financial support;
5) Landowner willingness to grant access to the participating entity for the restoration of the
canal;
6) The availability of sufficient grants or other funding to share in the cost of the restoration;
and
7) Willingness and operational capacity of the homeowners or homeowners association to
maintain the canal once restored.
Each of the above referenced variables and others not listed impact the ability to implement
restorations as well as, maintain the canal once the restoration is complete.
The process used by the Monroe County Canal Restoration Program and its participating partners
to select canals for restoration is outlined in Appendix B. The technical discussion describes the
ranking process developed as part of CMMP, provides a list of considerations that should be
addressed early in the planning process, and presents a list of criteria that can be used to guide
the participating entity towards which canal is most suitable for restoration.
3.1 CMMP and Demonstration Program Canal Restoration Technologies
Monroe County has developed a comprehensive canal attribute table that contains specific
information detailing the physical characteristics of each canal located within the County (i.e. size,
shape, depth, etc.). The restoration technologies completed as part of the Monroe County
Demonstration Program and the following Phase II of the CMMP focused on improving dissolved
oxygen concentrations and addressing the lack of canal 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;
• Backfilling to prevent occurrence of deep stagnant zones; and
• Capping which is used to encase organic sediments.
The following section provides a brief description of each of the above listed technologies along
with the type of canal conditions where the technology is most applicable.
16
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
3.1.1 Weed Gates/Air Curtains/Physical Barriers
Technology Description
L"A ?* M**
Weed gates can be either comprised of mechanical devices or air curtains that physically block
seaweed from passing through the device's barrier. Weed gates are designed to prevent floating,
wind -driven flotsam (i.e. organic debris) from entering and accumulating in man-made canals where
it typically sinks and fouls the water. A number of the existing
homeowner groups have installed weed gates that 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 into the canal. The gate
swings open when applied with slight pressure to allow
access for boat traffic. An alternative design is a static 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
Image 5: Weed gate (bubble curtain) 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.
Although homeowner constructed weed barriers have been shown to be effective, the
demonstration program evaluated the effectiveness of air curtains which are less likely to become
an obstruction to boat traffic, require less maintenance, and more easily permitted. The air curtain
developed as part of the demonstration program relied upon a series of diffusers and pumps that
create a continuous bubble curtain which impedes the migration of seaweed into the canal under
normal weather conditions. The components of the system are placed along the canal bottom at
the mouth of the canal and at a depth that is sufficient to create a strong bubble curtain. The depth
of the diffusers should be such that the typical draft of canal -stored vessels can clear the system
without incident.
System components of the air curtains consist of air
hoses, air emitters (aka diffusers), and a regenerative
blower. A staging area and a power supply (electric or
solar panel) for the regenerative blower are required. A
comprehensive operation and maintenance plan is
required to ensure continued effective operation.
Application
Image 6: Bubble curtain control panel
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.
Lesson Learned
The following considerations should be given when proposing a weed gate/air curtain project:
17
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
LWA T*79n*
• If the compressors and distribution manifold are placed too close residences, noise from
the system may become a nuisance;
• The control system and pumps should be placed at an elevation that reduces the likelihood
of flooding;
• It is recommended that discussions with homeowners regarding "private property access"
and "approval to place equipment" agreements begin before moving forward with the
design phase; and
• Due to shallow entrances into the canal, navigation issues associated with the placement
of equipment should take into consideration draft requirements for the canal's vessels.
3.1.2 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. Organic 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 difficult, although possible under certain
circumstances. 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 Image 7:
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, space limitations in the residential
canal neighborhoods require an alternative method to dewater the dredged material such as geo-
tubes or mechanical dewatering presses. 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 decanted from the dredged material. Mechanical dewater systems use pressure to separate
the water from the organic sediments. 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.
Application
Hydraulic dredge removing sediments
Monroe County has conducted a Keys -wide bathymetry survey which provided approximate soft
sediment thickness data for the canals evaluated in the 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
18
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
potentially suitable canals. Good candidates for organic removal are canals that have had
significant accumulations such that the canal bathymetry doesn't support the implementation of a
capping project.
Lessons Learned
It is recommended that any canal that undergoes organic removal due to the migration of seaweed
also include the installation of an air curtain or similar weed barrier to prevent future degradation
as part of the restoration process. Additional lessons learned include the following:
• As a result of the Florida Keys receiving the designation of Outstanding Florida Waters
(OFW), the applicant (i.e. participating entity) will need to be prepared to address polymer
residual and toxicity concerns in their Environmental Resource Permit application;
• Due to the space needed to accommodate the equipment used in the dewatering process,
it is recommended that the participating entity consider canals where vacant lots exist and
private property approvals are likely to occur;
• The participating entity should consider the amount of time the canal will be closed and what
impact that may have on the canal's residents; and
• The results of the effectiveness studies indicated that in areas where muck was built up
outside of the canal, upon implementation of the restoration technology, muck sloughed
back down into the canal. The regulations associated with the removal of muck from outside
the canal are very prohibitive in nature.
3.1.3 Canal Backfilling
Technology Description
Canal backfilling would be performed in order to decrease the depth of a canal to promote flushing
and reduce/eliminate stratification. Prior studies have indicated that approximately only the upper 6
feet 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
Canals with an average canal bottom depth greater than 10 feet may be candidates for backfilling.
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.
Lesson Learned
19
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
LWA T*79n*
Participating entities should consider the following lessons learned when proposing a backfill
Droiect:
In order to document existing conditions, it
is recommended that the participating entity
collect detailed pre and post construction
video of property attributes located along the
canal as well as, the properties located
along the proposed traffic route through the
neighborhood;
• Confirm that there will be sufficient space
available to stage equipment and materials
needed for a backfill project;
• It is recommended that discussions with
homeowners regarding "private property
access" and "approval to place equipment"
agreements begin before moving forward
with the design phase;
All
Image 8: Placement of fill material into deepwater
canal
• The participating entity should consider the amount of time the canal will be closed and what
impact that may have on the canal's residents; and
• Backfill projects require the delivery of large amounts of fill material that are transported to
the site via dump trucks. This process can result in traffic impacts to residents as the trucks
enter and exit the project area.
3.1.4 Culvert Installation
Technology Description
Culverts can be installed 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. Hydraulic studies by
qualified engineers need to be performed to confirm
that the correct type and size culvert is proposed.
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.
Image 9: Culvert installation
It is recommended and often required that culverts are equipped with manatee grates to prevent
entry of wildlife or humans. Culverts are prone to clogging and require routine maintenance.
Application
20
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
LWA T*79n*
Installation of a flushing culvert is recommended if it is apparent that a connection between a canal
and another canal 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.
Lesson Learned
Participating entities should consider the following lessons learned when proposing a culvert
project:
• It is recommended that the installation of a culvert be coupled with the construction of an air
curtain to prevent the unwanted migration of seaweed;
• Homeowners may become concerned with the increased movement of debris (e.g. sea
weed) through the canal as tidal flow into and out of the system increases;
• As a result of the land disturbance requirements for the installation of culverts, private
property approvals are key; and
• The installation of culverts requires the use of heavy equipment. The participating entity
should confirm early on in the selection process that there will sufficient staging area
available.
3.1.5 Alternative Technologies
To provide additional options for treatment to the eutrophic and hypoxic waters in Florida Keys
residential canals, Monroe County under EPA Grant No. X7-OOD40915-0 evaluated potentially
cost-effective passive and low -energy technologies. Technologies evaluated include seagrass
planting, macro -algae farming, oyster aquaculture, floating mangrove islands and bioremediation.
Alternative technologies were evaluated based on development status (research, pilot study, and
large scale implementation), effectiveness, ease of Implementation and permitting, footprint and
homeowner disruption, and cost.
The desktop study and technology evaluation showed best alternatives for Florida Keys residential
canals are:
• Macro -algae farming: primarily
due to macro -algae tolerance to
highly eutrophic waters, the
ability to introduce them at
different locations in the water
column to take advantage of
limited light on highly turbid
canals, their quick cultivation
time (45-60days), and their high
biomass demand which can
offset the maintenance cost;
and
• Floating mangrove islands: primarily due to the well documented ability of mangrove
plants to filter water and the high success expectation for this technology.
21
Monroe County Canal Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Unfortunately, the above reference technologies have not been proven and are not recommended
for use through the Monroe County Canal Restoration Program.
Monroe County and its partners continue to evaluate alternative technologies that can be cost
effectively implemented. One such technology that have been effectively implement is capping.
As other technologies are proven useful in improving water quality, they will be added to future
revisions of this Canal Restoration Guidance document.
Capping
Technology Description
Capping would be performed to decrease the depth of a canal to promote flushing and
reduce/eliminate stratification. Clean fill material is placed in a canal using an excavator to
effectively bury the organics and prevent the consumption of oxygen from the water column.
Application
Canals with a soft sediment thickness greater than 0.75 feet and water depth greater than 10 feet
are considered potentially suitable for capping. Additional site -specific information such as
percent organic content will be necessary to verify potentially suitable canals. Good candidates
for capping are canals that have a significant amount of organics accumulated on the canal bottom
but not so significant that the canals requires the removal of organics to ensure that stable
bathymetry persists. It is recommended that during the project design phase the appropriate
gradation of fill material is determined through an evaluation of sediment cores to ensure that gas
does not get trapped as the material is placed on the canal bottom.
Lesson Learned
The lessons learned presented for the backfilling apply to capping projects.
3.2 Identification and Acquisition of Canal Restoration Funds
Attainment of sufficient project funding is one of the most challenging steps in any restoration
project. Multiple federal and state grant programs from the FDEP and EPA 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 applied
to the various canal restoration techniques. It is recommended that agency managers for each
grant program be contacted in advance to confirm the funds can be applied to restoration projects
and determine what types of submittals increase the likelihood of a successful proposal.
3.2.1 Grant Application Requirements
The project owner or participating entity seeking additional funds should be prepared to provide
the agency (i.e. grantor) with sufficient information about the proposed project. Applicants need
to describe in detail the extent of the existing problem and how what the municipality (or similar
entity) is proposing to address the water quality problem. The following terms defined below are
commonly used in funding applications.
22
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
• Project Description: The applicant should be able to briefly describe why they are
requesting funding and what type of project is being proposed;
• Project Location Details: The location of the proposed canal restoration project.
Information should include the canals geographic location expressed in terms of
geographic coordinates (i.e. latitudes and longitudes) as well as local street address
(state, city, and cross streets);
• Description of the type of project proposed for funding: The description should
explain in detail what type of canal restoration technology is being performed and why it
applies to the perspective canal;
• Project Objective: Typically the main objective will be to enhance water quality, while
secondary objectives might include preventing the migration of seaweed into a canal;
Project -plan is to promote the efficient,
organized,and timely completion of the project accordingand contract
requirements. A project work plan for the purpose of a grant application will have sufficient
details regarding what is being planned and what protocols must be met to complete the
• Project Budget: While the application may not require an itemized budget, the total cost
to deliver a completed project must be determined prior to providing the project budget in
the grant application;
• Applicant Matching Amount: Matching grants are an effective means of funding canal
restoration projects, especially those with active community support. The concept of a
matching grant is simple. State or local governments designate funds to go to particular
types of projects. Local municipalities or various organizations within the community can
then develop project proposals and apply for the grant. If accepted, the granting entity
(e.g. state or local government) will match the applicant's (e.g. municipality or
organizations) contribution to the project, generally at a 1:1 or 2:1 match, but it could be
set up for any level of match;
Cooperating Partners/Match: It is also important
to note that community labor and materials, not
just financial donations, count towards the
matching grant donation. Thus, neighborhood
groups that have time, but not money to donate,
can still apply for grants, giving them an effective
way to fund local improvement projects;
Project Milestones: Milestones are tools used in
project management to mark specific points along a project timeline. These points may
signal anchors such as a project start and end date, a need for external review or input
and budget checks, among others. In many instances, milestones do not impact project
duration. With regards to the restoration of canals, project milestones might be the posting
of the construction bid documents (i.e. request for proposal); and
23
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
• Project Deliverables: Typical deliverables associated with canal restoration projects are
design plans and permits but a deliverable could be any report or documentation that
indicates that tangible progress has been made.
3.2.2 Information Necessary to Complete Applications
Specific forms are required for many of the applications to provide specific details about how the
information must be formatted. Generally, however, the information requested is very similar
among grant programs. Project information can be obtained largely from the information provided
from the descriptions developed for each restoration technology. More detailed information such
as project milestones and deliverables will need to be developed from the project information as
it becomes 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 needs to determine the amount of matching funds and cooperating
partners' contributions available for their respective project. As noted above, requirements for
funding match can vary from 0% to 50%, and additional points may be awarded for providing
more than the minimum amount. Community involvement and benefit is also generally
encouraged and will need to be considered when completing the applications. Most applications
require only conceptual plans and a reasonably well -developed budget
3.2.3 Restore Act Funding
The "Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies
of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE) dedicates 80 percent of all administrative and
civil penalties related to the Deepwater Horizon spill to a Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust
Fund) and outlines a structure by which the funds can be utilized to restore and protect the natural
resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal wetlands, and
economy of the Gulf Coast region (Image 11). The U.S. Department of the Treasury is responsible
for issuing compliance and auditing procedures for the entire Act and procedures for two grant
programs administered by Treasury.
The passage of the RESTORE Act provides significant federal funding to accomplish a multitude
of projects geared toward Keys canal water quality improvements. There are multiple RESTORE
Act funding sources that could potentially be used for canal restoration projects.
Within Florida, the FDEP is in charge of evaluating and approving funding for projects. In an effort
to obtain funds for canal water quality restoration, Monroe County has previously submitted to the
FDEP a request for funds titled "Monroe County Canal and Stormwater Water Quality
Improvements." The aforementioned request has been granted and is actively providing funds for
canal restoration projects.
An additional source of funds related to the RESTORE Act are associated with a local allocation
of funds referred to as the "Local Pot." 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.
24
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
3.2.4 Florida Keys Stewardship Act
The Florida Keys Environmental Stewardship Act was passed by the Florida State Legislature
and signed into law in 2016. The law secures a recurring set -aside of Florida Forever funding for
state land acquisition in the Florida Keys. In addition, it supports state appropriations for water
quality projects in the Florida Keys, and expands the types of water projects eligible for state
funding. The Florida Keys Stewardship Act (FKSA), authorized use of funds for canal restoration
amongst other types of water quality improvement projects. The ultimate authorization and annual
appropriation amounts depend upon what our total need is and how much we can reasonably
spend in a year, and in continued consultation with the local governments and with House
*5upp0ennpnted by
interest generated by the IEME=
Trust.. fund (50% RESTORE
Council, 25°i Science
Program, 2,5°%COE)
35%
30%
30%
2.5% 2.5%
Image 11: Allocation of the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (source: restorethegulf.gov).
leadership (Monroe County, 2018). In 2018 alone, the Florida Legislature approved $5 million for
water quality projects in Monroe County.
3.3 Engineering Design Requirements
The engineering design process is a methodical series of steps that engineers use in creating
functional products and processes. Among the fundamental elements of the design process are
the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis of conceptual solutions, analysis of
alternative designs, construction, testing, and evaluation. For projects located in environmental
sensitive areas, professional scientists familiar with the project area perform complementary
studies that provide guidance to the design engineers and permitting professionals so that
potential impacts to protected resources can be either minimized or eliminated. The following
subsections describe the design process as it was developed during the Monroe County Canal
Demonstration Program.
25
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
3.3.1 Data Acquisition
Prior to the design and permitting of a canal restoration project,
field engineering and ecological surveys of the canal should be
performed in order to determine existing conditions of the
hydrologic, structural, and ecological environments. Although
each of the restoration technologies may require the same type
of survey, the extent to which a study is required is based on the
proposed technology and its anticipated footprint. Additionally,
the results of the aforementioned surveys will guide engineers in
determining the applicability. The following describes each of the
studies typically required for canal restoration projects:
LWA ?* M**
Bathymetric Survey: Bathymetric surveys allow engineers and
designers the ability to measure) the depth of a waterbody as well
as, map the underwater features of a waterbody. Multiple
methods can be used for bathymetric surveys including multi -
beam and single -beam surveys, acoustic Doppler current
profilers (ADCPs), sub -bottom profilers, and the Ecomapper Image 12: Survey equipment
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle. Bathymetric surveys can be used for the collection of
used for many different types of research including flood bathymetric data
inundation, contour of streams and reservoirs, leakage, scour and stabilization, water -quality
studies, dam removal, biological and spill, and storage and fill in reservoirs and ponds (USGS,
2018). Bathymetric surveys are used by designers of canal restoration projects for the following:
• Bathymetric surveys provide designers with canal bottom elevations so that it can
determined how much fill material needs to be added to a canal to achieve the prescribed
depth necessary to improve water quality.
• Canal bottom elevations are also used by engineers for culvert or air curtain projects. The
information is need to determine to what depth a culvert should be placed to improve canal
flushing and how the arrangement of diffusers used in the creation of an air curtain should
be placed in order to prevent seaweed from entering into the canal.
Topographic Survey: A Topographic survey is a survey that gathers data about the elevation of
points on a piece of land and documents the elevations as contour lines. The purpose of a
topographic survey is to collect data about the natural and man-made features of the land, and
its elevations.
Depth and Condition Surveys of Existing Seawalls: The evaluation of canal seawalls is done
to better understanding the existing condition of the seawall so the engineers can protect against
designing a project that will negatively impact residences within the project area. Seawalls are
constructed from a variety of materials such as, reinforced concrete, boulders, steel, gabions,
vinyl, wood, aluminum, fiberglass composite, or sandbags. The function of seawalls, also known
as bulkheads or retaining walls, is to minimize the erosion of soil particles into the water and serve
as a form of defense between land and water. A seawall is an invaluable structure for those
homeowners who live close to the water who rely on the wall to protect their property from water
damage. The constant fluctuation of the water levels and battering of the wall by the elements
can range from cracks and pitted surfaces to total failure if it becomes undermined.
26
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Sensitive and Protected Resource Surveys: Potential wetlands in the assessment area shall
be identified and delineated in accordance with Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-340, the
USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains Region (version 2.0)
(2010). In addition identifying the presence or absence of wetlands, the applicant shall conduct a
survey to confirm the presence or absence of protected benthic features (i.e. seagrasses, corals,
and sponges). The surveys for protected benthic species shall be performed in accordance with
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Recommended Survey Protocols
for Marine Habitats related to Permitting Applications (1115109 DRAFT), USACE Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation Guidelines, and National Oceanic Atmospheric
Association 2011 Protocol for Benthic Surveys of Coral Resources in I
FKNMS. Effin
Inspection of Existing Treatments: Due to the extent of the
problem and effect on local communities, homeowners and
homeowner associations have in some instances taken it upon
themselves to install either preventative measures in the form of
weed barriers and other treatments such as aerators. Aerators
attempt to alleviate low dissolved oxygen conditions by pumping air
into the canals at various locations. Such treatments should be
evaluated to determine if they can be upgraded or incorporated into
the restoration plan. Additionally, there may be infrastructure
associated with the treatments that might need to be removed as part
of the restoration process.
Sediment Testing: Sediment data is used to establish fundamental
objectives for engineering design of sediment handling and sediment
dewatering controls. It is used to screen the beneficial use and the
ultimate disposition of the dewatered sediments. A pre -determined
number of sediment cores are collected from the canal and logged
detailing variations in the sediment profile. This activity provides an
Image 14: Collection of
sediment cores
27
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
indication of organic content as well as an estimate of the amount of material disposal needed.
Chemical characterization is also performed on the collected sediments to determine disposal
options based on whether or not contamination is present in the canal sediments at levels that
effect how and where the organic material can be disposed.
Polymer Testing: Polymers are added to effluent from dredged sediments. The polymers bind to
the sediments causing a separation between the effluent and sediments and in turn prevent the
receiving bodies from becoming turbid. Bench scale polymer dose testing of sediment collected
from the canal determine how much polymer is required.
Table 5: Restoration technology technical requirement data needs
Technology
Bathymetric
Topographic
Depth and
Threatened
Sensitive
Inspection
Sediment
Polymer
Survey
Survey
Condition
and
resource
of existing
Testing
Testing
of Existing
Endangered
survey (i.e.
treatments
Seawalls
Species
mangroves
Survey
and corals
Backfilling
✓
✓
✓
Weed
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Barrier and
Organic
Removal
Weed
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Barrier
Organic
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Removal
Culvert
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Installation
Capping✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Backfillin
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
*= requires documentation or monitoring that the replacement water is not degraded.
Although restoration technologies may require the same type of engineering or scientific surveys,
existing conditions, as well as how the technology is being applied can dictate how the survey
should be performed.
Technology based survey specifications:
Weed Barrier and Organic Removal
• Bathymetric Survey for entire canal.
• Topographic survey for blower and electric drop area
• Determine depth of existing seawalls — do not want to compromise foundations.
o Baseline survey — photo document, boat count, seawall condition
Weed Barrier (Only)
Surveys required: (only required at mouth of canal near construction zone)
• Bathymetric Survey
28
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
Organic Removal (Only)
• Bathymetric Survey for entire canal.
• Determine depth of existing seawalls — do not want to compromise foundations.
Culvert Installation
Surveys required: (near installation point in both canal and outfall location)
• Bathymetric Survey
o If tidal model will need to be run, survey will be required for entire canal as well as
outfall location.
• Determine depth of existing seawalls — do not want to compromise foundations.
• Confirmation of any utilities that could be impacted.
• Geotechnical studies in the area of the proposed culvert placement.
• Site recon needed to see placement of culvert and current headwall location, materials,
and elevations.
3.3.2 Design Criteria
The design requirements for each canal restoration project will differ from those of any other canal
restoration project performed due to the unique characteristics of residential canals in Monroe
County. The size, shape, orientation of the canal mouth, and near shore characteristics will all
effect the design of the project. The engineering design process is a methodical process that
engineers use in developing construction plans. The process is highly iterative as illustrated below
and parts of the process often need to be repeated many times. The steps may become
articulated, subdivided, and/or illustrated in different ways, but they generally reflect certain core
principles regarding the underlying concepts and their respective sequence and interrelationship.
Upon completion of the existing condition surveys and development of a conceptual restoration,
the engineering team will develop a series of preliminary designs based on following milestones:
Preliminary Design - 30% Documents
The conceptual design will be combined with information obtained during the existing condition
surveys to examine if potential alternative design options might exist. Based on the results of the
evaluation, the design shall be modified to achieve the best possible result. At this stage in the
project, the designer will prepare preliminary design plans and technical specifications for the
project. The preliminary design plans will include an existing site plan, proposed site plan,
proposed grading plans, erosion and sediment control plans, and construction details. The
preliminary design plan will be submitted to the owner at the conclusion of this task for final review
and approval.
Many of the design efforts are similar in magnitude for all restoration techniques; however, certain
restorations have unique design elements. These include the following:
29
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
The organic removal projects require design of dewatering systems and disposal
coordination, and
• Culvert designs require preparation of a hydraulic model.
60% Construction Documents Completion Submittal
Upon acceptance of the preliminary designs, the designer shall prepare a 60% construction
submittal. 60% design plans and specifications include existing site plan, proposed site plan,
proposed grading plans, erosion and sediment control plans, construction details; construction
schedule, Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost shall be submitted to participating entity for review
and comment. At this stage in the designs, it is recommended that open communication with the
homeowners be maintained throughout the remainder of the design process. The Construction
Documents will include each of the following components:
• Survey: licensed surveyors will prepare the required topographic, planimetric and
bathymetric surveys;
• Construction Plans: the plans will depict our continued design effort, possible site impacts,
maintenance of traffic, and utility impacts and relocations, if necessary;
• Specifications: Technical specifications will be prepared for the project, utilizing County
Standards where applicable, other accepted industry specifications if needed (i.e. FDOT,
SFWMD, etc.) or developed specifically for this project application if necessary;
• Schedules: The design team will prepare a detailed construction schedule, working closely
with the County, the homeowners and other stakeholders to phase, sequence and
complete construction while considering the constraints and limitations; and
• Estimate of Construction Cost: The cost for the canal restoration will be refined throughout
the design process and a detailed Engineer's Opinion of Probably Cost will be prepared
and submitted with the 60% construction documents.
As previously stated, many of the design efforts are similar in magnitude; however, certain
restorations have unique design elements that should be included with the 60% designs:
• Culvert designs require preparation of MOT plans; and
• Backfilling requires an investigation of local quarry fill material specifications and
availability of materials to assist in the development of the fill specifications.
100% Construction Documents Completion Submittal
Upon acceptance by the participating entity of the 60% construction documents and comments
from permitting agency reviewers, the design Team will develop the 100% construction
documents for the project. Because the design package is advancing from 60% to a 100%, the
design Team should have frequent and ongoing communication with the participating entity and
stakeholders to resolve any outstanding issues or questions and address concerns during the
final design development. The final design plans will include an existing site plan, proposed site
plan, proposed grading plans, erosion and sediment control plans, cut/fill analysis and
construction details. Comments received from the owner shall be addressed and resolved prior
to the final submittal of the 100% construction documents and design specifications. Once the
ICH
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
final designs are approved an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan will be prepared for each
project site.
3.4 Permitting Requirements and Barriers to Construction
Permits are required from local, state and federal agencies in order to implement a canal water
quality improvement project. All of these agencies are involved, because the Florida Keys are part
of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the nearshore waters to which the canals
discharge are designated Outstanding Florida Waters. Many threatened and endangered species
are present in these waters that need to be protected. Additionally, all of the canals are considered
part of navigable waterways, and therefore in -water canal work requires a U.S. Corp of Engineers
permit. A list of the permitting agencies and designated agency contacts for canal restorations
are presented below (Table 6). For the demonstration projects, the State permit was obtained
from the South Florida Water Management District. For applications submitted by private
homeowners, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection will issue the State permit
Table 6: Canal Restoration Permitting Agency Information
Agency
Primary
Contact
Phone
Email
Address
Focus
Numbe
r
South Florida
State
Trisha
(561)
tstone@sfwmd.gov
3301 Gun Club
Water
permitting
Stone, PWS
682-
Road, West Palm
Management
agency for
Lead
6954
Beach, FL
District(SFWM
water quality
Environmen
33406Marathon,
D)
tal Analyst
FL 33050
United States
Federal
Maria
(305)
Maria.I.Beanilla),�ascrrr�
9900 SW 107th
Army Corp of
agency for
Bezanilla,
779-
y.rniI
Avenue
Engineers
work in
ACOE Miami
6057
Suite 203
(USACOE)
navigable
Permitting
Miami, Florida
waters
Section
33176-2785
National
Overseas all
Joanne
(305)
oanne.delane zztnoaa.c ov
Email
Oceanic and
in -water work
Delaney,
809-
communication
Atmospheric
within the
Permit
4714
preferred
Administration
FKNMS
Coordinator
(NOAA)/Florida
NOAA/FKN
Keys National
MS
Marine
Sanctuary
(FKNMS)
*Monroe
Ensure
Michael
(305)
Roberts-
2798 Overseas
County
compliance
Roberts,
289-
ltlichaelQMonroeCogn
Hwy, Marathon,
Planning and
with the Land
CEP; PWS
2502
FL.Gov_
FL 33050
Environmental
Development
Sr.
Resources
and Florida
Administrator
Building
/
Codes
Environment
al Resources
*= For projects in incorporated Monroe County, municipality permitting requirements would supersede Monroe County's
authority
Additional information about the permitting process for each of these agencies can be found at
the following web links:
• DEP - Ir tt s:fftlloir�dade ovfwateirfsulbir��eir ed hands enviiiroirvnentall iresouirces
................................................................................p......g..................................................................................................................g.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.....
coordination
31
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
• DEP (Monroe County office): hit s://�Iloiriidade ov/sough/sd eirmii�tiin
• USACE - I��t :// sa .usace.airirn .mull/IMiiissiions/IFe ulla�oir .as x
• NOAA/FKNMS- ni
• Monroe County -.LqL-_//fl._irnoinroecouin iiiigpllu c i /iindex.as x` I�j D=243
The permitting process may also require additional review by other state and federal agencies if
the permitting agency reviewer has concerns that the proposed activities may have environmental
impacts. These agencies include the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA Habitat
Conservation, NOAA Protected Resources Division, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. The agency reviewer will forward the application
to these reviewers directly so the municipality (or similar entity) does not need to prepare an
additional application; however, additional reviews can significantly delay the time it takes to
obtain a permit. Finally, local incorporated municipalities within Monroe County may have their
own permitting requirements that would supersede the County's authorities. It is recommended
that the participating entity confirm local jurisdiction early on in the project scoping process.
During the pre -application meeting(s) it should be discussed whether any aspect of your
project will require additional agency reviews. If the answer is yes, you should discuss if
there are changes that can be made to the proposed plans that would eliminate the need
for the additional reviews.
3.4.1 Permit Applications
Blank applications for each agency can be obtained at the following links:
• FDEP - Lgtp ://�Ilc�iriidadejp.ggv/wa-t it/sulbmeir dmll irnd menviironmentall-iresouirces-
__ __ _ _______ ----------------- _ _-----------------------_-----------------_
cooirdlinatiion/conten-forims-enviironirnentaI-iresouirce
• USACE - SoulrcelBoolk as x
• NOAA/FKNMS - ellcoirne.lhtirnll
• Monroe County - LqL�p://LIlmirnoniroecoun�y.�ii�rii pLl .ggrn�/iindex.as x` II�III D m �33
------------------ _ _ ________________ _
Some of the agencies have different applications depending upon the proposed project.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
The FDEP's basic application is an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). The FDEP
also has criteria for exemptions to the requirement to obtain an ERP, as well as permits
known as General Permits that expedite the permitting process for select types of projects. The
requests for verification that a project is exempt from ERP permits shall be submitted to FDEP
before commencing the project. If the project qualifies for an ERP exemption, under the Florida
Statutes, then the USACOE Engineering form 4345 can be submitted to the USACOE instead of
the ERP application. A link to the USACOE form 4345 is: The link to form 4345 is:
I��t ://seaircl�.usa. ov/seaircl�` a�fiiilliia�e=:sa ueir=�onrn%204345.
32
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
�w US Army Corp of Engineers
fllllllluiiilllllll lll6llllllllll lllllluiillllllll
The USACE permit application and review process is the most complex due to the
additional reviews associated with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to evaluate the potential impacts of
a proposed action on any federally listed threatened or endangered species or its designated
critical habitat. These evaluations often require coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and/or NOAA Fisheries pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
For projects located in the Florida Keys, federally listed threatened and endangered species that
typical impact the permitting process include: key deer, manatee, wood stork, nesting sea turtles,
and American crocodile, among others. The USFWS website provides a good reference of those
species under their purview:
I�ltt :ff fws. ov/veirolbeacl�i/Conseirvatiioniintl�ielKe s1iti ill.
p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, q,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,y,,,,,,,,,,,,,.............................
NOAA Protected Resource Division who is the other main outside agency reviewer for the Florida
Keys Canal Restoration projects also evaluated a lot of other species. Generally the species that
are impacted by inshore projects would be green sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, hawksbill
sea turtles, kemp's ridley sea turtle, leatherback sea turtles, and smalltooth sawfish, in addition to
many species of coral. For a list of other species in the area click on the following link:
I�1tt :ffseiro.nir�ifs.noaa. ovf irotected iresouirces/sectiion .7/iindex.Intim1.
I....................................................................................................................................................p...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Impacts to critical and/or suitable habitat or areas accessible to a species triggers Section 7 review
to some degree for both US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Protected Resource Division.
Protected Resource Division review is basically triggered by in water activity as well as impacts
to mangroves (i.e. black, white and red) may trigger PRD. More information on the ESA process
can be found at: I��tt :ff sa .usace.airm .ir��iill/I�fliissiionsflf e ullatoir fSouircel[:ool4c.as x.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,u,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,y,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,y,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....................2,.
Part of the USACE application requires the applicant to submit information on threaten and
endangered species that may be within the project area by completed a Section 7 Checklist. This
checklist needs to be completed by a qualified scientist and forms the basis for the USACOE
determination as to whether additional federal reviewers/consultations will be required. For those
projects where the USACE makes a finding of "no affect," nothing more will need to be done
regarding consultations with other agencies. The check list and information concerning how to
complete the checklist can be found at:
I�1tt :ffseiro.nir�ifs.noaa. ovf irotected iresouirces/sectiion 7/consulltatiion sulbir��iittall/iindex.Intim1.
I....................................................................................................................................................p..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Jacksonville USACE Biological Opinion
In accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, programmatic consultations allow for streamlined
review of groups of frequently occurring or routine activities or Federal action agency policies,
plans, regulations or programs that have well -understood and predictable effects on ESA -listed
species and designated critical habitat. Programmatic consultations may be used to evaluate the
effects of authorizing certain categories of frequently occurring activities or action Agency policy
or programs, where specifics of any individual future project, such as the specific location, are not
definitively known at the time of the programmatic consultation.
33
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
On November 20, 2017, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) approved a programmatic
biological opinion (PBO) referred to as "JaxBO." The JaxBO addresses consultation requirements
for threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat occurring throughout
the State of Florida for certain actions. A summary of the JaxBO, a complete list of the activities
included in the JaxBO, and the project design criteria can be found at:
h�L!p :// saj u� L . irm .irniill/IMii lions/IFS¢�ultgL�irvL'Egblliic.-INotiices/Airtiiclle/°-0 0040/fiinallm
irc�girir� irn�iigmlbiic�llc� ii�llm c��ii irt� iis�ir� m�xlbo%________ _ _ _ �_______
It is recommended that proposed canal restoration projects attempt to meet the criteria
established in the JaxBO in order to reduce the time associated with the consultation process.
Monroe County
t The Monroe County permit application is a combined Building- Floodplain-
k Developmental Permit Application that includes review by a Planning and
Environmental Resource County biologist as well as a review of compliance with the
Florida Building code for such things as the electrical portions of the air curtain systems. The
type of project affects the number of different departments that will need to review the application.
The permit fees are based upon the number of departments that review the application as well as
the total estimated project cost.
Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
In some instances the construction of a canal water quality improvement project may cause
impact to wetland plants such as red mangroves. Impact means damage or removal of roots, not
just trimming of branches. All efforts should be made to avoid this. When the agencies review an
application for wetland impact they first look for elimination and reduction of impacts. If there are
still wetland impacts after elimination and reduction, a method to offset (make up for) those
impacts is called mitigation. Mitigation usually consists of restoration, enhancement, creation,
preservation, or a combination thereof. A mitigation proposal is a document that describes how
you plan to offset the wetland plant impacts. Mitigation is generally accomplished "in kind". This
means offsetting your impacts to a certain kind of resource by restoring, enhancing, creating, or
preserving the same kind of resource within the same drainage basin, or within a reasonable
distance of the project. For example, if the project impacts red mangroves, then the mitigation
should involve red mangroves. Mitigation may be located on the project site (on -site), off the
project site (off -site), or in a mitigation bank.
A mitigation bank is a large area, owned by a mitigation banker, in which wetlands and other
surface waters are restored, enhanced, created, or preserved. The mitigation banker earns credit
for the work, and then sells the credit to property owners who want to use it to offset their project
impacts. Buying mitigation credits from a mitigation bank is probably the easiest mitigation option,
because the bank is responsible for mitigation activities and monitoring. The property owner
makes a payment for the mitigation credit, provides proof of the purchase, and their responsibility
is fulfilled.
FDEP has prepared a video which answers some of our most frequently asked questions about
mitigation. The video can be viewed at the following link:
//www.vou-tulbe.coinn/Wa-tclh?v:=:IIXIN.--t3r IMIHIM.
M
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
During one of the culvert demonstration projects a small area of red mangroves was located within
the footprint of the culvert and design changes could not fully eliminate the impacts. During the
permitting process for the canal restoration demonstration projects the way different agencies
address these impacts was identified. They are outlined below.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection:
The State has not required mitigation to offset any minor wetlands/other surface waters
impacts associated with the canals water quality improvement projects because the projects are
being conducted solely for environmental restoration and enhancement activities. The SFWMD
stated this policy for the demonstration projects and communications with DEP has indicated their
concurrence.
US Army Corp of Engineers:
The USACE requires mitigation for any wetland impact. If the USACE requires mitigation for
impacts to protected resources one option is the USACE approved Keys Restoration Fund. The
Keys restoration fund is a compensatory mitigation program that restores wetlands and seagrass
in the Florida Keys. The Keys Restoration Fund can provide mitigation for the canal restoration
projects. Their contact information is found on their web page at: I tt .:fflk y�,!E ,!. !ra iionfu�nd.conl/.
FPL Everglades Mitigation Bank is another mitigation bank that can be utilized for the canal
restorations but it is not located in the Keys. There contact information is found on their web page
at: I��tt s:ff f Il.coir��fenviiironir��ent/wiilldlliifefir��iitii atiion Ibanl4c htnill.
,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..............................
Mitigation banks require you to purchase `credits' to mitigate for the project impacts. The
impacts from your project need to be calculated using a method approved by the regulating
agency. The USACE will accept utilization of The Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method
(UMAM) to determine the mitigation requirements for the Keys Canal Restoration projects. This
method calculates the loss in ecological function to determine the appropriate mitigation credits
needed to offsite the project impacts. Some mitigation banks have their own scoring sheets that
also require completion. You should work closely with the USACE and mitigation bank to
ensure completing the correct paperwork.
Florida Kevs National Marine Sanctua
Compensatory mitigation may be required by the FKNMS if unavoidable impacts are occurring to
sanctuary resources such as corals or seagrasses. Compensatory mitigation required by the
FDEP, SFWMD, or the USACE may be accepted by the FKNMS.
Monroe County does not require mitigation and will accept the other permitting agency
mitigation requirements
3.4.2 Permit Information by Technology
Air Curtains / Weed Barriers
General technology description: Air curtains and weed barriers are devices placed at the mouth
of a canal to prevent seaweed from entering the canal. Air curtains consist of equipment that
injects air into the water column at the canal mouth that creates a barrier to the entry of seaweed.
35
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
The equipment has two components: 1) an air supply such as blower or compressor which is
usually placed on an upland area near that canal mouth, and 2) slotted piping or diffusers that are
placed on the canal bottom at the canal mouth which emit air bubbles.
Physical barriers that are designed to prevent seaweed entry into the canal can consist of PVC
piping or wood arms that extend across the canal and which are manually opened to allow boat
access. They do not require any electricity to operate and thus have low operating costs.
The air curtain design plans utilized for one of the demonstration projects can be found on the
Monroe County Canal Restoration Web Page:
p,, f f,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Ir , rI„ ra , a ,a , ,y,,,,, I,,0, rf � .:,, „I , V„ , ,,;;;;;;
Permit aaDlication information:
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
The air curtains installed during the demonstration program qualified for a state exemption to the
Environmental Resource Permit. Most air curtains should qualify for this exemption unless they
have more than a minimal impact on sensitive resources such as seagrass or coral. A `Request
for Verification of an Exemption' form needs to be completed and submitted with supporting
information. If the project qualifies it is termed a "de minimus" exemption.
The canal restoration demonstration program did not include permitting a physical weed barrier
such as a swing weed gate. However, communications with DEP indicated it would also quality
for an exemption with the same condition that the project has minimal impact on sensitive
resources (e.g. seagrass or coral).
Information needed to be submitted includes:
1. Completed `Request for Verification of an Exemption' form
2. Clear dimensioned drawings of the project. They do not need to be sealed by an engineer
and can be hand drawn. A site plan and cross-section drawings are needed. The DEP
web page provides further details of what is required:
3. I��tt :ff ulblliicfiilles.de .state.fll.usfdwirir��fslleir fair I��ell fir��eir edlf�iro ectsfeir I��ell Bulb act IC:�iisc
p,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......,,,,,,.................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.................
..0 ssiia 12. s.fll?ir iin..g....::.l
4. Detailed description of the construction methods with emphasis on the Best Management
Practices that will be used for erosion and turbidity control.
5. A description of the canal bottom and side wall conditions where the air curtain/weed
barrier will be placed to verify that there are no sensitive natural resources that could be
impacted, such as corals or seagrass.
6. $100 Fee
109
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
US Army Corp of Engineers:
Air curtains may qualify for a Regional General Permit (GP) SAJ-17 for Minor Structures in Florida
if all conditions required by the permit are met. A summary of some of the conditions that must
be met by the project are detailed below:
The project cannot be located within the following state parks: John Pennekamp Coral
Reef State Park, Lignum Vitae Key State Botanical Site and Aquatic Preserve, Long Key
State Park, Curry Hammock State Park, and Bahia Honda State Park.
2. The project cannot cause adverse impact to hard or soft corals, hardbottom or other
essential features within staghorn or elkhorn coral designated critical habitat.
3. The project cannot adversely affect manatees and the applicant agrees to follow the
"Standard Manatee Conditions/for In -Water Work, 2011" found at:
1111:ff sa .usace.airm .ir��iill/I�fliissiionsfll e
fSo ullatoir uircel3oolk.as x
4. The applicant agrees to follow the conditions specified in the "Sea Turtle and Smalltooth
Sawfish Construction Conditions, March 2006" found at:
1111:ff sa .usace.airm .ir��iill/I�fliissiionsfll e
fSo ullatoir uircel3oolk.as x
5. The project cannot directly or indirectly adversely impact essential fish habitat such as but
not limited to mangroves and seagrasses.
6. The project cannot include dredging,
7. The project cannot include the removal of red mangroves.
A copy of the SAJ-17 conditions can be found at the following link:
I��tt :ff sa .usace.airm.ir��iill/Il�oirtallsf44fdocsfire ullatoir fsouircelbool4� eirir��iittiin f eneirall eirir��iit
...................................................................t............................................................................y........................................................................................................................................................0........................................y......................................................................................... p...................................................0......g.....................................................1...................................
s/l::�Ql:::1/SAJ 17 Il::: iinall Il:::1eirm1it Ilnstirunient Conrected 31 ima 13. df.
If the project does not qualify under the General Permit then the application will be evaluated as
a Letter of Permission (LP) or Standard Permit (SP). The limits/thresholds of each permit type
can also be found on the Corps Source Book.
!)tt :ff sa .usace.airm .ir��iill/I�fliissiionsfll e
fSo ullatoir uircel3oolk.as x.
If the project qualifies for a State "de minimus" exemption then the USACE Engineering form 4345
can be submitted instead of the ERP application. The ERP application will also be accepted.
Section 3.4.1 provides the link to the applications and a help tutorial for completing the ERP
application.
Information needed to be submitted:
• Completed Engineering form 4345 or ERP application.
• Clear dimensioned drawings of the project — the same as for the FDEP.
37
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
• Detailed description of the construction methods with emphasis on the Best Management
Practices that will be used for erosion and turbidity control.
• A description of the canal bottom and side wall conditions where the air curtain/weed
barrier will be placed to verify that there are no sensitive natural resources that could be
impacted, such as corals or seagrass.
• Endangered Species Act Section 7 Checklist
The Endangered Species Act Section 7 Checklist will need to be completed by a qualified scientist
and forms the basis for the USACE determination as to whether additional federal
reviewers/consultations will be required. The check list and information concerning how to
complete the checklist can be found at:
I�1tt :ffseiro.nir�ifs.noaa. ovf irotected iresouirces/sectiion 7/consulltatiion sulbimlttall/iindex.Intim1.
p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, q,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...............................
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary:
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary should be contacted when performing any in -water
work in the Sanctuary, which includes work in canals. They will advise you as to whether a permit
is required. A permit was required for all the demonstration projects. The permit application is the
same for all the technologies and the information required in the FKNMS submittal is also needed
for the DEP and USACE permit applications as well. Please refer to Section 3 for application
information.
Monroe County:
For projects in unincorporated Monroe County, a Monroe County Building Permit is required for
air curtains and will need to include review by all applicable departments such as plumbing,
electrical and biological. Please refer to Section 3.4.1 for the application information. The
attachments to the application are the same documents required by FDEP and the USACE. With
regards to the incorporated municipalities of Monroe County, various programs or building
departments may require similar permits.
Culvert Installation
General technology description: Culverts are installed to restore some of the natural tidal
flushing that was lost when canals were constructed. The easiest location to install a culvert is
across an existing roadway or strip of land that blocks the flow of water between two canals that
dead end at the roadway or strip of land. It is important to understand the hydrology of the proposed
area including tidal range and anticipated flow in order to correctly size and design the culvert.
Culverts can be installed by an open trench method, such as those done in the demonstration
program, or by directional drilling. Directional drilling has been evaluated as an alternative and its
applicability is limited due to cost and size requirements. Culverts can be made of several different
types of material; the demonstration project culverts were made of reinforced concrete.
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
Permit application information:
Florida Department of Environmental Protection:
Installation of a culvert will require an Individual ERP application. Section 3.0 provides the link to
the FDEP web page for the application and a help tutorial for completing the application. The
Individual ERP application for a culvert will require hydraulic design data and will need to include
the following:
1. Completed Sections A, C and D of the ERP application.
2. Design drawings.
3. Hydraulic calculations supporting the design.
4. A description of the canal bottom and side walls where the culvert will be installed to verify
that there are no sensitive natural resources that could be impacted, such as corals or
seagrass.
5. A vegetation survey within the project foot print to identify the presence of any mangroves
that might be affected by the construction.
6. Description of the construction methodology.
7. Application fee. Canal water quality improvements are Restorations and the fee is $250.
8. All property owners within the footprint of the culvert installation must sign the application
as co -applicants.
US Army Corp of Engineers:
When the State requires an ERP application the USACE permit application is a joint application.
Therefore, the Information needed to be submitted includes the same information provided to
DEP in the ERP application plus the following:
• Section 7 Checklist.
• Map and list of mailing addresses of all property owners located within 500 feet of the
proposed project along with mailing labels of that list.
The USACE may deem that the project can qualify for a General Permit or Nation Wide
Permit. However, the same application information is required. Please refer to Section 3 for
additional application information.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary:
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary should be contacted when performing any in -water
work in the Sanctuary, which includes work in canals. They will advise you as to whether a permit
is required. A permit was required for all the culvert demonstration projects. The permit application
is the same for all the technologies and the information required in the FKNMS submittal is also
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
needed for the DEP and USACE permit applications as well. Please refer to Section 3 for the
application information.
Monroe County:
For unincorporated Monroe County, a Monroe County Building Permit is required for a culvert
installation and will need to be reviewed by all applicable departments such as biological. Please
refer to Section 3.4.1 for the application information. The attachments to the application are the
same documents required by FDEP and the USACE. The drawings must be signed and sealed
by a Professional Engineer. With regards to the incorporated municipalities of Monroe County,
various programs or building departments may require similar permits.
Organic Removal
General technology description: In many areas of the Keys floating seaweed enters canal systems
on strong winds and tides and gets trapped at the back of the canals due to the dead end
construction. It then sinks to the canal bottom where it decays using up all the dissolved oxygen
needed for marine life. In addition the decay produces gases such as hydrogen sulfide and
methane which are released to the water surface causing unhealthy foul odors. This technology
consists of removal of the organic material accumulated on the canal bottom. Different methods
can be utilized for the removal such as hydraulic vacuum dredging which was used in the two
demonstration projects, or mechanical dredging.
The material usually requires dewatering to allow it be trucked off -site to an appropriate disposal
location. The demonstration projects utilized a mechanical dewatering system. Dewatering using
Geotubes is another technique.
Permit application information:
Florida Department of Environmental Protection:
On organic removal project may quality for a FDEP `Maintenance Dredge' exemption. The
`dredging' work must be of material that has accumulated in previously dredged canals and no
dredging of the underlying natural hard bottom is allowed.
The FDEP web page provides details of what is required to quality for the maintenance dredging
exemption. Some of the main criteria include:
• Dredging must be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water;
• There can be no significant impacts to previously undisturbed natural areas;
• Control devices for return flow and best management practices for erosion and sediment
control must be utilized to prevent bank erosion and scouring and to prevent turbidity.
What is Not Considered Maintenance Dredging? Dredging that exceeds any of the
following thresholds generally will not be considered maintenance dredging:
• The area to be dredged has not been dredged in the past;
.s
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
• The area to be dredged has been allowed to shoal in to such an extent as to render the area
to be dredged non-functional for a prolonged period of time;
• The proposed dredging will expand (deepen, widen, or lengthen) the dredge area from original
design specifications;
• Generally, dredging proposed more than 2 years after a storm event that caused sudden
shoaling is no longer considered maintenance dredging.
FDEP should be contacted to verify whether your project qualifies. A link to the exemption is found
at:
I�1tt :ff ulblliicfiilles.de .state.fll.usfdwirir�lfslleir fair I��ell fir��eir edlf�iroectsfeir I�1ell fKscellllaneousfCl��a
p,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......,
Even if a homeowner is sure their project qualifies for the DEP exemption, they will need to show
an exemption verification letter from DEP in order to obtain the USACE and Monroe County
permits. A Request for Verification of Exemption should be submitted to DEP to obtain that letter
and should contain:
• Location map(s) of sufficient detail to allow someone who is unfamiliar with the site to travel
to and locate the specific site of the activity;
• $100 notice fee;
• Two sets of plans and drawings, calculations, environmental information, and other supporting
documents that clearly and legibly depict and describe the proposed activities in detail
sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the terms, conditions, and limitations of the
exemption;
• Identification (by number or description) to the rule or statutory exemption sought.
• Location where dredged material will be disposed; include design details of the dredged
material disposal site (heights of retention berms, dimensions, capacity, including freeboard
to prevent breaching of containment berms, temporary barges that may be used, or similar
methodology such as directly depositing material into dump trucks for disposal in a landfill.
Note that dredged material disposal sites that involve construction of dikes, berms, or dredging
of containments cells may require a separate permit;
• Dredging methodology (hydraulic, such as suction dredge, or mechanical, such as backhoe
or dragline; and
Drawings showing the current conditions and proposed dredge areas. Include both current
conditions and proposed conditions in one cross-section view so they may be easily
compared.
If the project does not qualify for the maintenance dredging exemption than an Individual ERP
application will be required. The same type of information will be required in the ERP application
along with the completed ERP application. The application fee will be $250. Section 3.4.1 provides
the link to the applications and a help tutorial for completing the ERP application.
41
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
US Army Corp of Engineers:
The USACE will require a Standard Permit for an organic removal project. Either an ERP
application or the USACE Engineering form 4345 can be submitted. If the FDEP Maintenance
Exemption is not applicable than the ERP application with DEP and USACE can be joint. Section
3.4.1 provides the link to the applications and a help tutorial for completing the ERP application.
The Information needed to be submitted for the USACE permit includes the same information
provided to FDEP in the ERP application plus the following:
• Section 7 Checklist.
• Map and list of mailing addresses of all property owners located within 500 feet of the
proposed project along with mailing labels.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary:
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary should be contacted when performing any in -water
work in the Sanctuary, which includes work in canals. They will advise you as to whether a permit
is required. A permit was required for the organic removal demonstration projects. The permit
application is the same for all the technologies and the information required in the FKNMS
submittal is also needed for the FDEP and USACE permit applications as well. Please refer to
Section 3.4.1 for the application information.
Monroe County:
For projects in unincorporated Monroe County, a Monroe County Building Permit is required for
organic removal projects and will need to include review by all applicable departments such as
biological. Please refer to Section 3.4.1 for the application information. The attachments to the
application are the same documents required by FDEP and the USACOE except the drawings
must be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer or Professional Surveyor and Mapper.
With regards to the incorporated municipalities of Monroe County, various programs or building
departments may require similar permits. Please note the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
prohibits dredging below -6 feet mean low water by non-public entities.
Backfilling
General technology description: Backfilling of a canal entails the placement of clean fill in sections
of a canal that were initially dredged too deep, in some cases greater than 40 feet, in order to
raise the canal bottom elevation to within -6 to -8 feet mean low water. The backfilling eliminates
the deep stagnant pockets that do not naturally flush with the tides and which contain depleted
dissolved oxygen levels and elevated hydrogen sulfide and methane levels. Usually a barge is
required to place the fill uniformly throughout the canal as was done for the demonstration project.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection:
A backfilling project will require an Individual ERP application. Section 3.4.1 provides the
link to the FDEP web page for the application and a help tutorial for completing the application.
The Individual ERP application for a backfilling project will need to include the following:
1. Completed Sections A, C and D of the ERP application;
42
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
2. Design drawings;
3. A description of the canal bottom where the backfilling will take place to verify that there
are no sensitive natural resources that could be impacted, such as corals or seagrass;
4. Description of the construction methodology including the source of the clean fill;
5. Application fee. Canal water quality improvements are Restorations and the fee is $250;
and
6. If the canal bottom is privately owned then all property owners within the footprint of the
backfilling project must sign the application as co -applicants.
US Army Corp of Engineers:
The USACE will require a Standard Permit for a backfilling project. The application can be
the ERP application submitted jointly to FDEP and the USACE. Therefore, the Information needed
to be submitted includes the same information provided to DEP in the ERP application plus the
following:
• Section 7 Checklist; and
• Map and list of mailing addresses of all property owners located within 500 feet of the
proposed project along with mailing labels of that list.
Please refer to Section 3 for additional application information.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary:
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary should be contacted when performing any in -water
work in the Sanctuary, which includes work in canals. They will advise you as to whether a permit
is required. A permit was required for the backfilling demonstration project. The permit application
is the same for all the technologies and the information required in the FKNMS submittal is also
needed for the FDEP and USACE permit applications as well. Please refer to Section 3 for the
application information.
Monroe County:
For projects in unincorporated Monroe County, a Monroe County Building Permit is required for
a backfilling project and will need to include review by all applicable departments such as
biological. Please refer to Section 3 for the application information. The attachments to the
application are the same documents required by FDEP and the USACE except the drawings must
be sealed by a Professional Engineer or Professional Surveyor and Mapper. With regards to the
incorporated municipalities of Monroe County, various programs or building departments may
require similar permits.
43
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
3.5 Factors Affecting Ease of
Implementation
For each of the technologies described in this
guidance document there are factors that affect
the ability to implement the project in an efficient
manner that maintain compliance with both
construction and permit requirements:
Backfilling: With regards to backfilling a canal
for the purpose of water quality restoration, it is
recommended that the organic sediment be
Image 15: Demonstration Project Canal 277 Big Pine,
removed prior to the placement of the fill
culvert installation
material. This is done to reduce the amount of
sediment suspended in the canal as well as, reduce the variability associated with compactions.
In some cases the aforementioned action may not be necessary and can add unnecessary cost
to the project. In these circumstances, a capping project might be an appropriate option. The
configuration of the canal can impact the ability to get equipment into and out of the canal.
Narrower canals may cause maneuverability issues for the barges from which the fill material is
placed into the water body. If a canal has an excessive number of boats docked within the water,
if can prove difficult to coordinate their removal and storage. It is imperative that a close by vacant
lot be identified for the stockpiling backfill. This allows the material to be trucked to the site and
easily transported onto the barges for placement.
Weed gates: The configuration of a canal mouth can affect both effectiveness of an air curtain
and the size and layout of the system. Wider canal mouths and deeper canal mouths require more
robust systems. Conversely, shallow canal mouths can cause vessel clearance issues for the air
curtains. The following should be confirmed prior to the start of the permitting and design phase
of the project:
• Confirm sufficient vessel clearance exists based on the estimated height of the diffusers;
• Accessible electric hook ups are available to tie the proposed system into; and
• Homeowners who are willing provide a location for the pumps have been identified;
• Canals that require demolition of existing malfunctioning weed gates; and
• Presence of a construction staging area.
Organic Removal: The configuration of the canal can impact the ability to get equipment into and
out of the canal. Narrower canals and the presence of mangroves may cause maneuverability
issues for the hydraulic dredges. If a canal has an excessive number of boats docked within the
waterbody, if can prove difficult to coordinate their removal and storage. Understanding the
condition of the seawalls and how close to the wall the material can be dredged is imperative to
designing and costing the project. It is also imperative that a close by vacant lot be identified for
the stockpiling and dewatering of sediments prior to the design and permitting phase.
Culverts: Shorter culvert connections require less clearing and grubbing. It is recommended that
the anticipated flushing rate be fully understood prior to the start of construction. Confirming
approvals from the property owners should be completed prior to permitting and design of the
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
project. Initial studies should examine the location of water, sewer, data, and electric utility lines
as their presence will increase the complexity of the project. Finally, confirming there is sufficient
staging area is recommended prior to the design and permitting phase of the project.
3.6 Construction Requirements
The basic construction tender process
involves the following activities:
• Bid Solicitation: The owner (i.e.
participating entity) seeks bids and
provides a package of material with
drawings, specifications, and other
scope documents. This is also known
as making a request for proposal
(RFP) or a request to tender (RTT),
• Subcontracting: General contractors
take bids from subcontractors for
pieces of work. Depending on the
project method, this may occur after a
general contractor wins a bid,
• Bid Submission: Contractors submit
bids by a deadline,
• Bid Selection: The owner reviews
bids and chooses a winner,
Fight (8) Steps to vendor selection:
Step 1: Develop clear objectives (comfort, efficiency,
equipment uptime, etc.);
Step 2: Develop and apply a screening process specific
to the site and expectations;
Step 3: Select 2 to 4 potential contractors and obtain
initial proposals;
Step 4: Develop major contract requirements using the
contractors' initial proposals;
Step 5: Obtain final bids from potential contractors
based on the owner -developed requirements;
Step 6: Select the contractor and develop the final
contract language and service plan;
documentation; and
Step 8: Periodically review the entire contract; build in
a feedback process.
• Contract Formation: This phase
finalizes the terms and lays the legal groundwork for the project, and
• Project Delivery: Construction takes place.
3.6.1 Initiating the Bid Process
Bidding is a procurement method by which you can select the vendor for purchasing the required
canal restoration services within the estimated budget and time. If you have a standard contract
with a vendor, you can request a proposal. Once the participating entity has created a bid package
and the RFP, or request for quote (RFQ) is approved, it can be issued to potential vendors. The
vendors can then respond to the bid or request and their responses can then be evaluated.
3.6.2 Evaluation of Bids and Requisite Qualifications
Upon completion of the Construction Documents, the bid phase commences. This phase is the
time frame between the completion of the design process and the award of the construction
contract. During this phase, the following actions should be performed:
• The Bid Package which should include the 100% Construction documents should be
performed,
45
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
• Respond to applicable Bidders' Request for Information (RFI's) and prepare Addenda to
the Bid Package,
• Make revisions to the Bidding Documents, as required,
• Host a Pre -Bid Conference and site walk-through,
• Conduct a Responsibility Review of the Apparent Low Bidder in accord with the project's
requirements, and
• Host a Pre -Award Conference, to discuss the Bidder's qualifications and understanding
of the Project.
3.7 Construction Oversight
Construction oversight by the participating entity is important to ensure a project gets completed
per the permitted designs and on time and on budget. Oversight of the construction phase of
canal restoration projects can be performed by a qualified member of the participating entity's
staff or contracted separately.
3.7.1 Performance of Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Performance monitoring begins prior to the commencement of construction and is the
responsibility of not only the contractor, but the permit holder as well. Once the permits have been
issued and in the lead up to the kick-off meeting, it is recommended that informative materials be
developed that can be handed out to the contractor. For more complex canal restoration projects
it might be useful to create a short presentation that can be delivered to all parties involved in the
construction of the project. Pre -construction discussions with the contractor should focus on the
constraints documented in the permits and the best management practices listed in the
construction plans or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) should one exist. Such
discussions and prepared materials should include but not be limited to information regarding
threatened and endangered species, turbidity requirements, and air quality monitoring.
It is recommended that the owner's representative develop monitoring plans for potential T&E
species, turbidity and SWPPP maintenance. Finally, it is not enough to develop the plans and
pass out the fliers regarding the environmental concerns. It is recommends that the owner
implement a permit compliance inspection program where by which a member to the contractor's
team is assigned to escort the owner's representative around the project site. With regards to
reporting, it should at a minimum be performed in accordance with permit conditions; however,
weekly reporting noting the issues of concern can help improve compliance and address items
before they become a permit violation.
3.7.2 Permit Modification
Based on the contractor's response to the Bid Documents, modifications to the permit may be
requested. Due to their ability to cause significant delays in the project timeline, they are not
recommended unless issues raised by the contractors are unresolvable. Once the owner feels
comfortable with what is being requested and a particular path forward, they should request a
conference call or a meeting with the regulators to discuss the changes to the project and the
additional impacts. From this point, the process will be determined by what is being proposed and
the appropriate regulatory requirements as to what aspects of the project are allowed to continue
and what aspects will have to wait for the additional permitting.
M.
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
3.7.3 Permit Compliance
Based on the permit conditions, it may be necessary to conduct a series of inspections during the
construction phase of the project. It is recommended that the owner or the owner's representative
perform the inspections. Additionally, the owner may need their representative to conduct
stormwater system inspections, review as -built surveys, and create and implement environmental
monitoring and management plans
3.7.4 Construction Monitoring
In performing construction monitoring, the owner's representative should become familiar with the
approved construction plans. The qualified construction inspector is responsible for ensuring the
contractor's work conforms to the approved plans and specifications, adheres to construction
schedule, and adequacy of construction costs. The following activities should be expected of the
owner's representative:
• Pre -Construction Conference & Site Walk-Thru: Recommend the agenda and prepare
the meeting minutes;
• Construction Progress Meeting: Attend regularly scheduled progress meetings;
• Requests for Information: Review Contractor Requests for Information (RFI's) and
respond as required to clarify the Contract Documents, including providing revised
drawings or specifications if needed;
• Submittals: Review contractor submittals (schedules, samples, product data, shop
drawings, installation drawings, etc.) and provide review comments for same. Complex
submittals or submittals requiring review by more than one design discipline may require
additional time;
• Change Orders: Assist in the evaluation and preparation of change orders;
• Project Close -Out: Review and amend the Contractor's punch lists for substantial and
final completion. When all items are complete in accordance with the Contract
Documents, issue a report indicating final acceptance of same. The Design Team will
also verify that the Contractor has submitted all required close-out documentation prior
to authorizing approval of final payment to Contractor;
• Consult with Owner: Provide consultation and advice to the owner regarding the
Contractor's performance of the Contract. Liaise with the County, homeowners, and
other stakeholders as necessary to administer the construction contract; and
• Site Inspection: Prepare daily work reports showing contractors activities, equipment,
maintenance of traffic and environmental compliance. An Inspector should be on site
when the contractor is working.
47
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
3.7.5 Biological Construction Monitoring
Due to the potential presence of marine mammals such
as the West Indian Manatee and federally protected
endangered species like the Florida Key deer, it is
recommended that participating entities contract staff
members or ensure personnel familiar with the protected
natural resources of Monroe County are on -site during
construction. Responsibilities for such environmental
professionals include biological surveys noting the
presence or absence of protected species, report
preparation, construction monitoring, and other services
related to compliance with the biological and regulatory
requirements. Biological monitoring duties require in -field
decision -making as well as oral and written
communication skills as they will have to communicate
with the construction team if and when protected
resources enter the construction zone.
3.7.6 Best Management Practices for Canal
Restoration Projects
L"A T* M**
Image 16: Florida key deer, No Name Key
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are defined as the practice, or combination of practices, that
are designed to achieve sustainable management of natural resources and have been determined
to be technologically and economically effective, practicable, and based on best available
science. The following are standard BMPs for canal restoration projects:
1. All construction activities shall be performed in accordance with the
FWC Standard Manatee Conditions for In -Water Work.
2. All construction activities shall be performed in accordance with the
FWC Standard Crocodile and Smalltooth Sawfish Conditions for in -
water work.
m3. All construction activities shall be performed in accordance with and
the National Marine Fisheries Service Sea Turtle and Smalltooth
Sawfish Construction Conditions.
4. Use of in -water spotters to confirm that there are no smalltooth sawfish, sea turtles, or
manatees located within the canal prior to the start of construction activities. The in -water
spotters will start at the rear of canal methodically surveying the water column as they
push forward towards the mouth of the canal.
5. After the in -water spotters have confirmed that there are no T&E species located within
the canal, the contractor will prepare the project area by installing floating turbidity barriers
near the front of the canal. The turbidity barrier(s) shall extend from the water's surface
down to the bottom of the canal and remain in place throughout the duration of the project
to prevent the movement of marine life back into the project area.
ER
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
6. If a barge or recreational boat is used in
the construction process, the contractor
shall utilize a certified diver to visually
clear the landing areas prior to lowering
the removable spuds into the canal
sediments.
7. Dedicated locations of any in -water
equipment will be pre -surveyed in order
to ensure that federally listed marine
resources are not present. If any are
identified avoidance measures will be
implemented.
8. Vibratory hammers should not be
utilized for placement of any in -water
equipment.
Image 17: Multiple turbidity curtains prevent
degradation of Outstanding Florida Waters
9. Construction vessels should have at least 2' clearance from the seabed when fully loaded.
10. Construction vessels should identify and utilize charted ingress and egress routes when
available
11. If there is a reasonable expectation that stony corals are present at a site, a quantitative
benthic survey will be provided to document presence and potential avoidance measures.
12. Construction debris should not be allowed to enter the waters of the Sanctuary at any
time.
13. FKNMS agency staff should be allowed access to the project site as requested to ensure
that Sanctuary resources are being protected to the extent possible
14. In project areas where Key Deer may be present, weekly meetings should be held with
the contractor and their vehicle drivers to discuss speed limits and Maintenance of Traffic
(MOT). An educational leaflet will be distributed to all on -site project personnel prior to
initiation of construction.
15. Whenever possible, materials for projects should be moved to the site using upland
pathways (existing roads, etc.) vs. marine navigation routes.
16. Any dredge spoil, as applicable, should be dewatered in upland areas or vessels located
within the canal boundaries and all dewatering operations will be fully contained to prevent
spoil leakage into waters of the Sanctuary
17. Silt fence (or waddles) and floating turbidity barriers should be installed prior to
construction and maintained throughout the project in accordance with performance
standards for erosion and sediment control and stormwater treatment set forth in section
62-40.432, Florida Administrative Code (FAC) (also from your project methods)
i •
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
3.8 Operation and Maintenance
By adhering to the following recommendations, the
participating entity would be able to begin planning for the
future management of a canal restoration project which
would go a long way in ensuring the programs long term
success:
• Describe the overall responsibility for the operation,
maintenance, repair, and replacement at the
project's conceptual level;
• Determine if vendors would be allowed to bid on the
long term operations, maintenance, repair, and
replacement of the restoration technologies;
iive elleir°rrr,r;rits o'll rare erllIlerm9C:iive
O& lH11 IPirog irau°rrr, ;:
1) Operations
2) Maintenance
3) Engineering Support
4) Training
5) Administration
• Clearly describe the entity responsible for the
operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the restoration technology
equipment during the development of the request for proposal documents;
• Define different conditions under which Repair and Replacement (R&R) work will be
performed, who will be liable, and the source of funds for performing R&R activities;
• Define reporting requirement for O&M activities and its frequency; and
• As a required element of the proposal, vendors shall include the development of an
Operations and Maintenance Manual and trainings in their cost proposal.
O&M management is a critical component of the restoration. The management function should
bind the distinct parts of the program into a cohesive entity. From our experience, the O&M
program should contain five very distinct functions: Operations, Maintenance, Engineering,
Training, and Administration. While evaluation criteria may differ, generally some level of
economic criteria will be used. O&M managers need to have a working knowledge of economic
metrics such as:
Net present value: Represents the present worth of future cash flows minus the initial
cost of the project; and
• Life -cycle cost: The present worth of all costs associated with a project.
In defining an effective O&M program, each element is comprised of important managerial roles
and responsibilities:
Operations:
• Administration: To ensure effective implementation and control of operation activities;
• Conduct of Operations: To ensure efficient, safe, and reliable process operations;
• Equipment Status Control: To be cognizant of status of all equipment;
50
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
• Operator Knowledge and Performance: To ensure that operator knowledge, and
performance will support safe and reliable plant operation.
Maintenance
• Administration: To ensure effective implementation and control of maintenance
activities;
• Work Control System: To control the performance of maintenance in an efficient and
safe manner such that economical, safe, and reliable plant operation is optimized;
• Conduct of Maintenance: To conduct maintenance in a safe and efficient manner;
• Preventive Maintenance: To contribute to optimum performance and reliability of plant
systems and equipment; and
• Maintenance Procedures and Documentation: To provide directions, when
appropriate, for the performance of work and to ensure that maintenance is performed
safely and efficiently.
Engineering Support
• Engineering Support Organization and Administration: To ensure effective
implementation and control of technical support;
• Equipment Modifications: To ensure proper design, review, control, implementation,
and documentation of equipment design changes in a timely manner;
• Equipment Performance Monitoring: To perform monitoring activities that optimize
equipment reliability and efficiency; and
• Engineering Support Procedures and Documentation: To ensure that engineer
support procedures and documents provide appropriate direction and that they support
the efficiency and safe operations of the equipment.
Training
• Administration: To ensure effective implementation and control of training activities;
• General Employee Training: To ensure that personnel have a basic understanding of
their responsibilities and safe work practices and have the knowledge and practical
abilities necessary to operate the plant safely and reliably;
• Training Facilities and Equipment: To ensure the training facilities, equipment, and
materials effectively support training activities;
• Operator Training: To develop and improve the knowledge and skills necessary to
perform assigned job functions; and
• Maintenance Training: To develop and improve the knowledge and skills necessary to
perform assigned job functions.
51
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood•
December 12, 2019
Administration
• Organization and Administration: To establish and ensure effective implementation of
policies and the planning and control of equipment activities;
• Management Objectives: To formulate and utilize formal management objectives to
improve equipment performance;
• Management Assessment: To monitor and assess activities to improve all aspects of
equipment performance;
• Personnel Planning and Qualification: To ensure that positions are filled with highly
qualified individuals; and
• Industrial Safety: To achieve a high degree of personnel and public safety.
3.8.1 Operations and Maintenance Program
An O&M Plan is prepared incrementally during the final stages of the design and system
implementation. Upon startup of the restoration technology and ongoing over the life span of the
restoration technology, the O&M plan should be revised to capture changes in site conditions, the
equipment, and key personnel associated with the project. The first version should be produced
as early in the project as possible, to ensure that operation and maintenance needs are
understood and planned for accordingly, as well as the roles and responsibilities for on -going
operation and maintenance. Early versions of the O&M plan may be quite limited in content,
focusing on issues such as staffing, funding, and documentation that need to be worked on well
in advance of system startup. Details of specific operation and maintenance activities can be
added as needed, and after the system is developed and its specific characteristics become better
known to the project team.
An Operation & Maintenance Plan is separate from operating manuals and maintenance manuals
provided by system or component developers or suppliers. Those documents describe detailed
procedures, whereas the O&M Plan describes resource organization, responsibilities, policies,
and general procedures.
Restoration Specific O&M Plan
Operation and maintenance activities can usually be described in a single plan. However, for large
or complex systems it may be appropriate to prepare a maintenance plan separately from the
operation plan. Similarly, large or complex systems may warrant separate plans for specific
aspects of operation or maintenance, including configuration management, staff training, data
management, safety, and security. The plan should provide sufficient information for the system
to be effectively operated and maintained, even in the event of a complete turn -over of the
personnel originally involved.
The conceptual design, system requirements, and design documents will provide initial guidance
as to the extent and nature of operation and maintenance activities. As specific aspects are
procured and implemented, the plan can be updated and expanded to include more specific
information. For small or simple systems, configuration management may be covered within the
O&M Plan.
52
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Criteria for O & M Plans
• Answer all the questions of who, what,
where, and when concerning operation
and maintenance,
• O & M Plans should identify the
personnel responsible for operations
and maintenance,
• Clearly identify the personnel
responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the system,
• Outline the staff and facilities including Image 18: Bubble curtain control panel and
tools needed for the O&M of the system,
• Identify funding sources for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the restorations,
• Detail the type of monitoring required to ensure the systems are operating according to
specification,
• Describe the checks to be made, and the data to be collected,
• Address the training of operators and maintenance personnel,
• Outline the procedures for the continued safety and protection of the equipment,
• Detail procedures for preparing the system in advance of extreme weather phenomenon,
• Contain or reference other documents needed to maintain the system, and
• Contain a prescribed maintenance schedule for the equipment or system.
3.8.2 Cost of Operation and Maintenance
When factoring maintenance costs, it is recommended that participating entities calculate the
costs associated with conducting an inspection of the restoration projects, recovering or replacing
the equipment, and utility costs associated with operating the technologies. The primary
responsibility for conducting maintenance shall be with the participating entity. This document
doesn't preclude local agreements between cooperating groups such homeowners and
municipalities as it applies to the performance of maintenance activities.
The disadvantages of reactive maintenance are numerous but mostly not visible to management,
which is why so many facilities continue to use this approach. Predictive maintenance is based
on the tenet that a proactive approach is better than a reactive one. However, instead of making
repairs based on a predetermined calendar schedule, the predictive approach makes repairs
based on the actual condition of the equipment. For example, in a predictive maintenance
program, key operating parameters of equipment are checked regularly by staff or monitored
automatically by sensors. The readings are then analyzed and used to evaluate the condition of
the equipment and predict the future performance or likelihood of failure. The key to predictive
maintenance is that equipment and system condition determines what maintenance is performed,
53
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
rather than a preset schedule. This means that repairs are
performed at the ideal time, resources are not wasted on
unnecessary work, and equipment is maintained at a higher
level of performance.
While restoration technologies such as culverts and weed
gates can have lower design and engineering, permitting,
and construction costs, the long-term monitoring and
maintenance fees of the aforementioned technologies may
exceed those of backfilling and capping.
Long -Term Inspections of Restoration Projects
Canal restoration technology inspections can reduce
facilities maintenance costs and improve availability by
enabling just -in -time maintenance of facilities systems and
related equipment. Routine inspections can detect trends
or conditions that indicate excessive wear or impending
failure. This allows for the planning of timely maintenance.
Maintenance and repair (M&R) spending is a normal and
expected cost of facility ownership. However, the cost can
be minimized through the implementation of an O&M plan
Frequently cited disadvantages
of reactive maintenance
include:
• Increased cost due to
unplanned downtime of
equipment Increased labor
costs, especially if overtime is
needed,
• Cost involved with repair or
replacement of equipment,
• Possible secondary
equipment or process
damage from equipment
failure.
• Inefficient use of staff
resource: who are always in
"firefighting mode"
that includes a facility management program and the use of applicable diagnostic tools. The key
to success is for managers to become proactive and embark on a realistic, long-range M&R
program which requires routine inspection of the canal restoration projects.
Well -planned M&R is cost effective. Lack of an effective M&R program results in reactionary
(crisis) management as breakdown repair becomes the normal business activity. A reactionary
approach results in high penalty costs that take ever-increasing amounts of the M&R and
operating budgets. Consequently, the longer M&R is deferred, the more likely the deterioration of
the infrastructure associated with the restoration technology will accelerate.
Periodic inspections of canal restoration projects are essential to ensure that maintenance is
being performed and performance problems are recognized prior to failure. Inspections can be
performed by the participating entity (i.e. municipality) or, alternatively, a program can be
established to train and certify private -sector inspectors or homeowners to conduct inspections
on private property, if property owners are responsible for maintenance. These private -sector
inspectors can report inspection findings (inspection forms and photo documentation) to the
participating entity for tracking and reporting.
Replacement Costs
Preventive maintenance is accomplished on a fixed schedule or frequency and consists of many
check -point activities on items, most typically equipment. Examples include filter replacement,
lubrication, and mechanical adjustments. Preventive maintenance reduces the risk of system or
component failure, which if it occurs, would interfere with essential operations, endanger life or
property, involve a high cost, or require a long lead time for replacement. In regards to
replacement costs associated air curtains and pumps, replacement costs are likely to be
equivalent to the original cost of the component plus installation.
54
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Energy Usage and Utility Costs
Energy usage for the operations of
restoration technologies such as air curtains
can be expensive. Based on the United
States Energy Information Administration
(EIA), the average price for Kilowatthour in
Florida is approximately 11 cents. The type
of restoration technology selected, footprint
covered by the technology, and system
requirements will all impact the utility costs
associated with operations. The most recent Image 19:
published information on electricity costs
be reviewed at the EIA's website for
costs:.LLtps:://www. eiia. car/ Il �iriicii�y/i c ir��l�Il / i � Ibll gir � l� irm
I� `��=:e mom 5 5
LWA T*79n*
Bubble curtain diffusers
can
monthly electric power
55
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
4.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF RESTORATION TECHNOLOGIES
Decomposition in sediments consumes oxygen (required by benthic plants and animals) and
produces hydrogen sulfide (a toxic gas) after oxygen is depleted. The absence of an oxygenated
water column and a vibrant benthic ecosystem are both signs of a canal that is experiencing poor
water quality. Without sufficient oxygen, benthic organisms and the fish that depend on benthic
organisms for habitat lack the necessary conditions to flourish.
4.1 Biological Improvements
Florida International University (FIU), evaluated multiple variations of technologies implemented
during the Canal Restoration Demonstration Program to determine the effectiveness of each
treatment in improving water quality as well as, creating conditions that are conducive to the
establishment of good benthic habitat. Based on a scientific evaluation of the treated canals, FIU
made the following conclusions on the effectiveness of the four principal technologies used in the
Canal Restoration Demonstration Program:
• Air curtains: Positive effects of these technologies were not measured in the short period
of post -treatment monitoring that was conducted for this project. Air curtains had no
measurable effect on sediment, fish, or seawall characteristics in either Canal 137, 138,
or 287 where they were installed. Although air curtains block the influx of additional wrack
from entering a canal, they do not address problems related to the organic material already
contained in the sediment;
• Culverts: The effectiveness of culverts as measured through this project show mixed
results between recipient canals. There was no measurable effect of the culvert on
sediment characteristics, fish abundance or seawall diversity compared to the control or
pre-treatment conditions. The increased circulation provided by culvert insulation was
intended to primarily address water column conditions, thus the subsequent effects on
sediment and vegetation may require additional time in order to be identified;
• Backfilling: This technology showed immediate and drastic improvements in
environmental conditions, though observations suggest further steps may need to be
taken to preserve the conditions that these technologies quickly generated. The
decreased water depth allowed light to penetrate to the sediment. As a result, there were
measurable increases in benthic vegetation, fish diversity and abundance and inhabitants
of the sea walls; and
• Organic removal: The removal of organic material from the canal bottom showed
immediate and drastic improvements in environmental conditions, though observations
suggest further steps may need to be taken to preserve the conditions that these
technologies quickly generated. The sediment depth decreased drastically after organic
removal to an average of less than 50 cm in the treated canals. Sediment density
increased in both dredged canals to values within the range of seagrass growth in South
Florida. Improvements in canals where organic material was removed have not showed
an improvement in benthic vegetation, fish, or seawall communities. Sediment and water
column conditions may have improved enough to meet requirements of marine plants,
though there may be a delay in plant recruitment and animal use (Howard et al. 2018).
56
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
4.2 Documented Improvements
In order to determine what effect the restoration technologies have on meeting State of Florida
water quality standards, FIU developed a water quality monitoring program that compared water
quality data from demonstration canals with similar canals that were not included in the restoration
program. According to FIU, the main objective of the monitoring program was to provide data
needed to make unbiased, statistically rigorous statements about the status and temporal trends
of water quality parameters in the remediated canals. The first post-remediation simultaneous
monitoring of all canals began in June 2017. FIU used diel (monitoring over a period of time) and
water profile data for the assessment.
FIU's study concluded that canals that received backfilling (Key Largo #29) and culvert treatment
technologies (Big Pine #277, Geiger Key #470, and Geiger Key #472, experienced positive
increasing trends in the percentage of dissolved oxygen saturation (%DO Sat) after remediation.
For these canals, the response to technology implementation was almost immediate, not only in
oxygen concentration but also with the arrival of fish and crab to the remediated canals. As of
May 2018, canals that received organic removal and air curtains have yet to display improvements
in %DO Saturation. Based on data collected during the limited monitoring period, FIU made the
following conclusions about the principle technologies:
Backfilling: This technique resulted in an immediate change in the canal's water quality
by significantly improving the water column's DO content. The study from FIU concluded
that for deep canals, water quality in residential canals cannot be improved without
reducing canal depth. FIU went further in saying that it recommended that bottom
elevations within residential canals should be raised to a depth shallower than
approximately 7 ft;
Weed gates and air curtains: The use of air curtains or weed gates appeared to be
effective in reducing the amount of seaweed wrack entering into the canals; however,
canals that only implemented a weed barrier as their treatment method displayed no
improvement in water quality parameters;
• Culvert Installation: This technology effectively increased oxygenation by improving
circulation and exchange. This is in alignment with the purpose of culverts which are to
stimulate the exchange with cleaner near shore waters;
Organic removal: Since the implementation of this technology, water quality parameters
for canals treated only with organic removal have shown no positive improvement.
Monitoring of canals that were treated with organic removal coupled with a weed barrier
have yielded more positive results. The study found that without being combined with an
air curtain, seaweed would continue to flow into the canal and begin decaying rendering
organic removal less effective; and
• Aeration: For canals that implemented aeration, the monitoring program found aeration
only addresses only oxygenation within the water column. The study was not able to
attribute long-term improvements with aeration. FIU's study does recommend combining
aeration with air curtains; however, they are not able to attribute a noticeable improvement
with such actions.
Upon completion of the limited monitoring program, FIU determined the timeframe for monitoring
water quality improvements was too short to detect significant and sustained changes as
57
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
expected from remediation. Based on their limited monitoring data, FIU was able concluded that
DO was the only parameter displayed improvement as a result of the demonstration program.
Nutrient concentration levels have not declined in any of the remediated canals.
FIU confirmed that Poor water quality is most often a function of depth. The two technologies that
demonstrated the greatest ability to improve DO were the backfilling projects and installation of
culverts. Both technologies resulted in greater flushing of the canal water which reduced the
amount of time water remained in the canal. What the limited monitoring study made clear is that
most often, no single restoration technology addresses all water quality issues which may exist in
a residential canal (FIU 2018).
58
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
5.0 STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING COST EFFICIENCY
Understanding that the overall cost for restoration is significant and will likely grow overtime,
creates a motivation for timely action. Cost efficiencies increase when formal implementation
plans are adopted with known budgets and funding sources. Plans, project timelines, and budget
for implementation provide important insight that set expectations for contractors and engineers.
This allows contractors and engineers to plan for consistent utilization of construction crews.
Additionally, dredging companies and engineering contractors will recognize efficiencies by
continuous mobilization within the County. As funding for the long-range operations becomes
consistent from year to year, economies of scale will influence the management of restorations.
The management principles listed are proven drivers of efficiencies and cost reduction.
• Specialization and division of labor: In large scale operations workers can do more
specialized tasks. With training they become very proficient in their task, enabling greater
efficiency. A good example is a mechanic who becomes more familiar with the same
system, can quickly diagnose and repair commonly occurring issues;
• Bulk buying: If you buy a large quantity, then the average costs will be lower. This is
because of lower transport costs and less packaging, discounts offered, and other
incentives such as prompt payment of invoices;
• Spreading overheads: If a firm merged, it could rationalize its operational centers. For
example, it could have one head office rather than two;
• External economies of scale: This occurs when firms benefit from the whole industry
getting bigger and more reliable (e.g. firms will benefit from better infrastructure, access
to specialized labor and good supply networks); and
• Coordination of Projects: If more than on participating entity pursues a restoration
project, coordinating schedules and contracting may result in reducing overall costs for
each project due to reduced mobilization costs.
Planning Project Implementation and Long-term Operation
A most effective methodology for creating efficiencies is to plan: plan for restoration design and
construction implementation; plan for community engagement and canal stakeholder input; plan
for short-term and long-term operation and maintenance; and plan for financial management of
all costs. A Plan addresses many of the principle set forth in Section 2 of this Canal Restoration
and Guidance document as well as the management steps defined in Section 2.1.4. The Plan
should document and drive decisions on oversight, day-to-day implementation, and enforcement
of standards for project outcomes and sustainability of the restored canal. Establishing the
partnership framework, as described in 2.2.3, Roles and Responsibilities, ensures that partners
are aware of and carrying out assigned responsibilities in a timely manner, using a schedule that
is agreed to by all the partners.
The Plan identifies the permits required and includes within the schedule, a timely review,
minimizing overlap as described in 4.3 in this Section in addition to the financial plan and tools to
ensure an effective project execution. Creating a cost model for the entire project, from concept
59
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
design to long-term operation and maintenance reduces surprises for all partners and assists in
aligning costs to potential revenue sources.
Documentation is important as well. Each decision, each policy, each process for project
completion should be fully documented. This ensures that regardless of representation by various
partners, change can be effectively managed. Project schedules can be met when all partners
know their commitments and the dependencies and impacts of one action on another. Cost
increases in time and money typically occur because insufficient planning occurred.
Recommendation: It is recommended that all partners participate in development of the overall
plan strategies to create ownership and clarity in role and purpose.
Efficiency and Effectiveness of Systems
While this guidance document recognizes the central importance of funding for new projects and
O&M, it also encourages participating entities to put effort into getting more out of the provided
funds through operational efficiencies (e.g. energy efficient systems that only operate when
needed), which in turn reduces costs.
Additionally, rather than just focusing on short-term fixes, participating entities should also
concentrate on measures that "enable" O&M for the long term, i.e. developing appropriate
funding, capabilities and governance for the canal restoration. Continued funding of canal
restoration O&M is more likely if participants can regularly illustrate the effectiveness of the
technology and projects. In addition, establishing governance through agreements, memorandum
of understanding, and /or contracts, provides long-term accountability. Budgeting and fiscal
controls, within an operating plan, strengthen grant applications for current or future projects.
5.1 Project Grouping
The benefits of grouping projects together and encouraging collaboration across more than one
project may result in reduced project and management costs for the participating entity, attractive
margins for contractors, potentially earlier completion, and often fewer contract disputes.
Furthermore, the solution to issues that arise with one restoration technology can often times be
applied to similar projects especially when applied within a local geography (e.g. the transport
and placement of fill material in overly deep canals). The emphasis on relationships rather than
transactions can establish support for continuous improvement and long-term relationships that
extend to future projects.
5.1.2 Benefits of Grouping Similar Projects
The following guidance identifies means by which costs can be reduced or controlled by grouping
projects together especially on a locally geographic basis.
Procurement of larger quantities of materials
Typically, the larger the quantity of manufactured or raw material purchased, the less the unit cost
will be. To maximize the benefits, the participating entity may need to plan similar canal restoration
projects within a set timeframe to take advantage of purchasing larger quantities of materials.
W
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
It's typically not beneficial for a participating entity to purchase materials directly from suppliers
as contractors often have existing agreements and greater purchasing power. Furthermore, the
onus to ensure the equipment works as specified in the canal restoration design plans is on the
contractor when they are responsible for procuring the materials. However, participating entities
may find it advantageous to seek purchasing agreements with established vendors or request the
purchase of larger quantities of materials than required for restorations if a specific restoration
technology is known to have a high repair and replacement cost. Such foresight can reduce
downtime following extreme weather events should funding to support the canal restoration
program be unavailable.
Reduction in permitting costs and review times
Permit application fees for SFWMD issued ERPs are based on project size and impact area as
well as, where the size and quantity of impacts fit into the agency's application fee structure. Due
to the relatively small project size and impact area for certain restoration technologies, it's possible
that multiple projects could be packaged together and submitted under one application and still
fit within a prescribed range (e.g. project size < 10 acres with wetlands impacts less than 1 acres).
Packaging O & M of larger number of canals together
The benefits and cost efficiencies associated with packaging the O&M for several canal
restoration projects together is derived from providing potential vendors from inside and outside
the region the opportunity to forecast revenue and invest in local labor resources. Typically O&M
contracts are for 2 to 5 years. The longer the term of the maintenance contract the greater
efficiencies the performing entity might observe and be able to pass on to the performing entity
(i.e. municipality). Additionally, by packaging the operation and maintenance of several canal
restoration projects together, participating entities may be able to take advantage of sole source
efficiencies. Such procurement policies would result in the following benefits:
• Based on the similarity of restoration technologies applied geographically through the
various regions of Monroe County, the location of staff and supplies can be strategically
placed to reduce travel time (e.g. seaweed loading and the use of weed gates are likely
to be more commonly used in the middle and lower keys);
• Reduced travel costs for technicians if they are able to be sourced locally;
• Familiarity with site conditions and access requirements would reduce the amount of
preparation time and time onsite;
• Knowledge of the equipment and installation design will maximize the life cycle of
restoration technologies through preventative services; and
• Locally stationed labor resources would be able to react in a timely fashion to secure
equipment when faced with a pending extreme weather event (i.e. hurricane, flooding,
etc).
Recommendation: By packaging O&M from multiple projects and awarding longer term
contracts, participating entities can achieve efficiencies, responsive and timely repairs, and overall
services, reducing the likelihood of a lack of local O&M capabilities post -construction.
61
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
5.1.3 Area Focused Restorations
Reduced Mobilizations
Contractors expend significant
preparatory costs early on a large
construction project. It is common
that contractors bid their
mobilization costs as 10 percent of
the original contract amount, which
is the maximum amount that can
be paid during execution of the
work. Contractors' mobilization
costs provide a revenue source
early in the project. These
preparatory costs are incurred prior
to beginning construction at the Image 20: Sugarloaf key
project site, and reimbursement of
mobilization costs in a timely manner is appropriate. By reducing costs that are directly related to
the startup of a project, the overall cost is reduced. The following are benefits to reducing the
number of mobilizations:
Equipment delivery costs: The cost to move construction equipment from an equipment
yard or rental company to the job site and back again is not included in the direct
equipment -use project charges. Mobilization (to the site) and demobilization (from the
site) are typically separate unit costs in the mobilization fee. If a piece of equipment is
already at the job site, it is not appropriate to add delivery costs to the overall
mobilization/demobilization costs in developing the cost estimate; and
Transportation costs: Transportation expenses which are included in the cost of a
project refer to the use of or cost of maintaining a car used for business, or transport by
rail, air, bus, taxi or any other means of conveyance for business purposes. Expenses for
commuting to the job site (traveling from home to a workplace) are typically not included
in the cost of a project. If enough business exists in a localized area, contractors will be
able hire locally and forego the need to include travel costs for their entire team.
Recommendation: With mobilization, contractors are compensated shortly after they incur the
applicable costs. When contractors know that they will be compensated initially for mobilization
expenses, the participating entity may find that bids are lower because contractors will not have
to finance the those costs. Potentially, the savings of not having to finance the mobilization costs
for extended periods will result in a reduction in overhead costs that are passed along to the
participating entity (i.e. project owner).
62
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
5.2 Establish Standard Engineering Designs
The benefits relying on standard engineering designs for the Monroe County Canal Restoration
Program would result in the following benefits and efficiencies that can directly affect cost.
• Lower supply chain costs: Contractors and participating entities will be able to negotiate
more advantageous agreements with vendors if they can provide some certainty to the
supplier about the specifications of the equipment and raw material that the project
requires;
• Faster restoration design: The amount of time required for the engineers to develop the
construction plans will be reduced;
• Reduced permit review times: The amount of time required to address regulators
questions regarding construction plans will be reduced as the agencies become more
familiar with the designs and impacts associated their implementation;
• Increased quality assurance: Being able to provide feedback regarding the application
of a restoration technique will improve the quality and efficiency with which it is applied;
• Reduced risk: Contractors prefer detailed and complete plans and specifications which
provide a better understanding of the project, allowing them to bid more effectively and
competitively. Contractors have less risk with their bid. There is no need for them to add
unnecessary costs to cover incidental or assumed items since every item of work is spelled
out the bid form; and
• Consistency for O&M Plans: Standard engineering specifications and design plans
provide consistency in establishing long-term operation plans. When unique or specialized
plans are developed that do not have information on historical use or performance, the
O&M plan must include contingencies for on -going operation and cost projections. This
increases uncertainty in performance and in assignment of responsibilities for participating
entity and partners.
5.3 Permit Fast Tracking
It is assumed that fast tracking of environmental and construction permits for canal restoration
projects is not viable. This is due to environmental sensitivities and the abundance of protected
natural resources. However, the process of obtaining applicable permits in a timely manner is
assisted through the implementation of the following guidance.
Grouping projects: Grouping projects together so that they can be submitted under a
single application is only available for projects that are being developed by the same
participating entity. This requires that the projects are located within the same
geographical region. When possible, this option should be considered;
• Proven technologies: Permit reviewers from respective agencies over time will become
familiar with the technologies, regions, and participating entities. An understanding of the
requirements and participants partners will eventually reduce the need for costly requests
for additional information or changes to the designs; and
63
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Minimizing impacts: It is a best practice to select the least -damaging project type, while
achieving the purpose of the project. Minimizing or completely avoiding impacts is
achieved through an analysis of appropriate and practicable alternatives and a
consideration of impact footprint. By selecting projects or designing projects that
avoid/minimize impacts to protected resources' compensatory mitigation, which is
achieved through appropriate and practicable restoration, establishment, enhancement,
and/or preservation of aquatic resource functions and services, may not be required.
Although the mitigation itself may not be excessive in cost, the process of developing the
mitigation plan and obtaining signed agreements with mitigation banks does add to the
overall timeframe and project cost;
By implementing these recommendations and adhering to this guidance, in time, the amount of
time required to obtain permits will be minimized down to the most administratively feasible
timeframe possible. This will further contribute to cost effectiveness because planning,
management, and design time associated with projects will be reduced as the need for regulators
to issue multiple requests for additional information will be eliminated due to their familiarity with
the program.
5.4 Development of an Approved Contractor and Unit Price Lists.
Pre -qualification and the development of unit price sheets or schedule of values are essential
components of an effective contractor management system. Establishing unit price contracts with
estimated quantities assists in controlling costs. However, the contractor is paid for actual
quantities of work performed and as verified by the consultant and/or owner representative.
5.4.1 Standardized Qualification Process Based on Project Type
Prequalification is a way to limit the pool of potential bidders to qualified, serious bidders.
Proponents of prequalification say that it is a productive approach to contracting the bidders who
are not responsive and/or qualified. Not only does Pre -qualification makes the bidding process
more efficient as it reduces the likelihood of an unqualified firm being selected. It reduces the
likelihood of selecting a contractor who can't complete the work, technically, on time and/or on
budget. It increases the potential for contractors to win multiple awards allowing experienced
contractors who have gained knowledge to provide competitive bids. It creates positive
relationships with vendors who can provide competitive pricing due to the regularity of the work.
Furthermore, as a control measure on costs and performance delivery, pre -qualifying can help to
prevent/reduce cost over -runs and litigation.
Prequalification reduces the risk of an award to a contractor who is working in an unfamiliar
environment, taking on a scope of work for which they have little or no experience. The risk can
be unfortunate for the contractor and the owner (participating entity). The consequences could
erode the public's trust in the Canal Restoration Program. Additionally, pre -qualifying contractors
provides the opportunity to determine if the contractor has a history of compliance with standard
health and safety regulations as along with the evaluations of the contractor's resume of similar
work.
Recommendation: It is recommended that participating entities review the qualifications of
potential contractors and vendors prior to proceeding with a canal restoration project. Pre -
qualification processes focus on a specific service and project value.
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
5.4.2 Pre -approve Sources of Materials
Frequency of usage drives up volume, providing incentive for vendors to offer the best possible
price. The following practices are options that participating entity could use or request of their
contractors to control or reduce the cost of canal restorations.
• If the materials can be purchased from multiple sources, compare existing specifications
from multiple suppliers; allow comparison bidding/purchasing;
• Examine if the tolerances for characteristics can be expanded to purchase from more
than one source or a wider range of possible, existing materials (such as size for
materials); and
• Identify functionality for a material that costs less or has fewer known concerns to
determine if it is a reliable substitute.
5.4.3 Pre -Established Unit Prices.
Unit price bidding establishes an equitable basis for competitive bidding so that contractors are
bidding on the exact same scope of work. This allows for thorough review and comparison of all
bids. Unit price bidding allows designers, consultants, and/or engineers to build in project
contingencies for any unknown items that may occur during construction. It ensures that all costs
are accounted for and it minimizes the potential for hidden costs. Specifically, unit pricing can
promote cost efficiencies when:
The participating entity pays only for the actual quantities
constructed on the project, and
® General contingency that protects the contractor from inaccurate quantity estimates is
minimized.
Unit pricing eliminates the potential for contractors' price unnecessary extra items since all items
are included through the design phase.
65
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115 wood.
December 12, 2019
6.0 LITERATURE CITED OR RELIED UPON
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 2012. Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report. 181 p.
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 2013. Technical Memorandum Task 1 Bathymetric Surveys
of Residential Canals. 19 p.
Briceno, H.O., and J.N. Boyer. 2009. Little Venice water quality monitoring project final report.
USEPA, Atlanta, GA and FDEP, Ft. Myers, FL. 81 p.
CDM. 2001. Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan. Monroe County. Key
West, FL. 304 p.
CDM. 2011. Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Documentation Update. FDEP. Tallahassee,
FL. 52
CDM and URS. 2008. Central Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation. FDEP.
Tallahassee, FL. 149 p.
CDM and URS. 2008b. Northern Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation. FDEP.
Tallahassee, FL. 136 p.
CDM and URS. 2008c. South -Central Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation.
FDEP. Tallahassee, FL. 126 p.
CH2MHILL. 2000. Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, Vols. 1 and 2. Monroe
County. Key West, FL. 219 p.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2013. Florida's Coral Reefs. Website
Accessed August 28, 2013 I� ttp. /f .gip..:. ,! : ll: u�sfq st llfl� l iitats/c it llf
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2011. Site -Specific Information in Support of
Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Bay — Draft. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL.
52 p.
Florida International University. 2018. Water Quality Monitoring Project for Demonstration of
Canal Remediation Methods: Florida Keys: Final Report May 2018 Submitted by: Henry
O. Briceno Southeast Environmental Research Center Florida International University
Miami, Florida
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Undated. Coral reefs support jobs, tourism, and
fisheries. I� tt [].2.!Jdal4c y l a g r/ca it ns/econ ni l lr ll. Website Accessed October
15, 2019.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (2013).
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Socioeconomic Factsheet. Website Accessed
August 28 2013 I��tt :ffsanctuairies.noaa. gyZscJience/socloeconoirliiic/ des/fI fiinall. d.
9 I.......................................................................................................................................g.......................................................................................................................................................................................p..............................................................................p.............
M.
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 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. 49 p.
Howard, J.L; Wilson, S.S.; Lopes, C.C.; and Fourqurean, J.W. 2018. Status of Residential Canal
Benthic Habitats in the Florida Keys and the Effectiveness of Remediation Technologies
(Project Report) Prepared for the Water Quality Protection Program, Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary & The Village of Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida Florida
International University November 2018
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,
I�ltt :ffocean.ffloiridair��airine.oir fIf IKINIMS WQII:::III:::I/docs/flkniiiis/ire oir sf1999 Water Qualliit
p......................................................................................................................................................................0...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... p.............................................................................................................................................................. y.........
C,o irn, ,ir ,s.......,,,,If;;;;,II, ,ir.d. Key p, „�. Website accessed October 16, 2019.
National Research Council. 2002. A Review of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study.
National Academies Press. Washington, DC. 180 p.
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 p.
URS. 2001. Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, Canal Impact Assessment Module. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL and Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Tallahassee, FL. 173 p.
United States Department of Energy (Undated) Guide to Financing Energy Smart Schools.
United States Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District. 2004.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement - Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvements Program. USACE, Jacksonville, FL and SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL.
214 p.
United States Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District. 2006.
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program: Program Management Plan (Final).
USACE, Jacksonville, FL and SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL. 114 p.
United States Department of Interior and United States 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 p.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Finger -fill canal studies: Florida and
North Carolina (EPA 904/9-76-017). USEPA, Washington, DC. 232 p.
67
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Strengthening the Management,
Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA, Annapolis,
MD. 122 p.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 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.
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Example Budgetary Sheets
Example Canal Restoration Project Budget Sheet - Backfill
Location of Canal
Mitigation Project Type
Public or Private
Public
Private
Project Sponsor
Project Coordinator
Permits Required
Yes
No
Participating Entity
Authorized Representative
Type of Permits
Projected Life of Repair
Cost Estimation Work Sheet
Unit
Canal Backfilling Cost Elements Measure
Units/Quantity
Cost Per Unit
Total Estimated Cost
Implementation Costs Mobilization and Demobilization
Maintenance of Traffic
Remove and Replace Chain Link Fence
Mangrove Trimming (by Professional)
Conveyor Belt System
Privacy Fencing (designate height)
Floating Turbidity Barrier (mouth of canal and around construction area based
on permit requirements
Coarse Fill Material
Sand Fill Material (Top 1 foot)
Trucking of Backfill Material
Placement of Fill
Construction Surveys
Staging Area Logistics (clearing other vegetation)
Restoration of property/constructon site materials storage/staging
Material Transportation
Clearing Vegetation / Mitigation for Mangrove Removal
Permitting Costs; Mitigation cost for losses
Surveying
Project Closeout
Mitigation Plan Preparation
Administrative Costs Permit Filing Charges
Inspection Services - Project Acceptance
Project Financing Management
Contingency
Remobilization for Additional Fill Material Placement
Cost per Yard for Additional Fill
Operation and Maintenance
Prepare O&M Plan (define responsibilities and targeted annual costs)
Periodic Sampling (define frequency and method, including any testing;
General site routine inspection -frequency
Inspection after major weather event
Example Canal Restoration Project Budget Sheet - Air Curtain Placement
Canal Name and #
Project Dates:
Start
End
Location of Canal
Mitigation Project Type
Public or Private
Public
Private
Project Sponsor
Project Coordinator
Permits Required
Yes
No
Participating Entity
Authorized Representative
Type of Permits
Projected Life of Repair
Cost Estimation Work Sheet
Unit
Air Curtain Cost Elements Measure
Units/Quantity
Cost Per Unit
Total Estimated Cost
Mobilization and Demobilization
Floating Turbidity Curtain (mouth of canal)
Compressor
Compressor Cabinet
Compressor slab/platform
Compressor Cabinet Sound Kits
Emitter Assembles
Membrane Disks
Air Maniford (define size)
Pipe (size and length)
Pumps (type, size)
Restoration of property/constructon site materials storage/staging
Material Transportation
Feet of Bottom line Tubing (identify diameter)
Clearning of vegetation and restoration
Mitigation Plan Preparation
Permit Filing Charges
Administrative Costs
Inspection Services - Project Acceptance
Project Financing Management
Contingency
Prepare 0&M Plan (responsibilities and targeted cost)
Outsource routine maintenance (length of service; inspection schedule)
Operation and Maintenance
General site routine inspection - frequency
Inspection of curtain equipment - routine (frequency)
Inspection of curtain equipment after major weather event
Example Canal Restoration Project Budget Sheet - Culvert Connection
Canal Name and #
Project Dates:
Start
End
Location of Canal
Mitigation Project Type
Public or Private
Public
Private
Project Sponsor
Project Coordinator
Permits Required
Yes
No
Participating Entity
Authorized Representative
I
I Type of Permits
Projected Life of Repair
Cost Estimation Work Sheet
Unit
Culvert Connection Cost Elements Measure
Units/Quantity
Cost Per Unit
Total Estimated Cost
Mobilization and Demobilization
Maintenance of Traffic
Waddles
Tree Protection
Floating Turbidity Barrier (mouth of canal and construction area)
Removal of Water
Regular Excavation
Culvert Backfill Clean Fill Material (FDOT No 57 Stone or Equivalent)
Road Optional Base. Base Group 6
Raod Optional Base, Base Group 11
Landscaping
Reinforced Concrete Culvert (state diameter size, length, )
Retaining Wall restoration
Manatee Grate
Type III - S Asphaltic Concrete Pavement
Thermoplastic (specify type)
Construction Surveys
Restoration of property/constructon site materials storage/staging
Material Transportation
Clearing Vegetation / Mitigation for Mangrove Removal
Mitigation Plan Preparation
Costs
Permit Filing Charges
Administrative
Inspection Services - Project Acceptance
Project Financing Management
Contingency
Operation and Maintenance
M Plan (responsibilities and targeted costs)
routine inspections (frequency and responsibilities)
HGenerale routine inspection - frequency
tion after major weather event
Example Canal Restoration Project Budget Sheet - Weed Barrier
Canal Name and #
Project Dates:
Start
End
Location of Canal
Mitigation Project Type
Public or Private
Public
Private
Project Sponsor
Project Coordinator
Permits Required
Yes
No
Participating Entity
Authorized Representative
Type of Permits
Projecred Life of Repair
Cost Estimation Work Sheet
Weed Barrier Cost Elements
Unit
Measure
Units/Quantity
Cost Per Unit
Total Estimated Cost
Mobilization and Demobilization
Erosion and Sediment Control
Transmission line (estimate by size and type preferred)
Diffuser Mannford System
Compressors or Blower Type (describe)
Labor
Diffusers -(describe details)
ID lines (describe size preferred)
Staging area preparation
Transportation of materials
Clearning of vegetation and restoration
Administrative Costs
Mitigation Plan Preparation
Permit Filing Charges
Inspection Services - Project Acceptance
Project Financing Management
Contingency
Prepare 0&M Plan (responsibilities and targeted costs)
Outsource routine maintenance (length of service; inspection schedule)
Operation and Maintenance
General site routine inspection - frequency
Inspection of diffusers equipment - routine (frequency)
Inspection of diffusers after major weather event
Example Canal Restoration Project Budget Sheet - Organic Removal
Canal Name and #
Project Dates:
Start
End
Location of Canal
Mitigation Project Type
Public or Private
Public
Private
Project Sponsor
Project Coordinator
Permits Required
Yes
No
Participating Entity
Authorized Representative
Type of Permits
Organic Consistency
Projected Life of Repair
Cost Estimation Work Sheet
Unit
Organic Removal Cost Elements Measure
Units/Quantity
Cost Per Unit
Total Estimated Cost
Mobilization and Demobilization
Maintenance of Traffic
Floating Turbidity barrier (mouth of canal and around construction area
Organic Muck Removal
Organic Muck Dewatering
Organic Muck Transportation and Disposal
Placement of Sand Fill (state depth)
Construction Surveys
Restoration of property/constructon site materials storage/staging
Material Transportation
Clearing Vegetation / Mitigation for Mangrove Removal
Rehabilitation of Dewatering Areas to Original Condition
Federal Jones Act Insurance
Administrative Costs
Mitigation Plan Preparation
Permit Filing Charges
Inspection Services - Project Acceptance
Project Financing Management
Contingency
Remobilization for Additional Fill Material Placement
Cost per Yard for Additional Fill
Prepare 0&M Plan (define responsibilities and targeted annual costs)
Periodic Sampling (define frequency and method, including any testing)
Operation and Maintenance
General site routine inspection - frequency
Inspection after major weather event
Example Canal Restoration Project Budget Sheet - Organic Removal with Backfill and Curtain Restoration
Canal Name and #
Project Dates:
Start
End
Location of Canal
Mitigation Project Type
Public or Private
Public
Private
Project Sponsor
Project Coordinator
Permits Required
Yes
No
Participating Entity
Authorized Representative
Type of Permits
Organic Consistency
Projected Lifeof Repair
Cost Estimation Work Sheet
Organic Removal -Backfill -Air
Curtain Restoration Cost Elements
Unit
Measure
Units/Quantity
Cost Per Unit
Total Estimated Cost
Electrical Hookup
Transmission Line with Trenching
Weighted Diffuser Line
Diffuser Manifold
Compressors in Cabinet on Slab (#)
Cabinet Landscaping
Control Panel
Wind Switch
Weather Monitor and Pole
Labor
Diffusers- (Describe type and size)
Diffuser Bases
Rehabilitation of Staging Area to Original Condition
Mobilization and Demobilization
Maintenance of Traffic
Floating Turbidity Barrier (mouth of canal and around construction area
Organic Muck Removal
Organic Muck Dewatering
Organic Muck Transportation and Disposal
Restoration/Rehabilitation of Dewatering Areas to Original Condition
Fill Material
Material Transportation
Clearing Vegetation / Mitigation for Mangrove Removal
Rehabtation of Dewatering Areas to Original Condition
Trucking Backfill Material
Construction Surveys
Placement of Coarse Fill
Mitigation Plan Preparation
Administrative Costs
Permit Filing Charges
Inspection Services - Project Acceptance
Project Financing Management
Contingency
Remobilization for Additional Fill Material Placement
Cost per Yard for Additional Fill
Prepare O&M Plan - define responsibilities and targted annual costs
Outsource routine maintenance (length of service; inspection schedule)
Operation Maintenance
Periodic Sampling (define frequency and method, including any testing)
and
General site routine inspection - frequency
Inspection of curtain equipment - routine (frequency)
Inspection of curtain equipment after major weather event
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
APPENDIX B
CMMP Canal Selection Process
76
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
May 28, 2019
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Prepared For: Ms. Rhonda Haag, Monroe County
Prepared By: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Subject: Canal Selection Process
Project: EPA Grant No. OOD83418
I. Background
An inventory and assessment of the residential canals in Monroe County that was completed in
2003 first characterized the water quality in the residential canals as Poor, Fair, or Good based
on canal attributes such as area, tidal energy, construction methodology, and level of
development. The initial assessment also identified potential restoration technologies, but did not
select restoration technologies for canals nor rank the canals for restoration.
Phase II of the Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) which was completed in 2012 and 2013
provided an evaluation of all 502 Keys canals in the canal inventory database based on available
water quality data and other quantitative and qualitative information. Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
concentration and relevant biological indicators were used to develop the following canal water
quality classification system:
Table 1. Water Quality Ranking
DO Conditions
Biological Conditions
Water Quality Ranking
> 4.0 mg/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
Additionally, the Poor water quality canals were ranked for priority of restoration based on severity
of the problem, habitat quality, potential for achievement, supplemental benefits, project
constraints, and public benefits. An example ranking sheet from the Phase II CMMP is provided
77
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
in Exhibit I. The top ranked Poor water quality canals were further evaluated for selection of
restoration projects under the Demonstration Program.
Following the completion of the Phase II CMMP water quality rankings, the FDEP water quality
criteria for DO was modified from the 4 mg/L (at any location at any time) threshold to percent
saturation at a representative location as follows:
1. The daily average DO percent saturation shall not be below 42 percent;
2. The weekly average DO percent saturation shall not be below 51 percent; and
3. The monthly average DO percent saturation shall not be below 56 percent.
Additionally, the determination of whether a canal exhibits impaired water quality pursuant to
FDEP standards requires the collection of multiple samples (at least 20 samples within a 7.5
year period).
In 2017, additional water quality data for the Poor and Fair canals was collected during
Phase IIIA of the CMMP. The 2017 water quality data was compiled along with the 2013 water
quality data as well as water quality data collected by the FDEP and FIU, and water quality
rankings were revised based on the following criteria:
• Poor - At least two samples were Poor (<42%), and more than 30 percent of the total
number of DO samples were Poor
• Fair - At least 50 percent of the DO samples were Poor or Fair (42%<>70%)
• Good -Greater 50 percent of the DO samples were Good (>70%), or at least 10
samples were collected and the canal satisfies the criterion set forth in 62-303.320(1)
It was assumed under Phase II of the CMMP that restoration of all of the Poor and Fair canals
would be required. However, based on revision to the DO criteria as well as the revised ranking
criteria, it is expected that only Poor ranked canals will require restoration. It is anticipated that
additional monitoring activities will be completed to characterize Fair canals as either Poor or
Good.
Due to the limited water quality data and the variability in water quality conditions, the current
number of Poor water quality canals is unknown. However, based on the available data it is
apparent that of the 502 canals, 22 canals have exhibited sufficiently degraded water quality to
warrant restoration.
II. Canal Selection Considerations
The selection of a canal for restoration should satisfy three primary criteria:
• Necessity
• Feasibility
• Potential Benefit
78
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
The necessity for canal restoration is predicated primarily on compliance with the FDEP water
quality criteria. The water quality monitoring activities that were completed in 2017 demonstrated
that significant variability in water quality conditions can be observed, and the collection of grab
samples to characterize DO in a canal may not be representative. Rather, using water quality
sondes to collect diel DO readings is preferred. Ideally, a full week of DO readings would be
collected to determine whether a canal requires restoration; with restoration necessary for a canal
that exhibits three daily average DO readings below 42 percent, or a weekly average below 51
percent.
The feasibility of a canal restoration will require site reconnaissance activities to verify that the
preferred restoration technology can be implemented. Items to consider when evaluating
feasibility include but are not limited to the presence of a sufficient staging area for material
handling if backfill and/or organic removal is proposed; a viable location to place blower cabinets
if an air curtain is proposed; and the location of underground utilities if a culvert is proposed. The
site reconnaissance should also evaluate the presence of sensitive aquatic resources to ensure
that the proposed project will not have potential impacts that could be an impedance for permitting.
Potential benefit should be evaluated based on appropriate engineering studies and reference to
previous restoration success, such as the demonstration program. For example the monitoring
results for the demonstration program indicate that an air curtain is sufficient to prevent additional
water quality degradation from seaweed decomposition, but will not address the impaired water
quality from seaweed loading that occurred prior to the installation of the air curtain. Similarly,
the demonstration program monitoring indicates that organic removal alone is insufficient to
restore water quality, and that backfilling to approximately seven feet below Mean Lower Low
Water (MLLW) should be completed following organic removal. The monitoring that was
completed for the demonstration program indicates that culverts provide significant benefit to
water quality, but cannot overcome seaweed loading. Therefore, in order to achieve full canal
restoration the following hierarchy is suggested:
Reduce residence time through either a culvert or backfilling. Backfilling is recommended
for canals that exhibit an average depth greater than 10 feet, otherwise a culvert is
recommended due to cost efficiency. A hydraulic study should be completed to estimate
the residence time reduction that can be achieved. If possible, a tenfold reduction in
residence time is recommended, and the installation of a culvert should be considered
infeasible if a twofold reduction in residence time cannot be achieved. For backfilling, the
necessity for organic removal should be considered. It is suggested that if the average
canal depth is greater than 15 feet, that organic removal is not necessary. If the depth is
between 10 and 15 feet, then organic removal should be completed if the average organic
thickness is greater than one foot. If the depth is less than 10 feet then organic removal
should be completed unless a detailed bathymetry survey demonstrates that organic
sediment is not present.
Prevent the migration of seaweed into the canal using an air curtain if necessary. It is
suggested that an air curtain is necessary if a canal exhibits over a foot of organic
sediment.
III. Example Canal Ranking Process
The ranking or scoring process should be set up to objectively identify those canals that should
be given first consideration for restoration. The higher a canal scores, the more suitable it is for
79
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
being restored. The following criteria were used to score and rank the Phase II CMMP Poor and
Fair ranked canals located in the City of Marathon in 2018. An example ranking sheet is provided
in Exhibit II.
1. Severity of the Problem
Issue 1. Water quality — Dissolved Oxygen -Related Issues: Using the updated FDEP
rule for dissolved oxygen (DO), the ranking process attempted to separate canals that
either have no monitoring data available or have displayed consistently compliant water
quality readings from those canals that have displayed non -compliant or borderline
compliant water quality readings. Canals with more than 50 percent of the monitoring data
exhibiting DO saturation greater than 70 percent are likely to be compliant and as such
were given a low score. Canals that have either consistently displayed DO values below
the compliance level of 42 percent or whose data has been borderline compliant and given
likely environmental conditions would potentially exhibit non -compliant DO levels were
given higher scores. Due to the direct relationship to compliance, water quality was given
the greatest weight in the canal ranking process.
Issue 2. Evidence of Nutrient Accumulation: As noted during the CMMP, canals that
receive seaweed loads have a significant source of nutrients that can result in near
continuous eutrophication of the canal. The impact of seaweed loading on nutrient
concentration is often visually evident through algal growth (e.g. slime on the canal surface
or walls) and reduced water clarity. The ranking process attempted to score canals with
varying degrees of seaweed loading higher than those canals that do not experience such
impacts. For instance, a canal that experiences significant seaweed loading, maintains a
moderate to severe growth of blue green algae, reduced visibility, and diminished
presence of aquatic life received the highest score.
• Issue 3. Likelihood of Toxicity: During the Monroe County Canal Demonstration
projects, canals that were noted as having extreme depths (> 20 feet below the water
surface) displayed an accumulation of hydrogen sulfide in their lower depths. As such,
the ranking process weighted deeper canals over shallower canals due to those canals
containing hydrogen sulfide that could potential impact near shore waters.
2. Environmental Settings
Issue 1. Connectivity to Nearshore Waters: The basis for cleaning up non -compliant
canals is that not only do they present a nuisance condition to homeowners, but non-
compliant canals could potentially have a detrimental effect on nearshore waters and the
associated aquatic habitat (i.e. coral reefs, seagrass beds, etc.). The process of ranking
canals based on their environmental settings resulted in higher scores for canals that
discharge either directly into Florida bay or the Atlantic Ocean higher than those that
discharge into a basin. The assumption is that the basin would have a moderating effect
on water being discharged from the canal before it eventually makes its way into open
water where sensitive resources typically exist.
3. Project Success
Issue 1. Restoration Technology: Scoring is based on the potential to implement a
proven technology that is capable of complete canal water quality restoration. Due to
anticipated availability of funds, an estimated technology implementation cost that
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
exceeds $2M should not be considered for restoration. As such, excessively expensive
technologies received a score of 0 in order to separate those canals out from canals that
could be restored with cost effective technologies.
• Issue 2. Implementation Cost: As previously noted, the availability of funding to
complete a restoration is a significant constraint and as such excessively expensive (>
$2M) restoration projects received a score of 0 while the more cost effective restorations
received the higher scores. This issue focused on the implementation of all applicable
technologies required to restore water quality within the canal.
• Issue 3. Homeowner Interest: Very active communities that have expressed interest in
participating in the canal restoration program were scored higher than those communities
which have not either participated in public meetings regarding the canals or expressed
support for the program during various public outreach events.
Issue 4. Project Implementability: This criterion accounts for factors such as staging
areas, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential
complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access. Canals that are more suited for
the existing restoration program and don't have characteristics that could affect the
implementation or timing of the restoration were scored higher than those which might
have extenuating circumstances that could delay or prevent the project from occurring.
• Issue 5. Public Benefit: This category assumes that the more homeowners that live along
a canal, the larger the benefit would be; since more residents would experience the effects
of having a restored canal.
81
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Exhibit I
Phase II CMMP Ranking Sheet for Canal 242
82
Table 1
Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
Canal Name:
242 MARATHON
Scoring Criteria for Potential Canal Restoration Sites
Score
Weighting
Total Score
Comments
Factor
Severity of Problem
If no monitoring data is available, or greater than 50 percent of the monitoring data
exhibits DO saturation greater than 70 percent; the score is 0.
If less than 10 monitoring events have been completed, and 50 percent of the monitoring
data exhibits a DO saturation between 42 and 70 percent; the score is 1.
If less than 10 monitoring events have been completed, and 50 percent of the monitoring
data exhibits a DO saturation below 42 percent; the score is 2.
1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based on
observed water quality degradation.
2
10
20
2 monitoring events with 50 percent of the
monitoring data exhibiting a DO saturation
below 42 percent.
If between 2 and 10 monitoring events have been completed, and greater than 50
percent of the monitoring data exhibits a DO saturation below 42 percent; the score is 3.
If greater than 10 monitoring events have been completed, and greater than or equal to 3
monitoring events (or the allowable number pursuant to Table 1 of62-303) exhibit DO
saturation less than 42 percent; the score is 5.
If greater than 10 monitoring events have been completed, and less than 3 monitoring
events (or the allowable number pursuant to Table 1 of 62-303) exhibit a DO saturation
less than 42 percent; the score is 0.
For canals that do not receive seaweed loads or do not exhibit elevated nutrient
concentrations (evident through slime growth and reduced water clarity); the score is 0.
Seaweed loading is evident based on
1B) Evidence of Nutrient Accumulation (scored from 0 to+5)
average organic thickness of 1.14;
For canals with moderate seaweed loading, moderate slime growth, moderate water
Scoring is based on the potential discharge of nutrient rich waters
3
3
9
however, a review of aerial imagery did
from the canals.
clarity, or moderate reduction in fish habitat; the score is 3.
not confirm the presence of seaweed
For canals with heavy seaweed loading, significant visual degradation, and lack of fish
accumulation in the canal.
habitat; the score is 5.
10 Likelihood oftoxicity (scored from 0 to+5) Scoring is based
on the likelihood of hydrogen sulfide production based on canal
bathymetry.
For canals with an average depth less than 10 feet; the score is 0.
3
3
9
Average elevation is -14.48 based on the
CMMP database.
For canals with an average depth between 10 feet and 20 feet; the score is 3.
For canals with an average depth greater then 20 feet; the score is 5.
Environmental Setting
For canals that are connected to semi -enclosed waters such as harbors and inlets; the
score is 0.
The canal is located on the oceanside and
2) Connectivityto Nearshore Waters (scored from 0 to+5)
Scoring is based on the potential of the canal to degrade the
water quality in nearshore waters.
3
2
6
is open directly to the ocean with an
approximate distance of 2.83 miles from
Vaca Cut. Based on NOAA tides & currents
For canals that are connected to open water, but are a sufficient distance away from high
flow areas such as tidal channels; the score is 3.
For canals that are connected to open water, and are close to high flow areas such as
the average tide differential is 1.66 feet.
tidal channels; the score is 5.
1 of 2
Table 1
Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
Canal Name:
242 MARATHON
Scoring Criteria for Potential Canal Restoration Sites
Score
Weighting
Total Score
Comments
Factor
Severity of Problem
Project Success
For canals that are only amenable to technologies that provide partial restoration; the
score is 0.
Based on the configuration ofthe canal
system and the CMMP database, it is
For canals that are only amenable to an alternative technology, such as capping or an
3) Restoration Technology (scored from 0 to 5) Scoring is
injection well, but it is expected that a complete restoration can be achieved; the score is
recommended to remove the organic
based on the potential to implement a proven technology that is
3
5
5
25
matter and cap the muck up to -8.7 feet
capable of complete canals restoration.
and the installation of an air curtain at the
For canals that are amenable to proven technologies, such as backfilling with or without
organic sediment removal and culverts, that are expected to provide a complete
mouth. The estimated complete
restoration; the score is 5.
restoration cost is $3.3M.
4) Implementation Costs (scored from -5 to +5)
A scoring value of -5 is associated with restoration projects that exceed $lOM, a scoring value of 0 is associated with restoration projects that is $2M, and a
0
2
0
The estimated complete restoration cost is
scoring value of 5 is associated with restoration projects that can be completed for $500K or less.
$3.3m.
5) Homeowner Interest (scored from 0 to +5)
A scoring value of 0 is associated with communities that have not participated in the canal meetings, or have expressed negative opinions of the canal
0
3
0
�N, documented communication from the
HOA in regards to the Canal Restoration
restoration program. A scoring value of 5 is associated with very active communities that have expressed interest in participating in the canal restoration
program.
Program
6) Project "implementability" (scored from -5 to 5)
This criterion accounts for factors such as staging areas, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing
canal for potential staging of equipment
utilities or difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from -5 to +5, with -5 indicating very difficult to implement, 0 indicating significant difficulties in
3
3
9
for the capping process. Potential location
implementation, and 5 indicating relative ease of implementation.
for the air curtain equipment at the mouth
7) Public benefit (scored from 0 to +5)
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 1 means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of 3 means 45-79 users would be positively
5
1
5
88 parcels adjacent to the canal system.
affected by the project, +5 indicates that 80 or more users would be positively affected.
Overall Score 83
2 of2
Monroe County Cana/ Restoration Program Guidance
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number 6783-18-3115
December 12, 2019
Exhibit II
2018 Ranking Sheet for Canal 242
85
Scoring Criteria for Potential Keys Canal Restoration Sites
Area Name
Marathon
Canal Number
242
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero will be assigned)
Recommended: Organic eemoyai and 6ackeulmg
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 4 mg/L, there Is no observed
1A)Water Quality (scored from 0to+5) Scoring is based upon the presence or
odor, and turbidity is below l NTU's, the canal should be scored a 0.
DO measured at 2.69 mg/L 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/Land 4 mg/L, there is a noticable odor, or
turbidity Is between 1 and 3 Ni the canal should receive e of 3.
If DO Is measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3 NTU's, the canal should
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.
o
5
o
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 layer thickness between 0.5 and 1.0 feet sh an d re�®re
presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 2013 bathymetric
5
5
25
Organictay—hideness measured at 1,14 feet.
data).
of 3.
Measured organic layer thickness greater than 1.0 foot should receiv
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 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
5
3
15
Thesides mthe canal are lined entirely with concrete
be used to adjust the score upward. Additional flora and faunal observations
bulkheads, and natural features, the canal should receive 0 score of 3.
bulkheads.
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.)
scoe of 5.
Potential for Achievement
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the project canal (scored tram -10 to +10)
Scori ng values from 0 to45 represent low to moderate pate mial, AN le val ues fro m+6to410 rep resent above average to high poten tial, for l m prove men t and/or
6
2
12
Thecanai maintains numerous modular homes.
protection within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects th at AS uld have deleterious effects with In the project canal.
Supplemental Benefits
a) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored tram -10 to +10)
Values from 0 to45 represent law to moderate potential, while values from 46to410 represent above average to high potential, to provide Improvement and/or
6
1
6
The anal discharges into anarea m th, coastline mat
protection In the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scares (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or
has only partially been developed.
earshore zone.
Constraints
5) Project"implementability" (scored tram 0-10)
Aith ough access has not been assessed, there appear
Th is criterion acco unts for facto rs s uch as cost, com p lexity of permitti n g Issues, mitigatio n requi reme nits, and pate ntial com p lications with existi ng utili ties or
8
1
8
to be no issues related to the recommended
difficulty of access. Scori ng ranges from 0 to410, with O l ndlcati ng significant difficulties l n l m pie mentation and 101 ndlcati ng relative ease afim pie men tat ion.
technologies.
Benefit
6) Public benefit (scored tram 0 to 10)
10
1
10
200 Parcels
The public benefit criterion Is related to the number of users affected by the proposed project. A value of means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected by
the project, a value Of 44 means 10-44 use would be positively affected by the project, a value Of 47 means 45-79 users would be positively affected by the project,
+10 indicates that 80 or more use rswould be osltivel affected.
Overall Score
101
Exhibit 2
Revised Guidelines to Select Canals for Restoration
Page 5 of 6
Table 1
Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
Canal
Scoring Criteria for Potential Canal Restoration Sites Monroe County
Name:
Score
Weighting
Total
Maximum Score
Comments
June 16, 2021
Factor
Score
If no monitoring data is available, or greater
than 50 percent of the monitoring data
exhibits DO saturation greater than 70
percent; the score is 0.
If 1 to 10 monitoring events have been
completed, and greater than 50 percent of the
monitoring data exhibits a DO saturation
between 42 - 70 %; the score is 1.
If 1 to 10 monitoring events have been
completed, and less than 50 percent of the
monitoring data exhibits a DO saturation
below 42 ercent• the score is 2.
If between 1 and 10 monitoring events have
1) Water Quality (scored from 0 to + 5) Scoring
is based on observed water quality degradation
been completed, and greater than 50 percent
0
10
0
50
and monitoring conducted by the County.
of the monitoring data exhibits a DO
saturation below 42 ercent• the score is 3.
If greaterthan 10 monitoring events have
been completed, and greater than or equal to
3 monitoring events (or the allowable number
pursuant to Table 1 of 62-303) exhibit a DO
saturation less than 42 percent; the score is 5.
If greaterthan 10 monitoring events have
been completed, and less than 3 monitoring
events (orthe allowable number pursuant to
Table 1 of 62-303) exhibit a DO saturation
greater than 42 ercent• the score is 0.
For canals that do not receive seaweed loads
or do not exhibit elevated nutrient
concentrations (evident through slime growth
and reduced water clarity); the score is 0.
2) Evidence of Nutrient Accumulation (scored
1 of 4
Table 1
Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
Canal
Scoring Criteria for Potential Canal Restoration Sites Monroe County
Name:
Score
Weighting
Total
Maximum Score
Comments
June 16, 2021
Factor
Score
from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the potential
For canals with moderate seaweed loading,
discharge of nutrient rich waters from the
moderate slime growth, moderate water
0
3
0
15
canals.
clarity, or moderate reduction in fish habitat;
the score is 3.
For canals with heavy seaweed loading,
significant visual degradation, and lack of fish
habitat; the score is 5.
For canals with an average depth less than 10
3) Likelihood of toxicity (scored from 0 to +5)
feet; the score is 0.
For canals with an average depth between 10
Scoring is based on the likelihood of hydrogen
0
3
0
15
sulfide production based on canal bathymetry.
feet and 20 feet; the score is 3.
For canals with an average depth greater then
20 feet; the score is 5.
For canals that are connected to semi -
enclosed waters such as harbors and inlets;
the score is 0.
4) Connectivity to Nearshore Waters (scored
For canals that are connected to open water,
from 0 to +5) Scoring is based on the
but area sufficient distance away from high
potential of the canal to degrade the water
flow areas such as tidal channels; the score is
0
2
0
10
quality in nearshore waters.
3.
For canals that are connected to open water,
and are close to high flow areas such as tidal
channels; the score is 5.
5) Potential Nearshore Impact (scored from 0 to +5)
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 1
means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of 3 means 45-79 users
0
2
0
10
would be positively affected by the project, +5 indicates that 80 or more users would be
positively affected.
For canals that are only amenable to
technologies that provide partial restoration
(i.e. only air curtain or organic removal); the
score is 0.
2 of4
Table 1
Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
Canal
Scoring Criteria for Potential Canal Restoration Sites Monroe County
Name:
Score
Weighting
Total
Maximum Score
Comments
June 16, 2021
Factor
Score
1) Restoration Technology (scored from 0 to
For canals that are only amenable to an
+5) Scoring is based on the potential to
alternative technology, such as capping or an
implement a proven technology that is capable
of complete canals restoration. The results are
injection well, but it is expected that a
complete restoration can be achieved; the
0
3
0
15
from the FIU evaluation of the demonstration
score is 3.
For canals that are amenable to proven
technologies at improving water quality.
technologies, such as backfilling with or
without organic sediment removal and
culverts, that are expected to provide a
complete restoration• the score is 5.
For canals that have a restoration
cost(including site restoration, mitigation and
engineering/design/oversight fees) less than
$1M, the score is 5
For canals that have a restoration
cost(including site restoration, mitigation and
engineering/design/oversight fees) that between
$1M-$2M, the score is 3
For canals that have a restoration
cost(including site restoration, mitigation and
engineering/design/oversight fees) that between
$2M-$3M, the score is 1
For canals that have a restoration
2) Implementation Costs (scored from -25 to
cost(including site restoration, mitigation and
+5)
engineering/design/oversight fees) between
A scoring value of-25 is associated with
restoration projects that exceed $35M, and a
$3M to $5M, the score is -5
0
5
0
-125 TO 25
For canals that have arestoration
scoring value of 5 is associated with restoration
cost(including site restoration, mitigation and
projects that can be completed for $1M or less.
engineering/design/oversight fees) between
$5M to $15M, the score is -10
For canals that have a restoration
cost(including site restoration, mitigation and
engineering/design/oversight fees) between
$15M to $25M, the score is -15
3 of 4
Table 1
Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
Canal
Scoring Criteria for Potential Canal Restoration Sites Monroe County
Name:
Score
Weighting
Total
Maximum Score
Comments
June 16, 2021
Factor
Score
For canals that have a restoration
cost(including site restoration, mitigation and
engineering/design/oversight fees) between
$25M to $35M, the score is -20
For canals that have a restoration
cost(including site restoration, mitigation and
engineering/design/oversight fees) over $35M,
the score is -25
3) Project "implementability" (scored from -5 to 5)
This criterion accounts for factors such as need for O&M, staging areas, complexity of
permitting issues, mitigation requirements(mangroves and seagrass impacts), and potential
complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from -5 to +5, with -5
0
3
0
-15 TO 15
indicating very difficult to implement, 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation,
and 5 indicating relative ease of implementation.
4) Potential Resource Impacts (scored from -5 to 5) Scoring ranges from -5 to +5, with -5
indicating impacts to resources greater than 7,500 sq ft., with -4 indicating impacts to resources
greater than 5,625 sq. ft but less than 7,500 sq. ft., with -3 indicating impacts to resources
greater than 3,750 sq. ft but less than 5,625 sq. ft, with -2 indicating impacts to resources
0
5
0
-25 TO 25
greater than 1,875 sq. ft but less than 3,750 sq. ft, with -1 indicating impacts to resources less
than 1,875 sq. ft, with 5 indicating no impacts to resources.
4 of4
Exhibit 3
Canal Restoration Project Ranking List
Page 6 of 6
Monroe County Canal Restoration Ranking List 06/16/2021
2020 - WQ
2020-
2020 - Total
2020 - Technology
2020 Water Quality
Sort ID
Canal Name
Community Area
Ranking
Technology
Score
Recommendation
Restoration Cost
Summary
Score
Ranking Score
1
105 TAVERNIER
TAVERNIER
36
80
116
Backfill and Culvert and
$668,870.83
Fair
Weedgate
2
28 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
88
24
112
Backfill Only
$2,128,926.96
Poor
3
255 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
45
65
110
Injection Well and
$300,000.00
Fair
Weedgate
4
315 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
64
45
109
Organic Removal, Capping
$2,373,982.11
Poor
and Weedgate
5
402 SUGARLOAF KEY
SUGARLOAF
28
80
108
Backfill and Weedgate
$210,522.52
Fair
KEY
6
300 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
37
70
107
Organic Removal, Capping
$1,490,926.40
Limited Data - Fair
and Weedgate
7
295 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
35
70
105
Organic Removal, Capping
$1,040,726.50
Limited Data - Fair
and Weedgate
8
474 GEIGER KEY
GEIGER KEY
25
80
105
Backfill and Weedgate
$222,650.65
Limited Data - Fair
9
297 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
47
55
102
Organic Removal, Capping
$1,352,390.46
Fair
and Weedgate
10
403 SUGARLOAF KEY
SUGARLOAF
30
70
100
Backfill and Weedgate
$804,157.46
Fair
KEY
11
90 TAVERNIER
TAVERNIER
33
65
98
Backfill Only
$729,511.93
Fair
12
287 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
37
60
97
Organic Removal, Capping
$2,942,880.68
Limited Data - Fair
and Weedgate
13
299 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
37
60
97
Organic Removal, Capping
$2,151,972.12
Fair
and Weedgate
14
472 GEIGER KEY
GEIGER KEY
42
55
97
Organic Removal and
$1,461,708.08
Fair
Backfill
15
293 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
80
15
95
Organic Removal, Capping
$2,145,335.26
Poor
and Weedgate
16
41 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
45
50
95
Organic Removal, Capping
$855,899.60
Fair
and Weedgate
17
77 ROCK HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR
26
65
91
Maintenance to Culvert
$71,300.54
Fair
4/12/2021 Page 1 of 6
2020 - WQ
2020-
Sort ID
Canal Name
Community Area
Ranking
Technology
2020 - Total
2020 - Technology
Restoration Cost
2020 Water Quality
Score
Ranking Score
Score
Recommendation
Summary
18
283 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
35
55
90
Organic Removal, Capping
$1,325,647.23
Limited Data - Fair
and Weedgate
19
476 GEIGER KEY
GEIGER KEY
40
50
90
Backfill and Weedgate
$318,145.46
Limited Data - Fair
20
96 TAVERNIER
TAVERNIER
33
55
88
Organic Removal, Culvert
$1,437,436.97
Fair
and Weedgate
21
265 No Name Key
No Name Key
51
35
86
Backfill and Weedgate
$641,267.95
Poor
22
279 LITTLE TORCH KEY
LITTLE TORCH
42
40
82
Organic Removal, Capping
$1,418,121.82
Fair
KEY
and Weedgate
23
49 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
34
45
79
Backfill and Weedgate
$417,519.40
Limited Data - Fair
24
58 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
35
44
79
Injection Well
$200,000.00
Fair
25
258 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
48
30
78
Backfill and Weedgate
$1,062,541.21
Fair
26
25 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
42
35
77
Backfill Only
$1,271,551.13
Fair
27
75 ROCK HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR
27
50
77
Backfill Only
$1,279,977.58
Fair
28
291 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
60
15
75
Backfill Only
$2,944,117.54
Limited Data - Poor
29
475 GEIGER KEY
GEIGER KEY
44
30
74
Backfill and Weedgate
$2,589,399.88
Poor
30
61 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
46
25
71
Backfill Only
$153,943.85
Fair
31
81 ROCK HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR
36
35
71
Backfill and Weedgate
$649,194.24
Fair
32
456 GEIGER KEY
GEIGER KEY
21
50
71
Organic Removal, Backfill
$799 816.76
Fair
and Weedgate
33
48 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
50
20
70
Organic Removal, Capping
$1,297,219.30
Fair
and Weedgate
34
328 SUMMERLAND KEY
SUM KERLAND
31
35
66
Weedgate
$100,000.00
Fair
4/12/2021 Page 2 of 6
2020 - WQ
2020-
Sort ID
Canal Name
Community Area
Ranking
Technology
2020 - Total
2020 - Technology
Restoration Cost
2020 Water Quality
Score
Ranking Score
Score
Recommendation
Summary
35
443 BIG COPPITT KEY
BIG KOYPITT
46
19
65
Backfill Only
$2,655,573.23
Fair
36
323 SUMMERLAND KEY
SUMMERLAND
47
15
62
Organic Removal, Backfill
$4,499,036.63
Fair
KEY
and Weedgate
37
74 ROCK HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR
27
35
62
Backfill and Weedgate
$387,495.33
Fair
38
311 RAMROD KEY
RAMROD KEY
31
30
61
Backfill Only
$833,006.09
Fair
39
55 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
50
10
60
Organic Removal, Capping
$1,245,385.74
Limited Data - Fair
and Weedgate
40
103 TAVERNIER
TAVERNIER
50
9
59
Backfill Only
$4,551,178.05
Fair
41
470 GEIGER KEY
GEIGER KEY
29
25
54
Backfill Only
$2,930355.79
Fair
42
372 CUDJOE KEY
CUDJOE KEY
19
35
54
Weedgate
$100,000,00
Fair
43
32 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
42
10
52
Organic Removal, Capping
$2,522760.59
Fair
and Weedgate
44
82 ROCK HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR
47
5
52
Organic Removal and
$2,547229.03
Poor
Backfill and Weedgate
45
349 CUDJOE KEY
CUDJOE KEY
27
25
52
Organic Removal, Capping
$1,347186.50
Fair
and Weedgate
46
310 RAMROD KEY
RAMROD KEY
22
39
52
Culvert
$598,924.50
Limited Data - Poor
47
78 ROCK HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR
46
5
51'
Organic Removal, Backfill
$7,634;773.00
Fair
and Weedgate
48
355 CUDJOE KEY
CUDJOE KEY
50
0
50
Organic Removal, Capping
$7,144;204.81
Fair
and Weedgate
49
52 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
37
13
50
Backfill and Weedgate
$893,672.45
Fair
50
19 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
18
30
48
Culvert
$383,240,38
Fair
51
19 KEY LARGO SPLIT
KEY LARGO
18
30
48
Culvert
$392,152.95
Fair
4/12/2021 Page 3 of 6
2020 - WQ
2020-
Sort ID
Canal Name
Community Area
Ranking
Technology
2020 - Total
2020 - Technology
Restoration Cost
2020 Water Quality
Score
Ranking Score
Score
Recommendation
Summary
52
373 CUDJOE KEY
CUDJOE KEY
47
0
47
Organic Removal, Capping
$2,040,267.63
Fair
and Weedgate
53
411 SUGARLOAF KEY
SUGARLOAF
30
15
45
Organic Removal, Backfill
$4,002,824.98
Fair
KEY
and Weedgate
54
43 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
48
-5
43
Backfill and Weedgate
$2,246,161.88
Fair
55
37 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
42
0
42
Organic Removal, Capping
$3,474,114.58
Fair
and Weedgate
56
65 ROCK HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR
37
5
42
Weedgate
$100,000.00
Fair
57
288 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
66
-25
41
Organic Removal, Capping
$3,205,476.53
Poor
and Weedgate
58
20 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
26
14
40
Injection Well
$200,000.00
Fair
59
23 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
36
0
36
Backfill and Weedgate
$2,358,383.08
Fair
60
281 LITTLE TORCH KEY
LITTLE TORCH
46
-10
36
Culvert and Weedgate
$2,483,224.34
Fair
KEY
61
59 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
60
-25
35
Organic Removal, Capping
$3,272,101.01
Fair
and Weedgate
62
413 SUGARLOAF KEY
SUGARLOAF
28
5
33
Organic Removal, Backfill
$1,394,901.17
Fair
KEY
and Weedgate
63
30 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
42
-10
32
Organic Removal, Capping
$12,121,735.64
Fair
and Weedgate
64
318 SUGARLOAF KEY
SUGARLOAF
45
-15
30
Organic Removal, Backfill
$4,363,473.28
Fair
KEY
and Weedgate
Organic Removal,
65
457 KEY HAVEN
KEY HAVEN
50
-20
30
backfilling, Culvert
$16,238,881.59
Fair
Maintenance, and
Weedgate
66
29 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
42
-15
27
Organic Removal, Capping
$3,459,354.47
Fair
and Weedgate
67
385 SUGARLOAF KEY
SUGARLOAF
27
0
27
Organic Removal, Backfill
$1,919,349.93
Fair
KEY
and Weedgate
4/12/2021 Page 4 of 6
2020 - WQ
2020-
Sort ID
Canal Name
Community Area
Ranking
Technology
2020 - Total
2020 - Technology
Restoration Cost
2020 Water Quality
Score
Ranking Score
Score
Recommendation
Summary
68
289 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
46
-20
26
Backfill Only
$3,825,195.02
Fair
69
21 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
50
-30
20
Organic Removal, Capping
$11,795,722.67
Fair
and Weedgate
Organic Removal,
70
26 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
72
-50
12
Capping, Culvert and
$13,590,208.76
Poor
Weedgate
71
89 ROCK HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR
36
-25
11
Organic Removal, Backfill
$3,287,972.29
Fair
and Weedgate
72
286 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
60
-55
5
Organic Removal, Capping
$11,075,521.13
Fair
and Weedgate
73
466 GEIGER KEY
GEIGER KEY
9
-5
4
Organic Removal and
$3,689,997.89
Fair
Backill and Culvert
74
33 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
57
-55
2
Organic Removal, Capping
$6,297,156.86
Poor
and Weedgate
75
282 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
77
-75
2
Organic Removal, Capping
$5,521,404.45
Poor
and Weedgate
76
388 SUGARLOAF KEY
SUGARLOAF
36
-35
1
Organic Removal, Backfill
$g 214,221.33
Fair
KEY
and Weedgate
77
22 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
42
-45
-3
Organic Removal, Capping
$10,841,997.96
Fair
and Weedgate
78
262 BIG TORCH KEY
BIGKORCH
50
-55
-5
Backfill Only
$8,252,917.89
Fair
EY
79
27 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
48
-55
-7
Organic Removal, Capping
$7 796,632.48
Limited Data - Fair
and Weedgate
Organic Removal,
80
433 SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
SADDLEBUNCH
31
-40
-g
backfilling, Culvert
$6,210,682.12
Fair
(MERGED)
KEYS
Maintenance, and
Weed ate
Organic Removal,
81
50 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
60
-70
-10
Capping, Culvert and
$8,888,858.14
Poor
Weedgate
82
47 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
44
-55
-11
Backfill and Injection Well
$3,240,330.85
Fair
83
44 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
43
-60
-17
Organic Removal, Capping
$5,231,705.77
Fair
and Weedgate
4/12/2021 Page 5 of 6
2020 - WQ
2020-
Sort ID
Canal Name
Community Area
Ranking
Technology
2020 - Total
2020 - Technology
Restoration Cost
2020 Water Quality
Score
Ranking Score
Score
Recommendation
Summary
Organic Removal,
84
31 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
56
-75
-19
Capping, Culvert and
$8,033,254.95
Fair
Weed ate
Organic Removal,
85
229 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
45
-65
-20
Capping, Culvert and
$13,708,914.39
Fair
Weedgate
Organic Removal,
86
384 SUGARLOAF KEY
SUGARLOAF
37
-60
-23
backfilling, Culvert
$7,159,701.74
Poor
KEY
Maintenance, and
Weedgate
87
277 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
64
-90
-26
Organic Removal,
Capping,and Weedgate
$25,070,057.13
Fair
Organic Removal,
88
164 CONCH KEY ADDED
CONCH KEY
33
-60
-27
Capping, Culvert and
$5,645,650.71
Fair
Weedgate
89
70 ROCK HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR
42
-60
-28
Organic Removal, Culvert
$8 897 468.38
Fair
and Weedgate
Organic Removal,
90
51 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
60
-60
-30
Capping, Culvert and
$18,286,087.40
Fair
Weedgate
Organic Removal,
91
261 No Name Key
No Name Key
52
-75
-33
Capping, Culvert and
$23,569,737.02
Poor
Weedgate
92
42 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
46
-100
-54
Organic Removal, Capping
$19,671,052.44
Fair
and Weedgate
93
4 OCEAN REEF CLUB
OCEAN REEF
44
-100
-56
Backfill Only
$19,981,889.07
Fair
CLUB
94
63 ROCK HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR
44
-107
-63
Organic Removal, Backfill
$30,069,853.78
Fair
and Weedgate
95
13 KEY LARGO
KEY LARGO
50
-115
-65
Organic Removal, Capping
$49,375,509.89
Fair
and Weedgate
96
278 BIG PINE KEY
BIG PINE KEY
35
-135
-100
Organic Removal, Capping
$48,535,739.82
Fair
and Weedgate
4/12/2021 Page 6 of 6