Loading...
Item O12 012 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY of MONROE Mayor Craig Cates,District 1 The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tern Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5 Michelle Lincoln,District 2 James K.Scholl,District 3 m' David Rice,District 4 Board of County Commissioners Meeting October 18, 2023 Agenda Item Number: 012 2023-1639 BULK ITEM: Yes DEPARTMENT: Sustainability TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Rhonda Haag N/A AGENDA ITEM WORDING: SUSTAINABILITY: Approval of a grant application to the Gulf Coast Restoration Council for Monroe Countys share of the of the Gulf Consortium Pot 3 RESTORE funds for $12.65 M with no match pursuant to Monroes approved project in the State Expenditure Plan: Canal Restoration. These funds will be used for 6 canal restoration projects on Big Pine Key; retroactively ratifying the grant application submitted October 6, 2023, and providing authorization for the County Administrator to sign all necessary documents in connection with this grant. ITEM BACKGROUND: This item is to retroactively approve a grant application for $12.65 Million to the Gulf Coast Restoration Council for 6 canal restoration projects geographically grouped together on Big Pine Key. RESTORE Act funds came about as the result of the civil and criminal settlements of responsible actors (namely BP) in the aftermath of the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill. RESTORE Act legislation passed by Congress in 2010 directed those funds to the States and communities along the Gulf that were directly and indirectly impacted in order to restore and protect their environments, water quality and habitats. The funds discussed here are those distributed to the State of Florida's 23 Gulf Coast counties which formally organized as the Gulf Consortium. The purpose of the Consortium was to determine the use and distribution of its share of settlement monies in compliance with the RESTORE Act. The funds currently total approximately $290 M. Over the course of about 5 years, the Gulf Consortium worked on priorities, eligibility, distribution formulas, and then drafted and approved its State Expenditure Plan (SEP). Monroe's representative on the Gulf Consortium and who served throughout the development of the SEP was former County Commissioner George Neugent. Ultimately, each county submitted eligible environmental and water quality restoration projects into the plan, and each county was allocated an equal share of the funds (about $12.6 M). Monroe County submitted canal restoration as its project. The County Commission approved the inclusion of this project, and its full allocation to this project, with Resolution 276-2016, attached. A copy of the SEP is 4635 also attached. The six canal restoration projects are for Canals 293, 295, 297, 299, 300 and 315 within the Big Pine Key area of the Avenues, which represent some of the worst water quality throughout the Florida Keys. The canals are geographically located near each other and were included in one grant application to improve the cost efficiencies of the projects and to enhance the effectiveness of the nearshore water quality by constructing all of the projects in one time frame rather than spread out over several years. These projects will restore canal water quality, and provide healthy, diverse, and sustainable living for coastal and marine resources. Additionally clean water will restore and conserve the health, diversity, and resilience of key coastal, estuarine, and marine habitats. The County is already underway with the design and permitting for the majority of the six canals, funded by the County's share of the annual DEP Stewardship appropriation. Therefore, most projects will be shovel ready by the time the RESTORE grant is provided to the County. Each canal requires organic removal, backfill, and air curtain. The grant application for $12,650,000 includes tasks for the construction, oversight, and post monitoring effectiveness of the projects. The operations and maintenance of the weed gate/air curtain required for each project will be funded by an assessment set up on each canal. The residents have participated in meetings hosted by the County and voted to proceed with the project with an understanding of the requirement for an assessment. Currently the canals waters have poor circulation, weed wrack loading, organic sediment accumulation, and excessive depths. The restoration work aims to improve the oxygen level, remove accumulated organics from within the canals, and add physical barriers to minimize additional organic accumulation in these areas. These technologies will improve the water quality in canals. The anticipated project start date is September 2024. It will take 3 years to construct the projects and post-monitoring and maintenance will take place an additional year after construction has ended. The entire project is estimated at 4 years. Background: The Monroe County Canal Water Quality Restoration Program was 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 nearshore waters. The program evaluates, constructs and implements canal restoration technologies to improve canal water quality throughout the Florida Keys in order to restore and preserve the marine environment of the Florida Keys that supports unparalleled biodiversity and an annual $1.3 billion tourism industry. Keys' tourism is a strong economic engine for both the local and state economies, and it relies almost entirely on clean waters. The restoration of water quality in Monroe County's residential canals is a complex and costly venture that requires long-term commitments from participating entities. Through the development of the program, Monroe County has documented areas where costs and project schedules can be managed to reduce the expense associated with implementing and operating canal restoration projects. 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: • Culvert 4636 • Air Curtain • Organic Removal • Backfill The CMMP selected technologies, above, 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. 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. Based on data collected during the limited monitoring period, FIU made the following conclusions about the organic removal and backfilling technology(s): • 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 this technology quickly generated. • Backfilling: This technique resulted in an immediate change in the canal's water quality by significantly improving the water column's DO content. 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. • 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. Using these results from the Demonstration Program along with water quality data from the CMMP, the County is proposing to move forward with organic muck removal, backfill, and air curtain restoration projects at Canals 293, 295, 297, 299, 300 and 315 on Big Pine Key. In November 2020, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) amended Chapter 28 -20 Land Planning Regulations for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern in Monroe County to include a new Work Plan for Canal Restoration implementation. The Work Plan sets forth a definitive timeline for canal restoration with essential milestones for the completion of the program within the next 10 years. The County has taken action to create a Canal Restoration List containing 96 projects estimated to cost $538 Million to implement, ranging from $200,000 to $50 million/project. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: • In November 2016, the BOCC approved the inclusion of canal restoration projects in the State Expenditure Plan and allocation of the entire allocation of Monroe's share of Gulf Consortium pot funds ($12.6m) to canal restoration projects (Resolution 276-2016). • From 2013 through 2018, the BOCC approved Commissioner Neugent to serve as Monroe County's representative on the Gulf Consortium to develop the State Expenditure Plan and advocating for inclusion of Monroe's canal restoration project, and since 2014, to serve as an elected member of the Consortium's Executive Committee. • On September 21, 2012 Monroe County joined the Gulf Consortium by approving the Inter-local Agreement to participate in a consortium of counties to develop a State Expenditure Plan for RESTORE Act funding allocated to the Florida's 23 Gulf Coast counties. (Resolution 246-2012). 4637 CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. DOCUMENTATION: Resolution 276-2016-Allocation of Restore Funds for Canal Restoration.pdf Gulf Consortium Plan (State Expenditure Plan) - shortened version with only Monroe.pdf RESTORE Grant Application Packet—REVISED (3).pdf FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: TBD Expiration Date: TBD Total Dollar Value of Contract: TBD Total Cost to County: None Current Year Portion: N/A Budgeted: N/A Source of Funds: RESTORE Pot 3 Gulf Consortium Pot CPI: N/A Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: O&M for canal projects, which will be funded by assessments Revenue Producing: yes If yes, amount: $12.4 Million Grant: Grant Application County Match: None Insurance Required: No Additional Details: 4638 RESOLUTION NO. 276 -2016 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF MONROE COUNTY RESTORE ACT FUNDS TO CANAL WATER QUALITY RESTORATION PROJECTS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in July 2012 the United States Congress passed the "Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012" (Act), and the President signed the Act into law, known as the RESTORE Act, to establish a trust fund for deposits of 80% of administrative and civil penalties exacted from parties responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for distribution of the funds among the affected states; and WHEREAS, the RESTORE Act distributes civil fines collected from the responsible parties under the Clean Water Act to impacted States and counties along the Gulf Coast in three separate streams or "pots" of funds: Direct Component "Pot 1" (Local Pot); Restoration Council Pot "Pot 2"; and Spill Impact Component "Pot 3" (Gulf Consortium Pot); and WHEREAS, Monroe County is scheduled to receive both Spill Impact Component "Pot 3" (Gulf Consortium Pot) funding in the amount of approximately $12.5M and Direct Component "Pot 1" (Local Pot)in the amount of approximately $7.7M; and WHEREAS, the Spill Impact Component "Pot 3" funds are $286M, with an additional $14M expected in interest, for an approximate total of $300M. These funds are overseen by the Gulf Consortium, made up of representatives of the 23 disproportionately and non- disproportionately affected counties of the State of Florida. On September 21, 2012, Monroe County joined the Gulf Coast Consortium by approving the Interlocal Agreement and authorizing Resolution No. 246- 2012; and Commissioner George Neugent has represented Monroe County on the Executive Committee of the Gulf Consortium for the past 4 years; and WHEREAS, the Gulf Consortium ("Consortium") is responsible for developing a state- wide plan for expending the funds in Pot 3, called the State Expenditure Plan ("SEP") that will include eligible projects from each of the 23 Gulf Coast counties; and WHEREAS, the SEP must be approved by the Restoration Council and therefore projects to be included and funded in the State Expenditure Plan must be consistent with the RESTORE Act and the Council's Comprehensive Plan's adopted Gulf Consortium goals, which are: • Restore and Conserve Habitat — Restore and conserve the health, diversity, and resilience of key coastal, estuarine, and marine habitats. • Restore Water Quality — Restore and protect water quality of the Gulf Coast region's fresh, estuarine, and marine waters. • Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources — Restore and protect healthy, diverse, and sustainable living coastal and marine resources. • Enhance Community Resilience — Build upon and sustain communities with capacity to adapt to short- and long-teen changes. • Restore and revitalize the Gulf Economy— Enhance the sustainability and resiliency of the Gulf economy; and Page 1 of 4 4639 WHEREAS, the State Expenditure Plan must have the approval of the State of Florida Governor's office (and represented by Florida Department of Environmental Protection), and therefore projects to be included in the State Expenditure Plan shall be aligned with the coastal environmental priorities of the State of Florida, the most significant of which, as identified by the Consortium as theme for its plan, is water quality; and WHEREAS, it is an additional important goal of the Consortium to be able to use the $300M in its Pot 3 funds to leverage funds from other Deepwater Horizon spill-related funding buckets such as Council funding (Pot 2) and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). Therefore, the Consortium seeks to include projects in the SEP which have the potential to maximize leveragability, i.e., align with the priorities of those other sources, are founded on sound environmental plans, have secured local match, and are of significant size, scope and benefit; and WHEREAS, the Consortium formally approved expending Pot 3 funds such that each of the 23 counties making up the Consortium will have an equal amount of funded projects included in the State Expenditure Plan; thus each of the 23 counties will have approximately $12.5M ($13M with interest) in projects funded through the State Expenditure Plan; and WHEREAS, the Consortium will receive its Pot 3 funds via annual payments of approximately $20M over a 15 year period, under the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree approved and entered into by the US District Court and BP, with payments beginning in April 2017 through 2032; and WHEREAS, the Gulf Consortium has yet to determine the distribution of these annual funds among the projects of the 23 counties over the 15-year payout period; and WHEREAS, canal water quality restoration is entirely consistent with goals and priorities set forth by the Consortium in the State Expenditure Plan; and WHEREAS, the County is also the recipient of RESTORE Act Direct Component ("Local Pot"/ "Pot I"). These funds to the Local Pot come via three different settlement allocations (see attached Treasury Department Allocation Tables): • Transocean settlement: $1,184,925, in a one-time, lump sum payment (allocated); • Anadarko settlement: $172,673, in a one-time, lump sum payment (not yet allocated); and • BP settlement: for $6,358,288, in annual payments over a 15-year period (not yet allocated); and WHEREAS, the BOCC approved allocating the $1.184M in Transocean funding in the County's local pot, on February 18, 2015, to three projects: $478K for canal restoration in unincorporated Monroe, $128K for canal restoration in Islamorada and $578K for coral restoration. An advisory group convened by the Board of County Commissioners recommended these projects for funding based on a selection process developed by the committee as directed and approved by the BOCC; this process is reflected in the Monroe County Multi-Year Implementation Plan ("MYIP"), adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on September 16, 2015 per Resolution 252-2015, and deemed in compliance with the RESTORE Act regulations by the U.S. Treasury Department on April 6, 2016; and Page 2 of 4 4640 WHEREAS, Monroe will receive the BP funds to its Local Pot via annual payments of over a 15 year period, under the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree approved and entered into by the US District Court and BP, with payments beginning in April 2017 through 2032; and will be paid as such: • 2017: payment of$410K; • 2018: payment of$220K; and . 2019 through 2031: annual payments of$440K; and WHEREAS, the extended payout period for these funds adds significantly to the County's administrative/oversight costs for the management, monitoring and reporting of the expenditure of these funds; and as RESTORE Act law limits administrative reimbursement to 3%, the County desires to allocate these funds in a way that minimizes additional costs incurred to the County; and WHEREAS, allocating these funds to a large-scale, long-term environmental/restoration initiative such as canal restoration is cost-effective, while also being consistent with the local priorities articulated in the MYIP; and WHEREAS, canal restoration is a component of overall water quality and environmental protection in the Florida Keys, complementing the $1 B investment by local taxpayers and the state to implement centralized wastewater treatment to protect and restore water quality, and complies with the letter and intent of the RESTORE Act; and WHEREAS, over three hundred (300) canals have been identified in the Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) as having sub-standard water quality, and are listed as "impaired water bodies"by the EPA and exceed DEP Chapter 62-302 Surface Water Standards for nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus and dissolved oxygen. Canals discharge directly into near shore Outstanding Florida Waters in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), where FDEP has adopted a "zero-degradation" policy. High levels of nutrients and low levels of dissolved oxygen are conditions that have been directly linked to extensive die-off of coral reefs and seagrass beds in coastal waters; and WHEREAS, canal water restoration projects will remedy the high nutrient loading and low dissolved oxygen impairing the water in canals by implementing technologies that address the most significant causes of those conditions: accumulated organics, seaweed loading, and poor flushing and tidal flow. WHEREAS, reduced nutrient loading, increased dissolved oxygen and increased water clarity to the nearshore Outstanding Florida Waters and the waters of FKNMS will improve water quality conditions that are essential for sustaining a marine ecosystem that is one of the most unique and prolific in the world, and home to the only living coral reef in the continental U.S., and one of the world's largest seagrass beds, both rich and productive habitats that provide support to 6,000 species of plants, fishes, and invertebrates, including many species listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act; and Page 3 of 4 4641 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida hereby approves the entire allocation of the BP and Anadarko settlement portions of funds to Monroe County's Pot 1 ("Local Pot") to canal restoration projects. 2. The Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida hereby approves the inclusion of canal water restoration projects in the State Expenditure Plan for Monroe County's share of Pot 3 ("Gulf Consortium Pot") and approves the entire allocation of Monroe County's share of the Gulf Consortium Pot to canal restoration projects. 3. This resolution shall take effect upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 14th day of November, 2016. Mayor Heather Carruthers yes Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent yes Commissioner Danny Kolhage yes Commissioner David Rice yes Commissioner Sylvia Murphy yes ey3 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • �, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk Mayor o - c .3 Col." � , .TTORNEY MONROE AP ROV I' try �jO7R M{{ N 14 �. ASSI5T14 , ATTORNEY Data_. /1 ,`� ' 07 0 C Page 4 of 4 4642 GULF COAST RESTORATION TRUST FUND -' T�I'4Y�SoC�/f/v February 1, 2016 Treasury-Administered Direct Component Florida Trust Fund Allocations as of December 31,201S Allocation of Gross Allocations Current Allocations Florida County Florida's Direct Made Available Obligations Available Component Share Disproportionately Affected 75% Bay 15.101453044% $ 6,470,084.58 $ - $ 6,470,084.58 Escambia 25.334760043% 10,8S4,454.86 415,850.11 10,438,604.75 Franklin .441 5 238% 3,616,580.62 - 3,616,580.62 Gulf 6.743202296% 2,889,065.65 560,400.66 2,328,664.99 Okaloosa 15.226456794 6,523,641.34 - 6,523,641.34 Santa Rosa 10.497314919% 4,497,482.14 - 4,497,482.14 Wakulla 4.943148294% 2,117,848.36 - 2,117,848.36 Walton 13.712411372% 5,874,962.90 - S1874,961.90 Subtotal 100.00000000091 $ 42 844119.45 $ 976,250.77 $ 41,867,868.68 Nondisproportionately Impacted 25% Charlotte 51 % $ 737,204.48 $ - $ 737,204.48 Citrus 4.692% 670,082.03 - 670,082.03 Collier 7.019%. 1,002,409.58 - 1,002,409.58 Dixie 3.484% 497,563.04 - 497,563.04 Hernando 4.9829 712,498.01 - 711,498.01 Hillsborough 13.339% 1,904,992.36 - 1,954,992.36 Jefferson 3.834% 547,547.85 - 547,547.85 Lee 8.776% 1,253,333.31 - 1,253,333.31 Levy 3.894% 556,116.67 - 556,116.67 Manatee 6.809%1 972,418.70 - 972,418.70 Monroe 8.297% 1,184,925.53 - 1,184,925.53 - Pasco 7.079% 1010,978.41 - 1,010,978.41 Pinellas 11.002% 1,571,236.67 - 1,571,236.67 Sarasota 7.248% 1,035,113.93 - 1,035,113.93 Taylor 4.383% 625,9S2.58 - 625,952.58 Subtotal 100.000% $ 14,282,373.15 $ 14,281,373.15 Total $ 57,125,492.60 $ 976,250.77 $ 56,149,241.83 Department of the Treasury Page 2 Office of Gulf Coast Restoration 4643 GULF COAST RESTORATION TRUST FUND Al/9 February 1,2016 Allocation Estimates Including Deposit from Anadarko Petroleum Judgment Treasury-Administered Direct Component Florida Allocation Estimates Estimated Net Allocation Allocation of Gross Allocations Proceeds Obligations as of Estimates including Florida County Florida's Direct Available as of to be Deposited December 31, Deposit from Component Share December 31,2015 from Anadarko 2015 Anadarko Judgment Judgment 1 after Obligations Disproportionately Affected 75% Bay 15.101453044 $ 6,470,084.58 $ 942,854.39 $ - $ 7,412,938.97 Esambia 'x 10,854,454.86 1581,767.63 415,850.11 $ 12,020,372.38 Franklin 8 3,616580.62 S27,026.94 S 4,243,60756 Gulf 5.74320229651 2,889,065.6S 421,009.68 560,400.66 $ 2,7ii,674.67 Okaloosa 15.226456794% 6,523,641.34 950,658.96 - $ 7,474,300.30 Santa Rosa 10.497314919% 4,497,4H2.14 655,39650 - S 5,152,878.64 WOOD 4.9431482949 2,117,848.36 308,623.88 - S 2,426,472.24 Walton 13.712411372% 5,974,961.90 856,130.02 $ 6,731,09192 Subtotal 100• S 42,344,119.45 S 6,243,468.00 $ 976,250.77 $ 48,111,336.68 Nondisproportionately as% Impacted Charlotte S-162%j 737,204.48 S 107,429.27 $ S 844 633.75 Citrus 4.692% 670,082.03 97,647.94 - S 767,729.87 Collier 7.03 1,002,409.58 146,076.34 $ 1,148,485.92 Dixie 3.484% 497,563.04 72,507.49 - S 570,070.53 Hernando 4.982% 711,498.01 103,683.19 $ 815,181.20 Hillsborough 13.339% 1,904,992.36 277,605.40 - $ 2,182,597.76 Jefferson 3.834% 547,547.85 79,791.52 - $ 627,339.37 Lee 8.776% 1,253,333.31 182,642.25 - $ 1,435,975.56 Levy 3.894% S56,116.67 81,040.21 $ 637,156.88 Manatee 6.809% 972,418.70 141,705.91 - $ 1,114,124.61 Monroe 8.297% 1,194,925.53 •fit 172,673.51 $ 1,3S7,599.04 Pasco 7.079% 1,010,978.41 147,325.03 - $ 1,158,303.44 Pinellas 11.002% 1,571,236.67 228,968.78 $ 1,800,205.45 Sarasota 7.248% 1,035,113.93 150,842.19 - $ 1,185,956.12 Ta or 4.383%1 625,952.58 91,217.07 - $ 717,169.65 Subtotal 100.000% $ 14,281,373.15 2,081,156.00 - $ 16,362,529.15 Total S 57,125,492.60 1$ 8,324,624.00 1 S 976,2S0.77 I S 64,473,865.83 1 For illustrative purposes,estimates Include the single payment of the December 16,2015,Anadarko Petroleum Corporation judgment,Issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,and are adjusted for Fiscal Year 2016 sequestration,pursuant to section 252A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,as amended. These values do not Include an interest estimate for the Anadarko payment. Department of the Treasury Page 5 Office of Gulf Coast Restoration 4644 N e N 0m 1� ; O iIrr e�yy N N 01 Y �Sy �r i n ,1. ..:;w"�d tdtA u1 « Z t Y ifLa S F�\ k� � v!"m� kk�^!n a � r� m-. i �r .Ti � �amTi�TadTmk:ui d ii NNNN NNN NN NNNN NNNNNNNNN NNN N � � tt ,.,. \ U'RC N wi App pMp�� P 1� N w pA� pVp��I .VI O"1 1� ptl pT, pp M A oN n y^mk' p ^� wi m rl Pi N 1'Ij f �{ N M T M �M H w N f�Ik7 n wl M N H ti N ei A T p Ng N1 N N N N N N N N N Nk N� N N N NO N�N N} �Ny A N N Np N N y R �pO N P is X N is,; �� NNN 1N�NNN N^NNNNNNN NNN N NNNN re10 r N A b ei, Y} f �O f rR f yr O A M NN N N N N NNNN N N N N N N N N N NNNN In wY m In {S {Wy LL 0 f n b YA1 �Ap n N gP1 N A fV pm� �G A y� y 3..: VI, P {ry ` w is �'+R nO1 aiT+H},n wm A t a VJ } H M N v N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N�yyT S � � aqkp�� RR�JRQRRry � � � aRS� � RmY� R � Py � n3 � 14 9 pD y �"„ W � � �'� C"Af�m � �^ T ^ � � Q• �a � Nfe � LZT 'N^ 4 � A f 111 O Al'i _ J E » m f O n M P w wi w eel wj Z. n 11 Z w r }yam yN�k oN N 1eN� N pN N N N N N pN qN mN N NNpp N N N N N N NNN N �■ wl " N1 f N gYel 'A9R ■a P N f OI b wl O W 0 ♦ NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNN-I N V l V N N N NNN N \ kn to 0 « " 3 P w ky aq ryry �6 �1 6 ♦ r ^ a m '. 1 O 1 N wk n 11pq�� rd f wmryy '�lYTf n I.f • w .� �6 wn1 ^f1 RA f�C n Mkn ,tl M ul ddd a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L r 0 @R f A " tT1 ��Ny ^ f of M 1p ed A01 « A f riaF « AM N r� ''jj•F 1iE7� ^I r/ k 0 4645 iorn J l ,G U flEF MMIK,,.... 0 S0RT ! i I State of Fl o r 'l d a STAT X �Fl N ��7 U R �Fl 1........, NN R, 0 1, /J i � uoVmifdmu � %"` 1 1 i N 4 N , , If WE! Me, is �I , r ,O1 1' rn ,,;� ,oaV (% i ,� W Y w ` w raw 'w"""�af9' �' r1�[,,, i r i, k /�➢1":" " ll�w f"ll OP, i i ur'T wi!r ,i,' , �w fl ;uW W !u'"�✓" Jul 9 J 6 r J it ',4 ' u ogf Tt L rw 1 1 1 1 1 , . r POW" rr o� E 4646 4647 i 1��IN� Prepared by the Gulf Consortium for the State of Florida With assistance from Environmental m ental (;IeY7(;e Associates, I....angton Consulting, Brown and Caldwell, and Research Planning, Inc. "AA/m, I ang-tan =C"aIdrwTeNInt CON S UILFII NG 4648 4649 State of Fl o ri d a STAT E EX P E N D IT U R E P LA N Submitted Pursuant to the Spill Impact Component of the RESTORE Act 33 U.S.C. § 1321 (t)(3) June n, 2018 a � d 1 � y",,*d 't I/l%Y� ��a/;!���If� ���;c % ���/� ! ��' /�i//v✓ii%� %%l�i%;/i�0//������ii�/%ll,�%�%r a - vc✓�n1��11 �i„/i �r/ ��� /,. aG ,//, r��i �r � �r r/l z":, ,.✓c „�ti i ,��d1 lmwnl6Ytl9�NJ IUr"All/�Yl�'!Y�� �� t f ANf; ; Y 1 I ; r f ; VI 4651 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan Ta b �1 e o f Con ten ts Adknow1l edge irn e Ints......................................................................................................................................................ix Glossaryof Acronyms................................................................................................................................................Xi ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................................................Xiii Section L State Certification of RESTORE Act CompHance................................................. 1 A. Designated State Agency—The Gulf Consortium B. State Certification C. Compliance with the 25 Percent Infrastructure Limitation Section 1111.. IPulbllilc Participation Statement..............................................................................................9 A. Public Participation Statement B. Public Involvement Section 111111.. Financiall IIntegrity........................................................................................................................... 15 A. Implementing Authority B. Financial Integrity C. Conflict of Interest D. Legal Compliance Section I1V.. Overallll Consistency Mfl­i fl­ie Goalls and Objectives of fl­ie Coirnpr0­ie ire sive III in.....................................................................................25 A. Florida-Specific Goals and Objectives B. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Section V IPra posed Projects, Programs, and Activities......................................................31 A. Overview of the SEP Development Process B. Individual Project Descriptions C. Summary of Projects, Programs,and Activities SectionVILIlimpIIeirnentation.............................................................................................................................475 A. Unique Challenges of Implementing the Florida State Expenditure Plan B. Project Sequencing C. Project Leveraging ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Vk 4652 vkk 4653 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan A c 10 ow��l e d g e m e n ts G u II O in so in 6 u Irn II... irM 6 p The development of this State Expenditure Plan (SEP)for the State of Florida was led by the Gulf Consortium Board of Directors, which includes representatives from each of the 23 Florida Gulf Coast counties, as well as six Governor appointees. Particular recognition is given to Grover Robinson, Escambia County Commissioner and Chairman of the Gulf Consortium. Chairman Robinson represented the Florida Gulf Coast counties during the drafting of the RESTORE Act, and promoted the creation of the Gulf Consortium. He served as the first and only Chairman of the Gulf Consortium during the preparation of the SEP a tenure of over five years.The establishment and achievements of the Gulf Consortium would not have been possible without the vision, perseverance, and leadership of Chairman Robinson. Mr. Robinson was also assisted during his tenure by the Gulf Consortium Executive Committee which has consisted of the following Directors: • Warren Yeager—Gulf County • Chris Constance—Charlotte County • Sara Comander—Walton County • Susan Latvala— Pinellas County • George Neugent—Monroe County • Jack Mariano—Pasco County • John Meeks— Levy County. Gulff Consortium Staff During the development of the SEP the Gulf Consortium was supported by staff from both the Florida Association of Counties as well as contractors. Key staff included the following: C=l. ORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES • Virginia Delegal—Interim Manager • Cragin Mosteller • Emily Anderson NABORS, GIBI....IN & NICKIE.RSON • Sarah Bleakley—General Counsel • Lynn Hoshihara—General Counsel • Evan Rosenthal THIE=. BAI....MORAI.... GROUP • Craig Diamond—Manager • Valerie Seidel • William Smith • Dan Dourte • Amanda Jorjorian ix 4654 SEIP Cansull-tant"Tea00 Environmental Science Associates (ESA) served as the prime consultant in the preparation of this SEP document. ESAwmsussistedbythesub-oonsu|tunts: LungtonConsu|ting� BmvvnundCa|dvveU� Reseurch Plunning' |nc.(RPV� VW|dvvoodConsultin� and Royal Engineering. Key contributing stuffhnmtheSEPconsuhunttemm included the following: IE NV|RQNK8IE NTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES ° DougRobison—SEPPm|ect Manager ° Bryan Flynn, RE. SEP Project Engineer ° DuveTomusko' Ph.D. ° Emily Keenan ° BnyndonQuinton ° Sean Burlingame ° Joce|ynSe|tenhch SEP Document Manager ° Julie Bayer ° Muchue| MitcheU LANGTON CONSULTING ° Mike Langton ° Lisa King ° Melissa Bemudry ° Heather Pullen ° Sarah Harper BROWN AND CALDVVIELL ° Ann Redmond ° BryanVeith' RE. ° StucyViUunuevu RESEARCH PI. ANN|NG, INC. ° Pam Latham, Ph.D. ° ScottZenge|' Ph.D. VV|LDVVOOD CONSULTING ° Tiffany Busby ROYAL ENGINEERING ° Kirk Rhinehurt. StalkO­iollders A number of organizations and individuals were actively involved in, and critical to,the development of this SEp Key non-government organizations included The Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation.While the names of contributing individual stakeholders are too numerous to list here' special recognition is given tothe RESTORE Act coordinators from the Gulf Consortium member counties,as well as staff from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. x 4655 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan G �1 o s s a �ry o f Ac ��ronyms AFB Air Force base FDOT Florida Department of Transportation BBSAP Big Bend State Aquatic Preserve FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency BMAP Basin Management Action Plan FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary BMP best management practice FKRAD Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document BOCC Board of County Commissioners FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation BSAIP Bob Sikes Airport Industrial Park Commission CARL Conservation and Recreation Land GEBF Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund CBEP Choctawhatchee Bay Estuary Program GEMS Gulf of Mexico Ecological Management CCCWIP Collier County Comprehensive Watershed GGC Golden Gate Canal Improvement Program GIS geographic information system CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management gpd gallon(s)per day Plan GPS Global Positioning System CCUD Charlotte County Utilities Department GSI Gulf Shellfish Institute, Inc. CDBG Community Development Block Grant HBTS Holley by the Sea CFBC Cross Florida Barge Canal HNWS Holley Navarre Water System CHEC Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center, Inc. I&I inflow and infiltration CHNEP Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1-10 Interstate 10 CIP Capital Improvements Program IFAS Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences CKOA Cedar Key Oysterman Association L liter(s) CMMP Canal Management Master Plan lb pound(s) CRAAC Community Redevelopment Area Advisory LMI low-and moderate-income-RIGHT? Committee LIPS low-pressure sewer CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund cy cubic yards LSSP Lansing Smith Steam Plant DLPZ Deerpoint Lake Protection Zone LSWMP Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan DMMA dredged material management area mg milligram(s) DOI Department of the Interior mgd million gallons per day DWH Deepwater Horizon mgd million gallons per day ECUA Emerald Coast Utilities Authority MHP mobile home park EDC Economic Development Council MSBU Municipal Service Benefit Unit NACWA North American Wetlands Conservation Act EES Sea Grant Marine Extension Programs ELAPP Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection NBWWTF Navarre Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility Program NECTR North East Caloosahatchee Tributaries Restoration EOC emergency operations center NERR National Estuarine Research Reserve EPA Environmental Protection Agency NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation EWD Englewood Water District N FAC Florida Administrative Code GO non-government organization FAD fish aggregating devices NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration FAU Florida Atlantic University NPSM Nonpoint Source Management Program FDACS Florida Department of Agricultural and NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment Consumer Services NWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management District FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection OCWS Okaloosa County Water&Sewer FDOH Florida Department of Health Xi 4656 OFW Outstanding Florida Water U.S.331 U.S. Highway 331 OSTDS on-site sewage treatment and disposal system USACE U.S.Army Corps of Engineers PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons USDA United States Department of Agriculture PBS&J PBS&J International, Inc. USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency PCB polychlorinated biphenyls USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PCMRS Pasco County Master Reuse System WBID Water Body identification number PCP pentachlorophenol WIFIA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act PCUSB Pasco County Utilities Services Branch WMD Water Management District PDARP Programmatic Damage Assessment and WQPP Water Quality Protection Program Restoration Plan VVRF Water Reclamation Facility PSSF Picayune Strand State Forest WRF Wastewater Reclamation Facility RAP Reasonable Assurance Plan WTP water treatment plant RCPP Regional Conservation Partnership Program WWS Weeki Wachee Spring RESTORE Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, VVVVTF wastewater treatment facility Act Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of theGulf Coast States Act of 2012 WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant RIB rapid-rate infiltration basin yr year(s) RIVER Regional Initiative Valuing Environmental S15N stable isotopes of nitrogen Resources RTK real-time kinematic RV recreational vehicle SEEP Sarasota Bay Estuary Program SEARCH Special Evaluation Assistance for Rural Communities and Households SEP State Expenditure Plan SERCAP Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project, Inc. SFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District SR-59 State Route 59 SRC severe repetitive loss SFWMD Suwannee River Water Management District SSO Sanitary sewer overflow SSO sanitary sewer overflow SSRU South Santa Rosa Utility SWFRERP Southwest Regional Ecosystem Restoration Plan SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management TBD to be determined TBEP Tampa Bay Estuary Program TIG Trustee Implementation Group TMDL total maximum daily load TN I Total Nitrogen xii 4657 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan �Exe c u til v e S u m m a �ry IIntroduc- ila n This document constitutes the State Expenditure Plan (SEP)for the State of Florida, prepared by the Gulf Consortium (Consortium) pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)with the Governor of Florida, Rick Scott.The Florida SEP meets the minimum provisions set forth in the MOU, as well as the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability,Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act), 33 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1321(t)(3)(B), which lists the requirements that each SEP must meet for the disbursement of Oil Spill Impact Allocation Funds, in accordance with the formula developed under Section 1321(t)(3) (A).As summarized in Section 5.2 of the SEP Guidelines provided by the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council), these requirements include: 1. Meets one or more of the eligible activities under Section 1321(t)(1)(13)(i)and/or(ii)and administrative costs limitations under Section 1321 (t)(1)(13)(iii) 2. Contributes to the overall economic and ecological recovery of the Gulf Coast 3. Takes into consideration the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Does not use more than 25 percent of the funds disbursed for Eligible Activities 6 and 7 in Section 4.1.1, unless the infrastructure limitation exception is met. alti � u I %NII i �i v` it �, xiii 4658 RESTORE Act CompHance In accordance with Section 5.2.2 of the SEP Guidelines provided by the Council, the Gulf Consortium hereby certifies the following: • All projects, programs, and activities included in the Florida SEP are eligible activities as defined by the RESTORE Act. • All projects, programs, and activities included in the Florida SEP contribute to the overall economic and/or ecological recovery of the Gulf Coast. • The FL SEP takes into consideration the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. • Issues crossing Gulf State boundaries have been evaluated to ensure that a comprehensive, collaborative ecological and economic recovery is furthered by the Florida SEP • All projects, programs, and activities included in the SEP are based on and/or informed by the Best Available Science as defined in the RESTORE Act. In preparing this Florida SEP the Consortium conducted a thorough process of project/program development, definition, evaluation, and refinement, resulting in the projects, programs, and activities proposed herein. Early in the SEP development process the Consortium voted to distribute Florida's Spill Impact Component equally amongst the 23 member counties, and to implement a "county-driven" approach whereby each of the counties would self-de- termine their priority projects. It was the role of the consultant team to screen proposed projects, and then to conduct detailed project evaluation and refinement as necessary to ensure that the criteria listed above were met. It should, however, be noted that the projects, programs, and activities described in Section V of this SEP have not undergone a full review of the Best Available Science as defined in the RESTORE Act. Based on guidance provided by the Council, this level of review will be conducted as part of the project grant process. IPulbllic Participation This SEP fully conforms with, and exceeds,the public participation requirements outlined in 31 CFR Section 34.503(g). In accordance with these requirements, the Gulf Consortium made the Draft Florida SEP available for public review and comment for longer than the required minimum 45 days—from January 12, 2018,through March 2, 2018.This public review process was conducted in a manner designed to obtain broad-based participation from citizens, businesses, tribes, and non-profit organizations in accordance with 31 CFR Sections 34.503(b)(4) and 34.503(g). Specifically, public comments on the Draft Florida SEP were solicited through the following: • Facilitation of two advertised public webinars open to a wide variety of stakeholder and citizen groups • Facilitation of two advertised public meetings, one in Bay County and one in Hillsborough County • Development and maintenance of an online website and portal for the submittal and documentation of public comments received,as well as responses to those comments • Implementation of a coordinated state agency review process involving: — Florida Department of Environmental Protection — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission — Department of Economic Opportunity — Florida Department of Transportation — Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services — Florida Water Management Districts with applicable jurisdiction. xiv 4659 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan Comments received on the Draft SEP during the public and coordinated State agency review processes, and responses to those comments,were thoroughly catalogued and compiled in a standalone document.The projects, programs, and activities described in this Florida SEP were formally adopted by the Gulf Consortium on May 17, 2018 after full consideration of public input in accordance with 31 CFR Section 34.802(c). In addition to the formal public comment period on the Draft Florida SEP it should be noted that the entire Florida SEP development process was transparent and open to the public.Throughout this process, the Gulf Consortium held a total of 41 Board of Directors meetings and 29 Executive Committee meetings. Each of these meetings were publicly noticed pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statutes, and at each meeting a public comment agenda item was included. Meeting minutes were recorded and posted on the Gulf Consortium website, along with all meeting materials, presentations, interim deliverables, etc. If the proposed projects,programs, and activities described herein need to be modified or new projects, programs, and activities become elevated in priority, this SEP may be updated and/or amended over time.The Consortium is committed to providing the same level of public involvement and review for any and all future SEP amendments. II im p II Irn ire t 6 ire c u fl i ar6 ty and Rre ire it II IIntegrity The Consortium is the legal entity in Florida responsible for implementation of the Florida SEP and will be the direct recipient of grant funds disbursed by the Council to the State of Florida pursuant to the Spill Impact Component of the RESTORE Act.The Consortium is authorized to perform these functions pursuant to the authority vested in it by the RESTORE Act, the MOU between the Consortium and the Governor of Florida, and the Interlocal Agreement creating the Consortium.The Consortium considered various options for implementation of the Florida SEP and ultimately sought guidance from the Council. In a letter dated October 6, 2017, the Council concluded that the Consortium is an eligible recipient of Spill Impact Component funds to implement the Florida SEP On November 15, 2017, the Gulf Consortium Board of Directors voted to accept responsibility for the implementation of the projects, programs and activities contained in the Florida SEP and to develop the necessary administrative infrastructure to do so. The Consortium understands that before the Council will approve an award to the Consortium, the Consortium must have an adequate control infrastructure in place to provide reasonable assurance that the Consortium can manage the award.The Consortium will be required to provide sufficient documentation, including an updated Organizational Self-Assessment, so that the Council can make this determination. As the implementing entity for the Florida SEP the Consortium understands its fiduciary responsibilities under the RESTORE Act and other applicable federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to 2 CFR Part 200, and is committed to maintaining the highest level of fiscal accountability, record keeping, and transparency. Additionally, in implementing the Florida SEP the Consortium shall comply with all applicable provisions of Florida law governing financial integrity, reporting requirements, record keeping, and procurement. The Consortium will implement a system of financial controls that will enable the Consortium and any sub-recipients to accomplish fiduciary responsibilities.These controls will reduce the risk of asset loss, ensure that RESTORE Act project documentation is complete and accurate, ensure that financial reports are reliable, and ensure compliance with state and federal laws and regulations.The financial control system will include both preventative controls (designed to discourage errors or fraud)and detective controls (designed to identify an error or fraud after it has occurred). xv 4660 The Consortium also has controls in place to prevent conflicts of interest in the development and implementation of the Florida SEP The Consortium members, directors,alternates, Governor appointees, and consultants adhere to rigorous requirements regarding conflict of interest.The Consortium, its officers, employees, and consultants are governed by the State Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Part 111, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. The Code of Ethics provides standards of conduct, including but not limited to solicitation or acceptance of gifts, doing business with one's agency, unauthorized compensation, misuse of public position, conflicting employment or contractual relationships, and disclosure of certain information.Additionally,the MOU between the State of Florida and the Consortium requires the Consortium to "adhere to all legal requirements, including, but not limited to, those relating to open meetings, public records, contracting,audits and accountability." The Consortium, its officer, employees, consultants, sub-recipients, and any contractor who performs work on a project, program, or activity described in the Florida SEP shall also comply with all applicable provisions of the U.S. Department of Treasury's RESTORE Act regulations, 31 CFR Part 34,Treasury's RESTORE Act Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions and Program-Specific Terms and Conditions, the RESTORE Council's Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions, and any applicable project-, program-, or activity-specific Special Award Conditions from Treasury or the RESTORE Council, 2 CFR Part 200, and Part III Chapter 112 of Florida Statutes. Consistency it fl i fl-iie Coirnpi-0--iiensiveIII ire As part of its Comprehensive Plan, the Council has developed goals, objectives, and guiding principles to guide the selection of projects, programs, and activities to be funded under the Council Funded Component and the Spill Impact Component of the RESTORE Act.This SEP is fully consistent with,and furthers,the Council's Comprehensive Plan. Goals and objectives constitute the framework of all competent resource management plans, and the adoption of goals and objectives are an important first step in the plan development process.While the Florida SEP must be consistent with the Council's goals and objectives, there is considerable flexibility to accommodate Florida-specific priorities.Therefore, the development of Florida-specific goals and objectives that represent the consensus of the Gulf Consortium was an important first step to serve as the framework for the development of the SEP a ri/G,rc xvI 4661 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan The Consortium convened a Goal Setting Workshop on August 26, 2015, early in the Florida SEP development process, and there was broad-based support from the Consortium for adopting the Council's goals and objectives verbatim.The Consortium agreed that all of the Council's goals and objectives were all applicable to Florida and appropriate for the Florida SEP In addition, the Consortium wanted to maintain the maximum degree of flexibility in determining appropriate projects, programs,and activities to be included in the Florida SEP rather than focusing on one or a few priority eligible activities, goals, and/or objectives. In reviewing the Council's goals and objectives, the Consortium noted that there was not a Council objective that specifically related to Goal 4—Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy.Therefore, the Consortium voted to adopt an eighth objective specifically addressing the relationship between environmental quality of the Gulf Coast and the Florida economy: • Restore, Diversify, and Revitalize the Gulf Economy with Economic and Environmental Restoration Projects, and Promote Projects that Enhance the Synergy between the Environmental Quality of Florida's Gulf Coast and the Florida Economy. In their deliberations, the Consortium affirmed the importance of clean coastal waters and beaches, thriving marine and estuarine habitats, and healthy fish and shellfish populations to the overall economy of Florida. More than any other Gulf State, Florida's economy is dependent on tourism and coastal recreational opportunities, and it was important to the Consortium that this dependency be recognized in a separate objective. In the county-driven approach to project development, the Counties were free to propose projects that covered the full breadth of the RESTORE Act, including a diverse range of both environmental and economic projects. Each County was free to address their own needs and priorities, without being restricted to any particular focus dictated by the Consortium. (Projects, Programs,s, and Activities As shown in the Project Summary Table provided Section V, a total of 69 projects and programs are being proposed by the Gulf Consortium.The total estimated cost of all proposed projects and programs is$628,575,530,while the total Spill Impact Component request is $291,180,000. However, the total committed funding proposed by the 23 Consortium member counties is$439,310,635, leaving an overall budget deficit of$189,264,895. It is anticipated that this budget deficit will be at least partially closed through leveraged funding over the 15-year payout period. Other funding sources committed by the member counties include portions of their Direct Component, other grants and co-funding, and other county funding (e.g., general revenues; utility fees).Although these committed funding sources cannot be considered as "secured" funding in most cases, there is a reasonable likelihood that funding sources indicated in the project and program budget information will be available if and when it is needed. By inclusion in the Florida SEP each Consortium member county is pledging their commitment to dedicate the necessary resources to undertake their respective projects and programs. For those projects and programs for which significant budget shortfalls cannot be closed through leveraging, implementation will need to be appropriately scaled down to match the available funding level. The Florida SEP proposes diverse range of project/program types that balances both the environment and the economy.A common theme that the Consortium has promoted is that Florida's economy is inextricably linked to the environmental quality of its coastal zone.The majority of Florida's economic activity occurs in its coastal counties, where residents, tourists, and commercial fisherman seek out white sand beaches, clear waters, natural wetland habitats, and rich living marine resources. For these reasons, Consortium member counties, in developing their proposed projects, often did not make clear distinctions between environmental and economic projects. xvi i 4662 Accordingly, the proposed SEP projects and programs represent a good balance between both environmental and economic projects.When classified in terms of RESTORE Act eligible activity, about 51 percent of the proposed projects/programs address environmental restoration and protection,while about 49 percent address various economic and infrastructure activities.The proposed projects/programs include a broad assortment of varied project types, addressing six of the seven Council objectives, as well as an eighth objective defined by the Consortium for economic activities.The balance and diversity of project/program types addresses state, regional and local priorities, and will yield multiple benefits to the stakeholders of the Florida Gulf Coast. l p 116 irn it fl--i 25 Percent IInfrastructure Il...il m it t fl O ire In accordance with Section 4.2.2 of the Council's SEP Guidelines, the State of Florida hereby certifies that the proposed projects, programs, and activities described in Section V of this SEP comply with the 25 percent infrastructure limitation. For SEP purposes,the term "infrastructure" has the same meaning as provided in 31 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 34.2.The 25 percent infrastructure limitation is defined in the RESTORE Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1321(t)(3)(13)(ii).This provision states that not more than 25 percent of the allocated Spill Impact Component funds may be used by a State for infrastructure projects for RESTORE Act Eligible Activities 6 and 7, which include: • Eligible Activity 6: Infrastructure projects benefiting the economy or ecological resources, including port infrastructure • Eligible Activity 7: Coastal flood protection and related infrastructure. The Act does allow an exception to the 25 percent infrastructure limitation.A state may propose a SEP that uses more than 25 percent of its funds for infrastructure planning, if the SEP certifies that: • Ecosystem restoration needs will be addressed by projects in the proposed State Expenditure Plan; and • Additional investment in infrastructure is required to mitigate the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill to the ecosystem or economy. Of the 69 proposed projects and programs,a total 11 projects/programs have been determined to be infrastructure pursuant to the definition provided in 31 CFR Section 34.2.The total Spill Impact Component request for these 11 projects is$37,690,000 which is approximately 13 percent of Florida's total Spill Impact Component request of $291,180,000.Therefore, the Florida SEP is well within compliance with the RESTORE Act 25 percent infrastructure limitation, and the exception is not applicable. It should be noted that a fairly large proportion of Florida's allocated Spill Impact Component funds are proposed for use on projects that involve the conversion of septic tanks to central sewer facilities to remediate legacy coastal water quality impairments.The Council has provided guidance through consultation that if the primary objective of such projects is to improve degraded water quality, such projects would not be categorized under Eligible Activity 6 as set forth in the Act, and would not be subject to the 25 percent infrastructure limitation. However, septic to sewer conversions to improve existing degraded water quality conditions can be distinguished from the extension of central sewer facilities into undeveloped areas. If the primary objective of the latter project type is to encourage economic activity,then such a project type would be categorized under Eligible Activity 6, and would be subject to the 25 percent infrastructure limitation. xvi 4663 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan II irn p II I ire t fl in The 15-year payout period of the BP civil settlement with the federal government and the five Gulf Coast States presents significant challenges to developing a comprehensive implementation strategy to sequence the large number of projects/programs proposed in the Florida SEP In addition to being numerous, the projects/programs included in the SEP vary substantially with regard to their degree of readiness for implementation.The Gulf Consortium considered several different approaches to "sequencing" SEP projects/programs over the 15-year payout period, and adopted a collaborative process whereby project funds are phased across a series of 4-year work programs, beginning in 2018 and ending in 2033. The Sequencing Summary Table provided in Section VI is to be used by Consortium as an internal guidance document to assist with the coordination of project grant applications, and the equitable distribution of Spill Impact Component funds amongst the member counties over the 15-year payout period.This table shows the estimated start and end dates for each of the 69 proposed SEP projects and programs, as well as the estimated dollar allocations for each project by year and by 4-year work program.There is much greater clarity in the first 4-year work program than those that follow, thus it is likely that the Consortium will need to amend this sequencing schedule periodically to accommodate future changes in project priorities. In addition,as leveraged funding sources become available, the funding allocations for each project could change substantially. ' o Irllrr/„ rr0 /ri ri /ii irr r rr of 6; r it r%!r r r v II 1 � 9 iiil I r i I ;.• Sri � r r ii � ritin ro ; XIX 4664 r / f , , f o f / / / / / i j / r " 1 1� � I 1 J1 oll �i i / / 1 � >'r�lirwurr�lry 7(1�'W6I✓/� �'wr�nn�Nw>'Y �iJ.�l r ,i�j nr,��� r!r r/ ���I �,, 1 r f r � ���, ,/s:. // /� .: "„ i li 7,,.�.✓ ��/c.%�r�'r h1N"�Ylr/i/ A�r� /io 1 �wl �I I / r t ��ru uJi W Is I/ Y 1, J u t�i l y / 11 4665 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan 76 I i 1 r�1� I, I 6 i r r 1 ,� 11 rl f' 1 1 r" 1+ r / i i i r ;:,riot�� ,, ,.. ,,..c.. ,,.. ✓,�r� .err ,,.. r; ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e;;;,, a i /iii ✓o ra N i , ll » P if ! S ,i,,,iJ:% '°+' All NWR'vYmw Y.✓ ,.fj/,i%���� iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i i 4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiu.. a 1 / r ,�o r i t i 111111111MIMMMIlm i i i / i i i U/ l 0 �000000000000������0000000000000������0000000000000������0000000000000������0000000000000������0000000000000������0000000000000������00000000�i r 0 , � 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000r:.. r > / r < _i ' �.,'"` 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000i/////////////////////////////// 00 000 0 00 i i a a a a o 00 �o 0 00 000 0 i i oo¢. 4666 4667 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan A.. Designated State Agency — ���e Gulff Consortium The Gulf Consortium (Con*ortium) isu separate and distinct legal entity created pursuant to Section 103.01' Florida Statutes.The Consortium is also the designated state entity responsible for the development ofthe Florida State Expenditure Plan (SEF)' us recognized in the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainubi|ityTourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of2012 (RESTORE Act)and subsequent GUU ru|emuking CO � �� �� �� �r � M � �� �� �� �`� �� m�n �� n � �� u~� The Consortium isu public entity created inOctober 2012 through un |nter|ocu|Agreement between Florida's 23 Gulf Coast counties to meet the requirements of mmwounuonaortium.oro the RESTORE Act.The Florida Gulf Coast extends from Escumbiu County in the western panhandle bordering the state of Alabama, to Monroe County, including the Everglades and the Florida Keys on the southern tip of Florida. The Consortium's Board of Directors consists of one representative from each of the 23 county governments and six persons appointed by the Governor, for u total of29 Board members. Since its inception, the Consortium has met more or less every other month and has held numerous Executive Committee meetings to stand up the organization, conduct business, and guide the development and implementation of the SEp Pursuant tothe RESTORE Act, Governor Rick Scott is Florida's member on the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council).To formalize the role of the Consortium, the Governor and the Consortium entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on June 12, 2013, to establish the Consortium's responsibilities in the development of the 8EP and in coordinating with the Governor's office. The MOU recognizes that the RESTORE Act directs the Consortium to develop the SEP Furthermore, the MOU provides for the coordinated review and input by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Water Management Districts, other applicable state agencies, and the Governor during the development of the SEP In addition, the M0U requires the Consortium to conduct its activities with full transparency and adhere toall legal requirements, including but not limited to those relating to open meetings, public records, contracting, audits, and accountability. FinuUy, the M0U requires the Consortium to meet the following minimum requirements in selecting and prioritizing projects, programs, and other activities for inclusion in the SEP: ° A review for consistency with the applicable laws and rules ° Prioritization based on criteria established by the Consortium ° Consideration of public comments ° Approval by an affirmative vote ofnt least majority ofthe Consortium Directors present ntn duly noticed public meeting of the Consortium. Upon final review and approval by the Consortium, the Governor is responsible for the review and approval of the Florida SEP and for the formal transmittal of the document to the Council. Ti ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ESCAMBIA WALTON fj SANTA ROSA BAY � WAKULLA GULF FRANKLIN DIXIE LEVY CITRUS HERNANDO PASCO- PINELLAS �lU HILLSBOROUGH The FlloHda Gulf MANATEE Coast extends frorn Escarnleb a SARASOTA County�n CHARLOTTE time vvestern LEE panhandle bordeHng time COLLIER State,of Allabarna, to Monroe County, �ncllu6ng the MONROE Everglades and the FlloHda (Keys on the southern �m tip of FlloHda. B. State Certification In addition to the above minimum requirements set forth in the MOU, the RESTORE Act, 33 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1321(t)(3)(13), lists the requirements that each SEP must meet for the disbursement of Oil Spill Impact Allocation Funds, in accordance with the formula developed under Section 1321(t)(3)(A).As summarized in Section 5.2 of the Council's SEP Guidelines,these requirements include: 1. Meets one or more of the eligible activities under Section 1321(t)(1)(13)(i)and/or(ii)and administrative costs limitations under Section 1321 (t)(1)(13)(iii). 2. Contributes to the overall economic and ecological recovery of the Gulf Coast. 3. Takes into consideration the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Does not use more than 25 percent of the funds disbursed for Eligible Activities 6 and 7 in Section 4.1.1, unless the infrastructure limitation exception is met. 2 4669 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan In accordance with Section 5.2.2 of the Council's SEP Guidelines, the Gulf Consortium herebycertifies the following: �Ilja��11 »»,' • All projects, programs, and activities included in the Florida SEP are eligible activities as defined by the RESTORE Act. • All projects, programs, and activities included in the Florida SEP contribute to the overall economic and/or ecological recovery of the Gulf Coast. • The FL SEP takes into consideration the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. • Issues crossing Gulf State boundaries have been evaluated to ensure that a comprehensive, collaborative ecological and economic recovery is furthered by the Florida SEP • All projects, programs, and activities included in the SEP are based on and/or informed by the Best Available Science as defined in the RESTORE Act. In preparing this Florida SEP the Consortium conducted a thorough process of project nomination, definition, evaluation, and refinement, resulting in the projects, programs, and activities proposed herein. Early in the SEP development process the Consortium voted to distribute Florida's Spill Impact Component equally amongst the 23 member counties, and to implement a "county-driven" approach whereby each of the counties would self-determine their priority projects. It was the role of the SEP consultant to screen proposed projects, and then to conduct detailed project evaluation and refinement as necessary to ensure that the criteria listed above were met. It should, however, be noted that the projects, programs,and activities described in Section V of this SEP have not undergone a full review of the Best Available Science as defined in the RESTORE Act. Based on guidance provided by the Council,this level of review will be conducted as part of the project grant process. %%/%%%%%%%%aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa .................///////////////////////////////////// i I i J ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .... 4670 SECTWNk State Certification of FUTM:3E Act CoNNphance C. Co00pHance wi-0--i fl­ie 25 Percent Infrastructure I h00ita-flan In accordance with Section 4.2.2 of the Council's SEP Guidelines, the State of Florida hereby certifies that the proposed projects, programs, and activities described in Section V of this SEP comply with the 25 percent infrastructure limitation. For SEP purposes,the term "infrastructure" has the same meaning as provided in31 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 34.2.The 25 percent infrastructure limitation is defined in the RESTORE Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1321(t)(3)(13)(ii).This provision states that not more than 25 percent of the allocated Spill Impact Component funds may be used byu State for infrastructure projects for RESTORE Act Eligible Activities 0 and 7 which include: ° Eligible Activity O: Infrastructure projects benefiting the economy or ecological resources, including port infrastructure ° Eligible Activity 7: Coastal flood protection and related infrastructure The Act does allow an exception to the 25 percent infrastructure limitation.A state may propose a SEP thatuses more than 25 percent of its funds for infrastructure planning, if the 8EP certifies that: ° Ecosystem restoration needs will be addressed by projects in the proposed State Expenditure Plan-, and ° Additional investment in infrastructure is required to mitigate the impacts of the Deepvater Horizon 0i| Spill to the ecosystem or economy. {f the 09 proposed projects and programs,utotal 11 projects/programs have been determined to be infrastructure pursuant tothe definition provided in 31 CFR Section 342.The total Spill Impact Component request for these 11 projects is$37,690,00 which is approximately 13 percent of Florida's total Spill Impact Component request of $291,180,000.Therefore, the Florida SEP is well within compliance with the RESTORE Act25 percent infrastructure limitation, and the exception is not applicable. It should be noted that ufuidy large proportion of Florida's allocated Spill Impact Component funds are proposed for use on projects that involve the conversion of septic tanks to central sewer facilities to nymediute legacy coastal water quality impairments.The Council has provided guidance through consultation that if the primary objective of such projects is to improve degraded water quality, such projects would not be categorized under Eligible Activity 0 as set forth in the Act, and would not be subject to the 25 percent infrastructure limitation. However, septic tosewer conversions to improve existing degraded water quality conditions can be distinguished from the extension of central sewer facilities into undeveloped areas. If the primary objective of the latter pn�ecttype is to encourage economic activity,then such a project type would be categorized under Eligible Activity 6, and would be subject to the 25 percent infrastructure limitation. 4672 1 �a c, I '1 4673 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan I I } I / III / � r f r 1 i I I II��Ifllll II IIII," 11� iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii00000iiiiiiii I }III L � I' r I" f I 1 i i i i ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; fff IIIIIII�Illllll�llllllf I d I I � r I , w. I I %'''1>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J>J»iiiiiiii< /IIII 0 on 00000„ 00 / n„o aooiiU 0 p000iii / 4674 4675 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan A.. Pulbllic Participation Statement 0 1 o N This Florida State Expenditure Plan (SEP)fully conforms with, and exceeds, the public participation requirements outlined in 31 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 34.503(g). In accordance with these requirements, the Gulf Consortium made the Draft Florida SEP available for public review and comment for greater than the required minimum 45 days—from January 12, 2018, through March 2, 2018.This public review process was conducted in a manner designed to obtain broad-based participation from citizens, businesses,tribes, and non-profit organizations in accordance with 31 CFR Sections 34.503(b)(4)and 34.503(g).The projects, programs, and activities described in this Florida SEP were formally adopted by the Gulf Consortium on May 17, 2018 after full consideration of public input in accordance with 31 CFR Section 34.802(c). „ IPulbhc Involly imeat The SEP consultant developed and implemented a Stakeholder Outreach and Public Involvement program to facilitate stakeholder review and to solicit public comments.This program was tailored to meet the specific requirements of the Consortium and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Consortium and the State of Florida.This program was conducted in a manner designed to obtain broad-based participation. Public comments on the Draft Florida SEP were solicited through the following activities. • Facilitation of two advertised in-person public meetings, one in Bay County and one in Hillsborough County: — Public Meeting- Bay County • Date/Time: January 22, 2018, 6:30-8:30pm CT • Location: Commission Chambers 840 West 11 th Street, Panama City, FL 32401 g 4676 SECTION |LPubUiC Participation StateDOeOt -- Public Meeting' Hillsborough County ° Date/Time: Junuury23' 2018' 0:30'8:30pm ET ° Location: Conference Rooms A&B Hillsborough County Center 001 East Kennedy Blvd,Tampa, FL 33002 ° Facilitation of two advertised public web-based meetings open to a wide variety of stakeholder and citizen groups: -- Pub|ioVVebnur ° Date/Time: February 1' 2018' 11:30um'1:30 pm ET ° Login: https://registecgotovvebinuccom/registenB994005970187824131 United States: +1 (415) 055'0052 Access Code: 340'540'329 -- Pub|ioVVebinur ° Date/Time: February 15' 2018' 2:00'3:30pm ET ° Login: https://registecgotovvebinuccom/registev2801758325553429507 United States: +1 (031) 992'3221 Access Code: 150'211'997 ° Development and maintenance of an online website and portal for the submittal and documentation of public comments received,us well us responses to those comments. ° Implementation of a coordinated State Clearinghouse agency review process involving: -- Florida Department of Environmental Protection -- Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission -- Department of Economic Opportunity -- Florida Department ofTransportation -- Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services -- Florida Water Management Districts with applicable jurisdiction. Comments received during the public and coordinated State agency review processes, and responses to those comments, were thoroughly documented and catalogued. In addition to the public involvement program summarized above, it should be noted that the entire Florida SEP development process was transparent and open to the public ut every step of the vay Thmughoutthis process, the Gulf Consortium held utotal of41 full Board of Directors meetings' und29 Executive Committee meetings. Each of these meetings were publicly noticed pursuant tothe requirements of Florida Statutes' and uteach meeting public comment agenda item was included. Meeting minutes were recorded and posted onthe Gulf Consortium website' along with all meeting materials, presentations, interim deliverables, etc. Finally, it should be noted that some counties held their own public meetings to receive public comments on,and adopt, their priority projects. Public comments received through independent county meetings were assumed to have been integrated by staff into their respective county project descriptions, and were not tabulated as part of the stakeholder outreach and public involvement process described above. 10 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan COUNTY PUBLIC |NVOLVIEK8IENTACT|V|T|ES Although RESTORE Act funds are divided among the five Gulf Coast states, Florida is unique in that the Gulf Coast Counties are the lead entities for two of the five RESTORE Act components—the Direct Component and the Spill Impact Component. For Direct Component funds, each of the 23 Counties is responsible for developing their own Multi-Year Implementation Plan (MY|P)' based on processes and projects developed |ocuUy, and through coordination with the Department ofTreasury. For Spill Impact Component funds, the 23 counties and the gubernatorial appointees have worked together usthe Gulf Consortium to develop the Florida SEp Some counties followed similar processes, but each county was somewhat unique in their approach. For example, 20 of the 23 member counties formed local RESTORE Act advisory committees to recommend projects totheir respective county commissions. Others secured planning grants and relied on staff and/or consultants to identify needs and candidate projects, while still others used a combination of these approaches.As a result, there was little consistency and each county had to learn to navigate the various RESTORE Act processes independently. Tb reduce redundancy and streamline efficiency ao that more RESTORE Act funds could be spent onprojects rather than learning to navigate new administrative processes, in April 2016, the National Wildlife Federation hosted a workshop of Florida's Gulf Coast counties so they could share information and experiences related toimplementing the RESTORE Act.The counties in attendance found the exchange productive and useful.As result, the county RESTORE Act Coordinator(RAC> group was established, and RAC meetings have continued to be held several times uyeuc in conjunction with Gulf Consortium meetings (to maximize attendance since many county representatives also attend Consortium meetings). The RAC meetings differ from the Gulf Consortium meetings in that they involve lead county staff who are responsible for writing planning grants, preparing MY|Ps' writing implementation grants, managing projects, and monitoring programs. In addition, the primary focus of the RAC meetings is on DirectComponent(Pot 1)funds, whereas the Consortium focuses exclusively on Spill Impact Component funds. However, in recent months' more Counties have been pursuing synergies and leveraging opportunities across the two county-directed DVVH funding streams, as well as considering comparable and compatible projects with neighboring counties. Although county RAC meetings are not publically noticed, they are open to the public and have been regularly attended by diverse participants, including U.S.Treasury staff, FDEP and FVVC' NG0s and other environmental organizations, RESTORE Council staff, representatives ofthe Florida Governor's office, consultants, and members of the public.This parallel pmoeaa has added significantly tothe overall transparency and public participation in the development of the Florida SEp 4678 r I / i J / �r I I r J / f r I r r 1 rr l� f � 1 f f� 1 f f..f,� r / r � y / f / . rr r / l i / ////,rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr / ,/,,,,,' � r� , ✓eft/rJ1l��l'//yG� ray! I r n /iiiri/s/ r/ii r ✓��'f,�i9u ///iii Oii;✓i ��al✓� IJ�r /r/i °�I /a / ✓'elf+ /rl✓, f i UI>',bq�b yu d✓� ��A �w f( r j���[� �/rriii/ r /i/ � r ,.„rii /r///�Jll(� �r � ,.�, Inl'�'✓',�."^� �� Y�" "'�/� Mw�`"7�.� �, � �+''rl �� rii /i//i//% /, �%V,r✓ / ✓I ry �m��rr �Yf�y `"� "pp�V4,,,, � I � y 17 , r/����%// r%//%//%///%/% ��ial N/ �qr✓i„f�IN✓Yr r°"»vw"�,�;��I Y, � ���� rMu y� ul"�c ?'a '� �w� 4'>�,,,;� ",, ^y ''4e,� G�,i ,,,�%%�/�ii��//%//�%�%//i r��' �/�i � �b ,t�.✓NivrTl�vla// ��. �, '" ,,',,�.r 61 y��. �� �;y a aw �✓M�„O",fi;,,,,, /iii /,✓��ilidii/;,�, ,,,,, ,,,r ,ono�,�✓✓�w✓ nr,,'AI, "�, �: � p,, i pv ra n, r f Yra✓'i/°"` r � ' „ti, � � a r�Y' ron v�wftWu!�`° rs�" 1; � lv r � �rr ro �� �" "'" / �� ✓>iUi / nury� r rw x YAv '4rtir h'✓',�'/ Irr" / ✓ 7n ✓ 4 �� b D I ll� gv „ P IOW �✓ r; � I I V a� 4, 4r X ti je/ a^ 9d «rw"i �yku � � r,'"� l � I�rMwwil)A I��✓ �`� r/` � P"D r� rl p�u PYIr v e' � ^F;i i� �?, ,?r a u �✓ �, „w ,m(4�, flrre,�d�'� w v'f�l ✓" w^"i; f�d� ',o r, � (T vw,l � Mtt�,�%� � I � r ✓ wn 7bwWv f .l � v ✓ +:M✓;�vrl Ijr I 1" ,., �u I �l r �awl � I ✓�� " u � � r, � � ��, 6«4 �� I � N 1 1 4679 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan „rrr,rr, ,,,,,,,,� ,,,,,,,,� ,,,,,,,,� c 1 /F ✓ , iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I, k, ',�f %OFF� u„NI ydN�"I ,�i rri�Y, ,,.•P r„rcf'+�y/..;!. �N!�f�91 n1m+.,; ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, 1 I rJ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii +a s ,., ,. is,,,� �"��,�r P I„✓"�(;�.� ,"" r ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. ielll ,, ;' I J rmrvp+Mj, hrg �i'r✓"'lvut�. A«V�r) ,h ,m r ,�,.0 + ra r, o I y «; / „,r ✓. � .,.r, rrrrrrr/r rrrrrrr/r rrrrrrr/r rrrrrrr/r rrrrr/7/ I,,,,, Nk. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'S,'J,i .rfifi�rw,,r -;,, ,,,, ,, �„ ,, ,. ,., w,ur �'Nr✓»,,, ,' n%% r r// 1000, »w r n ... w„ 1 r, I ,,. ✓ m � r )n f f r ,J umu, M � f » ,r, r qr 1 I ,- ,l 1111 r , r , 1 4 P„ 1,�, �„y , � v ,,,,✓' m!w hl ,r 'eY ry c f ,r,�.r .M l ,r r rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrr« ,J1, unu�l ,,. ✓ .. .W « r., r' N� r rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr ,,,, „.. ,,. h,, ,..... ., -„' "u-m,Mr.. ,a+'h�lr�� ,,,� r _ ;....rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroolrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroolrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroolrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroolrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroolrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroolrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroolrrrrrroorrrrrrrrr, i A r ���IIIII r II, „",., r-. ✓J".�, w,GG � r': �,, ,.r,,, r ;rr ,c ,„ ��, y- riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. yr N; Nor" �;. ✓b'a,✓N uwuw'„ �,"," �, r� �„J, „ h'frsv �,vA y,m %a r�,,"' ry,� H ,�;, N�r,.,Arwz'�,~' w� a mk„�, ,ffl�wy(%}I%w•' * .•i W„'a, r w IIr IIr IIr IIr IIr IIr .,,,,6 F �,n, ..✓ of ., ',l., � ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;, rrr ,,.,�r' ,, ;:, ro„ ;r';'„-r,�u, ,,,-., or„ .,: �N`r err .,„P° �,r v,ra ,_a., rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrro -,,,n 1 o mYrM�1r r a«�." ;�!�u'u���wwl '�a✓ N,r�r',, j,. m'� m«' �r, , .,.u it r. .✓,, /f : u <,.k.,.r Ni,,, '� ,,,, ,,,,,�. ,.... .,rr ,;t;, „ 'f„�. ilmu/,.�' ,✓, ,;; ,,�} , sNr :: :: :: :: :: :: :: >JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ>iiiiiiii s / 0 on h 00000„ 00 / n„'aooiiU / 0 p000iii ✓ / 4680 4681 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan .. II Irn p II e Irn e in t 6 in c A u t I�--n o ir6 ty The Gulf Consortium (Consortium) is the legal entity in Florida responsible for implementation of the Florida State Expenditure Plan (SEP)and will be the direct recipient of grant funds disbursed by the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council)to the State of Florida pursuant to the Spill Impact Component of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability,Tourist Opportunities,and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act).The Consortium is authorized to perform these functions pursuant to the authority vested in it by the RESTORE Act, the Interlocal Agreement creating the Consortium, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Consortium and the Governor of Florida dated June 12, 2013.The Consortium's authority to implement the Florida SEP was also confirmed by the Council in a letter dated October 6, 2017 On November 15, 2017, the Consortium Board of Directors voted to accept responsibility for the implementation of the Florida SEP and to develop the necessary administrative infrastructure to do so. „ Rnandall Iliategrity As the implementing entity for the Florida SEP the Consortium understands its fiduciary responsibilities under the RESTORE Act and other applicable federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, and is committed to maintaining the highest level of fiscal accountability, record keeping, err ua�ll and transparency.Additionally, in implementing the Florida SEP,the Consortium shall comply with all applicable provisions of Florida law governing financial integrity, reporting requirements, record keeping, and procurement. wp°w Beyond the basic accounting, fiscal, and procurement activities in place for the development of the Florida SEP «sif��lllll the Consortium proposes to adopt and implement all necessary financial controls and administrative protocols to III carry out the successful implementation of the SEP once approved.The Consortium's approach to oversight of implementation is described in full in its "Stand-Up" State Expenditure Plan (Stand-Up SEP)approved by the Council on March 26, 2018.The Stand-Up SEP deals only with the administrative infrastructure of the Consortium,and is an entirely separate document than this Florida SEP The Consortium's proposed financial system is to be developed around the basic principles of sound financial management.These principles are the internationally accepted accounting and financial management practices recognized worldwide by leading public and private sector organizations.The basic principles of sound financial management include, among other things, principles of transparency, internal checks and balances,and independent external financial auditing.These principles are summarized below. • Transparency:The Consortium is committed to sustaining transparency with the public, the Council, and other constituents for reporting on SEP-related projects, programs, and activities.The Consortium will put in place administrative positions that will allow frequent, detailed, and complete grant reports and financial statements for the Consortium's stakeholders. • Internal checks and balances:To maintain effective internal controls,the Consortium will properly create internal checks and balances among the entities performing contract administration and financial duties for SEP-related projects, programs, and activities.The Consortium anticipates carefully assigning the authorities and roles of staff to create a robust duty segregation hierarchy. Furthermore, the Consortium will retain a fiscal agent to manage any grant funds received from Council and institute firewalls between approval of disbursements and access to funding. 15 4682 SECTION III: hnancial Integrity • Independent external financial auditing:The Consortium is subject to annual audits conducted by independent auditors who evaluate not only the presentation of financial statements but also the effectiveness of internal controls based upon widely held government standards, including but not limited to 2 CFR Part 200 and the Single Audit Act of 1996. FINANCIAL.... CONTROI....S The Consortium will implement a system of financial controls that will enable the Consortium and any sub-recipients to accomplish fiduciary responsibilities.These controls will reduce the risk of asset loss, ensure that RESTORE Act project documentation is complete and accurate, ensure that financial reports are reliable, and ensure compliance with state and federal laws and regulations.The financial control system will include both preventative controls (designed to discourage errors or fraud)and detective controls (designed to identify an error or fraud after it has occurred). Consistent with the RESTORE Act and the Florida SEP sub-recipients must operate and use resources with minimal potential for waste, fraud, and mismanagement.The Consortium's financial control system will provide assurance that significant weaknesses that could affect the Consortium's ability to meet its objectives would be prevented or detected in a timely manner.The Consortium's internal control system will be modeled after the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission internal control framework and the following five inter-related components. Annually, the Consortium will certify it has performed an internal control risk assessment, identified weaknesses, and described a corrective action plan, if applicable.The various elements of the proposed financial control system are summarized below. • Control environment:Within the Consortium, responsibility for implementing internal controls begins with the chairman of the Board of Directors and extends to all contractors in staffing capacity.The Consortium's manager has the primary leadership role. d 1i� 6i 1 f�y n 16 4683 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan • Control activities:The Consortium's internal control activities will include written policies, procedures, techniques,and mechanisms that help ensure that the Board's directives are carried out in compliance with the RESTORE Act criteria and applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Control activities help identify, prevent, or reduce the risks that can impede accomplishment of the Consortium's objectives. Control activities occur under the auspices of the Consortium's manager,at all levels and in all functions; control activities include things such as approvals, authorizations,verifications, reconciliations, documentation, separation of duties, and safeguarding of assets. • Risk assessment:As part of establishing proper controls and procedures, an organizational self-assessment is performed annually to identify, analyze, and manage risks relevant to achieving the Consortium's goals and objectives for RESTORE Act projects.This assessment identifies internal and external events or circumstances that could adversely affect the Consortium's ability to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities. Identified risks according to potential impact on the RESTORE Act projects and the likelihood of occurrence will be considered.The Florida SEP will be considered in performing the risk assessment, incorporating the goals and objectives for the RESTORE Act activities while assessing the control environment, the overall financial management process, the role of the accounting system, and other financial management activities. For 11�1I�i each transaction cycle identified in the risk assessment, the flow of information through the process and the I'o�rlll internal control activities taken will be documented and analyzed. Documentation will include organizational charts, standard operation procedures, manuals, flowcharts, decision tables, questionnaires, and/or review f checklists. Identification of component systems comprising the complete accounting system will be included 058 in the risk assessment process.Transaction cycles will be identified and considered along with inherent risks. I������ These will be continuously reviewed and strategies will be updated as needed to manage the risks. u i r rr- ✓ �, lNx �.1 1, 17 4684 SECTION III: hnancial Integrity • Communication and Information:The Consortium's financial system will provide adequate processes and procedures to ensure that each contractor or sub-recipient has relevant, valid, reliable, and timely communi- cations related to internal and external events to effectively run and control its operations. Communication is vital to effective project management, and the Consortium's financial information system will have mechanisms in place to properly capture and communicate RESTORE Act project financial data at the level appropriate for sound financial management. Policy manuals, accounting and financial reporting manuals, internal memoranda, verbal directives,and management actions are a few of the means of communicating to all stakeholders in implementation. • Monitoring: Monitoring of the internal control system will be performed to assess whether controls are effective and operating as intended. Monitoring will be built into normal, recurring operations; will be performed on a real-time basis, reacting dynamically to changing conditions; and will be ingrained in all contractors and sub-recipients. Ongoing monitoring occurs through routine managerial activities such as supervision, reconciliations, checklists, comparisons, performance evaluations,and status reports. Monitoring may also occur through separate internal evaluations (e.g., internal audits/reviews) or from external evaluations (e.g., independent audits, comparison to industry standards, surveys).Any deficiencies found during monitoring will be reported to the Consortium Board of Directors.The Consortium will require prompt evaluation of any findings and recommendations. Formal procedures will be documented for responding to findings and recommendations,those that generate action items will be outlined for timely response and resolution. Responsible parties will be required to complete action items to correct or otherwise resolve the deficiencies within an established timeframe.The monitoring process also will include analysis of whether exceptions are reported and resolved quickly. r �J r a 18 4685 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan ACCOUNTAB|L|TY While each Consortium staff member, contractor, or sub-recipient has personal internal control responsibility, the Consortium manager is charged with the responsibility for, and internal control over, financial reporting of RESTORE Act funds. Contractors and sub-recipients will support the Consortium's internal control phi|osophy, promote compliance,and maintain control within their areas of responsibility.The Consortium manager will have key oversight and policy enforcement m|ea over fiscal matters. Other Consortium contractors or sub-recipients will hold lead responsibility for compliance with nonfinancial aspects of |nvva directives, policies, procedures, and codes of ethics. The Consortium has designated its manager us the RESTORE Act project manager for those projects within the Florida SEp The Consortium manager isthus responsible for coordinating the overall effort ofevaluating, improving, and reporting on internal controls over RESTORE Act project management for work funded via the Spill Impact Component.A risk assessment of project internal control systems will be performed unnuuUy. If the risk assessment indicates high level of risk associated with the financial control system, internal controls will be evaluated. Any serious deficiencies will be reported to the Board.The Consortium may also employ other financial integrity mechanisms if necessary or for specific RESTORE Act project types. Modifications will be based on updated risk assessments for the RESTORE Act financial control system. C. Conflict of Mterest The Consortium has controls in place to prevent conflicts of interest in the development and implementation of theS�� Expenditure ��n.The Conso�iummembeo' di�c�ns'u|temu�m' Govemoruppoin�esand consuhu�s ndheretohgomuaoonf|iotofintereatrequirementa�TheConao�ium. itao�ioera. emp|oyeeanndoonau|tnntanre governed by the State Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Emp|oyeea, Part U|, Chnpter112. Florida Statutes.The Code provides standards of conduct including but not limited to, solicitation or acceptance of gifts, doing business with one's agency, unauthorized oompenantion, misuse of public poaition, conflicting employment orcontractual relationship, and disclosure ofcertain information.Additionally, the Memorandum of Understanding between the 19 SECTION UL h0@0Ci@U Integrity StateofF|miduundtheConsorhumrequirestheConsortiumto ^udhenytouU |egu| requinymentsinc|uding' butnot limited to, those relating to open meetings, public records, contracting, audits and accountability." The Consortium, its officer, employees, consultants, subrecipients and any contractor who performs work on a project, program or activity described in the State Expenditure Plan shall also comply with all applicable provisions of the U.S. Department of Treasury's RESTORE Act regulations, 31 CFR Part 34'Treasury's RESTORE Act Financial Assistance StandardTerms and Conditions and Program-Specific Terms and Conditions, the RESTORE Council's Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions, and any applicable project, program or activity-specific Special Award Conditions fromTreasury or the RESTORE Council, 2 CFR Part 200, and Part III Chapter 112 of Florida Statutes. |n addition to general conflict of interest disclosures and controls, the agreement between the Consortium and the SEP consultant team specifically prohibited members of the consultant team from participating in any projects, programs, and activities ultimately included in the State Expenditure Plan document prepared by the SEP consultant, pursuant to the following contract provision: The Consultant agrees tn/ecuoeitself from all participation ir any projects, programs, and activities ultimately included in the State Expenditure Plan.Attached as composite Exhibit E is a copy of each of the Consultant's agreements with its named team partner firms and individuals regarding such firm's recusal from all participation in any projects, programs, and activities ultimately included in the State Expenditure Plan. As part of their agreement with the Consortium, the SEP consultant (ESA and the other members of the SEP consultant team) each executed a Conflict of Interest Statement confirming their understanding of, and compliance with, this prohibition. Further, all future consultants will also be prohibited from participating in SEP projects, programs, or activities simultaneously on behalf of the Consortium and any of the individual member counties of the Consortium. 20 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan 1111egall Co00pHance Prior to the release of the Draft Florida SEP for formal review and public comment, Nabors, Giblin &Nickerson, PA., in its capacity as general counsel to the Gulf Consortium, conducted legal review ofthe document to ensure compliance and consistency with the following: the RESTORE Act (33 United States Code Section 1321(t))l- the Department of the Treasury Regulations for the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (31 CFR Part 34),the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Comprehensive Plan-, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council State Expenditure Plan Guidelines-, and the M0U between the State of Florida and Gulf Consortium dated June 12' 2013. In conclusion, Counsel to the Consortium has determined that the Florida SEP complies and is consistent with themfonymentioned |uvvs' rules, regulations, and provisions. 21 r iy I i r 4689 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan 1 I / i / r of// / / r ryt� (G�µ, iiiii s y rr r, 000% i / l ...... 1 i / //1 / / 1 '%iffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff,,%: i ��llllllll ' I I� I I � 1 11 111' 1 /I 1 ',, l000lr� 0 0 o „o o 0 on 00000„ 00 / n""a000U 0 00000! / 4690 4691 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan A. oriel -S CufuC Goa�s and Objectives Goals and objectives constitute the framework of all competent resource management plans, and the adoption of goals and objections are an important first step in the plan development process. As part of its Comprehensive Plan the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) has developed goals, objectives, and guiding principles to guide the selection of projects, programs,and activities to be funded under the Council Funded Component and the Spill Impact Component of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability,Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act).While the Florida State Expenditure Plan (SEP) must be consistent with the Council's goals and objectives, there is considerable flexibility to accommodate Florida- specific priorities.Therefore, the development of Florida-specific goals and objectives that represent the consensus of the Gulf Consortium was an important first step as these goals and objectives were used by the SEP consultant as the framework for the development of the Florida SEP The Gulf Consortium convened a Goal Setting Workshop on August 26, 2015, early in the Florida SEP development process. In the workshop, the SEP consultant presented the Council's goals and objectives, as described in the Initial Comprehensive Plan, and led a discussion on verbiage and interpretation of each goal and objective. In addition, examples of the types of projects consistent with each goal and objective were presented. There was broad-based support from the Gulf Consortium for adopting the Council's goals and objectives verbatim. The Consortium agreed that all of the Council's goals and objectives were applicable to Florida and appropriate for the Florida SEP In addition, the Consortium wanted to maintain the maximum degree of flexibility in determining appropriate projects, programs and activities to be included in the Florida SEP rather than focusing on one or a few priority eligible activities, goals and/or objectives. In a straw vote at the workshop, the Consortium voted to adopt the ��������������� following goals and objectives for the Florida SEP: I4, aaiaii a; Restore and Restore Water Quality Conserve Habitat and Quantity Replenish and Protect Living Restore and Revitalize Enhance Coastal and Marine Resources the Gulf Economy Community Resilience 5 4692 SECTION IV: OVe[@UUCQ0siste0Cyvxiththe GQ@Us and Objectives Qfthe CQDOp[ehe0sivePU@0 EE�0�0�0 i i i i i i 1. Restore, Enhance, and Protect Habitat 2. Restore, Improve, and PmtectVVuterResources 3. Protect and Restore Living Coastal and Marine Resources 4. Restore and Enhance Natural Processes and Shorelines 5. Promote Community Resilience 0. Promote Natural Resource Stewardship and Environmental Education 7 Improve Science-Based Decision-Making Processes. In reviewing the Counci|'s goals and objectives,the Consortium noted that there was not Council objective that specifically related to Goal 4—Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy.Therefore, the Consortium voted to adopt an eighth objective specifically addressing the relationship between environmental quality of the Gulf Coast and the Florida economy: 8. Restore' Diversify, and Revitalize the Gulf Economy with Economic and Environmental Restoration Projects, and Promote Projects that Enhance the Synergy between the Environmental Quality of Florida's Gulf Coast and the Florida Economy. In their deliberations, the Consortium affirmed the importance to the overall economy of Florida of clean coastal waters and benohea, thriving marine and estuarine hnbitnta, and healthy fish and shellfish populations. More than any other Gulf State, Florida's economy is dependent of tourism and coastal recreational opportunities' and it was important to the Gulf Consortium that this dependency be recognized in a separate objective. At its November 18. 2015, meeting. the Gulf Consortium formally adopted the five goals and eight objectives listed above. B. Consistency wi-0--i fl­ie Co00prO­iensi\/e PlIan This SEP is fully consistent with,and furthers,the Counci|'sComprehensive Plan.As discussed in Section U' the projects, programs,and activities proposed in this Florida SEPwene nominated through u county-driven process facilitated by the SEPconsu|tunt. In the county-driven approach for project nominations, the counties were free to propose projects that covered the full breadth of the RESTORE Act, including diverse range of both environmental and economic projects. Each county was free to address their own needs and priorities, without being restricted to any particular focus dictated by the Consortium.Therefore, the resultant projects, programs,and activities described in thia8EP reflect this diversity byaddressing multiple eligible activities, as well as majority of the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. 26 4694 �;, Jr n' i, i u �p, 'yh,! "c� i r; /VI/���ar✓�� ,,IR�r,� �1/%/r %�i 1�w�l rr it 1�irw 9�, f` �w.., n �i '`� 9 i �/r � yyy 1�°�" �"' of� �,r✓!���1�rr m��G�f r„ , a wi�1Jf q Irr rir✓�i�� i �i�7 y"�, r u I � r/ 1 'i., d r 0 i � N f' f�wr�p77Nkin/9r� I f r� G. ~1 r k a ,r ti 1. , r � r N s m i yaws ri i i rr w 4695 4697 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan .. Overview of fl­ie SEIPII v llopirl eat Process In November 2014, the Gulf Consortium selected the Environmental Science Associates (ESA) consultant team (the SEP consultant)to prepare the Florida SEP The SEP consultant proposed a scope of work divided into four phases: These phases and their respective tasks are shown below and the scope of work in each is provided in more detail in the following pages. PHASIE=. I _. FUNDING AND GOAT.... SIE=.TTING Task 1 —Prepare Planning State Expenditure Plan and Administrative Grant Application This task involved the preparation of the Planning State Expenditure Plan (PSEP)for the State of Florida, submittal of the PSEP to the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council)for review, and coordination with the Council to obtain approval of the PSEPThis task also included the preparation of the Administrative Grant Application (AGA)for a planning grant, submittal of the AGA to the Council for review, and subsequent responses to requests for clarification and additional information from the Council.The PSEP was approved by the Council in 2015, and the planning AGA was approved by the Council on June 23, 2016, for a total amount of$4,640,675. Task 2—Conduct Consortium Goal Setting Workshop This task involved the facilitation of a 1-day goal setting workshop with the Gulf Consortium Board of Directors to deliberate on Florida-specific goals, objectives, and guiding principles for the Florida SEP In addition, this workshop addressed two key questions: (1) should there be a pre-determined geographic allocation of funds and (2) should there be a pre-determined allocation of funds for environmental versus economic projects. The workshop was held on August 26, 2015, in St. Petersburg, Florida.This task also included: pre-workshop interviews with all Consortium Directors;the development and distribution of a pre-workshop survey and supporting informational materials; analysis of survey results; and development of summary workshop presentations. Finally, this task involved the development of a final summary report of the workshop proceedings, as well as an action item p Y p p p g agenda for the subsequent Consortium meetings where formal decisions were voted on. k�l At its November 18, 2015 meeting,the Gulf Consortium formally voted to approve an even distribution of Florida's Spill Impact Component allocation among the 23 member counties.That is, each member county would receive an equal amount of the allocation, without consideration of factors such as miles of shoreline, distance from the spill, population, etc.The Consortium considered several alternative approaches to geographically distributing the funds for projects along the Florida Gulf Coast, but it was determined that the most equitable solution was to divide the available Spill Impact Component funds equally so that each county could: (1) equally participate in Gulf restoration and (2) self-determine their own projects. Prior to this vote,the SEP consultant had been working under the scope of work contained in the original Request for Proposal (RFP) and Request for Best and Final Offer(RBAFO) and addressed in SEP consultant's final RBAFO response.This original scope of work defined a process whereby the selected consultant team would review the universe of projects contained in the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) project portal developed by the Florida Department 31 4698 SECTION V: Proposed Projects, PnQg[@DOs, @0dACtivities of Environmental Protection (FDEF), conduct benefit/cost analysis ofthose ppojeots, and then select and rank small subset (e.g., 6 to 12) of regional projects determined to be most cost-effective and provide the greatest overall benefits to the state of Florida. However, the Gulf Consortium recognized that under this approach there would likely be some counties that would not participate in the implementation of the Florida SEpTherefone' us the debate ofthe geographic distribution of funds advanced, a strong consensus evolved among the Gulf Consortium that each county should have the ability to sponsor projects and participate in Gulf restoration through the implementation of the Florida SEP Once this decision was made, the SEP consultant was requested to revise their scope of work to implement "county-driven" process to project nomination and evaluation, whereby the SEP consultant would work closely with each county to identify and refine their proposed projects for inclusion in the Florida SEP This revised scope of work was also subsequently incorporated into the planning AGA.At its April 21' 2010 meeting The Consortium amended the SEPconsultant's agreement to accommodate the revised scope of work and budget. The 8EPconsultant's revised scope of work is depicted graphically in the flow chart below.While the four phases remained the same, the task structure was modified to accommodate the county-driven process.The following text describes Phases || through |V and their respective tasks. RoHda State Expen&ture Man De\/Oop00ent Process How U­iart and Adm�n�stratrve Grant �0@ ,m� Council Review and Approval Apphcafion ------------------------- oonvomum Board of Directors Review TASK 2-Conduct Conaorium and Approval ofConsultant Work Products Goa|SoffingWbrkahop 32 4699NOME= TASK 3 -Compr1le Prelkn�nary TASK 7 -Develop Project TASK 11 Prepare Draft TA TASK 4-Screen,Attftute,and TASK 8 -Conduct Project TASK 12-Draft RoHda ----------------------- TASK 5 -Perform Gaps, TASK 9 -Conduct Project TASK 13 -Stakeholder Analys�s Involvement TASK 10-Develop Project TASK 6 Develop Draft Project Sequendrig and 11(�p TASK 14-Prepare Rome u1699 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan PHASE || — PROJECT NOMINATION Task 3—Compile Preliminary Project List This task involved the development of general screening criteria, which were approved by the Gulf Consortium and used as the guiding criteria throughout the preliminary project list development process.A standard project nomination form was distributed to the 23 individual counties,along with the screening criteria and other guidance materials, to assist the counties in identifying potential project concepts and develop the preliminary project list. The counties used these materials to prepare and submit their preliminary project concepts to the SEP consultant for review. |tis important to note that the submittal of project concepts utthis stage was totally non-binding for the counties. Project concepts proposed by the individual counties included: ° Environmental and economic projects identified as part of county Direct Component activities through coordination with local Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability,Tourist Opportunities,and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of2012 (RESTORE Act) citizen and stakeholder committees ° Environmental projects identified in existing coastal resource and watershed management plans (e.g, National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan�Water Management District Surface Water Improvement and Management Plans, etoj ° Applicable county projects identified in Capital Improvement Programs or other county environmental and economic development initiatives Task 4—Screen,Attribute,and Map the Preliminary Project List The SEP consultant applied the screening criteria to the preliminary project list, which eliminated a few projects that were not eligible for RESTORE Act funding or were otherwise inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and guiding principles adopted by the Consortium.The remaining proj.ects were attributed and converted into a geographical information system (G|S) spatial database.Attribution includes such parameters as project type, area affected by the project, project benefits, project costs, leveraging pc^entin|, project partners, etc. In addition,the screened preliminary project list was digitized (e.g, project type, area affected, project cost)so that the full range and *cope of the preliminary project list could be visually depicted in a map series.The screened preliminary project list was mapped and summarized in a Technical Memorandum and presented to the Consortium for discussion. Task 5—Perform Gaps,Overlaps,and Opportunities Analysis The SEP consultant conducted an analysis of the preliminary project list to determine if there were substantial gaps in geographic coverage or project type focus.This analysis also explored opportunities to combine similar nearby projects into larger single projects to improve cost-effectiveness, and/or find opportunities to modify or enhance projects in ways that would increase leveraging potential and/or streamline regulatory approvals.The SEP consultant continued to work closely with individual counties to update and/or revise their preliminary project concepts uccording|y. Task G—Develop the Draft Project List and Spatial Database Bused on input received from the Consortium and the individual counties in Tasks 4 and 5' nyspective|y, the SEP consultant revised and updated the preliminary project list and developed the draft project list and associated GIS spatial database.The draft project list was mapped, summarized in u technical memorandum, and presented to the Consortium for review and approval. Based on input from the Consortium, the draft project list and spatial database were further revised. Upon Consortium approval, the draft project list will represent the universe of projects that were taken into Phase U|— Project Evaluation. 33 SECTION V: Proposed Projects, PnQg[@DOs, @0dACtivities PHASE III — PROJECT EVALUAT|ON Task 7—Develop Project Evaluation Criteria Based on the range of projects represented in the draft project list, the SEP consultant developed project evaluation criteria to comparatively assess each project. Detailed evaluation criteria for environmental projects focused on three key project attributes: ° kaohnion| basis and justification: Evaluating the technical basis ofproposed actions was based on best professional judgment.This attribute was assessed in terms of whether or not proposed projects were bused on the best available science and/or engineering,as required by the Council, and whether they have a clearly defined technical rationale and justification (i.e., will the project address a demonstrated need). ° Feasibility: Evaluating the feasibility of proposed projects essentially constituted u "reality check" also bused largely on best professional judgment.The feasibility attribute was assessed in terms of numerous factors, including but not limited to: technical efficacy (both science and engineering) workability, permitability, constmctubi|ity, cost-effectiveness, and public acceptance. ° Levemgubi|ity: Evaluating |evemgubi|ity involved an assessment of the ability for the project toattract leveraged funds from u range of sources. Under this task, the primary focus was on funding streams associated with the DVVH oil spill settlements. Separate criteria were developed for economic projects.The recommended project evaluation criteria were summarized in u technical memorandum and presented tothe Consortium for review and approval. It should be noted that the purpose of project evaluation under the county-driven process was not necessarily to eliminate projects, or to prioritize some projects over others, but rather to improve and refine each project included in the final project list to maximize its impact, ooat-effeotiveneaa, and grant readiness. State of Florida State Expenditure Plan Task 8—Conduct Project Evaluation and Refinement To facilitate approval by the Council, all projects ultimately included in the Florida SEP were those that were determined by the SEP consultant to be technically justifiable, feasible, and affordable within the budget limitations of the Spill Impact Component.Toward that end, the SEP consultant applied the approved evaluation criteria to the draft project list to screen out those project concepts that did not meet the criteria or modify them so that they did meet the criteria. Furthermore, projects that can attract other funds through leveraging increase the overall value of the Florida SEP Therefore, refining projects so that they can meet criteria for various leveraged funding sources was addressed in this task. Many project concepts submitted by the counties have significant information gaps, while other project submittals are well developed as conceptual or even final designs with accompanying feasibility, engineering, and environmental studies.To fairly and objectively evaluate the various project concepts submitted by the counties, those that were lacking in basic details with regard to such factors as technical justification, project boundaries, anticipated benefits, technical approach, construction methods, cost estimates, etc., needed to be further developed. Therefore, in this task the SEP consultant worked closely with individual counties, as needed, to further refine their project concepts. Upon completion of project evaluation and refinement activities, a final project list was developed.The methods and findings of the project evaluation/refinement process and the recommended final project list was summarized in a technical memorandum and presented to the Consortium for review and approval.The final project list served as the basis for the remaining tasks. Task 9—Conduct Project Leveraging Analysis In this task, the SEP consultant developed an Other Grant Sources Inventory document that addressed potential leveraged funding sources applicable to the final suite of projects recommended in Task 8.This inventory included a wide range of federal, state, private, and non-governmental organization (NGO) grant programs (e.g., National Fish ... � ..y��1J��IIII. Ill��lll�rl��� 35 4702 SECTION V: Proposed Projects, PnQg[@DOs, @0dACtivities and Wildlife Foundation)that could potentially be used to leverage projects to be included in the Florida SEP This task also involved close coordination with the FIDEP with regard to the availability and applicability of leveraged funds from the Council Selected Restoration Component (RESTORE Act Pot2)and the Florida portion of the Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement.The final suite of projects was individually linked to potential leveraging sources applicable to each, along with estimated dollar amounts. Upon completion of this task, the final project list, and the leveraging potential for each, was summarized inu technical memorandum and presented to the Consortium for review and approval. Task 1O—Develop Project Sequencing and Implementation Strategy The approximate funding levels available to each county from the Spill Impact Component have been estimated for the British Petroleum (BP) settlement. Furthermore' bused on current knowledge of the settlement, funds will be puidoutoveru15~yeurperiod' withouttheubi|itytousethesefundsforbondingunddebtpuyments Finally, Council implementation grants for all projects included in the Florida 8EP must be projeot'apeoifiogrnnta must be submitted and managed by the Consortium. Individual counties will not be able to engage with the Council independently with regard to implementation grant funds.To address these complexities,a project-sequencing strategy was necessary to expedite and optimize the distribution of Council implementation grant funds over the payout period. The final suite of projects ultimately included in the Florida 8EPvnhed significantly with regard to their relative complexity and level of development and/or design. For example, some projects are ready to receive construction funds, while other projects may require conceptual planning or engineering design funds.The SEP consultant developed project-sequencing schedule that optimizes the 15-yeur payout such that each county is annually making progress on their respective projects. In addition, this task involved the development ofun overall implementation strategy that considers multiple alternatives for managing the accounting of Spill Impact Component funds among the 23 counties over the 15-yeur payout schedule.Adraft Project Sequencing&Implementation Strategy document was prepared and presented to the Consortium for review and approval.The approved final suite of projects along with the approved project-sequencing and implementation strategy served as the basis for Phase IV—Florida SEP Development. zu 4703 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan PHASE |V — FLORIDA SIEP DIEVIE1. 0PK8IE NIT Task 11 —Prepare Draft Florida SEP Document Using the results of the previous tasks and the priority project rankings, the SEP consultant prepared the draft Florida SEP document to comply with all informational requirements specified by the Council in applicable rules and guidance documents. Prior to release of the Draft SEP for formal review and public comment,the SEP consultant conducted u legal review ofthe document to ensure compliance and consistency with all applicable federal, state, and local |uvvs' rules, and agreements. Revisions to the Draft SEP were made to address any legal noncompliance or inconsistencies. Task 12—Draft Florida SEP Review and Revisions The SEP consultant made a summary presentation of the Draft Florida SEP to the Gulf Consortium on January 11, 2018. Upon approval by the Consortium' the Draft SEP was submitted to the FDEP for u coordinated review by FIDEP and other appropriate state agencies, including: the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Economic 0pportunity, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,and Florida Water Management Districts with regulatory jurisdiction over projects, programs, and activities included in the Draft SEP Comments received from the FIDEP coordinated review were summarized in a technical memorandum and presented to the Consortium.As directed by the Consortium,the SEP consultant made recommended revisions to the Draft Florida SEP in response to state agency comments. Task 13—Stakeholder Outreach and Public Involvement Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Governor and the Consortium, the Consortium must formally adopt the Draft Florida SEP and allow the opportunity for the public to review and comment on the document, prior to submittal of the Draft Florida SEP to the Governor.The SEP consultant developed and imp|ementeduStekehokde/DutreuchundPublic6rvokve/nentprogmmtofuci|itutestukeho|derreviewundtoso|icit public comments.This program was tailored to meet the specific requirements of the Consortium and the MOU, and was conducted in u manner designed to obtain broad-based participation (see Section U above). Comments received from stakeholders and the public were summarized inutechnical memorandum, and presented to the Consortium. As directed by the Consortium, the SEP consultant made further revisions to the Draft Florida SEP in response to public comments. Task 14—Prepare Final Florida SEP The SEP consultant met with Council staff on March 10' 2018to receive initial comments on the Draft SEP Response to comments received from the state agencies, the public, and the Council were integrated into a Draft Final SEP Pursuant tothe M0U between the Consortium and the State of Florida, the adopted Draft Final Florida SEP was required to be submitted to the Governor at least 90 days prior to its transmittal to the Council. Upon receipt of the Draft Florida SEP the Governor was required to provide comments' if any, back tothe Consortium within 30 days.The Consortium in turn had 30 days from the date of receipt of the Governor's comments to revise the Draft Florida SEP in accordance with the Governor's comments and submit the revised Final Florida SEP back tothe Governor for final approval and formal transmittal to the Council.To facilitate this review process, the SEP consultant made presentations of the revised Draft Florida SEP to the Governor and the Council, and continued their close coordination with the Consortium and the FDEp Upon receipt of comments on the revised Draft Florida SEP from the Council,the SEP consultant prepared the Final Florida SEP document for formal approval by the Governor and transmittal to the Council. 37 SECTION V: Proposed Projects, PnQg[@DOs, @0dACtivities Project Devellop00ent Guidance As provided by the Council, Florida's total Spill Impact Component allocation is$294,338 815. Pursuant tothe Gulf Consortium's decision to split this amount evenly among the 23 counties, each oounty'saUooation is approximately $12'000'789. |n the process ofassisting the counties, the SEP consultant advised each county todevelop project proposals that could bo largely paid for using the following funding sources: ° Individual county Spill Impact Component allocation ($12.001K4) ° Any or all of the ooumy's Direct Component allocation ° Other secured grants orco-funding ° Other committed county funding The counties were also advised/o prioritize fewer, larger projects as opposed to multiple smaller projects m maximize project benefits and minimize associated administrative costs. Furthermore, where appropriate, the counties were advised no consolidate smaller, similar projects (e.g., multiple canal restoration projects) as components under a single program to also simplify future grant writing and minimize administrative costs. In addition, for projects that could be incrementally scaled up (e.g., convert more septic tanks to sewer), counties were advised m consider^sxrewohing^ their budgets,asappropriate, m allow for potential additional funding secured through leveraging.The concept of leveraging financial resources essentially means using one funding source to attract other funding sources. Leveraging has the potential to multiply the overall benefit of the Florida SEP by expanding the total pool of funds available for SEP projects beyond that provided for by Florida's Spill Impact Component allocation.The FIDEP identified many projects on the initial project list that could potentially be supplemented with leveraged funds from the Florida's Natural Resource Damages Assessment (NRCA) settlement as well as funding to be secured by the State from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFVVF) settlement. Economic projects also have the potential to attract leveraged funding from the Florida's economic settlement being managed byThumphGu|t Inc. The consultation process with each of the counties was iterative, and each county approached these challenges in different ways.The resulting list of proposed ppojects, programs, and activities included herein reflects the unique priorities of each county are represented.A total of0S projects, programs, and activities are proposed in this Florida SEP What follows are narrative descriptions for each project and program (Section V.B.), and a tabular and graphical summary o|all projects and programs described herein (Section VCl 38 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan �)escd�ladon c rn l-)���a t e The format ofthe narrative project and program descriptions was developed in consultation with Restoration Council staff. Given the large number of projects in the Florida 8EP Council staff advised that narrative descriptions be briefly summarized and limited to five pages orless but still address the topics specified in the Counoi|'s 8EP guidance document.The resulting narrative project/program description template that is used herein was verbally approved by Council staff.The template headings and the material to be addressed under each heading are described below. PROJECT NUMBER Projects are numbered sequentially by county, starting with Escambia County(1) in northwest Florida and ending with Monroe County(23) in south Florida. For counties that have multiple projects,the projects are listed in order of decreasing priority. For example, Pinellas County's third-priority project is listed as Project 16-3. PR0JIECTT|TLIE Shortpnojecttit|e.Theterm ^pmgmm^ isusedifthepnojecthusmu|tip|esimi|urcomponents. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Overview and Location One to three sentences that succinctly describe the project or program.A geographic information system (G|S) location map is included for each project. Need and Justification One tothree paragraphs describing the historical trends, problems, or issues that the project addresses (e.g, water quality degradation in Charlotte Harbor) and how the project will improve the situation. Project-specific graphics are included usappropriate. Purpose and Objectives One or two paragraphs describing the specific ecological and/or economic objectives of the project (e.g., restore lost oyster reefs in Apalachicola Bmy) Project Components One to three paragraphs describing the various aspects or phases of the project. Project-specific graphics are included usappropriate. CONTR|BUT|ONSTOTHIE OVIERALL ECONOMIC AND IECOLOG|CAL RECOVERY OFTHIE GULF One paragraph describing the anticipated ecological and/or economic outcomes and benefits of the project. Jiffffff IEL|G|B|L|TY AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The most applicable RESTORE Act eligible activities are listed. If more than one activity isapplicable, then the primary eligible activity ia identified. COK8PRIEHIENS|VIE PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The most applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives are listed. If more than one goal and/or objective are applicable,then the primary goal and/or objective are identified. |K8PLEK8IENT|NG ENTITIES 0neortwosentencesdeschbingwhothegmntsub-recipientwiUbe' undwhowiUbephnmh|yresponsiNefor project implementation. 39 SECTION V: Proposed Projects, PnQg[@DOs, @0dACtivities BIESTAVA|LABLIE SCIENCE AND FIEAS|B|L|TY ASSESSMENT One or two sentences describing previous work that the project is based on.Where applicable, key references are cited. In addition, a statement is made regarding the feasibility of the project with respect to the ability to: (1) obtain necessary permits-, (2) construct the project within the proposed budget-, and (3) effectively operate and maintain the project components over the long term. RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES One paragraph describing the risks and uncertainties (e.g., additional technical information needs, property availability, funding shortfaUs). SUCCESS CRITERIA AND MONITORING One paragraph describing the anticipated project benefits and specific criteria/metrics that will be measured to determine success. Proposed monitoring criteria are listed as bullets. K8|LIESTONIES AND SCHIEDULIE One introductory paragraph that defines the estimated time horizon of the project, from planning through implementation, including the estimated start year and end year for the entire project. In addition, u Gantt chart is provided showing high-level milestones for the project as well as anticipated start and end dates for each in years from SEPapproval. Milestone 1 Milestone 2 Milestone 3 40 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan BUDGET AND FUNDING SOURCES One paragraph that describes the total project cost estimate and how itwas derived-, and summarizes the various sources of committed funding, any budget shortfall, and potential sources of leveraged funding. In addition, u budget table is provided showing the following: Planning components Planning Subtotal =I.................................................. ................. ...................................... Implementation components Implementation Subtotal Monitoring Total Cost 011 IN Spill Impact Component Other grants or co-funding Other county funds Total Committed Funding Budget Shortfall Leveraged Funding Source 1 Lov era om1 m Ind ino3oumoz Lovomom1 Funding Source AadefinedbytheCounoi|. ^p|nnning^ notwitieaino|ude: enrlyp|nnning. 00noeptun| deaignnndfenaibi|itystudiea. engineering design, and permitting, while "implementation" activities include project construction or execution. Monitoring includes baseline and post-project monitoring to assess and quantify project benefits. PA RTIN E IRS IHUP S/C 0 L LA B 0 R4JU0 IN One paragraph that describes any project partners and co-sponsocs, us well usu list of agencies and non-government organizations that have participated or are expected to participate in project planning or funding. 41 SECTION V° Proposed Projects, Programs, and Activities B.. Individual Project Descriptions The following pages include a narrative description for each project and program. 1. Escairrribia (p 43) 14. IHeirinai do (pry 2 ) —Bayou Chico Contaminated Sediment Remediation Project —Artificial Reef Program —Coastal Habitat Enhancement Program Baird"ta I sa (pry 51) —Coastal Public Access Program —Santa Rosa Sound Water Quality Improvement Program —Weeki Watchee Springshed Septic to Sewer Conversion Program a 011calloosa (pry 59) —Coastal Stormwater Improvement-Calienta Street —Coastal Stormwater Retrofit Program 15. IPas (DID 2 ) —Offshore Fish Aggregating Devices(FADs) —Port Richey Watershed Stormwater Management Project —Choctawhatchee Bay Estuary Program —Hammock Creek/Sea Pines Watershed Stormwater Management Project —Shoal River Headwaters Protection Program —Inshore Artificial Reef—Pithlachascotee River —Veterans Park Living Shoreline —Coastal Environmental Research Network(CERN) 4.Walton (p 89) —Artificial Reef Program—Hudson Reef —Choctawhatchee Bay Septic to Sewer Conversion —Madison Street and Gulf Drive Stormwater Retrofit Project —Crews Lake Hydrologic Restoration a lBay (DID 9 ) —Ranch Road Infrastructure Improvements —North Bay Water Quality Improvement Program 16. IPlin llllas(P 337) —St.Andrew Bay Stormwater Improvement Program —Lake Seminole Sediment Removal a Gullf(p log) —Wastewater Collection System Improvements —St.Joseph Bay/Chipola River Sewer Improvement Program —Land Acquisition for Floodplain Restoration and Resiliency —St.Joseph Peninsula Coastal Erosion Control Project —Coastal Public Access Program —Coastal Public Access Program —Artificial Reef Program '7. FIrainlidlihn (p 128) 17 IHiilillsboirou gh (P 3 1) —Emergency Operations Center —Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Land Acquisition and Ecosystem —Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration Project Restoration —Apalachicola Bay Cooperative Dredging Program —Delaney Creek/Palm River Septic to Sewer Conversion Program a allculllla (ors 14 ) 18. IMainat (ors 371) —Wakulla Springshed Water Quality Protection Program —Manatee River Oyster Restoration —Coastal Access Program —Portosueno Park Living Shoreline —Artificial Reef Study and Oyster Habitat Enhancement —Preserve Management Plans —Artificial Reef Program-Borden Reef 9. Je"' Irsoin (P 1 7) —Palmetto Greene Bridge Fishing Pier Replacement —Wacissa Springshed Water Quality Protection Program —Applied Research for Shellfish Aquaculture —Wacissa River Park Improvement Program —Coastal Preserve Trail and Boardwalk Enhancements —Coastal Public Access Program —Coastal Watershed Management Plans 1aTayllolr (p 187) —Urban Stormwater Improvements-GT Bray Park —Coastal Public Access Program 19. Sairasota(P 417) 11. ID —Dona Bay Hydrologic Restoration Program IIII QprD '�9�� —Horseshoe Beach Working Waterfront Project 20. Clhairl1ofte(pry 425) —Shired Island Park Beach Nourishment and Living Shoreline —Charlotte Harbor Septic to Sewer Conversion Program —Horseshoe Cove Oyster Restoration —Coastal Public Access Program 21' II""'ee(pry 432) —Coastal Septic to Sewer Conversion Program —North East CaloosahatcheeTributaries Restoration Project 1 , 1 evy(ors 223) , ollllll lr(ors 439) —Waccasassa River Conservation Land Acquisition —Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Program —Suwannee Sound/Cedar Key Oyster Restoration 0 Monroe(P 44 ) —Coastal Septic to Sewer Conversion Program —Canal Management Master Plan Implementation 13. Citrus(DID 242) —NW Quadrant Force Main Project —Cross Florida Barge Canal Boat Ramp —Artificial Reef Program —Springshed Stormwater Improvement Program 42 4709 4710 SECTION V° Proposed Projects, Programs, and Activities Project Description OVERVIEW AND LOCATION This program entails the implementation of the Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP). The CMMP was developed to address the restoration and management of water quality and living marine resources in the extensive network of man-made dredged canals throughout the Florida Keys (see Figure 23-1A). NEED AND ..JUSTIFICATION �x Beginning in the late 1800s, the Florida Keys have been substantially altered and adversely impacted by dredge and fill activities to support development and human population growth.Approximately 170 linear miles of canals were dredged to create more than 37,000 acres of filled lands, resulting in 312 miles of waterfront property (AMEC Environment& Infrastructure, Inc., 2013).While these alterations created extensive new �I real estate, bringing associated wealth andprosperity, ros erit , g g p p Y illlll.�llllllll�l they also significantly impacted native habitats as well as nearshore water quality and living marine resources. O ua ure 23-1A.Il...ocafion of pHoHty canall systerns 41 the To maximize the volume of fill material, many of the FlloHda (Keys. canals were dredged to depths of 10 to 20 feet, with ........, ........, ........, some as deep as 40 feet. Furthermore, most of the created canals are long, dead-end networks with little or no tidal flushing.These hydrographic alterations, combined with the addition of untreated residential stormwater runoff and wastewater effluent from leaky septic tanks, fostered persistent toxic algae blooms, low dissolved oxygen, and poor water clarity.Accordingly, living resources— including seagrass, benthic invertebrates, and fish—cannot tolerate these conditions, and many canals have become "dead zones" Figure 23-1 B shows a poorly flushed canal with excessive decaying vegetation. 446 4711 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan While ecological conditions within most of the canals are highly degraded, the impacts extend beyond just fl7 the canals themselves.The canals discharge surface p waters directly to the nearshore Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), which is also a designated Outstanding Florida Water pursuant to Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the waters of the FKNMS are regulated to the State's anti-degradation policy, meaning that no ,p,.,, degradation of existing water quality is allowable.Yet y °I ��o/lug it many of the canals have been identified as impaired, exhibiting exceedances of water quality criteria for nutrients and dissolved oxygen. In 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Nl ' Protection (FDEP) prepared a Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document (FKRAD), which recognized the extensive ongoing wastewater and stormwater ° l%i restoration activities being implemented by Monroe County to address nutrient and dissolved oxygen O ua ure 23-1B.Poorly flushed canal with excessive decaying impairments.The FKRAD was prepared as an alternative vegetation. to using an established total maximum daily Toad (TMDL). which would have required regulatory pollutant load reductions. In the 2011 FKRAD document update, the FDEP stated that a canal restoration program would likely be needed to comply with dissolved oxygen standards. Most of the damage to the canals and, subsequently,the near shore waters from unpermitted dredge and fill activities was done prior to the passage of major federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act, leaving a legacy of environmental degradation that will require a substantial commitment of resources to fully remediate. PURPOSE AND OBJECT]VES Monroe County collaborated with numerous stakeholders to develop the CMMP The purpose of the CMMP is to reverse the legacy environmental degradation caused by historical residential canal construction.The objectives of the CMMP are to: (1) restore water quality and habitat in much of the approximate 170 miles of dredged canals ���,.�frrrrrrrrr! throughout the Florida Keys; (2) make the canals habitable for living marine resources, thus improving recreational wyl III��IIIIIIII�� opportunities and aesthetics for residents; and (3) protect water quality in the FKNMS.Attaining these objectives will ���� contribute significantly to the economic vitality of the Florida Keys. ��������� IIII PROJECT' COMPONENT'S a"I','1'f����l The development and implementation of the CMMP is part of a multipronged strategy to improve and protect ��������� surface water quality in the Florida Keys, dating back to the early 1990s. In 1992, Congress directed the USEPA and the State of Florida to develop a Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) for the FKNMS.The WQPP recommended major upgrades to domestic wastewater facilities, and after decades of work most of the Florida Keys is now served by central sewage collection and treatment facilities, replacing tens of thousands of failing septic tanks. However, while the wastewater treatment upgrades have reduced nutrient and bacterial loads, they do not address the poor tidal flushing characteristics of the canals, and canal water quality has been slow to improve. As a result, the WQPP Steering Committee created the Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee (Subcommittee) in 2012 447 4712 SECTION V° Proposed Projects, Programs, and Activities to provide scientific and objective oversight of the Canal Restoration Program and recommended the development of a plan to prioritize canal restoration projects and identify funding sources for these projects. In response to this recommendation, Monroe County and its partners completed the CMMP in September 2013.The CMMP used a two-step process to develop an action plan: 1. Engineering and Science-Based Assessment and Evaluation 2. Outreach, Management, and Program Development. Step one involved: (1) preparation of a comprehensive county-wide map of residential canals, (2) a field study and assessment of canal hydrography and water quality; (3) development of a system for classifying and ranking canals based on their characteristics; (4) evaluation of various canal restoration technologies; and, (5) preparation of a ranked priority list of canal restoration projects. Step two included: (1) development, distribution, and analysis of a homeowner questionnaire; (2) development of a homeowner's best management practices manual; and, (3) inventory of potential funding sources to fully implement the plan. A total of 502 residential canals, or canal segments, were identified, mapped, and assessed. Of those, 302 were determined to have poor or fair water quality-229 of which are located in unincorporated Monroe County.Those 229 canals were subsequently classified and ranked for priority restoration in the CMMP The canal restoration techniques evaluated were those that primarily address quality degradation related to depleted dissolved oxygen and poor tidal flushing. Five primary technologies were evaluated, including: • Removal of accumulated organic sediments in canals • Installation of weed gates, air curtains, or other physical barriers to minimize external inputs of excess organic matter • Construction of culvert connections to facilitate tidal flushing and circulation • Backfilling to prevent the occurrence of stratification and deep stagnant zones • Installation of water pumping systems to facilitate flushing when culvert connections are not feasible. To test the efficacy of these various technologies, Monroe County developed a Canal Restoration Demonstration Program, the purpose of which was to: (1) implement various CMMP technologies; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of those technologies; and, (3) obtain realistic permitting, scheduling, and cost information for future project implementation. Since 2014, Monroe County has funded approximately$7 million for the implementation of seven canal restoration demonstration projects to evaluate various combinations of seven different technologies.The results of the demonstration projects have shown the that various technologies have been largely successful when properly applied to address the unique characteristics of each canal. Figure 23-1C shows a canal backfilling project under construction. The CMMP describes a clear road map for canal restoration in Monroe County, and Spill Impact Component funding will be used to implement priority canal restoration projects identified in the CMMP Contributions -to fl­ie Overallll Economic andIl o it Il IRecovery of fl ie G u II The canal restoration program specified in the Monroe County CMMP will directly contribute to the improvement of water quality conditions in nearshore coastal waters. Clean coastal waters are absolutely essential to the economy and ecology of the Florida Keys.The Florida Keys coral reef tract is the third largest barrier reef in the world, and the 448 4713 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan only living barrier reef adjacent to the —117,,lop,',,, continental United States. Coral reefs are very sensitive to pollution,and the health of the Florida Keys coral reef tract and the FKNMS are very much dependent on excellent water quality.With regard to the economy, more than two million individuals visit the Florida Keys per year to enjoy � water-related activities including snorkeling, scuba diving, and fishing These water-based recreational activities support 70 percent of the tourism in the Florida Keys and generate more than 70,000 jobs and over$6 billion in economic activity annually. Y!� N Ilitg itlbitllity and Statutory Requirements Fogure 23-1 . Canall shmallllovv�ng under construction 41 Canall#75, IKey Il...argo, This project is consistent with, and Florida. addresses, the following RESTORE ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, Act eligible activities: • Eligible Activity 1: Restoration and protection of the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches and coastal wetlands of the Gulf Coast region (primary) • Eligible Activity 3: Implementation of a federally-approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plan, including fisheries monitoring. CoirnprO-iensive PlIan Goalls and Objectives This project is consistent with, and addresses, the following Comprehensive Plan Goals: I��ll • Goal 2: Restore Water Quality and Quantity(primary) if • Goal 1: Restore and Conserve Habitat � • Goal 3: Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources • Goal 5: Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy. This project is consistent with, and addresses, the following Comprehensive Plan Objectives: • Objective 2: Restore, Improve, and Protect Water Resources (primary) • Objective 1: Restore, Enhance, and Protect Habitats • Objective 3: Protect and Restore Living Coastal and Marine Resources • Consortium Objective 8: Restore, Diversify, and Revitalize the Gulf Economy with Economic and Environmental Restoration Projects. 449 4714 SECTION V: Proposed Projects, Programs, and Activities III mIII eimenting Entities Monroe County will be the sole implementing entity and grant sub-recipient responsible for the permitting, construction, and success monitoring of all projects conducted under this program. Best Available Science and Feasibility Assessment As described above, the CMMP was developed to address recommendations specified in both federal and state management and regulatory documents related to water quality and living resource protection of the FKIN MS.The CMMP solicited input from stakeholders and the public, and followed a methodical approach to project identification and prioritization. Furthermore, Monroe County has undertaken a demonstration program to field-test various canal restoration technologies and obtain realistic information on permitting constraints and project costs.This program is considered to be feasible with respect to the ability to: (1) obtain necessary permits; (2) construct canal restoration projects; and (3) effectively operate and maintain constructed canal restoration technologies.The CMMP is fully described in the following document: • AMEC Environment& Infrastructure, Inc., 2073. Monroe County Management Master Plan (CMMP). Final report prepared for: Monroe County, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Water Quality Protection Program Steering and Advisory Committees. This document also describes the consistency and compliance of the CMMP with other federal and state management and regulatory documents. Risks and Uncertainties In the evaluation of this program, no significant risks or uncertainties were identified that would preclude implementation of the CMMP Coordination with federal and state regulatory agencies will be conducted to address potential impacts to listed species (e.g., manatee entrapment). Monroe County has identified priority projects and is ready to proceed with design, permitting, and construction. Success Criteria and Monitoring Projects implemented under this program will primarily affect water quality in the restored canals.Therefore,a range of success criteria will be developed and described in the implementation grant request. It is anticipated that quantitative success criteria will be developed for: • Changes in water clarity and dissolved oxygen from existing conditions in the canals to be restored • Changes in the abundance and distribution of seagrass and benthic invertebrates from existing conditions in the canals to be restored. In the project grant request, a detailed monitoring program design will be described that addresses data collection and assessment methodologies for the above-listed criteria. Monroe County is committed to an adaptive management approach to the project, and to conducting the monitoring necessary to support this approach and to quantify project benefits. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 450 4715 9UV ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................. wejbOJd buipunj OAIJeJadooD(]nA/\jS [S-S ................................................................................................................................................................. slOOIOJd JOleA/\98'S ................................................................................................................................................................. wejbOJd juawabeuen lelseOD ep!JOIJ—8AIjeIj!Uj diqsJ8uIJed lelseOD OZ'S ................................................................................................................................................................. wejbOJd slueJD OMO'PsOU lelseOD CV� juawssassV abewe(]pinosoU MeanjeN ............................ ............................... ............................... .................... ... .-!ounoD luouodwoD uoijejolsoUjoalaS 4S, 0$ lielljoLIS 196pn8 069'8170'6L$ Buipun q pa:4!wwoo jejo.L ,,�1���111 ................................... ............................................................................................................................. 0$ spunj AjunoD jaqjo . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 0$ b u i pu nj-o o j o sju ej b ja qjo .. .. . . . . .. 0 69 88 C'9$ I ua uo d w o D I oa ................................... .......................................................................................................................... 000'099'Zl$ luouodwoD joedwi ll!dS ��.............. .............. NONE= i i i i 000'099'ZL$ 069'8t?0'6L$ ISOD lejo.L ................................... ...................................... ...................................................................................... 000,001$ 000'008$ buijol!uon ................................... ...................................... ...................................................................................... 000'09E'ZL$ 069'8tL'8L$ lejojqnS uoijejuamoldmi .. ................................ ...................................... ...................................................................................... 181'98t7'01$ IZ8'8L8'91$ uoijonjisuoD ................. .................... .................................................. ... ...................................................................................... 698't7L8'1$ 698't7L8'1$ builIpjad pue ubisap leuij • A • -AAoIE)q E)lqPj E)qj ui PE)PIAOjcI si sE)ojnos buipun}pup IE)bpnq joE)Iojd E)qj}o Ajewwns V-uOIllIUU 6[$Alojewimcce si sleupo Alijoijd E)qj buijolsoi }o Isoo ILDTOT E)UdIAM ENT Ul paipluepi sjoefoid Alijoijd }o dnoib joalas e juawaldwi of spun} (000'099'Zl,$) jueuodwo3 joedwl llicS PUP (069'99C'9$) juE)uocwo3 joE)ji(] qjoq }o uoilpoolle lln}sli E)sn of buisodoid si AjunoD E)ojuoA 'JE)AE)AAOH '000'00['LL9$S1 sleupo pE)jiedwl HZ lie ui Slooloid uoijejolsoi luE)wE)Idwi of Isoo pajewilso jejol E)qj scasino S 6w1punj Ipue jc-)fjjpnq bu j o I!u ow s so oo nS ...................... ....... ...................... ....... ... ....... ...................................... uoijonjisuoD ...................... ....... ...................... ....... ......... .............. fitimituiRd pue ubisap leuij MONSOON 11 INIM;Agg!1!1111! 11�1 • '9Z0Z ui PuE)Pup 9[0Z ui Tiels 01 PE)IoE)dxE) Si joE)Iojd E)qi-siPE)A 9 Alojewimcce si sloE)Iojd E)sE)ql}o uozijoq awil polewilso jejol E)qj-sloE)Iojd E)soql}o buijoliuow pup 'uoijorulsuoo 'builaiwied 'ubisap qTiAA pE)E)ooid of Appaj si pup spun}IoV]HoiS]H buisn jo}pied E)q of slooloid Alijoijd paipluepi seq Ajuno3 E)ojuoA 'JE)AE)AAOH -siPE)A 0Z of OL JXE)U E)qj JE)Ao Alleluawajoui weiboid dAA3 E)qT luE)wE)Idwi IliAA AjunoD E)ojuoA 'sjuipilsuoo buipun}se 11E)AA se dAAD E)qj ui sloE)Iojd }o jE)qwnu objel eqj}o asnpoaq appaqoS Ipue sc-)uojsc-)lIiiA ueld ojnl!puodx] ajejS ep!jolj jo ajejS SECTION V: Proposed Projects, PnQg[@DOs, @0dACtivities IPa rtne IrM­i i ps/Coll Ila buration Monroe County has coordinated with a wide range of stakeholders in the development of CMMP including: ° Federal agencies -- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- U.S.Army Corps ofEngineers -- National Park Service -- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary ° State agencies -- Florida Department of Environmental Protection -- Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission -- South Florida Water Management District ° Incorporated Cities -- Village of |dumomdu -- City ofMarathon -- City of Key Colony Beach -- City of Layton -- City of Key West ° Non'govemmentorganiotions -- The Nature Conservancy -- Florida Sea Grant. 452 4717 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan C. Summary of Projects, Programs, and Activities The Project SummaryTable that follows provides a summary listing of all the projects and programs sorted bythe following fields: ° County ° FDEP Project Type ° Project Number ° Stage ofDevelopment ° Project Name ° Total Project Cost ° Primary Eligible Activity ° Spill Impact Component Request ° Primary Council Goal ° Total Committed Funding ° Primary Council Objective ° Infrastructure Cost. Project SurnmaryTable Legend 1. Restoration and protection of the natural resources, ecosystems,fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats,beaches,and coastal wetlands of the Gulf Coast region 2. Mitigation of damage to fish,wildlife,and natural resources 3. Implementation of a federal ly-approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plan, including fisheries monitoring 4. Workforce development and job creation 5. Improvements to or on State parks located in coastal areas affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 6. Infrastructure projects benefiting the economy or ecological resources, including port infrastructure 7 Coastal flood protection and related infrastructure 8. Planning assistance 9. Administrative costs of complying with the RESTORE Act 10. Promotion of tourism in the Gulf Coast region, including recreational fishing 11. Promotion of the consumption of seafood harvested from the Gulf Coast region Restore and Conserve Habitat:Restore and conserve the health, diversity, and resilience of key coastal, estuarine, and marine habitats. fm 2 Restore Water Quality and Quantity: Restore and protect the water quality and quantity of the Gulf Coast region's fresh, estuarine,and marine waters. 3 Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources:Restore and protect healthy, diverse,and sustainable living coastal and marine resources. Zl, Enhance Community Resilience:Build upon and sustain communities with capacity to adapt to short-and long-term 5 Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy:Enhance the sustainability and resiliency of the Gulf economy. 453 SECTION V° Proposed Projects, Programs, and Activities Project Summary Table Legend(continued) UAJIIhucliil 011 VCl Ci'II",/l'S L Restore,Enhance,and Protect Habitats:Restore, enhance,and protect the extent, functionality, resiliency,and sustainability of coastal,freshwater, estuarine,wildlife,and marine habitats.These include barrier islands, beaches, dunes, coastal wetlands, coastal forests, pine savannahs, coastal prairies, submerged aquatic vegetation, oyster reefs, and shallow and deepwater corals. 2, Restore,Improve,and Protect Water Resources:Restore, improve,and protect the Gulf Coast region's fresh, estuarine, and marine water resources by reducing or treating nutrient and pollutant loading;and improving the management of freshwater flows,discharges to,and withdrawals from critical systems. Protect and Restore Living Coastal and Marine Resources:Restore and protect healthy, diverse,and sustainable living coastal and marine resources including finfish,shellfish,birds, mammals, reptiles,coral,and deep benthic communities. 46. Restore and Enhance Natural Processes and Shorelines:Restore and enhance ecosystem resilience, sustainability, and natural defenses through the restoration of natural coastal, estuarine, and riverine processes, and/or the restoration of natural shorelines. 5. Promote Community Resilience:Build and sustain Gulf Coast communities' capacity to adapt to short-and long-term natural and man-made hazards,particularly increased flood risks associated with sea-level rise and environmental stressors. Promote ecosystem restoration that enhances community resilience through the re-establishment of non-structural, natural buffers against storms and flooding. i!!u. Promote Natural Resource Stewardship and Environmental Education:Promote and enhance natural resource stewardship efforts that include formal and informal educational opportunities, professional development and training, communication,and other actions for all ages. 7. Improve Science-Based Decision-Making Processes: Improve science-based decision-making processes used by the Council. COIIhVSOII:'111i IP,PIIV i 011!3 Vl C"'i"'llVE 8. Restore,Diversify,and Revitalize the Gulf Economy with Economic and Environmental Restoration Projects 454 4719 ® ® /� � ® ® e °e / ® II�III�IIIIIII1�II���III�II��IIIIIIII�IIIII�IIIIIIIIIII� ® e c; 0 P d - - - m _ '_i d °' d ° d FC7 d C7 2 2 2 2 U u u 2 uo Z 2 O °'a o a o > >om c o c, a E o a O U 2 c r m ` oo N "O a) 2 c _ 2 T VJ s i O- O (n a) O — N O _ T d a c d y' N 3 p U o d U11 d 3 u a Y�o ° 3 w Z a °- o ` 3 ¢ ° > > > _ ¢ o ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ s m O a w o o O 3 s 0. s 1 0 o iO o o s o 0 o m id ¢ ¢° ? U ¢ ? U U x vc x U U ? vi U z U ¢` ''..... c� d Tm m fll o s° o U, 00 U, 0 c. O o O o c- _ — a 4720 p M O W N c p Q m m m 2 c 2 m 2 2 2 2 2 LL LL LL LL p p 2 2 2 2 p 2 2 2 2 2 i N N p p o � ❑ m ❑ ❑ m 2 p m m m m m v o Q d miO, s o d d d J d J d Q ............... lu o - o - a Im c o o 3 v _ E m 2 m m ❑ m 0 .a o a z o o v Q 3 U U E P Q ° a , s o. - = v 3 _ _ E > s a c.� °' o x ❑ m s m o o o a m m o `m m - m m o� Cd C_' ❑ vJ 2 LL m m o ���� - m o d c a 2 s o.. - c > U � U! E V ' ❑ m 2 _ - d p m ❑ a ray v Q m E m ca m E 2 m o , Ci, m o o U ,a t a- g U Z xlo 2 o Q E ffi _ 0 0 o s a -m t. �� o p o r m U — o a v .' a n v a, v s _ a s v o - ,� s "ca Q u u ? u xv u u Q u o � Q Q-ffi u u � o u c u u a a a a CL ca � Q L, .= Q o o o o o v __ c ai m ai o 4721 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan P 'ecHProgra00 Summary PRQJIECT/PROGRAK8COSTS As shown in the Project SummaryTable, a total of 69 projects and programs are being proposed by the Gulf Consortium.The total estimated cost of all proposed projects and programs is$028'575'530' while the total Spill Impact Component request is$291,180,000. However, the total committed funding proposed by the 23 Consortium member counties ia$439.310.O35. leaving nn overall budget deficit of$1O9,2O4.O95. |tia anticipated that this budget deficit will be at least partially closed through leveraged funding over the 15-year payout period. Other funding sources committed by the member counties include portions of their DirectComponent, other grants and co-funding' and other county funding (e.g, general revenues-, utility fees).Although theme committed funding sources cannot be considered as "secured" funding in most cases, there is u reasonable likelihood that funding sources indicated in the project and program budget information will be available if and when it is needed. By inclusion in the Florida SEP each Consortium member county is pledging their commitment to dedicate the necessary resources to undertake their respective projects and programs. For those projects and programs for which significant budget shortfalls cannot be closed through leveraging, implementation will need to be appropriately scaled down to match the available funding level. COMM L|ANCIE WITH 25PIERCIENTINFRASTRUCTURE L|K8|TAT|0 IN {f the 09 proposed projects and programs,utotal 11 projects/programs have been determined to be "infrastructure" pursuant to guidance provided by the Council anclTireasury Department.The total Spill Impact Component request for these projects is$37089'400 which is approximately 13 percent of Florida's allocation of$294'338'815.Therefore, the Florida SEP is well within compliance with the RESTORE Act 25 percent infrastructure limitation.The majority of8EP projects that are classified as infrastructure address coastal flood pmteotion, and the extension of new sewer lines to promote economic development.A distinction was made between the extension of new sewer lines to promote economic development, and septic to sewer conversions to address legacy pollution from old and failing septic tanks.The latter project type was classified as^waterqun|ityyqunntity^ rather than infrastructure. Other infrastructure projects in the SEP include navigation channel dredging to support commercial fishing,and the construction of the new county Emergency Operations Center, as well as a county environmental education facility. Diversity and Balance of Project/Program Types The 09 proposed projects and programs address u wide range of RESTORE Act eligible activities, Council goals and objectives' and project types as categorized by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on their Deepwater Horizon (DWH) project website.The following pie charts provide a summary of the proposed SEP project/ program list with respect to various these classifications. FlgunuV-1 shows the project/program breakdown by primary RESTORE Act eligible activity.The SEPproject/program list represents six ofthe 11 RESTORE Act eligible uctivities-, however, it should be noted that classifying projects/ programs into a single activity was, in many cases, difficult due to multiple and overlapping project benefits.The two most prominent eligible activities are: ° Eligible Activity 1: Restoration and protection of the natural reaouroea, eooayatema, fiaheriea, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches and coastal wetlands ofthe Gulf Coast region (51Y6) ° Eligible Activity 10: Promotion of tourism in the Gulf Coast region, including recreational fishing (26Y6). IFCTIQ N V° Proposed Projects, Programs, and Activities 1% 26% �j 51% 3% i 9% 10% %of Primary Eligible Activities Total Eligible Activity 1:Restoration and protection of the natural 51% resources,ecosystems,fisheries,marine and wildlife habitats, beaches,and coastal wetlands of the Gulf Coast region Eligible Activity 6:Infrastructure projects benefiting the economy or 10% ecological resources, including port infrastructure Eligible Activity 7:Coastal flood protection and related infrastructure 9% Eligible Activity 8:Planning assistance 3% �Jj Eligible Activity 10:Promotion of tourism in the Gulf Coast region, 26% including recreational fishing Eligible Activity 11:Promotion of the consumption of seafood 1% harvested from the Gulf Coast region Fgure V-1. Project breakdown by RESTORE Act elligiblle activity. FigureV-2 shows the project/program breakdown by Council Goal.Again, classifying projects into a single goal was often difficult due to multiple and overlapping project benefits.The two most prominent goals are: • Goal 2: Restore Water Quality and Quantity(44%) • Goal 5: Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy(30%). 458 4723 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan 7% Of 30% / Primary Council Goals Total Goal 1:Restore and Conserve Habitat 7% Goal 2:Restore Water Quality and Quantity 44% Goal 3:Replenish and Protect Living Coastal 10% and Marine Resources 44% Goal 4:Enhance Community Resilience 9% 9% �Jj� Goal 5:Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy 30% 10% Figure V-2. Project breakdown by Councill Goall. FigureV-3 shows the project/program breakdown by Council Objective. It should be noted that the Council objectives do not specifically include an objective addressing economic recovery and revitalization.Therefore, the Consortium adopted its own objective address the economy.The two most prominent objectives are: • Objective 2: Restore, Improve, and Protect Water Resources (44%) • Consortium Objective 8: Restore, Diversify,and Revitalize the Gulf Economy with Economic and Environmental Restoration Projects (30%). %Of 6% Primary Council Objectives Total Objective 1:Restore,Enhance,and Protect Habitats 6% 30% % IIIIIII Objective 2:Restore,Improve,and Protect Water Resources 44% VJ%44 ll))j� Objective 3:Protect and Restore Living Coastal and 9% Marine Resources y I ga Objective 4:Restore and Enhance Natural Processes 3% p--�� and Shorelines i1� ����� Objective 5:Promote Community Resilience 7% IT Objective 6:Promote Natural Resource Stewardship and 1% Environmental Education ° Consortium Objective E.Restore,Diversify,and Revitalize 30% 3% the Gulf Economy with Economic and Environmental g% Restoration Projects O ugureV•3.Project breakdown by Councill Objective. 459 4724 IFCTIQ N V° Proposed Projects, Programs, and Activities FigureV-4 shows the project/program breakdown by project type as categorized by the FDEP on its DWH website. The FDEP project type classification is generally more intuitive than classifying projects by Council goals and objectives. Using this categorization scheme, the diversity of the proposed projects/programs is more evident. Water quality/quantity is the most dominant project type (45%). 7% 7% Of FDEP Project Type Total 6% j/ Community Resilience 7% o 45/0 � Habitat Restoration 7% ������ Land Acquistion 6% IIIIIIII Living Resources 20% 20% Recreation/Public Access 15% Water Quality/Quantity 45% 15% O ugureV•4.Project breakdovn by FDEP project type. FigureV-5 shows the project breakdown by FDEP project type in terms of dollars. It should be noted that projects that fall into the water quality/quantity category account for 65% of the total SEP Spill Impact Component request.This is because wastewater and stormwater infrastructure projects are typically costlier than other project types. 5% 6% 5% %Of j/ FDEP Project Type Cost Total 6% 0 Community Resilience 5% � Habitat Restoration 6% 65% �Jj� Land Acquistion 5% 13% Living Resources 6% Recreation/Public Access 13% Water Quality/Quantity 65% O ugureV•5.Project breakdovn by FDEP project type dollars. 460 4725 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan FigureV-6 shows the project breakdown by stage of development or readiness.This shows that 6 percent of the proposed projects are in the concept stage only(e.g., no planning activity conducted to date).About 46 percent of the projects have undergone some planning activity, while 22 percent have had some level of feasibility analysis. Only 6 of the 69 total projects (9 percent) have completed design and permitting activities and are considered to be "shovel ready" for implementation.Therefore, the majority of proposed projects/programs need further definition and refinement in terms of conceptual design, feasibility analysis, and detailed cost estimating. It is anticipated that a majority of the early project grants will be for conceptual design and feasibility studies. 9% 6% %Of 17% Stage of Development Total 46% Concept 6% Planning 46% �J[ Feasibility 22% IIIIIIII Design/Permitting 17% implementation 9%P O ugureV•'7.Project breakdovn by stage of development. FigureV-7 shows the project breakdown by infrastructure vs. non-infrastructure cost.As shown, about 13 percent of the total SEP Spill Impact Component request is proposed for projects/programs classified as infrastructure, pursuant to Council guidance. 13°/ IIIIIIIII o m. $37,690,000 ��llllll�lj � '�IIII %Of pll Infrastructure Project Cost Amount Total Non-Infrastructure Cost $253,490,000 87% IN Infrastructure Cost $37,690,000 13% 87% $253,490,000 O ugureV•'7.Project breakdovn by infrastructure vs. non-infrastructure dollars. 461 4726 SECTION V: Proposed Projects, PnQg[@DOs, @0dACtivities Benefits of the County-Driven Process The county-driven project selection and prioritization process resulted in a number of benefits that may not have been derived had n more centralized approach been used.These benefits are listed and discussed below: ° 'Bottom'up^ vs. ^top-dovvn^ process ° Even distribution of funding across the Florida Gulf coast ° Projects/programs that address local and regional priorities ° Balanced and diverse range of project types ° Regional collaboration. BOTTOK8 UPVS. TOPDOVVN PROCIESS Compared tothe other four Gulf states, Florida is unique with regard tothe development and implementation of their SEP In the other four Gulf states, these processes are administered by designated state agency orgroup of agencies-, whereas in Florida these processes have been delegated toufederation of the Florida Gulf Coast counties—the Gulf Consortium.Accordingly, the process for nominating projects for inclusion in the Florida SEP was very much u bottom-up versus u top-down approach.As result, the Florida SEP includes uwide range of projects that address |oon| and regional needs and priorities rather than priorities identified by particular state ngenoy. It is likely that the SEP project list would have been quite different had it been developed by a state agency, which may have been biased toward addressing a particular agency mission For this reason, it can be argued that the bottom-up process used by the Consortium was more responsive to the overall body of stakeholders along the Florida Gulf Coast than u process driven by single state agency would have been IEVIEN DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING ACROSSTHIE GULFCOAST The equal distribution of Florida's Spill Impact Component allocation among the 23 member counties ensures that each Consortium member county will receive an equal amount of the allocation, without consideration of factors such as miles of shoreline, distance from the apiU, population, etc. In nddition, it confirms that each county will have the opportunity to equally participate in Gulf restoration and self-determine their own projects.This approach results in an even distribution of Florida's Spill Impact Component funds across the Florida Gulf Coast, rather than focusing those funds inu few select project locations. This does not necessarily mean that total spending for SEP implementation will be evenly distributed along the coast. Some counties have proposed to use all or portions of their Direct Component and commit other county funds to support their SEP projects, while others have only committed Spill Impact Component funds. In addition, some projects have the potential to attract significant leveraged monies from other DVVH funding atrenma, while others do not. Nonetheless,the even distribution of Spill Impact Component funding across the Florida Gulf Coast is benefit to the overall body of stakeholders. PRQJIECTS/PROGRAK8STHAT ADDRESS LOCALANDRIEG|ONALPR|OR|T|ES While the more insidious effects ofthe DVVH oil spill on Florida's marine resources (e.g, long-term fishery population impacts) are still under inveatigntion, significant overt ecological damage was fairly limited compared to other Gulf states.Therefore, the Consortium member counties have chosen to use Spill Impact Component funds to address other legacy environmental damage orunique regional challenges to their coastal economies. In reviewing the SEP project |iat, several common and regionally specific project types emerge. State of Florida State Expenditure Plan The most numerous SEP project type proposed along the entire Florida Gulf coast are those related to water quality improvement.The insert at the end of this section— Patterns of Water Quality Impairment Along the Florida Gulf Coast—discusses regional differences in water quality issues. Florida has a very activeTMDL program administered by the FDEP as well as the U.S. EPA. Florida has also been uniquely diligent in the collection of ambient water quality data, by both state agencies and local governments, from which impaired waters determinations can be made and addressed. In addition, Florida has a great deal of older coastal developments that were constructed prior to the implementation of the Clean Water Act, and the implemen- tations of related federal and state regulations controlling wastewater and stormwater treatment. The most common water quality improvement type of project proposed in the SEP is the replacement of failing or inadequate septic tanks in these older coastal developments with central sewer collection and treatment facilities. While the provision of adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities has typically been the responsibility of local governments, retrofitting old development is very costly and counties have struggled to find adequate funding. Therefore, many of the Consortium member counties are committing all or part of their Spill Impact Component allocations to address these legacy problems and will be seeking leveraging from other funding sources and grant programs to maximize these benefits. Another type of water quality improvement project is the removal of legacy contaminated sediments from bayous and coastal waterbodies that have been polluted by historical industrial and agricultural uses. Bayou Chico in Escambia County is a small urban bayou with a long history of industrial pollution dating back to the early 1800s, and during the response to the DWH oil spill, the Bayou served as a staging/cleaning location for vessels that deployed oil boom and dispersants. Lake Seminole in Pinellas County was historically an estuarine bayou that was impounded in the 1940s to create an irrigation water source for surrounding citrus groves. Decades of nutrient-laden runoff have resulted in an accumulated sediment mass that releases nitrogen and phosphorus to adjacent Boca Ciega Bay. Both counties are proposing major dredge projects to remove contaminated sediments and improve coastal water quality. The Florida Keys and southwest Florida are naturally low-lying and poorly drained,and older development there relied upon substantial channelization and dredge and fill to make conditions habitable for humans.Accordingly, Monroe, Collier, Lee, and Sarasota Counties are proposing SEP projects aimed at reversing legacy environmental damage from extensive dredge and fill and/or channelization to drain wetlands and reroute natural surface water flow patterns. The canal and hydrologic restoration projects proposed by these counties are significant in their scope and will result Ill,^ in the restoration of both water quality and associated living resources affected b these historical alterations. q Y g Y iuf��lJl The counties of the BigBend and Nature Coast regions of Florida (Hernando, Citrus, Levy, Dixie,Taylor and Jefferson) m" g Y Y iogooi are relatively rural, with limited coastal development. One of the most significant impediments to coastal economic if� ������ E wp„,. development in these counties is the wide and very shallow continental shelf, which offers very little natural deep p Y Y p water access. Although marine living resources (e. g g g., seagrasses, clams, scallops, oysters, reef fish) in this region are rich and extensive, these counties struggle to provide adequate public access to the coastal zone for residents, tourists, and commercial fisherman.Therefore, common project types proposed by these counties include: land acquisition for public access, improved boat ramps and coastal recreational facilities,and the enhancement of both offshore artificial reefs and nearshore oyster reefs. 463 4728 SECTION V° Proposed Projects, Programs, and Activities FigureV-8 shows the spatial distribution by SEP projects and programs classified by FDEP project type and dollars across the Florida Gulf Coast.This figure shows the dominance of water quality/quantity projects, but also reflects the other regional differences in project priorities discussed above. T.- 0w �u � . Li dAqui itim . VVIitOf OUBlitylQUainlity a Itala4itNtIN Uviniq Re,tourer JI • � 40 roiT)mN,NnOy ResiIYOnce ltecieHbronfPubhc Access w .- 415, 001,10o . 30 o00.000 �I r rim 0 SO 100 _ ,w aM O ugureV 8. Spatial distribution by EP projects and program s classified by [:::DE[:'project type;avid dollars across the;Florida Gulf Coast. 464 4729 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan BALANCIED AND DIVERSE RANGE OFPROJIECT/PROGRAK8TYPIES As discussed above, the Florida SEP proposes diverse range of project/program types that balances both the environment and the economy.A common theme that the Consortium has promoted is that Florida's economy is inextricably linked to the environmental quality of its coastal zone.The majority of Florida's economic activity occurs in its coastal oountiea, where reaidenta, touhata, and commercial fisherman seek out white sand beaches, clear waters, natural wetland habitats, and rich living marine resources. For these reasons, Consortium member counties' in developing their proposed projects, often did not make clear distinctions between environmental and economic projects.Accordingly, the proposed SEP projects and programs represent a good balance between both environmental and economic projects.When classified in terms of RESTORE Acteligible activity, about 51 percent of the proposed projects/programs address environmental restoration and protection, while ubout49 percent address various economic and infrastructure activities.The proposed projects/programs inc|udeubmudus*ortmentofpnoject types, addressing six ofthe seven Council objeotwea, as well as an eighth objective defined by the Consortium for economic activities.The balance and diversity of project/program types addresses state, regional and local priorities, and will yield multiple benefits to the stakeholders of the Florida Gulf Coast. RIEG|0 NALCMLLABORAT|ON The creation undongoingfunchonsoftheGuKCon*orhumunythephnmrymechunisnubywhichthe23member counties interact and collaborate.Through the deliberations of the Gulf Consortium Board of Directors, all 23 member counties have been able to reach consensus onuwide range of issues, including goals and objectives, geographic distribution of funds, the balance of environmental versus economic projects,and the temporal distribution of Spill Impact Component funds over the payout period. With regard to the selection and prioritization of projects, programs and activities to be included in the SEP discussions were held to identify projects that would benefit from cross-jurisdictional collaboration. It was determined that there was some potential economy ofscale benefits for sharing artificial reef materials and staging sites between counties along the Springs Coast and Nature Coast regions (Pasco, Hernando, Citrus,and Levy Counties). However, during the project selection and prioritization process, the individual counties tended tofocus on their own local needs and priorities with limited consideration of mu|ti'countypurticipution on regional projects. Nonetheless, the final list ofthe ppojects, programs and activities included in thia8EP does reflect similarities within the various regions. SECTION V° Proposed Projects, Programs, and Activities 1111 Patterns of Water Quahty �rnpairrnents Aiongthe Rorida Guff Coast INTRODUCTION In carrying out its obligations under the Federal Clean Water Act the State of Florida conducts a program of water quality monitoring and reporting,overseen by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP). Florida is well known for these efforts,as it is the most data-rich state in the U.S., in terms of water quality.Water quality data are compared against standards that vary with the statutory"designated use" of the water body.The most widely used,and most relevant water quality standards in Florida include: Class I,for drinking water supplies;Class II,for waters designated for shellfish harvesting;and Class III,for recreational uses(aka "fishable/swimmable"). Class III is the"default" designated use,and applies to the vast majority of Florida surface waters.This designated use is further classified as either Class III-Marine or Class III-Freshwater. In Florida,water quality impairments fall into three broad categories:those due to toxins such as heavy metals;those due to pathogens such as bacteria;and those due to nutrient enrichment. • For toxins,most of the impairments in Florida are associated with mercury. Most of the coastal waters of Florida are considered "impaired" for mercury, usually due to findings of elevated levels of mercury in pelagic fish such as King Mackerel (aka Kingfish)or Bull Sharks. These species are typically found in offshore waters, and may not spend any time in the nearshore areas where runoff or point sources of pollution have their greatest impact.Additionally,while local sources can occur,much of the mercury found in these top-level predators could come from as far away as China,and dominant sources of mercury could be more strongly associated with coal-fired power plants in eastern China, rather than a specific activity in Florida. However, local sources can be important. Recognizing the importance of national and even international influences on mercury contamination,the State of Florida has developed a state-wide Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)for mercury. • Water quality impairments due to pathogens are usually due to elevated levels of indicator bacteria,such as the group"fecal coliform bacteria" Despite their name,fecal coliform bacteria are not necessarily associated with fecal material.The techniques used to quantify fecal coliform bacteria can also test positive for bacteria that are naturally associated with soils and/or decomposing vegetation,as well as fecal material.When fecal sources are indicated,the fecal material can be associated with seabirds and other wildlife,as well as both humans and human-associated animals such as horses and cows and other livestock.The amount of fecal material that can trigger a finding of impairment varies as a function of the classification of the water body. Bacteria concentrations can occur below the level that would cause concern for recreational water contact, but can be problematic if those same waters were used for shellfish harvesting,as shellfish accumulate bacteria in the portions of their mass eaten by consumers. 466 4731 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan • Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, by themselves,are not a threat to biological communities. Instead, nutrients become problematic via their ability to stimulate excessive amounts of plant growth, especially different types of algae. Excessive algal growth can show up as the long strands of filamentous algae that are increasingly abundant around Florida's spring systems,as well as the phytoplankton(floating microscopic plants)that can reduce water clarity in coastal waters.As well,excessive plant growth can give rise to reduced levels of dissolved oxygen(DO)when algal blooms die off and their biomass is decomposed by oxygen-consuming bacteria. As most of Florida's waters are not impaired by toxins, or when they are classified as such the impairment is covered by the mercuryTMDL,the primary focus of the FDEP is on impairments due to pathogens and/or nutrients. From the Alabama state line to Key West,the Florida Gulf Coast encompasses approximately 975 linear miles,and includes a wide range of geological,ecological,and cultural conditions.Therefore,it is not unexpected that water quality impairments reflect these regional differences,and many of the projects proposed in the Florida SEP have been developed to address these problems. Below is a summary of patterns of water quality impairments along the Florida Gulf Coast. WESTERN PANHANDLE The coastal waters from the Alabama border east to Gulf County are mostly associated with impairments due to pathogens. However,some sections of the Pensacola Bay system show evidence of nutrient pollution as well. In Escambia and Santa Rosa counties,fecal coliform bacteria are high enough to cause impairment of waters such as Perdido Bay, Escambia Bay, Big Lagoon,and Santa Rosa Sound.Smaller waterbodies, such asTexar Bayou and Bayou Chico have also been classified as impaired for pathogens. In contrast to stretches of Florida's coastline farther south and east,nutrient enrichment has not been widely determined to be problematic in this region. For example,despite the widespread finding of impairments for fecal coliform bacteria in the Pensacola Bay system,the only nutrient- related impairments noted by FDEP are for Judges Bayou, North Escambia Bay,and Bayou Chico. Farther east, bacterial impairments have been documented for Liza Jackson and Marler Park(Okaloosa County) as well as Choctawhatchee Bay,as well as Blue Mountain, Grayton and Holley Street beaches(Walton County). Choctawhatchee Bay was also determined to be impaired for DO, related to nutrient enrichment. In Bay and Gulf counties, bacterial impairments have been documented at high profile beaches,such as Panama City Beach,as well as Lookout and St.Joe Beach. These impairments are not found in every year,and are fairly infrequent(i.e., less than '�t 25 days per ear)for those ears when such impairment was documented. Y p Y Y p Iu���lll Claydeposits in the watersheds of man western panhandle rivers,as well as an abundance of unpaved roads in the wr�l p Y p p VV'P more rural parts of this region,contribute to elevated turbidity and decreased water clarity in local waters, particularly a� �r after intense storms. Despite these problems,water quality impairments due to sediment are rare in Florida. EASTERN PANHANDLE Franklin County's Apalachicola Bay's watershed stretches up into the adjacent states of Alabama and Georgia.As such,the exceedances it shows for fecal coliform bacteria may not necessarily be controllable by managing Florida's land use practices alone. In addition,the scientific consensus on Apalachicola Bay is that insufficient freshwater inflow is a greater environmental impact than near-field nutrient or pathogen issues,and the lack of sufficient freshwater inflow has much more to do with agricultural and domestic water uses in Georgia than activities in the Florida portion of the watershed. In addition, bacterial impairments have been noted for the waters of Ochlockonee Bay,Alligator Harbor,and St. George Sound. 467 4732 SECTION V: Proposed Projects, Progra rds, and Activities IJ ,s westemrm Panhandle w,n stl"bacterta-re med l,rrn aatrmaaams watawmao-maN ismiaa w ilh muarbldily In Eaadauaa t'arataandle-,it a>hly tmacterta-R laled ran aaarmaaarats, i rnaderluaa trasrmwrxal,ar bunit +a fair Apalactuccila,Day aping-tee Twers.shwa led mania-ata Iwda and m dac d drsaahuwwatar imaEraWa in the Skawaraurraa muuar Estua ry �a a na a and Sarasota Bays-Mrrgim scale netrsrali numNratar grmatoty via nararr m inariappnent makar da°iam7rakka[,fardnr-hydaolur.raaGm�rad�aaa� r� ��� tindpr ,ay kr't ulrrw,.r A,,aoe u'vwr Dorm,SaV,e ydiiologrr l r tloratbru and riulm`ddara m araa (,ins:m mr-,ad,(' for tiara �mI P:a '47tl lwlq a kt Ivor Esw,,y Wo,61 maa ewniadris,1m106da Alyaod Imlo da Koy5tad rtr`di udars; m' -:wr,rI NmeQOcimd itar 1'a r armm'l �Caokery Bays and W,-'V+;m Ea a f+9l'ades,'Wadsf,owal w u'utq trala�a uw t r I:raa09l uandierway biw!t dredge and Of ca uals ha"Mra;;Iwid Ibolh daecl,and ouisdarect impracls on umMerquaaltty and natrurat resnummaa in raaaralammre areas tmmaR. ama a of Waiea Quality INarmqautmiI ,AN Along the Hofida Gulf Coast �tp, �trd mire,5, 468 4733 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan In Wakulla and Jefferson counties,few water quality impairments have been noted.The exceptions are bacterial impairments for Dickerson Bay and Shell Point,along with a finding of excessive nitrate levels in the Wacissa Springs and Wacissa River complex. Taylor County's Fenholloway River previously had the distinction of being the state's only water body with a Class V (industrial)designated use; however,the river was reclassified to Class III in 1998.The Fenholloway River was highly polluted by a cellulose plant for many decades,and poor water quality has degraded the extensive seagrass meadows at the mouth of the river. Prior impairment determinations for the Fenholloway River include those for fecal coliform bacteria, low levels of DO,and un-ionized ammonia. However,ongoing and planned water quality restoration projects are anticipated to allow the Fenholloway River to meet Class III standards sometime over the next five to ten years. In addition,the nearshore waters of Keaton Beach have been determined to be impaired for bacteria. FLORIDA'S BIG BEND AND SPRINGS COAST The coastal waters of Dixie County are dominated by the influence of the Suwannee River.While these waters are often viewed as healthy or nearly pristine,the Suwannee River itself is impacted by a combination of elevated levels of nitrate,as well as a long-term trend of decreasing flows.The degree to which the degraded water quality and diminished freshwater inflows from the Suwannee River will impact Dixie County's coastal waters is presently unknown. However,management plans have been approved and both programs and projects have been initiated to address the problems with both the quantity and quality of water in the Suwannee River watershed. The waters of Levy County's Cedar Key are also influenced by inflows from the Suwannee River,and nutrient impairment for both nitrogen and phosphorus has been noted. In addition,the nearshore waters off Cedar Key have also been determined to be impaired for bacteria. In Citrus, Hernando,and Paso counties, local waters are mostly thought to be healthy,with seagrass meadows that extend offshore more than twenty miles. However,the spring-fed rivers that discharge to these coastal waters have shown troubling trends in terms of nitrate enrichment. Elevated nitrate loads to coastal waters have been documented for the Rainbow, Chassahowitzka,and Weeki Wachee Rivers. Fortunately,the waters south of Cedar Key are thought to be phosphorus-limited,for the most part,which may give them some ability to assimilate nitrate without immediate impacts. However,the coastal waters of Kings Bay have been documented to have a problem with excessive nutrient loads and reduced water clarity, issues tied back to nitrate enrichment through variousTIVDLs and impairment studies. Increased sea level rise in the Kings Bay system is apparently causing ongoing changes in u,^ submerged aquatic vegetation,as more freshwater-dependent species are losing ground to species tolerant of more f» E (�brackish conditions,a pattern that matches with long term trends toward higher salinities in Kings Bay. p ��� TAMPA AND SARASOTA BAYS iffff � '�IIII The coastal waters from Tarpon Springs down to Venice exhibit one of the more interesting pg patterns in the State of Florida. Large-scale and obvious issues with degraded water quality resulted in some of the first water quality �I restoration efforts in Florida, starting as far back as the 1970s.As a result,the water quality and ecosystem health of Tampa and Sarasota Bays are thought to be as good as they were more than 50 years ago. Based on significant reductions in nutrient loads from stormwater and both industrial and domestic point sources,water quality has recovered to the extent that seagrass coverage has increased by more than 30 square miles over the past 40 years. However,water quality impairments continue for locations such as the Anclote River Estuary,Clam Bayou, Klosterman Bayou, Delaney Creek,and portions of Tampa Bay such as Old Tampa Bay and Boca Ciega Bay. 469 4734 SECTION V° Proposed Projects, Programs, and Activities Further south in Sarasota County, bacterial impairments have been noted for Matheny, Hatchett, Philippi, North,and Catfish Creeks,as well as in Whitaker Bayou.The waters of Blackburn Bay, Dona Bay,and North Lemon Bay have also been determined to be impaired for nutrients,either through elevated levels of phytoplankton,or through the presumed influence of nutrient enrichment on low levels of DO. GREATER CHARLOTTE HARBOR The waters of Upper and Middle Charlotte Harbor were determined to be impaired for nitrogen by FDEP although the Surface Water Improvement and Management(SWIM) Plan for these same waters determined that a"hold the line" strategy was needed for nutrient management,rather than there being a need for a nutrient load reduction from existing levels,as was the case in Sarasota and Tampa Bays. Bacterial impairments were noted for Lemon Bay, Matlacha Pass,and Pine Island Sound. Farther south,the waters of the Caloosahatchee River estuary are adversely impacted by both nutrient enrichment and inadequate patterns of freshwater inflow. In one assessment, it was found that on average,the Caloosahatchee River discharged to local waters at rates either higher than proposed maximum inflow rates or lower than proposed minimum inflow rates for more than half of a typical year. WESTERN EVERGLADES, FLORIDA BAY AND THE FLORIDA KEYS Collier County's coastal waters include systems determined to be impaired for nutrients, such as Rookery Bay and the Gordon River. However,the scientific consensus is that the biggest impacts to the county's coastal waters have been widespread hydrologic alterations.As an example,the construction of the Golden Gate Canal system resulted in a reduction of Rookery Bay's watershed by eighty square miles,which was accompanied by a ten-fold increase in the size of the Naples Bay watershed.As in Sarasota County's Dona Bay, environmental restoration of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay systems will require hydrologic restoration,rather than the nutrient reduction strategies that worked so well in Tampa and Sarasota Bay. In Monroe County,great strides have been made in recent years to improve the collection,treatment,and disposal of domestic wastewater. However,extensive dredge and fill for residential development with water access has resulted in the creation of widespread problems due to the construction of"dead end" canals. Bacterial impairments have been documented in a number of high-profile beaches, including Smathers Beach,Sombrero Beach,and Fort Zachary Taylor State Park. 470 4735 4736 61 �. 1 f i 4737 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan lJ r. i r l v 0 i r u,1 lI , i i i i i i i i I I I I 4738 4739 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan A, Unique U-4111enges of l00pIle00eating fl­ie Plarida State Expenditure PlIan The proposed projects, programs,and activities included in this Florida SEPwene developed through u "county- driven" process whereby each of the 23 member counties of the Gulf Consortium independently determined how they would use their allocation of Florida's Spill Impact Component.This process resulted inu large number of projects and programs (09)covering u wide range of RESTORE Act eligible activities and project types. The 15-year payout period of the BP civil settlement with the federal government and the five Gulf Coast States presents significant challenges to developing a comprehensive implementation strategy to sequence the large number of projects proposed in the Florida SEP In its deliberations, the Gulf Consortium has explored bonding opportunities at both the federal and state levels that would allow Florida's total Spill Impact Component allocation to be disbursed over shorter time period (e.g, 4-5 years), but no such remedies are available ut this time. One of the arguments in favor of the 15-year payout is that it distributes the funds incrementally, and prevents a flood of money that could potentially be misused.This approach may be more suitable to Gulf states thathave proposed u few large projects that can be staged over 15 years. However, for the large number of projects/programspmposedinthe Florida SEP this is an impediment to implementation. |n addition to being very numerous, the projects/programs inc|udedinthisSEPvurysubstantiuUywithnygurdto theirdegnyeof ^remdiness^ forimp|ementution. Somepnojects/pmgmmsuneconueptson|ynequihngconceptnu| design and feasibility studies to further determine their feasibility and refine their scopes and budgets. For other projects/programs, engineering design and permitting have been completed,and a few are truly"shovel-ready" at this time. Given the uncertainties associated with many ofthe proposed projects/programs, it is likely that project modifications will need to be made as conceptual design and feasibility studies are completed. It is also likely that county priorities may change over the payout schedule, resulting in some projects/programs being dropped from the list tobe replaced byothers. Unlike the other four Gulf Coast states' implementation of the Spill Impact Component in Florida is not administered by a designated state agency.The Gulf Consortium operates as a coordinating body for the 23 member counties,and the county-driven process voted upon by the Consortium members has conferred a high level of independence to the individual counties with regard to both the content and implementation of the SEP While this approach has resulted in uwide range of project/program types addressing local and regional priorities, it also creates the potential for conflicts in how the SEP projects are sequenced over time. For example, if a particular county decides to amend its proposed project list by dropping u project in the planning phase and adding u project that is shovel-reudy, this change has the potential to affect the timing of projects/programs proposed by the other counties. B_ Project Sequencing The term "sequencing" used herein refers to the timing or staging of projects or project components,and their respective doUuo' overtime.As the entity responsible for the development and implementation of the Florida SEP the Consortium is the central coordinating body and grant recipient for all projects included in the SEp Individual counties will be grant sub'nycipients' and will not be able toengage independently with the Council with regard to applying for and managing grant funds for their specific projects.Therefore, it is critical that the Consortium develop uppoject/pmgmms sequencing strategy that accommodates both the large number of projects/programs undtheir varying degrees of readiness. In addition, the sequencing strategy should treat each county fairly, without bias. 475 SECTION VI° Iuriple nentation RESTORE ACT Payout Assumptions In developing an overall implementation strategy, multiple alternatives for managing the accounting of Spill Impact Component funds among the 23 counties over the 15-year payout schedule have been evaluated under the following assumptions: • The amounts available to each county according to the equal split of Florida's Spill Impact Component, minus project planning grant costs, is approximately$12.66 million. • Funds will be paid out over a 15-year period,and there is no ability at this time to use these funds for bonding and debt payments at either the state or federal levels. • Counties may self-fund projects described in the SEP and then be reimbursed with Spill Impact Component funds. • At the time of Florida SEP approval (projected to be the second quarter of 2018), Florida's allocation under the Council's Spill Impact Component rule will have accrued $73,917,036 from the initial payment and the first 2 years of annual allocations over the 15-year payout. • Every year thereafter, the Gulf Consortium will receive$16,713,931 annually until 2031. Guiding Principles and Goals of Sequencing In the process of developing their proposed project/program lists, most of the Consortium member counties expressed that their current and short-term (3-5 years) priorities could be clearly defined, but that beyond about a 5-year horizon it was difficult to predict how their project priorities might change.Therefore, a key guiding principle used by the SEP consultant in developing a recommended sequencing and implementation strategy is that temporal flexibility across the 15-year payout period must be accommodated, and that it is likely that the Florida SEP will need to be amended every 3-5 years to adapt to changing conditions and priorities in many of the counties.After considering several options, a 4-year work program was adopted by the Consortium.Assuming that the Florida SEP would is approved in 2018, this would allow for the sequencing of projects across four 4-year work programs, as follows: • 2018-2021 • 2022-2025 • 2026-2029 • 2030-2033. With the above-described guiding principle in mind, the SEP consultant defined three overarching goals for project sequencing and the overall SEP implementation strategy, including: 1. Address urgent needs 2. Demonstrate early successes 3. Ensure that every county is making progress. The first goal addresses the need to capitalize on issues of timeliness that are embodied in the list of SEP projects. For example, if the acquisition of a parcel of land is needed to conduct a proposed restoration project, and that parcel of land is available now from a willing seller at an affordable price, then acquiring that parcel should be a high priority. Otherwise, the opportunity to conduct the dependent restoration activities on that parcel will be lost. 476 4741 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan The second goal addresses the need to build confidence in the institutional ability of the Consortium to implement the SEP For example, completing a few shovel-ready projects early during the implementation phase, and demonstrating attainment of success through project-specific monitoring, will build confidence with the Council, the Florida Governor, Florida state agencies, and the public at large.This confidence-building will be critical to establishing the organizational credibility of the Consortium going forward, and should streamline future grant applications and implementation activities. The third goal addresses the need to ensure that each county is engaged and making progress during every year of the payout, regardless of the stage of project readiness. For some, this would involve initiating conceptual design and feasibility studies, while for others this would include the completion of final engineering design and permitting. For those counties that have proposed shovel-ready projects, at least some components could be initiated.This goal ensures that every county will be able to report to their stakeholders that they are making progress in the implementation of their portion of Florida's Spill Impact Component. Development of Sequencing Models Given the large number of projects and programs in the Florida SEP their varying degrees of readiness, and the other complexities discussed above, the SEP consultant developed and evaluated three "models;' or approaches,to sequencing the proposed SEP projects over the 15-year payout schedule. In addition to quantitative funding limits, three qualitative factors were identified for consideration in the development of the project sequencing models: • Project Readiness.This factor addresses the stage of development of a particular project. Five levels of project readiness were identified: — Concept only — Initial planning completed — Conceptual design and feasibility analysis completed — Engineering design and permitting completed — Contractor bids completed—project is shovel-ready. • Project Timeliness.This factor addresses external issues that could affect whether or not a project is ready of implementation. Examples include: — Does a parcel targeted for land acquisition have a willing seller and is it available at an affordable price? — Are co-funding grant opportunities or other leveraged funding sources available now that won't be available later? — Is the project waiting on the issuance of a permit(s)that has the potential to be denied? • County Self-Prioritization.This factor addresses the county's self-determined prioritization and sequencing. In the process of developing proposed project lists, the SEP consultant did request self-prioritization by the counties, though it was not mandatory. To document the alternatives considered by the Consortium,the three sequencing models developed by the SEP consultant are presented, compared, and contrasted on the following pages. 4.77 4742 SECTION VL |DOpUeDOe0t@tQ0 K8ODIlLA — |N0V|DUALCOUNTY Al[ LOCAT|ONS Model Acun be described usfollows. Each county accrues un estimated 4.3 percent (1/23nV of the annual allocation of Florida's Spill Impact Component payout in its own separate "account" and executes its projects when adequate funds become available through u combination of sources, including Spill Impact Component funds, co-funding from other grants, other county funds, and leveraged funding sources. Under this approach, each county essentially operates independent|y, with the Consortium serving only usthe coordinator of Council implementation grants. This is the most equitable approach in that each county is treated exactly the same. However, it may not be the fairest approach in that it favors urban counties with larger revenue streams toself-fund until reimbursement funds are available. In addition,this model does not address all three of the overarching sequencing goals listed above. With funds limited toeach county's individual accrued allocation, the model may prevent the early completion of larger, shovel-ready projects and preclude the ability of the Consortium to demonstrate early project implementation successes.The pros and cons of Model A are summarized in the table below. COMIC== Most equitable approach ay preclude the ability to address urgent needs Allows each county to make progress during every creases the ability to implement larger, early-action projects payout May allow some counties to bond using annual accruals as Eliminates the collective ability of the Consortium to leverage collateral other DVVH funds Penalizes rural counties that do not have comparable access to other funding sources May penalize counties with fewer larger projects Figunu\U'1 shows the cumulative funds available to each county for each year in the remainder of the 15-yearpuyout period. Hypothetically, under Model A'u county seeking to implement $0 million project with only its Spill Impact Componextfundscou|dnotdosounti| 2021' whenudequutefundshuvebeenuccmedinits ^uccount.^ Model A $16.000.000 $14.000.000 $12.000.000 $10.000.000 $8.000.000 $6,000,000 $4.000.000 $2.000.000 $» umo um* uouo 2021 uouu uouo uouu uous uous 2027 uouo uou* u000 2031 FligummVK'l. Cumulative dollars available to each county per payout year. 478 4743 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan K8ODIPLB — COLLABORAT|VIEPHASED ALLOCATIONS Model B can be described as follows.The Consortium would collaboratively decide the sequencing of projects based on the qualitative factors of project readiness and timeliness, as well as the goals defined above, across a series of phased short-term work programs (e.g., 4 years).Assuming a 4-year cycle beginning in 2018, the Consortium would deve|opuwmrkpmgmmfortheperiod2018-2021'undthennypemtthepmcessforthepehods2022-2025und 2020--2029' and 2030-2033ifneeded. For example, in the first 4-yenrwork program,the Consortium would have the discretion to sequence all projects using the aggregate projected 2021 uccmu|' but no county could spend more than their individual projected 2021 uccmu| during the 4-yeurcycle. However, under Model B some counties could potentially spend their entire projected 2021 noonun| during the first year of the work program prior to actually accruing that amount, if the Consortium decided that their project should be accelerated to meet certain goals. Using Model B' all three overarching sequencing goals can feasibly be met' and this model is essentially hybrid between Model Aund C.The pros and cons of Model B are summarized in the table below. Supports ability to address urgent needs Some counties will receive more of their allocation before others S May require"incentives"for counties whose projects are keeping equity over 15-year payout sequenced later Allows each county to make progress during every year of the payout Supports the collective ability of the Gulf Consortium to leverage other DVVH funds Flgunu\U'2 shows the projected funds available to the Consortium for each work program period described above. HypotheticuUy, under Model Bu county seeking to implement $0 million project with only its Spill Impact Component funds could do so in 2018 if the Consortium decided that their project should be accelerated to meet certain goals. Model $140.000.000 $120.000.000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40.000.000 $20.000.000 $» 2018-2021 2022-2025 2026-202* 2030-2031 F�gummWZ Dollars avai|ab|ato the Conaordum for each work program. 479 SECTION VL |DOpUeDOe0t@tQ0 MODE LC — COLLABORAT|VIEFUL�PAY 0UTALLOCAT|ONS Model C can be described as follows.The Consortium would collaboratively decide the sequencing of projects based on the qualitative factors of project readiness and timeliness, as well as the goals defined above, across the entire payout period.The Consortium would have the discretion to sequence projects using the entire aggregate projected 2031 accrual amount, but no county could spend more than their total individual accrual of$12.66 million.This model takes into account the total allocation to the Consortium, and would support a hypothetical scenario where the Consortium could collaboratively decide that certain large, shovel-ready projects should be fully funded early inthe payout period while other counties wait to begin work. Using Model C, the three overarching sequencing goals can be met, and this is the most flexible of the three models. However, some counties would clearly benefit by receiving more, or perhaps all, of their Spill Impact Component allocation before otheo.This would likely necessitate the development of ^incen ives^ inthefonnofuUocuion transfers, or the commitment of greater shunys of leveraged funding'to encourage counties to support this model. The pros and cons of Model C are summarized in the table below. Supports ability to address urgent needs Some counties will receive more of their allocation before others May require"incentives"for counties whose projects are sequenced later in the payout Allows each county to make progress during every year of the payout Supports the collective ability of the Gulf Consortium to leverage other DVVH funds FigureVI-3 shows the projected funds available to the Consortium for each year in the remainder of the 15-year payout period. HypotheticuUy, under Model C' u county seeking to implement $12 million project with only its Spill Impact Component funds could do so in 2018 if the Consortium decided that their project should be accelerated to meet certain goals. Model C $350.000.000 $300.000.000 $250.000.000 $200.000.000 $150.000.000 $100.000.000 $50.000.000 2 $» umo um* uouo 2021 uouu uouo uouu uous uous 2027 uouo uou* u000 2031 RgummW& Dollars avai|ab|ato the Conaordum per payout year. 480 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan Although the concept of 4-year work program is discussed above with regard to Model B' it should be noted that projects could also be clustered and sequenced in 4-year work programs under both Models A and C. However, the total dollar amount allocated to each work program could never exceed what the Consortium has accrued by the last year of the work program, us shown inFlgunu\U'3. PROPOSED SEQUENCING OF SIEP PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS In consideration of the pros and cons of the three proposed sequencing models,the Consortium adopted the collaborative phased allocations approach (Model B)to sequencing.There was also u strong consensus ofsupport for the concept of a 4-year work program to organize and prioritize project start/enddutesundsequencingucmss the15-yeurpuyoutperiod.VVorkingwitheuchofthecounties' theSEPconsu|tuntdeve|opedupnojectsequencing schedule using the Model Buppmuch described above. The aggregate SEP project sequencing schedule is provided in Sequencing SurnmaryTable that follows.This table shows the estimated start and end dates for each of the 69 proposed SEP projects and programs,as well as the dollar allocations for each project by year and by 4-year work program.The sequencing schedule corresponds in most cases tothe individual project/program milestones-, however, exceptions include those counties that will self-fund early project/program implementation and then seek reimbursement through project grant funds during later years. |t should be emphasized that this sequencing schedule is to be used by Consortium primarily as an internal guidance document to help with the coordination of pn�ect grant applications, and the equitable distribution of Spill Impact Componextfundsumongrtthemembercountiesoverthe15-yeurpuyoutperiod.According|ythenywiUc|emdybe a need to track each county's allocation and project/program expenditures over time-,and it is anticipated that the Consortium will develop a basic accounting system to track the timing of Florida's total allocation and county splits of Spill Impact Component funds. In addition, although the sequencing schedule represents rough approximation of when, and how muny, project grants may be submitted by the Consortium to the Council for review and funding approval, the grant application and review process could be slowed significantly during the first few years of implementation due to the large number of projects/programs proposed in the Florida SEp This early implementation bottleneck could affect sequencing in later years. Furthermore, as noted above, there is much greater clarity in the first 4-year work program than in those that follow, and as leveraged funding sources become available, the funding allocations for each project/program could change substantially.Therefore, it is likely that the Consortium will need to amend this sequencing schedule periodically to accommodate future changes inpriorities. 481 SECTION VI: I riplernentatlon This page left blank intentionally. 482 4747 M LESS SEE S. x PIT o� � o� of ix x x sHl ill -a i 1 M x mil s REP s a:o11 s sa s a1111 oTH 1 Al W11H 11 lip 11 x xl SEE 88191 ME Of Im Us lull Rs chi s °=' ,.� C9R o s N 4748 h' I m its 9 19 I� 'x2 all, Dim ' S gw a I x m 9951 x Hill 1 1 1 on �Rx 1 1 s x" a;"� ;�, � s 0121 on lags, go rX s A ss a E s I IL 4749 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan C.. Project I everaging The concept of leveraging financial resources essentially means using one funding source to attract other funding sources. Leveraging has the potential to multiply the overall benefits of the Florida SEP by expanding the total pool of funds available for SEP projects and programs beyond that provided for by Florida's Spill Impact Component allocation. Leveraging not only allows for the expansion of project scopes and extents, but also solidifies collaborative relationship with partners, enhancing the potential for long-term sustainability of projects and initiatives beyond the SEP implementation phase. In addition, leveraged funding can also increase flexibility in the implementation of project scopes of work. For example, RESTORE Act funds can be used to satisfy the non-federal share that may be required in other federal grant programs, creating the ability to use the Spill Impact Component funds to attract a variety of other complementary funding sources, many of which are competitively awarded. For these reasons, the Consortium has outlined and researched a wide range of complementary funding sources that could potentially be used to expand the scope, extent, magnitude,and positive impacts of many of the SEP projects. In assisting the member counties in the project development process, the SEP consultant provided guidance with respect to the selection of projects that are more likely to attract leveraged funding, where applicable.There are multiple funding sources that could be used to leverage Spill Impact Component funds dedicated to the SEP projects and programs described in Section V.They include the four primary funding sources directly related to the various Deepwater Horizon (DWH) settlements, as well as a wide range of other grant sources.These potential leveraging sources are briefly discussed below. SYNERGY ACROSS DIE=.IE=.PWATIE R HORIZON FUNDING STREAMS The RESTORE Act has five different components, each with different targeted recipients, objectives, and adminis- trative procedures.Throughout the development of the SEP many of the Consortium member counties have been working concurrently on the preparation and implementation of their Multi-Year Implementation Plans (MYIPs), as required under the Direct Component. Direct Component projects are being implemented through a grant program administered by the Department of Treasury whereby each individual county is working directly with Treasury staff. Some counties have chosen, or may choose in the future,to combine their Direct Component funds with their Spill Impact Component allocation to streamline priorities or to increase funding for certain key projects. Others are using a more collective approach, reaching out to the incorporated Cities and other stakeholders to identify projects to be funded by their Direct Component funds. In addition, some counties have collaborated with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida water management districts (WMDs), and/or National Estuary Programs (NEPs)to be included in Florida's funding request under the Council Selected Component funding stream. In addition to the RESTORE Act, natural resource damages were recovered under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 through its established Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process. Furthermore, a portion of the criminal penalties recovered from BP and Transocean as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill by the federal government were deposited into the Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund (GEBF), which is managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The goals and objectives for the use of each of the DWH funding sources are similar, ��%''lll and there is a great deal of synergy and opportunity to leverage funds between the RESTORE Act, NRDA, and GEBF � funding streams.A synopsis of each of the DWH funding sources is detailed below. ''%��II,� %J�i i�llllll� 485 4750 SECTION VI: I rnlA rie ntatio n There is no specific allocation for Florida; however,the entire component is funded with$1.6 billion Money Available to to be competitively awarded by the Council.The Initial Funded Priority List, published in 2015, Florida awarded$22,607,,406 in state-and federal-sponsored planning and/or implementation projects in the state of Florida.The Council listed an additional$10,212,175 in state-and federal-sponsored projects for the state of Florida for future consideration. ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. The RESTORE Council administers the Council-Selected Restoration Component.The 11-member RESTORE Council is made up of the governors of each affected state, or their respective designees, Managing Agency and the secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security,and the Department of the Interior,and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or their respective designees. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ......................... Successful proposals will be activities that align with the Council Goals and Objectives listed in Leverageable the Comprehensive Plan.The goals are: Restore and Conserve Habitat; Restore Water Quality Projects and Quantity; Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources; Enhance Community Resilience;and Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy. ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. Geographic Projects are limited to the Gulf Coast Region as defined in the RESTORE Act. Limitations ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. There is no deadline for project submissions for the next funding cycle.The RESTORE Council Funding Cycle anticipates a development process of approximately three years between funding cycles. Council anticipates approving their next Funded Priorities List in 2020. ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. FDEP and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)receive projects through the Process to Link to DWH project portal on FDEP's website. Florida,as a RESTORE Council member, is eligible to submit SEP projects for consideration to the RESTORE Council. Projects selected by the RESTORE Council will be submitted to the Council for inclusion in will be included in future iterations of the Funded Priorities List and Comprehensive Plan. UP 1111111 • r � Total restoration funding allocated is$8.1 billion, plus$700 million for unknown conditions and adaptive management. Restoration funds are divided among Trustee Implementation Groups Money Available to (TIGs)for defined restoration areas,three of which could potentially be leveraged with Florida's Florida Spill Impact Component projects: Region-wide($350 million), Open Ocean ($1.24 billion),and Florida ($680 million).The Florida-specific TIG has authorized approximately$144 million thus far on restoration activities.The Florida TIG is the focus of this leveraging analysis. ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. The Florida TIG has six member agencies: FDEP FWC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,and U.S. Managing Agency Department of the Interior.The Florida TIG develops, selects,and implements restoration projects on a consensus basis to accomplish the priorities of the Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (PDARP). ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ......................... Leverageable In November 2016 the Florida TIG solicited proposals for projects addressing the following Projects categories: Habitat Restoration on Federally Managed Lands; Nutrient Reduction;Water Quality;and Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ......................... Projects are limited to the Gulf Coast region. Early restoration was focused in the Panhandle;future Geographic restoration efforts may be statewide. Exact geographic limitations have not been defined. Projects Limitations for the Habitat Restoration on Federally Managed Lands type will seek to address habitat injuries at Gulf Islands National Seashore and St.Vincent National Wildlife Refuge. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ......................... There is no deadline for submissions. Projects submitted before December 5, 2016, were Funding Cycle considered in the development of Florida's initial restoration plan, which is anticipated to cover the first 2 to 3 years of settlement funding. Projects submitted after this deadline will be considered for future restoration plans. ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. For Florida's NRDA process, FDEP and FWC receive projects through the DWH project portal on Process to Link to FDEP's website. Selected projects that align with the PDARP are then reviewed by Florida's TIG. SEP Once approved by consensus at theTIG level,projects are included in project-specific restoration plans. 486 4751 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan MEMO • r Money Available to Of the$2.554 billion allocated to GEBF $356 million is allocated for projects in Florida.As of FY17, Florida approximately$244 million is still available for restoration activities in Florida. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ......................... The NFWF manages the GEBF The criminal plea agreements require the NFWF to consult with the appropriate state and federal resource managers;for Florida these include FDEP FWC, FWS Managing Agency and NOAA. FWC and FDEP manage the project submission portal for Florida's GEBF funds and are the main partners in identifying priority restoration and conservation projects and evaluating and selecting proposals. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ......................... GEBF will fund projects specific to restoring or rehabilitating natural resources that suffered injuries Leverageable resulting from the DWH oil spill. Florida projects should address high-priority restoration and Projects conservation needs. NFWF has outlined the following three funding priorities to delineate what restoration goals are emphasized for GEBF projects in Florida: ........ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ......................... I'M Restore and maintain the ecological functions of landscape-scale coastal habitats and ensure Geographic their viability and resilience against existing and future threats; (2)Restore and maintain the Limitations ecological integrity of priority coastal bays and estuaries;and (3) Replenish and protect living resources, including oysters, red snapper,and other reef fish; Gulf Coast bird populations;sea turtles;and marine mammals" ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. The GEBF Restoration Strategy will concentrate projects in the Panhandle and Big Bend regions of Funding Cycle Florida, stretching from Escambia county to Levy county.The rest of Florida's peninsular counties and offshore projects are restricted to migratory living resources. ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. Process to Link to There is no deadline for submissions. Project proposals for each funding cycles are expected to be SEP reviewed in the spring of each funding year. ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. ............ ............ ............. Projects are first submitted through the project portal, common to NRDA, RESTORE Pot 2,and GEBF on FDEP's website.They are then screened by FWC and FDEP Projects are considered for inclusion in Florida's GEBF Restoration Strategy, which will be a planning tool for the remaining GEBF investments in Florida,to be finalized in 2018. Selected project proposals are recommended to NFWF who will then award grants to successful proposals. It should be noted that each of these three funding sources have different legal bases, administrative processes, and funding cycles, making it infeasible to determine set amounts of leveraged funds for each project at the time of SEP approval. MATCHMAKING SIE=.P PROJECTS WITH I....IE=.VIE RAGIE=D FUNDING SOURCES As part of the SEP development process, the SEP consultant conducted an in-depth inventory, evaluation and assessment of more than 175 funding sources to maximize the potential funding available to the member counties of the Gulf Consortium. Summaries of these other grant sources were compiled into a standalone document entitled Potential Leveraged Funding Sources for State Expenditure Plan Projects. In addition, the other grant sources inventory was provided to the Consortium and member counties as a searchable electronic database that uses keywords to match projects to potential leveraged funding source. Each of these grant programs have unique eligibility, application,and reporting requirements, as well as different funding cycles, that must be considered when applied as leveraging toward Spill Impact Component funds. The section of the budget table titled "Potential Leveraged Funding Sources" lists additional competitive funding sources that could increase the overall scope, extent, magnitude, and positive impacts of the particular project or program.These are funding sources that have been identified as potential matching funds as they are consistent with the objectives of the particular RESTORE Act eligible activities and are applicable to the projects.These potential - 111 funding opportunities will have to be separately applied for through either a competitive grant process, a cooperative agreement, a direct allocation, or some other funding mechanism. I'E%%JIIII���I 487 4752 SECTION VL |DOpUeDOe0t@tQ0 LIEVIERAGIED FUNDING COMMITMENTS In the process of developing the Florida SEP the SEPconsultant met with key representatives from the FDEP FVVC and applicable Florida VVMDs. During these meetings, the SEP consultant presented and discussed the projects proposed by the 23 member counties for inclusion in the SEP These representatives indicated that there was a great deal of synergy and leveraging potential between SEP projects and project priorities identified through the NRDA and GEBF planning processes, and that the total value of the SEP could be significantly increased. However, they also indicated that it was not possible to formally commit to specific leveraged funding amounts for specific projects until such funding sources were secured through their respective administrative processes.Therefore, the timing of matching SEP projects to specific leveraged funding sources cannot be predicted at this time, and this process will need to evolve over the implementation period. It is anticipated that leveraging will be applied at the project grant level during SEP implementation.The Consortium, as the entity responsible for the implementation of the Florida SEP will coordinate with and assist the individual counties in the preparation of project grants.Although it is anticipated that individual member counties may independently seek leveraged funding, a coordinated and centralized approach to leveraging could play a critical role in both filling project budget gnpa, and in cost-effectively phasing projects over the payout period.This is an important consideration given the wide range of project readiness across the proposed suite ofSEP projects, necessitating flexibility in project implementation to accommodate potential scope and budget changes, or the reprioritization of entire county project lists. Given the duration of the 15-yearpuyout period, and the associated uncertainties, it is likely that the Consortium will need to amend the Florida SEP several times. Maintaining coordinated approach to leveraging will ensure that the maximum value of the SEP is attained over the payout period. The Consortium will continue to communicate and collaborate with the FIDEP FVVC, the VVMDs, and other applicable agencies to analyze the timing of funding cycles and the implementation schedule of SEP projects to optimize these synergies. In addition,the Consortium will seek to partner with other state agencies where collaborative opportunities make sense.These include the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, and Triumph Gulf Coast, Inc., especially with regard to economic development and infrastructure projects. In addition, Consortium will seek to coordinate with relevant non-governmental organizations such asThe Nature Conservancy and theTrust for Public Lands.These NGOs in particular could assist in the land acquisition components of SEP projects prior to Spill Impact Component funds being available to secure priority parcels before they are lost to other buyers. COMMITTED COUNTY FUNDING Although this State Expenditure Plan is concerned with Florida's Spill Impact Component allocation, many of the Consortium member counties are committing portions of their Direct Component funding, as well as other grants and county funding, to cover the costs of their proposed projects and programs. Funding proposed by the Con*ortiummembercountiesfortheirSEPpnojectsundpmgmmscunbetbechumcterizedus ^committed^ funding. By inclusion in the Florida SEP each Consortium member county is pledging their commitment to dedicate thenecessmryne*ourcestoundertaketheirnyspectivepnojectsundpmgmms.According|ytheterm ^committed^ means that there is reasonable likelihood that funding sources indicated in the project and program budget information will be available if and when itisneeded. It should also be noted that many ofthe projects and programs proposed in the Florida 8EP have significant budget shortfalls for which additional funding will be needed for full implementation. In most cases, leveraged funding has been targeted to fill budget gaps. Spill Impact Component funds can be used as matching funds for other federal 488 4753 State of Florida State Expenditure Plan and state grant programs,with some exceptions, but the Council can only issue a grant to the Consortium where sufficient documentation of other secured funding sources and amounts needed to implement a project is provided as part of grant application.Therefore, many member counties will be seeking leveraged funding concurrent with the project grant applications process. For those projects and programs for which significant budget shortfalls cannot be closed through leveraging, implementation will need to be appropriately scaled down to match the available funding level.An example of a "scalable" project/program would be a septic to sewer conversion where the total linear feet of new sewer line, and the number of septic tanks taken off line, would be scaled appropriately to the available funding. If greater leveraged funding becomes available later,then the extent of the project could be scaled up accordingly. v aV/` , �i/ ///i /� �,,W JA 1 f 489 4754 SEP Application Document—template: Gulf Consortium General Information Organization: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Project Title: Monroe County-Canal Restoration Projects-Big Pine Key Avenues(Canals 293, 295,297,299, 300,and 315) Abstract: The Monroe County Canal Water Quality Restoration Program was 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 nearshore waters. The program evaluates, constructs, and implements canal restoration technologies to improve canal water quality throughout the Florida Keys in order to restore and preserve the marine environment of the Florida Keys that supports unparalleled biodiversity and an annual$1.3 billion tourism industry. In November 2020, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity(DEO)included a new Work Plan for Canal Restoration implementation. The Work Plan sets forth a definitive timeline for canal restoration with essential milestones for the completion of the program within the next 10 years. The County has taken action to create a Canal Restoration List containing 96 projects estimated to cost $538 Million to implement,ranging from$200,000 to$50 million/project. The County is working on the design,permitting and procurement and is requesting$12,650,000 for the construction, oversight, and post effectiveness of six canal restoration projects(Canals 293, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 315) within the Big Pine Key area of the Avenues which represents some of the worst water quality throughout the Florida Keys. Its this a construction proJect?;: Yes I111iriinnary Ef i iiHe Activity. Select 1 of the following as the primary eligible activity(should match the SEP): 1) Restoration and protection of the natural resources, ecosystems,fisheries,marine and wildlife habitats,beaches, and coastal wetlands of the Gulf Coast region 4755 2) Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, and natural resources 3) Implementation of a federally-approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plan, including fisheries monitoring 4) Workforce development and job creation 5) Improvements to or on State parks located in coastal areas affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 6) Infrastructure projects benefiting the economy or ecological resources,including port infrastructure 7) Coastal flood protection and related infrastructure 8) Planning assistance 9) Administrative costs of complying with the RESTORE Act 10) Promotion of tourism in the Gulf Coast region, including recreational fishing 11) Promotion of the consumption of seafood harvested from the Gulf Coast region Project Fairs-flan (years): years Requested Funding Anniount- 12, 0,000 oII Project Start Date: September 1,2024 Project End Date: September 1,2028 Primary Comprehensive Plan Goal: Select from the following(should align with SEP) 1. Restore and Conserve Habitat:Restore and conserve the health, diversity, and resilience of key coastal, estuarine, and marine habitats. 2. Restore Water Quality and Quantity:Restore and protect the water quality and quantity of the Gulf Coast region's fresh, estuarine, and marine waters. 3. Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources:Restore and protect healthy, diverse, and sustainable living coastal and marine resources. 4. Enhance Community Resilience:Build upon and sustain communities with capacity to adapt to short-and long-term changes. 5. Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy:Enhance the sustainability and resiliency of the Gulf economy. Primary Comprehensive Plan Objective: Select from the following(should align with SEP) 4756 1. Restore, Enhance, and Protect Habitats:Restore, enhance, and protect the extent, functionality,resiliency, and sustainability of coastal,freshwater, estuarine, wildlife, and marine habitats. These include barrier islands,beaches, dunes, coastal wetlands, coastal forests,pine savannahs, coastal prairies,submerged aquatic vegetation, oyster reefs, and shallow and deepwater corals. 2. Restore, Improve, and Protect Water Resources:Restore,improve, and protect the Gulf Coast region's fresh, estuarine, and marine water resources by reducing or treating nutrient and pollutant loading;and improving the management of freshwater flows, discharges to, and withdrawals from critical systems. 3. Protect and Restore Living Coastal and Marine Resources:Restore and protect healthy, diverse, and sustainable living coastal and marine resources including finfish,shellfish,birds, mammals,reptiles, coral, and deep benthic communities. 4. Restore and Enhance Natural Processes and Shorelines:Restore and enhance ecosystem resilience,sustainability, and natural defenses through the restoration of natural coastal, estuarine, and riverine processes, and/or the restoration of natural shorelines. 5. Promote Community Resilience:Build and sustain Gulf Coast communities'capacity to adapt to short-and long-term natural and man-made hazards,particularly increased flood risks associated with sea-level rise and environmental stressors. Promote ecosystem restoration that enhances community resilience through the re-establishment of non-structural,natural buffers against storms and flooding. 6. Promote Natural Resource Stewardship and Environmental Education:Promote and enhance natural resource stewardship efforts that include formal and informal educational opportunities,professional development and training, communication, and other actions for all ages. 7. Improve Science-Based Decision-Making Processes:Improve science-based decision-making processes used by the Council. 8. Restore, Diversify, and Revitalize the Gulf Economy with Economic and Environmental Restoration Projects(Consortium-defined objective) Secondary Comprehensive Plan Objectives: optional Secondary Comprehensive Plan Goals: optional Planning Framework Restoration Technique(s): To be completed by Gulf Consortium Location The County is working on the design, permitting, and procurement for the construction of six canal restoration projects(Canals 293,295,297,299,300,and 315)within the Big Pine Key area of the Avenues which represents some of the worst water quality throughout the Florida Keys. Big Pine Key is in Monroe County and is about 100 miles south of Miami and 30 miles north of Key West. 4757 Narratives airs d Over ew: The Monroe County Canal Water Quality Restoration Program was 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 nearshore waters. The program evaluates,constructs and implements canal restoration technologies to improve canal water quality throughout the Florida Keys in order to restore and preserve the marine environment of the Florida Keys that supports unparalleled biodiversity and an annual $1.3 billion tourism industry. Keys'tourism is a strong economic engine for both the local and state economies, and it relies almost entirely on clean waters. The restoration of water quality in Monroe County's residential canals is a complex and costly venture that requires long-term commitments from participating entities.Through the development of the program, 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. 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: • Culvert • Air Curtain • Organic Removal • Backfill The CMMP selected technologies, above,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. 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. Based on data collected during the limited monitoring period, FIU made the following conclusions about the organic removal and backfilling technology(s): • Organic removal: The removal of organic material from the canal bottom showed immediate and drastic improvements in environmental conditions, though observations suggest further 4758 steps may need to be taken to preserve the conditions that this technology quickly generated. • Backfilling: This technique resulted in an immediate change in the canal's water quality by significantly improving the water column's DO content. 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; • 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; Using these results from the Demonstration Program along with water quality data from the CMMP the County is moving forward with organic muck removal,backfill,and air curtain restoration projects at Canals 293,295,297,299, 300 and 315. In November 2020,the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity(DEO)amended Chapter 28-20 Land Planning Regulations for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern in Monroe County to include a new Work Plan for Canal Restoration implementation.The Work Plan sets forth a definitive timeline for canal restoration with essential milestones for the completion of the program within the next 10 years.The County has taken action to create a Canal Restoration List containing 96 projects estimated to cost$538 Million to implement, ranging from $200,000 to$50 million/project. The County is working on the design, permitting and procurement and is requesting$12,650,000 for the construction, oversight, and post monitoring effectiveness of six canal restoration projects (Canals 293, 295, 297, 299, 300 and 315) within the big pine key area of the Avenues which represents some of the worst water quality throughout the Florida Keys. These projects will restore canal water quality, and protect healthy,diverse, and sustainable living for coastal and marine resources. Additionally clean water will restore and conserve the health, diversity,and resilience of key coastal,estuarine, and marine habitats,as well as restoring and revitalizing the Gulf Economy. Right now,the canals waters have poor circulation,weed wrack loading,organic sediment accumulation,and excessive depths. The restoration work aims to improve the oxygen level, remove accumulated organics from within the canals,and add physical barriers to minimize additional organic accumulation in these areas. These technologies will improve the water quality in canals. The anticipated project start date is September 2024. It will take a 3 year to construct the projects and post-monitoring and maintenance will take place an additional year after construction has ended. The entire project is estimated at 4 years. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program partners with both the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Protection Agency Region4. (E. .!:::u:. .P'..i,.s......(:..q.!::.!.:b.. .!.:r:. ..!:.:.!...P.°..q..!:.:;..). 4759 Methods: The canal screening and ranking process was broken down into two categories: 1) Canal Water Quality Ranking ➢ 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. ➢ 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. ➢ 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. ➢ 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 noncompliant 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. ➢ Potential Nearshore Impact: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. 2) Canal Technology Ranking 4760 ➢ Restoration Technology: Scoring is based on the potential to implement a proven technology that is capable of complete canal water quality restoration. Canals that are amenable to proven technologies, such as backfilling with or without organic removal, that are expected to provide complete restoration were given a score of 5. Canals that are only amenable to alternative technologies, such as capping, but are expected to achieve complete restoration were given a score of 3,and canals that are only expected to achieve partial restoration through the recommended technology received a score of 0. ➢ Implementation Costs:The availability of funding to complete a restoration is a significant constraint and as such excessively expensive (>$5M) 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. ➢ 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. ➢ Potential Resource Impacts: Monroe County being classified as a National Marine Sanctuary with protected coral, mangroves, and seagrass fields necessitated that any potential impact to these resources be considered when ranking a canal. Rankings ranged from -5 to 5 with canals that are expected to negatively impact resources greater than 7,500 sq.ft. receiving a score of-5 and canals expected to have no impact to resources receiving a score of 5. Each of these criteria were assigned a score with a weighting factor to help prioritize the parameters which have the largest influence on water quality degradation. Below are the summary results for the selected canals for this project: Canal Name Water Quality Summary Water Quality Ranking Conceptual Construction Cost 293 Poor #15 of 96 $2.0 Million 295 Fair #7 of 96 $1.3 Million 297 Poor #9 of 96 $1.5 Million 299 Poor #13 of 96 $2.0 Million 300 Fair #6 of 96 $1.7 Million 315 Poor #4 of 96 $1.7 Million Total $11.5 Million 4761 The County is working on the following tasks for the design, permitting, and procurement for Canals Canals 293,295,297,299,300 and 315: • Data Collection—Topographic and Bathymetric Survey, Ecological Assessment and Engineering Evaluations • Design—Plans,Technical Specifications,and Cost Estimates • Permitting—South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary(FKNMS) and Monroe County permits • Procurement—Request for Proposal package, evaluation of bidders and selection of Contractor. The RESTORE grant will include the following tasks: 1. Construction - Removal of organic mucks via hydraulic dredging/dewatering, backfilling of clean fill material using barge and excavator,and placement of seagrass barrier to prevent future loading within the canal system. All permit conditions will be met by Contractor during construction. 2. Construction Management—Full time inspector(s)will oversee the Contractor to ensure compliance with plans, permit and specifications. 3. Post Monitoring Effectiveness — The water quality measurements will consist of DO, temperature, pH, and conductivity. Water quality readings will be collected as a single grab sample. The Global Positioning System (GPS) location (i.e. latitude and longitude) of each sample location will be recorded,along with the date and time of sample collection.The water quality samples will be taken 3 hours prior to high tide and based on the following schedule: o Weekly samples prior to the beginning of operation (assume 2 months) o Daily samples three consecutive days prior to operation o Daily samples three consecutive days after o Weekly samples thereafter for the first month o Bi-weekly samples thereafter for two months o Monthly samples thereafter for six months itur ui°°uurm°m ui° III Illl inefurts— Canal Restoration Technologies focus on improving the canal water quality conditions related to lack of flushing and nutrient buildup resulting in reduced dissolved oxygen. Canals impact nearshore waters. Improving canals would also improve regional water quality by increasing diversity of both natural communities and benthic species that live in these waters.These technologies would also decrease pollution (nutrients)that are coming from some canals to nearshore waters.Additional benefits of canal technologies include the following: 4762 • Weed gates,air curtains or other physical barriers would minimize additional organic accumulation in the canals. • Culvert connections would facilitate flushing. • Backfilling would prevent occurrence of deep stagnant zones. • Capping would isolate existing organic bottom layer. UDC"tIrics: The following metrics will be used to evaluate project and program objectives: Metric Approach Technique Name Description Tracking the Metric HR011 Restore Restore Hydrologic Enter the number of miles of The activity completion hydrology natural restoration canals backfilled.Use the notes parameter(s)should include miles and salinity -Miles of field to provide the average width of canals backfilled.Activity natural regimes canals of the canals backfilled. completion parameters are not processes backfilled sufficient to support the goals/objectives of this technique. An activity completion parameter is not necessary if another selected parameter already captures the data collection activities needed to track the metric CO1002 Restore Restore Outreach/ Enter the expected number of The number of people reached and and Education/ stakeholders in attendance at and/or the number of reader revitalize revitalize Technical informational meetings, impressions should be used as a the Gulf the Gulf Assistance workshops,or events.Or,provide parameter in lieu of Activity economy economy -Number #of people who were directly completion.These parameters of people involved in outreach,training and may be able to support the goal reached or technical assistance activities Restore and revitalize the Gulf (this could be the number of economy. participants in a workshop, classes,webinar,townhall,event, listeners,etc.). CO1004 Restore Restore Outreach/ Enter the number of users An appropriate parameter for and and Education/ engaged in twitter,Facebook, tracking the metric should be used revitalize revitalize Technical blogs and other social media tools in lieu of activity completion.This the Gulf the Gulf Assistance used to disseminate information parameter may be able to support economy economy -Number about the project(include the the goal Restore and revitalize the of users type of social media tool and Gulf economy. engaged number and frequency of users). online Note the URL address for each site and the unique visitors or users only. 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. 4763 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. a bor tiiion 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. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program partners with both the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Environmental Protection Agency Region 4. (E. .!:::u:. .P°..i,.s....(: .q.!::.!.:b.. .!.:r:. .!::..!...P.°..q..!:.:F;..). (If additional information is needed, here is a link to Canal Advisory Committee Canal Rf,-� toi°au:on Advis.i C�srnrr�iu:u;c c �I�si°icl�rr��i°ir�c .......................................................................................................................................................y..........................................................................(.................................................................................................F,..). 1)tfllk�� llliii IIIII':niga eiiii io ni"t, Otrtr aClll°°i�, and E t.icaflon— 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. h.tt .,..../ .1. ...... -R,-� toi°�uon . .. ... .... . . v... S ........................................................................� 4764 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. 11 evera ling: N/A Complete environmental compliance word document template under Templates heading from here: /E. l..:..g.1,.l grIfat .:..gg:g grgLI.L::g .2l.jff . 1: de14llll° ...Rec',ogirit ,ed.III..uriii bes No I'Nbho ra hy: 1) "Canal Restoration I Monroe County, FL- Official Website." Www.monroecounty- Fl.gov,ww u ionroecou 2.3. 2) "Water Quality Protection Program."Floridakeys.noaa.gov, floridakeys.noaa.gov/wgpp/. 4765 � E ropy+ nw i VII�V Q�^V:A' i rr rl ° u�Aiar o�ua , f a Nr ,;g0i0 p811aa r xr a ik fry `'4�^vl7ia tiiJ� oar z r i r I rrr' , o� i m qm k a� r ��lw'119� � err k � I C,i vi I /i fry r�i r r r , orJ r �,rp f e ill 11 i I'j 1 I I 6�h t#1 � u wr i l� 1� i r r 1 l VII`°�V QwV�\i i P Legend Canals Source:Aerial Image;ESRI 2021;WSP 2023 N Big Pine Key Avenues (Canals 293, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 315) 0 300 600 1,200 Feet Monroe County - Canal Restoration Projects Drawn Date Miami DLA 9/29/2023 Florida ,, Figure Checked Date Project No. 7766 GWC 9/29/2023 Path:C:\Users\dustin.atwateAOne Drive-WSP 0365\Monroe County\Big Pine Grant\Monroe County-Canal Restoration Projects.mxd dustin.atwater Date Saved:9/29/2023 4:35:50 PM ti cfl ti ................................... ----- ............................... ----- ............................... ----- 0g'. cH ct O O O O O O O ct a> U ¢.i rl rl rl ct O ct ct ct U W bA ct 60 o ^60 r o 0ct o 60 ct cz p N c a o cz Ct 0 t ct Z ct o 0 0 0 0 H o •a. E E E E E E ° c cz ko •� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � I z H C% Q co (D ti d� N N ct •� U Cm Ct Cf) Ste" ct N N CIS bA ct � M U N O cz o o U N r N 01 cz ~ N � > O p CIS •-•+ N O N tb Z O N " CIS i~ U cz cz O U �' C CIS o O cz 6I1 a� im. U �. �. cz O ct4 Oa O cz p a, ct cn ® ® v�A p O N U ¢ U s ce cz U CIS U E U U O N o C ct '� O b�A N ct tb bA 0 4, ...........a cfl ti d� ..............................................................----- ----- ----- ----- -----............................... ---- ----- ---- ............................... o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p O p O O O O O O O O p O O O O p M bA bl9 bA bl9 rn yg rn bl9 rn bl9 bR 56 rA yg rfn 0 E-� ............................................................------ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ o' ~ � y � C. A z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z a ............................................................_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ 0 � H a ............................................................_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ ____ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ............................................................------ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____..............................------ _____ 0 U ............................................................_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ w � c .° 0 C. z 2 z 2 z 2 z 2 z 2 z 2 z 2 z ____ _____ _____ _____ C `� V � o � a � w ' p.. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 0 � � � 7t \ \ •� e � 7 � & o § o e ° � k \ ectc ® r § 2 % � § § ƒ ct \ o e It 2 .� •_ \ g � � .c = d & o ct \ k � o 0 2 7 � Ct o = \ r tb o ct o u § 7 0 � ' / k z m � t / � G . ' ti ti d� ............................................ ---- ............................ ---- ----- -----.............................------ ----- ----- ---- ............................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •� y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C�j .. ds ds ds ds ds ran dA r.6 dA r o Cq •°� cOH o, a o CG w 42 O 0 '.O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O O p O O O O O p O p O O O U p O O p O O O O O p O p O p O � p O O p O O O O O p O p O p O CC O O O � 0 0 � U 42 '0 zs o � E-� ............................................. ____ _____ ____ ____ ____ _____.............................. ____ ............................._____ vi N N N bA 4-a O O zs U � U o O � N z CA C�j to �Q to • C�j d s. a� to Z w Q q � � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � �A � �A � � �A � c � o \ / .................... ..................... u = \ / � / 2 � .................................. ...................... o � ± « \ ) / a 2 . \ 2 / j f � . . .. 2 \ ± � _ m � § \ � � / g � o Q : . _ § 0 � . M ti ti d' .................................... --------............................................. ------. ................................----- ----- -----............................. ---- ------ ct � O O O O O O O O O O O O y bl9 ran bl9 rfn C bl9 bl9 rfn 56 rfn ran ran ran r, � o o 0 0 ct tf) o �" ct to U N O O O V 1-0 '••� U 69 6'`? � O i-i cl)4-1 0 O a'1 cli cli U N � N �rj N "� 61 � N � U rn N U cli H M � ct a N c 4-1 cli � p c p i .................................... ..N ............................................. ______ U ct Id y s, U �, �, �, O 'U A � •� � � y d' y �, O � � an O � � � � 00 0 2 � t � © t / � Q •� o 7 t § g \ CIS u @ \ § � \ � C4--� 9 k % . \ § t � \ � g CIS z \ � \ / ? •� § o t • / •- � 2 u � � � u U = § ° © •- � 2 2 e / q 'e � � ) / cn � § 2 ° t N EI ❑ El Fl \ ® E CIS C LO ti ct ti d cz cz ( a� cz ° czcz Nctcz cz 0 cz ^� ct �, �• cz ¢ U �n cz cz o ((D cz z U ° cz 44 O C) N U N cz cz U� i~ U N c O 0 C) cz U O C) cz cz � � cz cz cn 4-1 IS., cz ° ID cz cn cz o OrU m N N cz N C3 C� W U -k4cz �- O � cz �- cz O U O cn —� " �U cz Cj U O cz Tj p r �• ¢ U N cz cn cz cn v �. cz-� U 0 U U cnN = ` ) 2 cn _ U cn cz p cncn cz CISN U N N U F' U ct tb cr cn °cz cz ° cz N �- bA N m [� �. �. r� °+ [� cz cfl ti ti d� � U O � � N N � U U � O ct N ct CIS c Cam• N U CIS � U bA bA C's a� ct ct CIS ® CIS a, O ct o CIS ct �. �. cn CIS CIS ct •ct o oc •� ct bA ct cz v' O CA —� CA O N cz ® D ¢ cz O U CIS V cz N � U N N C-�-G' � •� H cz ti ti ti d� ............................ ____ ______ ____ ----- _____ _____. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIS � o � N ............................ ____ ______ ____ ------ ____ ............................. ____ U � ____ ______ ____ _____— ____ ............................. ____ o U � O N N ct G� CIS Ct N ct Ca 4 H ce ct ' u O y O C's N Cli CIS o A c CIS C° o o 'e2 � Z co I- I- CIS d O i~ U CIS CIS CIS CIS bA � U O cn U U cn ¢a O U CIS U U U ® CIS U U O O U CIS Tj _ cC3CIS CIS CIS CIS El El El El El CIS w c'3 >, p CJ >' p c ti ti d N cn M o CIS ct U � CIS CIS OCt CIS O ® ® Cf) C cn 4- N cn . ® N = CIS u cn u N � N N �" C's Uj CIS N N ® N Cf)ct o ct CIS o N � N �' '� N •� =N N bA O ® C's CIS C's cn CIS en w Q �, 0 co ti t N i~ CIS ct H c-, ct c N b�A CIS CIS O CISCIS tp C a� ct ct ® ® CIS en .� N U ct ® C CIS 'ma 's' U � '�., �' � •� CIS Cj O o °? c°CIS o .-� CIScJ o O CIS CIS tb CIStb CIS o ® U N N c'j N N ~ O N C rrC's� T- oo I- .......................... ____ ............................. ____ ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ............................. ____ ____ _____ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c7 0 0 o c7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c7 0 0 o c7 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c7 0 0 o c7 0 o c o 0 o C ran r r r r r-n ��6 rA o � U 0 E-� .......................... ____ ............................. ____ ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ............................. ____ ____ _____ � O � V a .......................... ____ ............................. ____ ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ............................. ____ ____ _____ o � 0 E� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a W W W W ri�j W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ........................... .... ............................. ---- ���� ����� ����� ����� ���� ............................. ���� ---- ----- O 1..1 u a" ce W Z u W ~ N co ti d' CIS U N cn N C N N _CIS CIS CIS CIS N u N cn C O O N U N U O U cn U O can � O � � N � � N U � U U CIS �' U '0 �- N N � O M co I- ............................ ____ ............................. ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ............................ ____ ............................. ____ _____ _____ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p p O O O p �o bA bl9 ran bl9 bA bl9 ran 5A ran 5A bA bl9 r.6 5A bA yg bf3 bl9 ran � 0 E-� ............................ ____ ............................. ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ............................ ____ ............................. ____ _____ _____ a v� 0 H ............................ ____ ............................. ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ............................. ____ ____ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 z a� L7 dq co ti d� 00 a� CIS a� x 0 0 a� U O v� N O C Cam• O � O N bA N O O N N O � U U O N N O � N cn � O U � O cn �' CIS � can N � a+ CG O Cj O � N � LO co I- ....................................... ____ _____ _____ _____ ----- 0 0 � � � o � o bA o C's U Qn a� N bA N CA ct .sue. � `� o w L7 x a c's V a d bA s CIS �, aI U U ccnCIS U z `,-' Cj U °' o .- ... � U U U •r" N U S e ~ C/1 U U N A C cn .a., ct c4-4 4 N (D co I- C) �N 4� R cn U a� S U O tb tb U � � CIS t N N i~ N � N •® N O bA �" U tb ® ® CIS bA a� tb :~ CIS bA V1 V1 CIS U CIS U N i~ 4-4 CIS U i~ ti co I- .......................... ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ................................ O S -� O s o 6f3 c0 O U CIS ct O � o ct Ct � � ........................... ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ct V N ® N U O CIS U ct ct ce; N71 •� U U -- ct CIS g.- '=j U u CIS C's ® -- 0 F U ct a� p C O ° cn ct bA U N v N M ........................... ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ® M ® N Qn N O U 0 cn N cd CIS bA M "� N CIS _n U H z co co ti d� N N c � � N Nw ct CIS ct a, bA CIS ct CIS ct ct o U N � � •� N U ® C's ¢a s U �C 4— O Qa U C j U CIS O CISU N C's U cn +F �p m •�a, N � ,� V CIS •� O bA CIS N �. ® v c o 0) co I- .......................... ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ y bf3 5l6 ran 56 bA 5A ran 56 bA bl9 ran o � U 0 H v� .......................... ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ cn � U CIS y ® U a � Q A 0 O O O U O cn N cn N cn O U o •,�i C ----- CIS U yy� U U � N A CIS N 0 0 ti ........................... ---- c N ran � � U 0 � � N U � O � N � O N U o bA U � U � O bA ... y r Ct 0 C4 � � O C/1 bA N � o Z 0.0 Q W � o � CIS CIS U CIS O U N v� --w ° pp O i" Z � M ti d ...........................--------- --------- ----------.............................--------- --------- ----------.............................--------- ---------- ..........0...... O N O � 6f� d an w 0 U ........................... ____ ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ............................. ____ ____ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H o U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U � ap bA bq bA bq by bq bA bq bA bq bA bq bA bq w w U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U p a� U O � an an an an an an an an an an an � an an an � t U p I�'����� O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O c c � � U N ti d' ® CIS N N � U O U N � N C's a N N. CIS U •� N O � � U N � � N U a� C o a� a� C4--� cli � o C's a� CIS a� C en tb tb = ° ° 1401CIS .® CIStb ❑❑❑❑ O N U w CIS O Z � M CIS d' O N O N N bA N N N bA N O U bA O bA C" CIS N N � N � bA � O N tb O tb _O O O C', tb O � � v 14 N cn U N N rr9� I� > � — C3 C o ti 3 uU +� N _O U C cu cu O -0 (n on y O Q N H co N N N CL CL O E N N cu -0 onaU > mcu cu .L w O 4• -0 4V •L Q C C ± c -0co cuOL -0 cu cu 4L L > Q 3 -C u N O co CL O � > m i O CU cu W m u N O N u N E � L O N 4' N m N 4-- u U L N N L 4" L N O CU � CU N 4 4— -0 cu m C cu O 4- Z L u -0 O O CL N Qj O C CU E N -0 � N O L C N L L N N E cu N C N O ON cuO cuN u > cuCO -C 0) y C -C C — - CL a 4� u W N �O CL Q dA i -0 f0 CO on cu m C N yCU on Qj N N y 3 C .0 _3 cuN 4 J N N O C N L cu a- w V -0 C C m cu _CU m C m CL � N z -C y O cuO U L U U >` O O O u 0 i O O O - � co 4" :a- LL -0 LL L QJ +J 1 L 41 co C ` CU G cLo > coo >cu p a cu O +- O O L 4- - C dA O m C E 4- N N O C O a� o U a j co c � L U > N L c U cuN U N CL 0 �O > � N N cu cu (0 N M — N m N N 4- c,. � O � co C C COC N >, O N � N CU _ -C O 4J � 3 U L G QJ 4� C tw O E ro m O L o O O C -0 CL M � � -0 O N N > a N O O O > m m cu N 4 CLO O cu O N N C cu cuN C O > � m dA z m _ CU E C N 4J N E >, 4, 4' C�C " � cco a�i aci ago a� u c l7 4_' O C 4- L C u -C 0) M 3 O 4- > �O O OU -0 � M +J 0 +J -0 co N - co41 CL N U Z � 4- NO C N cu M C U 4-C M � i O > C co = O 0 0L cuL n M •O L (0 4� (0 U L N �CC O y N 3 L LCL o OA N O on 3 4y G y m -0N N cu cu CL w c VI N 4- onu ;a_, 0 0) m � N N u L -0 on6 C N N C O N '� L C cuO 3 > L m N M CL OU M on U (0 N N ate' N on 1-0tin U acu te- CL x C U L O O O N C dA (0 ,4; (0 C on N +O CL w•� dA N cu N (0 E IA O N N 3 C E O O m N N > co }C--, � U u N N CL u co a0D C H > Ou cu M O �i� N N d C u N ~ i L N M O u N Q N O CL C w 3 N = L CU Z Ntw -C � w > �+ O C CL Z O C X C Z u M = O E N �4+ S O U C N w N C N (0 C N N Z (0 N �= N C �' Z U (B -� N N 3 O V N E Q O cOn Lu N N d N c Q � � N Q 3 Z E N CO " H cu zH CL 0 N O cn c 3 U z H - O E cn C 3 C O N (B O co O O cc a; U Q o N p O O 4� U cLo cn �o N O N G N y V1 U -0 C C Q N O V1 (A (0 O O N 0 u N c0 .� .� N w N N � N D 4J C N c0 .� N CL C O co 3 +� _ UWC N u N U L N E CL O L U N N +J L N U C N N dA '+- L N N N +J i C N dA m m C- L co +� O m 0 �O � co co C L co +� 0 O O E N O N +J +J X N N O L +J 4J 4J X N N L Q cn cn w a a w ^ a = cLoon cn cn w a a w ^ a = tw o m C C 3 o ECML i a Q ii Q > N Q � U m - LO % E o E a � 2 a ƒ \ � co : \ \ } \ � , C 3 u / . \ Cl) / : t g _ § _ \ \ / / 2 c $ [ k j m k / \ % g / 7 & / / / \ \ : ; _ & _ \ e , 0 ± 0 \! / @ e -CO: \ a = � / < aj \ / � w / 0 / = y m / ± / . _ % y j ` ® \ LD \ j m 0 ( t { \ / \ \ \ ) j / \ ( ( s j § \ } } / ) \ § 2 § 3 § 7 � \ � 3 CA \ ? \ \ d o 0 E / / / m 7 0 ? 0 Lr \ k § J / 0 0 0 0 0 0 k aCL d d d ) § u » » m c (N � k k A E o gLU u CL m # # » t m & / / / % % \ \ \ z z z = y M u \ ® ° E c m E 2 j > t / \ ( CL c m J / \ \ a u \ / 5 0 > § / } z \ \ { / \ � = E a \ Mn2 ) ) t / / J ® ° 3 u u / \ \ r,4 m Piro)ect Project SLflrnirnairiies/LJinllks to Project Metiriio:s Project 1-Project Information Project name Monroe County-Canal Restoration Projects-Big Pine Key Avenues Canals 293 295 297 299 300 and 315 Agency overseeing the project Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Project phase Implementation CDP point of contact POC Rhonda Haag Phone 305-453-8774 Email I..laa _I:IPioricia@ yr o.ir,oeCOLarlt: -fl. OV Data steward Greg Corning Phone 314-920-8359 Email re c. rr it @Ws p.rwvn Expected data collection start date 9/1/2024 Expected data collection end date 9/1/2028 Short description of the project location construction,oversight and post effectivness of six canal restoration projects(Canals 293,295,297,299,300,and 315) Overall projectgoals and objectives Iwater quality improvement Specific goals and objectives of data collection improved dissolved oxygen concentrations to meet or exceed FDEP state standards of 42%saturation Observational Data Budget Estimated total budget for observational data collection and 1000000 reporting Estimated total budget for data management 150000 Locations in the application budget Task#2 Construction Management and Task#3 Post Monitoring Effectiveness Data Consistency and Compatibility List any consistent local or regional monitoring efforts, methods,or FDEP State Standards standards if applicable Describe potentially complementary datasets, Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan Database if known and applicable Adaptive Mana ement Describe the extent to which adaptive management will be used The data will help provide lessons learned for future canal restoration ro'ects and technology selection. Data Management Describe how data will be: Stored Local network and onedrive Archived Monroe County website Made available to the public and the Council Yes Will DOls be used? Yes Metrics Use the Approach and Technique menus to filter the list of metric options, or start typing the metric name to generate suggested auto fill text. You do not need to enter an approach or technique to select a metric. If an appropriate metric is not shown,you may enter a custom metric for consideration(if possible,please coordinate this with Council staff in advance). Invalidation warnings indicate that the metric, technique, and approach do not match,but may be ignored. Approach All(click to select one) Technique Metric 1 Restore hydrologic connectivity HR011-Hydrologic restoration-Miles of canals back filled 2 Restore and revitalize the Gulf economy C01002-Outreach/Education/Technical Assistance-Number of people reached 3 Sediment placement PRM008-Monitoring-Miles being monitored 4796 1 of 57 4 Click to select one 5 Click to select one 6 Click to select one 7 Click to select one 8 Click to select one 9 Click to select one 10 Click to select one Metric Instructions Consider the following instructions for the use of each metric as well as parameters appropriate for tracking metric progress(e.g.,Activity completio see the ODP Guidelines Appendix F.1.2.1 for details). Tin-Tn ntitnfit instructions displayed in a areen row. move your cursor to the left marain and double click the line beneath the row number. HR011-Hydrologic restoration-Miles of canals backfilled Enter the number of miles of canals backfilled. Use the notes field to The activity completion parameter(s) should include miles of provide the average width of the canals backfilled. canals backfilled. Activity completion parameters are not sufficient to support the goals/objectives of this technique. An activity completion parameter is not necessary if another selected parameter already captures the data collection activities needed C01002-Outreach/Education/Technical Assistance-Number of people reached Enter the expected number of stakeholders in attendance at The number of people reached and/or the number of reader informational meetings, workshops, or events. Or, provide # of impressions should be used as a parameter in lieu of Activity people who were directly involved in outreach, training and or completion. These parameters may be able to support the goal technical assistance activities (this could be the number of Restore and revitalize the Gulf economy. participants in a workshop, classes, webinar, townhall, event, PRM008-Monitoring-Miles being monitored Enter the number of miles monitored as a direct result of the project. [These instrucions may vary depending on technique--please This metric should only be used for monitoring intended to track select one above.] The activity completion parameter(s) should something other than the project's benefits (which should be include number of miles monitored. This parameter can be used monitored for all RESTORE-funded projects). This metric should be to support the objective Improve science-based decision-making selected for in-stream habitat restoration and shoreline restoration processes. It is important to also select any additional parameters projects. Please indicate the width of the area being monitored in the that may be needed to capture all observational data collected notes field. For beach nesting birds, includes linear length of beaches collected through monitoring (e.g., such a "Total nitrogen" for a or circumference of islands where suitable habitat has been water quality monitoring program). Success criteria for such confirmed. parameters may be considered not applicable'. Metric 1 Target HR011-Hydrologic restoration-Miles of canals backfilled 0.80 Metric specifics/notes Target notes Enter response =1tor rev�;wnse Parameter A Target Miles of restoration 0.80 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes As-built surveys showing the restored canals lifnterresponse 47 y7 2 of 57 Purpose Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�nter response li�nter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�nter response li�nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�nter response li�nter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�nter response ji�nter response • Data type 1 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 2 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response ji�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 3 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response Parameter B Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�nter response li�nter response Purpose li�nter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�nter response li�nter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�nter response li�nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action 4798 3 of 57 Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA QC • Data type 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e • Data Qfpe 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 3 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e Parameter C Target Earetoarvre io re e 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose fareWarvarv ,:ore e Methods Methodspecifics/notes Baseline data Reference control comparison Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA QC • Data type 1 units 4799 4&57 Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter D Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response 4800 5 of 57 POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e • Data Qlpe 3 Units i�nter response i�nter response Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e Parameter E Target l:aitoarvre io re e 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose fareWarvarv ,:ore e Methods Methodspecifics/notes Baseline data Reference control comparison Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA QC • Data type 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 2 Units 4t3U1 6 of 57 Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter F Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone 4802 7 of 57 i 6'pter res:pe6`pse i 6'pter res:pe6`pse POC email i:n erres:ponse • Data type 3 Units i',nter response i',nter response Frequency Duration i',nter response i',nter response Storage format GIS res resentation i,nter response i',nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum i,nter response i',nter response POC name POC phone i,nter response i',nter response POC email 1:n erres:ponse Metric 2 Target CO1002-Outreach/Education/Technical Assistance-Number of 0.99 people reached Metric specifics/notes Target notes Enter response =Iterres;�wnse Parameter A Target 1:areier response 0.99 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes i,nter response i',nter response Purpose inter response Methods Method s ecifics/notes i,6"p'te9"response i',nter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison i,6"p'te9"response i',nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action i,nter response i',nter response Schedule/timing Sample size i,nter response i',nter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC i,nter response i',nter response • Data type 1 Units i,nter response i',nter response Frequency Duration i,nter response i',nter response Storage format GIS res resentation i,nter response 1',Iter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum i,nter response i',nter response POC name POC phone i,nter response i',nter response POC email 1:n erres:ponse • Data type 2 Units i,nter response i',nter response Frequency Duration i,nter response i',nter response Storage format GIS res resentation i,nter response i',nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum 1n erreslponse 1n erreslponse 4803 8 of 57 POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter B Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units 4t3U4 9 of 57 Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter C Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone 4805 10 of 57 POC email i�llter response Parameter D Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter E Target li�llter response 4806 11 of 57 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�nter response li�nter response Purpose li�nter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�nter response li�nter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�nter response li�nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�nter response ji�nter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�nter response ji�nter response • Data type 1 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 2 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response ji�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 3 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response Parameter F Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�nter response li�nter response Purpose li�nter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�nter response li�nter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison 4807 12 of 57 i II ter re :polIse i II ter re :polIse Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action i nter response i nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size i nter response i nter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC i nter response i nter response • Data type 1 Units i nter response i nter response Frequency Duration i nter response i nter response Storage format GIS res resentation i nter response i nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum i nter response i nter response POC name POC phone i nter response i nter response POC email i:n erre :ponce • Data type 2 Units i nter response i nter response Frequency Duration i nter response i nter response Storage format GIS res resentation i nter response i nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum i nter response i nter response POC name POC phone i nter response i nter response POC email i:n erre :ponce • Data type 3 Units i nter response i nter response Frequency Duration i nter response i nter response Storage format GIS res resentation i nter response i nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum i nter response i nter response POC name POC phone i nter response i nter response POC email i:n erre :ponce Metric 3 Target PRM008-Monitoring-Miles being monitored 0.99 Metric specifics/notes Target notes Enter response =Iterrev;ense Parameter A Target i:n erre :ponce 0.99 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Natural Benthic Recruitment Meet or exceed FDEP State Standards for Dissolved Oxygen concentrations Purpose i:n erre :ponce Methods Methods ecifics/notes li�nter response li nter response 4808 13 of 57 Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�nter response li�nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�nter response li�nter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�nter response li�nter response • Data type 1 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 2 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response ji�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 3 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response Parameter B Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�nter response li�nter response Purpose li�nter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�nter response li�nter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�nter response li�nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�nter response li�nter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control(QA/QC) 4809 14 of 57 • Data type 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter C Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS respresentation 4810 15 of 57 Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response ji�llter response POC email PIlter response • Data type 2 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response • Data type 3 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response Parameter D Target PIlter response 0.99 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Purpose PIlter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Schedule/timing Sample size P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC P�Ilter response P�Ilter response • Data type 1 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email 4811 16 of 57 • Data Qlpe 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter relionse • Data Qlpe 3 Units i�nter response i�nter response Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter relionse Parameter E Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose Methods Methodspecifics/notes Baseline data Reference control comparison Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA QC • Data type 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email • Data Qlpe 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation 4812 17 of 57 Projection Horizontal and vertical datum POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response • Data type 3 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response Parameter F Target PIlter response 0.99 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Purpose PIlter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Schedule/timing Sample size P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC P�Ilter response P�Ilter response • Data type 1 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response • Data type 2 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response 4813 18 of 57 • Data type 3 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Metric 4 Target 0.99 Metric specifics/notes Target notes Enter response =Iter res��wllse Parameter A Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response IfIlter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum POC name POC phonli�llter response ji�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response 4814 19 of 57 • Data type 3 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response Parameter B Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�nter response li�nter response Purpose li�nter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�nter response li�nter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�nter response li�nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�nter response li�nter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�nter response li�nter response • Data type 1 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 2 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 3 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum 4815 20 of 57 POC name POC phone li�llter response ji�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter C Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response ppIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I 4816 21 of 57 Parameter D Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter E Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Method specifics/notes 4817 22 of 57 Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter F Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response 4818 23 of 57 Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�nter response li�nter response • Data type 1 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response ji�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 2 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response ji�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 3 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response Metric 5 Target 0.99 Metric specifics/notes Target notes Enter res��wnse Enter resi�wnse Parameter A Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�nter response li�nter response Purpose Methods Method s ecifics notes li�nter response IfIlter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�nter response IfIlter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Sample size 4t31 9 24 of 57 Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter B Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response 4820 25 of 57 Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter C Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email 4821 26 of 57 • Data type 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter D Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS respresentation 4822 27 of 57 Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e • Data e 3 Units i�nter response Enter m2mme Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e Parameter E Target l:aitoarvre io re e 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose fareWarvarv ,:ore e Methods Methodspecifics/notes Baseline data Reference control comparison Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA QC • Data type 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary relionse 4823 28 of 57 • Data type 3 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter F Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation 4t314 29 of 57 Projection Horizontal and vertical datum POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response Metric 6 Target 0.99 Metric specifics/notes Target notes Enter response =Iter res��wllse Parameter A Target PIlter response 0.99 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Purpose PIlter re :polls Methods Methodspecifics/notes P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Schedule/timing Sample size P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC P�Ilter response P�Ilter response • Data type 1 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response IfIlter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum POC name POC phonP�Ilter response ji�llter response POC email PIlter response • Data type 2 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response • Data type 3 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response IfIlter response 4825 30 of 57 Projection Horizontal and vertical datum POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response Parameter B Target PIlter response 0.99 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes P�Ilter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison P�Ilter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Schedule/timing Sample size P�Ilter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC P�Ilter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response • Data type 2 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response • Data type 3 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response 4826 31 of 57 i Parameter C Target Earetoarvre io re e 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose fareWarvarv ,:ore e Methods Methodspecifics/notes Baseline data Reference control comparison Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA/QC • Data Qlpe 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e • Data e 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 3 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e Parameter D Target Earetoarvre io re e 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose lEnter response 4827 32 of 57 Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�nter response li�nter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�nter response li�nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�nter response li�nter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�nter response li�nter response • Data type 1 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 2 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response ji�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 3 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response Parameter E Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�nter response li�nter response Purpose li�nter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�nter response li�nter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�nter response li�nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Sample size 4828 33 of 57 Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA Qli�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter F Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration 4829 34 of 57 Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Metric 7 Target 0.99 Metric specifics/notes Target notes Enter res��wllse Enter resi�wllse Parameter A Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose Methods Method s ecifics notes li�llter response IfIlter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response IfIlter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response IfIlter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration 4830 35 of 57 Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter B Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone 4t331 36 of 57 POC email Earetoarvre io re e • Data Qlpe 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e • Data Qlpe 3 Units i�nter response i�nter response Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e Parameter C Target Earetoarvre io re e 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose fareWarvarv ,:ore e Methods Methodspecifics/notes Baseline data Reference control comparison Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA QC • Data type 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 2 Units Frequency Duration 4832 37 of 57 Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter D Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email 4833 38 of 57 • Data type 3 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter E Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS respresentation 4834 39 of 57 Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response ji�llter response POC email PIlter response Parameter F Target PIlter response 0.99 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Purpose PIlter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Schedule/timing Sample size P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC P�Ilter response P�Ilter response • Data type 1 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response • Data type 2 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email PIlter response • Data type 3 Units P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Frequency Duration P�Ilter response P�Ilter response Storage format GIS res resentation P�Ilter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response P�Ilter response POC name POC phone P�Ilter response P�Ilter response POC email i�llter response 4835 40 of 57 i Metric 8 Target 0.99 Metric specifics/notes Target notes Enter response =Ite 9"9"e vi;w6'lr Parameter A Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response IfIlter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum POC name POC phonli�llter response ji�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum POC name POC phonli�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response IfIlter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response ji�llter response POC email i�llter response 4836 41 of 57 i Parameter B Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter C Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose 4837 42 of 57 Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter D Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response 4838 43 of 57 Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter E Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units 4t333 44 of 57 Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter F Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone 4840 45 of 57 POC email i�llter response • Data type 2 Units i�llter response i�llter response Frequency Duration i�llter response i�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Metric 9 Target 0.99 Metric specifics/notes Target notes Enter res��wllse Enter resi�wllse Parameter A Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose Methods Method s ecifics notes li�llter response IfIlter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response IfIlter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response IfIlter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone 4841 46 of 57 POC email i�llter response • Data type 2 Units i�llter response i�llter response Frequency Duration i�llter response i�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter B Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration 4842 47 of 57 Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e • Data Qlpe 3 Units i�nter response Enter m2mme Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e Parameter C Target Earetoarvre io re e 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose fareWarvarv ,:ore e Methods Methodspecifics/notes Baseline data Reference control comparison Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA QC • Data type 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone 4843 48 of 57 POC email i�llter response • Data type 3 Units i�llter response i�llter response Frequency Duration i�llter response i�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter D Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response 4844 49 of 57 Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter E Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response ji�llter response Baseline data Reference control comparison li�llter response ji�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response ji�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�llter response ji�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email 4845 50 of 57 Parameter F Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose ji�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Metric 10 Target 4846 51 of 57 Metric specifics/notes Target notes Enter resgonse Enter resgonse Parameter A Target Earetoarvre io re e 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose fareWarvarv ,:ore e Methods Methodspecifics/notes Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA/QC • Data Qlpe 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation IlDiter relionse IBM,response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data e 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 3 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation IlDiter relionse IBM,response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e Parameter B Target lDiter relionse 1 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes 4847 52 of 57 Purpose Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�nter response li�nter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�nter response li�nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�nter response li�nter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA QC li�nter response ji�nter response • Data type 1 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 2 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response ji�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response • Data type 3 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email li�nter response Parameter C Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�nter response li�nter response Purpose li�nter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�nter response li�nter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�nter response li�nter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action 4848 53 of 57 Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA QC • Data type 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e • Data e 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 3 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e Parameter D Target Earetoarvre io re e 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose fareWarvarv ,:ore e Methods Methodspecifics/notes Baseline data Reference control comparison Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA QC • Data type 1 Units 4849 54 of 57 Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 2 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response • Data type 3 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response li�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�llter response li�llter response POC name POC phone li�llter response li�llter response POC email li�llter response Parameter E Target Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes li�llter response li�llter response Purpose li�llter response Methods Methodspecifics/notes li�llter response li�llter response Baseline data Reference/control comparison li�llter response li�llter response Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�llter response li�llter response Schedule/timing Sample size li�llter response li�llter response Sample sites Quality assurance/quality control QA/QC li�llter response li�llter response • Data type 1 Units li�llter response li�llter response Frequency Duration li�llter response li�llter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�llter response ji�llter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum ji�llter response li�llter response 4850 55 of 57 POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 2 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e • Data Qlpe 3 Units i�nter response i�nter response Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Earetoary re io re e Parameter F Target l:aitoarvre io re e 019 Parameterspecifics/notes Target notes Purpose fareWarvarv ,:ore e Methods Methodspecifics/notes Baseline data Reference control comparison Statistical analyses/mathematical models Potential corrective action li�nter response li�nter response Schedule/timing Schedule/timing Sample size Sample sites QuaHtv assurance/quality control QA QC • Data type 1 Units Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone POC email Enter re io re e • Data Qlpe 2 Units 4t351 56 of 57 Frequency Duration Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email i:ntrrrresponse • Data type 3 Units li�nter response li�nter response Frequency Duration li�nter response li�nter response Storage format GIS res resentation li�nter response li�nter response Projection Horizontal and vertical datum li�nter response li�nter response POC name POC phone li�nter response li�nter response POC email i:ntrrrresponse Summary Name Specifics/Notes (Project II-Il oniroe County-Canall IRestoiratiion Projects-Big IFliine IKey Avenues(Canalls 293,2 5�2 7�2 �300,and 31 s) Metriic.l - HRO..I...I.- Hydrollo ,ic restoraborro- Wes of canals Ibackfilllled Parameter A\-(files of restoration As..Ilaraullt srauveys sllrowling the aestoued ranallls Metriic 2-Q:U002-OUtireaclh/isdUcaborro/ Ifeo:hrroiio::all Aasaaiistarroo:e- NUrnbeir of Ipeolplle readhed Metric 3-PfllM008-(Monitoring-(files being monitored 4852 57 of 57