1. Monroe County BOCC Special Meeting on Canals November 14, 2016
Introduction to why we are here

2. Discussion and direction for the County’s Canal Restoration Program
INTRODUCTION
Discussion and direction for the County’s Canal Restoration Program
Determine if and how to proceed with a plan to restore 300 impaired canals in Monroe County, of which 229 reside in unincorporated Monroe County, and
How to finance the various costs of implementing such a program.

3. Highlights of Canal BOCC Meeting Held April 11, 2016
Go to DEP Presentation

4. SUMMARY OF $7 MILLION DEMONSTRATION BUDGET
Projects
Committed
In Process
Design/Permit, Homeowner Approvals, Construction Inspections
$ 1,271,787
#29 Backfilling Project – Sexton Cove, Key Largo
$ 1,360,000
#472 Culvert Installation – Geiger Mobile Homes, Geiger Key
(plus $100,000 additional paid by DEP)
$ ,000
#266 and #290 Organic Removal – Drs. Arm & Ave J, Big Pine
$ 1,901,804
#277 Culvert Installation – Tropical Bay, Big Pine Key (BPK)
(plus $50,000 additional paid by DEP)
$ ,957
#266 & #287 Air Curtains w/2 years O&M – Drs. Arm & Atlantic Estates, BPK
$ ,084
Monroe County Permitting Fees
$ 33,445
Organic Removal/Backfilling/Air Curtain/O&M – Rock Harbor, KL
$1,559,040
#290 Air Curtain – Ave J, Big Pine Key
(plus $50,000 additional to be paid by DEP)
$ 50,000
Master Plan Additional Assessment (plus $110,582 from EPA grant)
$ 17,029
Canal Funding Mechanism Development
$ 5,000
$5,365,078
$1,631,069
TOTAL COMMITTED AND IN PROCESS: $6,996, BUDGET REMAINING: $3,853

5. Go to FIU Presentation

6. Indicators of Success of the Demonstration Projects
CULVERTS
The natural tidal flow immediately improved water clarity and increased fish populations
Geiger Key #472 Before Culvert
Geiger Key #472 After Culvert Installation
Photos provided by FIU

7. Indicators of Success of the Demonstration Projects (continued)
BACKFILLING
Return of sea life, revegetation of canal bottom
Homeowner Quotes From Key Largo Backfilling Project:
a. “The canal is coming alive! We’ve been seeing mullet, snapper, jacks, barracuda, manatees over the past month. Today another milestone; I heard a commotion in the canal and looked out to see a school of snapper chasing a shrimp. The shrimp was jumping for all it’s worth trying to get away. After four jumps a snapper finally ate it. Then a few minutes later I saw two more shrimp jumping out of the water trying to avoid the snapper. All this happened in broad daylight about noon.”
b. “Today I snorkeled in the canal, and am happy to report that I could see the bottom, all over!! AND – fish. All sizes of snapper. Schools of finger mullet. Barracuda.“
c. “We have noticed lots of fish, big and small in our canal. The Manatees seem to like the more shallow water, 6 of them show up just about every day:”
Canal #29 Before Backfilling
Canal #29 After Backfilling
Photos provided by FIU

8. Indicators of Success of the Demonstration Projects (continued)
ORGANIC REMOVAL AND AIR CURTAINS
Immediate improvement in elimination of hydrogen
sulfide odor and improved water clarity
Significant reduction in seaweed entrapment in canal
Removal of years of accumulated organic muck / trash
Homeowner Quotes From Doctors Arm Big Pine Key Organic Removal Project:
a. “We could not be more pleased with the results of the project. The canal, which was rated as one of the worst in the Keys, is now clean and has a new sand bottom which will encourage marine life growth and habitation. The canal cleaning results have been excellent, and restoration work on my lot was performed as promised.”
b. “As owners of property on this canal since 1985, we are pleased to observe and report the significant improvement in both the water quality and quality of life that have occurred as a result of the completion of this project. I’m here to report, from someone who lives on this canal, that it worked, and it worked well. The air is no longer fouled with gasses from the canal, and we were able to sit outside, breath clearly, and even watch fish swim.”
Before
After #266

9. Benefits to Residents from the Canal Restoration Program
Tourist Economy
Tourists want clean water for their rental housing
Want to use nearshore waters for water sports
Home Values
Poor water quality negatively affects home values
Some homes in Big Pine could not be rented or sold due
to foul odor of canals
Health
Canals that don’t flush and have rotting seaweed may contain bacteria, viruses and noxious hydrogen sulfide and methane gases
Environment and Recreation
Non-impaired “good” canals can be used for recreation
Fishable and swimmable and enjoyable

10. Clean Water is Critical to the Economy of the Florida Keys
The coral reef tract in the Florida Keys is the third largest barrier reef in the world, and the only living barrier reef adjacent to continental US
More than two million individuals per year visit the Florida Keys to enjoy water related activities, including snorkeling, diving, and fishing
These water related activities support 70% of tourism in the Florida Keys
The Florida Keys reef environment generates more than 70,000 jobs and $6 billion dollars in economic activity annually

11. Clean Water is Critical to the Economy of the Florida Keys (continued)
The Keys are considered the “fishing capital of the world,” generating hundreds of world records and billions of dollars of economic impact
Coral reef areas and seagrass beds provide critical nursery and feeding habitat for many commercially and recreationally valuable fish and shellfish species, such as grouper, snapper, stone crab, and spiny lobster
Coral reef and seagrass health is directly linked to near shore marine water quality. Both corals and seagrasses thrive in areas where water is clear, low in nutrients, and high in dissolved oxygen
Last slide in Section 1

12. Why Restoration is Needed
2/3 of the canals have either “Poor” or “Fair” Water Quality
Upper Keys – accumulated seaweed
Middle Keys – trapped seaweed
It can be clearly seen that water quality in many canals is poor. … Notice all of the brown colors, cloudy water, seaweed covered water, etc.
Dead end finger canals accumulate seaweed and other flotsam that become trapped and ultimately decay impacting water quality. This is a problem throughout the Keys. The photo on the top left was taken in the Upper Keys. The photo on the top right was take in the Middle Keys.
Accumulation of seaweed in many Keys canals causes water quality impairments such as anoxic conditions and low visibility. Additionally, methane and hydrogen sulfide gases are released during decomposition.
The photo on the lower right shows canal water quality impacted by seaweed and lack of flushing.
Summerland– trapped seaweed
Lack of flushing

13. Benefits of Restoration – Good Water Quality Canals
Currently only 1/3 of the canals have “Good” Water Quality
Key Colony Beach
Duck Key
These are examples of canals with good water quality…. KCB has ALL GOOD water quality canals. The rest of these are all rated GOOD also. They are really beautiful and what we think about when we think of good canals in the Keys… It’s what we want all 502 of our canals to be like. Unfortunately they don’t all look like this.
Conch Key
Sugar Loaf
Key Haven

14. Demonstration Projects Funding Needs
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) for Demonstration Projects
$86,960/year for the initial 7 projects
Program Management Annual Costs:
Engineering services to continue master program planning efforts, provide match for program and project grants. $350,000
Program Administration $100,000
Homeowner and Community Outreach $30,000
Water quality and benthic effectiveness monitoring of existing restorations for water quality and sea life. $100,000 - $300,000 will increase with more projects. Current EPA monitoring grant funds expire next year.
Construction and testing of new or alternative technologies that may reduce the costs of restoration $30,000 - $350,000
Some Number of New Construction Projects so that Reasonable Assurance requirements can be met and TMDL avoided
May include new projects potentially funded by homeowners, grant match, Stewardship, RESTORE ACT, and /or other sources (amount to be determined)

15. Map of the Initial 7 Canal Restoration Demonstration Projects

16. O&M Costs for Demonstration Projects
Canal ID
13-58 privately owned parcels per canal
Restoration Technology
Estimated Annual Costs for 10 Years*
Air Curtain
Organic Removal
Culvert
Back-fill
Culvert Cleanout
Air Curtain O&M
29 Sexton Cove Key Largo X
83 Rock Harbor Key Largo
$20,840
266 Doctors Arm Big Pine
277 Tropical Bay Big Pine
$1,800
287 Atlantic Estates Big Pine
290 The Avenues Big Pine
472 Geiger Key Mobile Home
Total Annual Estimated O&M Costs for Initial 7 Demonstration Projects: $86,960
* Based upon estimated activities for 10 years. Annual electric $6,000, $10,500 annual 6 maintenance visits, plus $4,340 annualized equipment replacement. Costs based upon current demonstration contract rates and should be able to be reduced with economies of scale. Costs do not include administrative costs or effectiveness monitoring. New projects for Year 1 O&M will also incur additional maintenance of $7,000 per year.

17. Comparison of Capital vs O&M Costs for the Demonstration Projects
Technology
Capital Cost
Estimated Annual O&M Cost*
29 Sexton Cove Key Largo Backfilling
$1,300,000 $0
83 Rock Harbor Key Largo Combination Air Curtain/Organic Removal/Backfilling (new)
$1,500,000
$20,840
266 Doctors Arm Big Pine (BPK) Air Curtain and Organic Removal
277 Tropical Bay Estates BPK Culvert
$424,000
$1,800
287 Atlantic Estates BPK Air Curtain
$101,000
290 The Avenues Big Pine Air Curtain and Organic Removal
$800,640
472 Geiger Key Mobile Homes Culvert
$199,000
Total Annual Cost Year 3-10 for Initial 7 Demonstration Projects: $ 86,960
* Based upon estimated activities for 10 years including air curtain equipment replacement. Annual electric $6,000, $10,500 annual 6 maintenance visits, $4,340 annualized equipment replacement. Costs based upon current demonstration contract rates and should be able to be reduced. Costs do not include administrative costs or effectiveness monitoring. New projects for Year 1 O&M will also incur additional maintenance of $7,000/year.

18. Potential Future Capital Costs for
Canal Restorations
Unincorporated Monroe County has 107 Poor Water Quality and 122 Fair Water Quality canals (total of 229 impaired canals) that may require some form of restoration

19. Factors Affecting Future Canal Restoration Costs
How the program is implemented – economies of scale will lower cost (multiple projects at one time, group by technique and area)
Collection of additional site assessment data
More coring data may reduce estimates for organic thickness
New 2013 DEP Dissolved Oxygen standard and additional Reasonable Assurance assessment may change # of impaired canals
Regulatory Mandates
Current Comp Plan requires backfilling after every organic removal
Demonstration Project Effectiveness
Determine which technologies are most effective
Determine if combination technologies are needed
New Alternative Technologies – may significantly reduce costs
Ability to permit
Operations and Maintenance costs – may reduce with economies of scale

20. Options for the Future of the Canal Restoration Program
Stop the canal restoration program, close out all projects
No O&M to be provided to existing projects
Fund only the O&M of the existing demonstration projects
Continue forward with program planning and alternative technology evaluation and matching funds for grants and RESTORE and creation of an MSTU to fund $1 million annually
Continue with some new restorations to be funded by the RESTORE and Stewardship Acts, grants and/or homeowner funds. Less opportunity for economies of scale.
Continue Master planning for the entire canal restoration program to develop more accurate costs and an implementation plan. Good opportunity for economies of scale.

21. Canal Water Quality Tied to Quality of Life in the Florida Keys

22. Canal Restoration Program QUESTIONS and Staff RECOMMENDATIONS
Shall Monroe County continue with the canal restoration program?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has developed a conservative, incremental approach for moving forward with the restoration program.

23. Canal Restoration Program QUESTIONS and Staff RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Shall the Operations and Maintenance costs for the existing completed demonstration projects be funded by an MSBU?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has provided a Resolution for approval directing staff to set up an MSBU and collect special assessments for the O&M costs of the completed demonstration projects.

24. Canal Restoration Program QUESTIONS and Staff RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Shall Monroe County use FY17 Stewardship funds in the amount of $1.5 Million for the canal restoration program?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has provided a Resolution for approval directing that the FY17 Stewardship funds be used for the canal restoration program.

25. Canal Restoration Program QUESTIONS and Staff RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Shall Monroe County use the RESTORE funds for the canal restoration program?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has provided a Resolution for approval directing that the RESTORE funds be used for the canal restoration program.

26. Canal Restoration Program QUESTIONS and Staff RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Shall Monroe County staff move forward with the 6 new demonstration projects (4 in-situ aeration, 1 backfill, and the C83 combination) at an estimated cost of $2 Million, using Stewardship and RESTORE funds?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has presented a Resolution for approval directing staff to move forward with the 6 projects.

27. Canal Restoration Program QUESTIONS and Staff RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Shall Monroe County evaluate use of an MSTU to fund program management costs estimated at $1 Million annually to pay for master program planning, effectiveness monitoring, data collection, outreach, program administration, design of alternative technologies and design and construction of potential new restoration projects so that the FKRAD requirements can be met and a TMDL may be avoided?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Staff has presented a Resolution for approval directing staff to continue to research and evaluate moving forward with an MSTU for such purposes.

28. Canal Restoration Program QUESTIONS and Staff RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Shall Monroe County staff continue with program planning so that an evaluation can be further developed for a more accurate cost of the entire program, currently estimated at $300 Million - $700 Million, and to develop methods for overall cost savings, effective restoration technologies, more accurate site and technology data, and to continue to apply for grants to help pay for a portion of such costs?
Staff Recommendation: Approval. Additional research and data must be developed before a comprehensive program implementation plan and the associated costs of such a plan can be presented and funding methods identified or recommended.