The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 2017-183 RESOLUTION NO.2017- 18 3 A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, APPROVING THE COLLIER COUNTY MULTI-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY TO DRAW DOWN THE CURRENT YEAR'S AVAILABLE FUNDS(APPROXIMATELY$1.5 MILLION)FROM THE GULF COAST RESTORATION TRUST FUND FOR THE RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY, TOURIST OPPORTUNITIES AND REVIVED ECONOMIES OF THE GULF STATES ACT OF 2012 (RESTORE ACT)IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL. WHEREAS,the RESTORE Act makes funds available for the restoration and protection of the Gulf Coast Region of the United States with respect to the Gulf of Mexico,through a series of trust funds (Direct Components)established by the Department of the Treasury. WHEREAS, as a prerequisite under the RESTORE Act for requesting and receiving Direct Component funding for eligible activities,the County must submit a multi-year implementation plan to cover the period of time for available funding. WHEREAS, the County's Multi-Year Implementation Plan requests project development and permitting funds in the amount of approximately $1.5 million from available Pot 1 funds. Currently available funds have been collected from the FY2015-2016 and FY2016-2017. WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Commissioners finds that the County's Multi-Year Implementation Plan is in the public interest and benefits the citizens of Collier County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners approves the Collier County Multi- Year Implementation Plan; 2. Coastal Management staff is authorized to transmit a copy of this Resolution along with the Collier County Multi-Year Implementation Plan to the Department of the Treasury; 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second, and majority vote favoring same,this day offie, c (-- , 2017. ATTEST:ra�sc 3 ~p4 •: 0/ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.BROCK,Clem OF COLL 0 TY,FLORIDA t hh ti • � r lb By: - .' �` By: Attest as thairan's, Deputy ik ` PENNY ra OR, Ch:f'an A.1515' rilve 1'is'to form and legality�y VN)3) Jennifer A.Belpedio Assistant County Attorney 0.\ 2017 9/26/2017 Collier County RESTORE Multi-Year Implementation Plan Table of Contents Collier County RESTORE Multi-Year Implementation Plan ....................................................................... 1 Collier County Watershed Improvement Plan (Attachment 1) ..................................................................... 9 Local Agency and Municipality Letters of Support .................................................................................... 95 Agendas and Minutes…………………………………………………………………………………….145 Legal Advertisement……………………………………………………………………………..………216 RESTORE ACT Direct Component Multiyear Plan Narrative Department of the Treasury OMB Approval No. 1505-0250 Directions: Use this form for the Initial Multiyear Plan and any subsequent amendments to an accepted Multiyear Plan. For amendments, include only new and/or materially modified activities. Multiyear Plan Version (Initial or Amendment Number): Initial Date of Initial Multiyear Plan Acceptance: Date of Last Multiyear Plan Revision Acceptance: Eligible Applicant Name: Collier County/Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Comprehensive Multi-Year Implementation Plan Name and Contact Information of the Person to be contacted (POC) on matters concerning this Multiyear Implementation Plan: POC Name: Gary McAlpin POC Title: Manager, Collier County Coastal Zone Management POC Email: GaryMcAlpin@Colliergov.net POC Phone: (239)252-5342 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: 1. A description of each activity, including the need, purpose, objective(s), milestones and location. Include map showing the location of each activity. Project Description: The Collier County/Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Comprehensive Multi-Year Implementation Plan is a planning assistance project for project development and permitting of restoration projects identified in the Collier County's Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan (Attachment 1). Need: Approximately 70% of Collier County’s 2,300 sq. miles has been altered since the 1950's in order to accommodate coastal development. In addition to shoreline modifications, extensive canal construction for urban and agricultural drainage has changed the timing and quantity of freshwater inflows to coastal waters. These changes have dramatically affected water quality and quantity of many County estuaries. Prior to intense development, rainfall either infiltrated into the surficial aquifer or flowed through extensive wetlands into the coastal waters of the County. The project development and permitting of this project will be the first step in rehydrating and restoring at least a portion of the historical flows within the region helping to reestablish historical wetland hydroperiods to some degree. Purpose: The purpose or intent for the watershed improvements outlined below is to develop the conceptual design of the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvements Plan (CCCWIP) to a level that will allow the County to apply for the appropriate federal and state permit(s) and provide adequate site analysis to develop a preliminary design that is demonstrated to be constructible, permitable and does not create adverse impacts to the surrounding properties or environmental and water resources. The County and its consultants would meet with various agencies with all available data compiled in a useful format for such meetings, to determine what, if any, additional data are necessary for project permitting. This phase is necessary to determine which permits and regulatory requirements may or may not be necessary for the project. The Permitting Needs Assessment will consist of the following activities: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1505 -0250. Comments concerning the time required to complete this Information collection, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information, should be directed to the Department of the Treasury, Office of Gulf Coast Restoration, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20220. 1. Preliminary data compilation a. Development of background information, including a detailed project description, site location and anticipated environmental issues b. Compilation of relevant available data (including GIS data) to coordinate with regulatory agencies in identifying potential environmental issues and permitting requirements 2. Agency coordination a. Coordination and meetings with state and federal regulatory agencies for necessary monitoring and permitting requirements for species, habitats and wetlands and may include: i. Meeting with Florida Forestry Service (FFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), FFWCC and NMFS to review listed species and habitats potentially impacted by the proposed project and develop list of species for which surveys should be implemented and discuss permitting requirements ii. Meet with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to review preliminary wetland data (GIS based) and determine level of effort for wetlands delineation and anticipated permitting iii. Meet with USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine the level of effort for NEPA analysis b. Participation in design plans to identify potential environmental permitting issues and action alternatives 3. Coordination with Regulatory Agencies regarding model comparisons a. It is anticipated that the nearby restoration efforts for Picayune Strand have the potential to complicate the permitting associated with the County’s project. While the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Big Cypress Basin (BCB) has been fully aware of the County’s project on a staff level, projects being completed by state and federal agencies need to be coordinated, at a technical and staff level, with the County’s project. This effort would involve maintaining close coordination between the County’s modeling team and the BCB and others as related to the use of the USACE’s Gridded Surface/Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA; aka “Geisha”) model. 4. Evaluate Project Effects on Groundwater Elevation a. In coordination with the ongoing coordination effort of the County and other agencies modeling efforts, this project would help the County in the permitting stages of project development. This effort could require modification of prior estimates of the amount of change in groundwater elevations and working those refinements into the County’s model (and gaining consensus with other agencies). This effort would focus on refining estimates of changes in groundwater elevations in the following locations (see map below): i. Northern flow way ii. I-75 Canal and South Belle Meade spreader iii. Picayune Strand State Forest and Picayune Strand Restoration Project iv. Six L’s agricultural area v. Urban areas along Henderson Creek and south of U.S.41 5. Preliminary data collection to evaluate changes in habitat, actual rates of infiltration and evapotranspiration and changes in water quality associated with project implementation a. Florida Forestry Service highlighted the fact that it will be vital for the County to know the impacts of its own project on things like water levels, habitat and water quality. As such, this effort is anticipated to be designed as a Before and After, Control and Impact (BACI) study design and would involve setting up a series of randomly located sampling locations in areas likely to be impacted by project components (the Impact stratum) as well as areas outside of the footprint of the project (the Control stratum). As well, data would be collected both Before project completion, as well as After project completion. Collected data would be used in any required modifications of the modeling effort. The following components would be involved: i. Site selection of 60 locations, to be distributed as 30 random locations within the area likely to be impacted by project implementations, as well as 30 sites likely outside the influence of the project. Sampling locations will be surveyed in. ii. At each of the 60 locations, bi-annual and quantitative sampling of the vegetation 1. Species richness 2. Species diversity 3. Percent native vs. non-native iii. each of the 60 locations, quarterly recording of water levels and/or groundwater levels 1. Via use of piezometers and/or staff gages iv. At each of the 60 locations, quarterly collection of water quality data (for surface water samples) for the following parameters 1. Water temperature 2. pH 3. Dissolved oxygen 4. Specific conductance 5. Total nitrogen 6. Total phosphorous 6. Coordinated efforts of other entities a. Coordination between the County, the City of Naples and Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (RBNERR) Objective: To plan and permit the CCCWIP. Milestones: Project development to the 30% design level. Location: Collier County is located in southwest Florida with a 43-mile coastland along the Gulf of Mexico. The County is one of the state's largest counties (land area), yet more than half is underdeveloped and in conservation. The project locations within Collier County will begin to rebalance two (2) ecosystems - Naples Bay and Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (110,559 acres) while rehydrating a significant portion (10,000 of the 78,615 acres) of the Picayune Strand State Forest. Funds Requested: Collier County is requesting $1,506,359.18 to begin the project development and permitting of the CCCWIP. 2. How the applicant made the multiyear plan available for 45 days for public review and comment, in a manner calculated to o btain broad-based participation from individuals, businesses, Indian tribes, and non-profit organizations, such as through public meetings, presentations in languages ot her than English, and postings on the Internet. The applicant will need to submit documentation (e.g., a copy of public notices) to demonstrate that it made its multiyear plan available to the public for at least 45 days. In addition, describe how each activity in the multiyear plan was approved after consideration of all meaningful input from the public and submit documentation (e.g., a letter from the applicant's leadership approving submission of the multiyear plan to Treasury or a resolution approving the applicant's multiyear plan). During the past year, Collier County conducted a highly participatory process to review and gain approval and support for the multi-year implementation plan. This included multiple presentations to the City of Naples City Council and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners as an information item. The legal advertisement for the Collier County Multi-Year Implementation Plan was published twice in the Naples Daily News (a newspaper of local circulation) on Thursday, June 15, 2017 and then again on July 20, 2017 in both English and Spanish requesting public comments during a 45 day comment period from Thursday, June 15, 2017 to August 31, 2017 and again from July 20, 2017 to September 4, 2017, respectively. The re-advertising on July 20, 2017 was a compliance issue from the U.S. Treasury’s review of the County’s Multi-Year Implementation Plan (MYIP). A revised MYIP was re-posted to the County’s website in order to comply with the legal advertisement regulations. In addition, Collier County Communication Support Division distributed a Notice of Public Meeting that was sent to the community at large and all the local media. The notice was also posted on the County’s website at www. Colliergov.net and on the media board in the Communication Support Division. Collier County Coastal Management Section hosted two (2) public meetings to discuss the plan on Thursday, June 22, 2017 and August 17, 2017 at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Suites 609/610 (Growth Management Office) at 5:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. , respectively. No interested citizens and/or representatives from local agencies were in attendance (sign in sheet attached) at either meeting. Prior to the public meetings, and in addition, Collier County worked diligently to gain the support and partnership of a number of interested local groups and organizations. Letters of Support are included in this plan. The groups/organizations include: Audubon of the Western Everglades/Audubon Florida South Florida Water Management District - Big Cypress Basin City of Naples Conservancy of Southwest Florida Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Service Florida Wildlife Federation Florida Forestry Service Collier County Watershed Technical Advisory Committee Collier County Board of County Commissioners Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Over the past year or more and during the development of this project, the Coastal Management Section Manager, Gary McAlpin, has provided public information presentations to the community during the development of the watershed plan and the MYIP through numerous meetings with the following: Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Program (CWIP) Technical Advisory Ad Hoc Committee July 8, 2016 (Item 7) Collier County Board of County Commissioners September 27, 2016 (Item11B) May 23, 2017 (Item 16A18) October 10, 2017 (Item 16A_) City of Naples September 19, 2016 (Item 8) 3. How each activity included in the applicant's multiyear plan matrix meets all the requirements under the RESTORE Act, including a description of how each activity is eligible for funding based on the geographic location of each activity and how each activity qualifies for at least one of the eligible activities under the RESTORE Act. The Collier County/Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Comprehensive Multi-Year Implementation Plan project meets the RESTORE Act criteria of planning assistance as defined in 31 CFR 34.201(j) of the RESTORE Act. The project development and permitting funding is planning for the eligible activity of Restoration and protection of the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches and coastal wetlands of the Gulf Coast region per 31 CFR 34.201(a). Collier County improvement projects will be carried out in the Gulf Coast region including any adjacent land, water and watersheds within 25 miles of those coastal zone areas identified in 33 U.S.C. subsection 1321(a)(1)(33)(B) and further by Treasury regulation 31 CFR 34.201. Improving the health of the County’s watershed areas will restore near shore and eventually offshore water quality. Improved water quality (both freshwater and saltwater) provides protection to the entire marine ecosystem, including seagrass beds and the benthic and pelagic species and habitat they depend on. 4. Criteria the applicant will use to evaluate the success of the activities included in the multiyear plan matrix in helping to restore and protect the Gulf Coast Region impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The following milestones shall be marked as measures of success for this project: Preliminary data compilation Agency coordination Coordination with Regulatory Agencies regarding model comparisons Evaluation of Project Effects on Groundwater Elevation Preliminary data collection to evaluate changes in habitat, actual rates of infiltration and evapotranspiration and changes in water quality associated with project implementation Coordination between the County, the City of Naples and Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (RBNERR) A portion of this project verifies and establishes pre-project conditions for water quality, vegetation, surface water, groundwater saturation, habitat studies, monitoring regimes and success criteria will be established through permit development and issuance through the responsible federal, state and location permitting agencies. A monitoring program will be a requirement of permit issuances. Post construction monitoring and scope modifications will be a requirement of each regulatory agency. 5. How the activities included in the multiyear plan matrix were prioritized and list the criteria used to establish the prio rities. Collier County has selected this planning project as their top priority for use of RESTORE Direct Component funding. Collier County’s Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan (CCCWIP), located in Southwest Florida, utilized 10 major studies and reports commissioned by various local, state and regulatory agencies over the past 15 years to reduce freshwater flows into Naples Bay, restore fresh water flows into Rookery Bay, improve water quality and re-hydrate approximately 10,000 acres of the Picayune Strand State Forest/South Belle Meade area by linking hydrologic and ecological restoration project that will function on a regional basis. The project borders Federal CERP -Picayune Strand Restoration Project currently being executed by the US Army Corp of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District, and, once completed, will allow the County to manage its natural resources in a more holistic and comprehensive manner. These projects have been confirmed by the CCCWIP study (Attachment 1) that the Naples Bay has been adversely impacted by an abundance of freshwater from the Golden Gate Canal while Rookery Bay is adversely impacted by too little freshwater inflow. Approximately 70% of Collier County’s 2,300 square miles has been altered for development over the years. Prior to development rainfall either infiltrated into the surficial aquifer or flowed through extensive wetlands into the coastal waters of the County. Most of the alterations were due to the coastal development since the early 1950s, as dredge and fill became the established method to meet the growing post war demand for waterfront housing. In addition to shoreline modifications, extensive canal construction for urban and agricultural drainage has changed the timing and quantity of freshwater inflows to coastal waters. These changes have dramatically affected water quality and quantity of the county estuaries. In additional to the impacts to Naples Bay and Rookery Bay, over time there have been noticeable impacts to the Picayune Strand State Forest. There is general consensus that the Belle Meade area of the Picayune Strand State Forest is in need of rehydration. With the implementation of these improvements at least a portion of the historical flows would be restored within the region helping to reestablish historical wetland hydroperiods to some degree. 6. If applicable, describe the amount and current status of funding from other sources (e.g., other RESTORE Act contribution, other third party contribution) and provide a description of the specific portion of the project to be funded by the RESTORE Act Direct Component. The County intends to pledge all of the RESTORE Direct Component funds ($6,500,000) and Spill Impact Component funds ($12,000,000) to design, permit and construct the projects associated with the planning project. The County is also requesting additional RESTORE funds from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), RESTORE Comprehensive Plan Component and future funding from the RESTORE Direct Component for projects including in any amended multiyear implementation plan. RESTORE ACT Direct Component Multiyear Plan Matrix — Department of the Treasury OMB Approval No. 1505-0250 Applicant Name: Initial 3. CUMULATIVE DIRECT COMPONENT ALLOCATION AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO APPLICANT: $6,527,584.45 8a. Direct Component Contribution 8b. Other RESTORE Act Contribution 8c. Other Third Party Contribution 8d. Total Contribution Planning assistance Collier County/Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Project Development and Permitting- Phase 1 Collier County $1,506,359.18 $1,506,359.18 10/01/17 09/30/20 (Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund Allocation as of April 17, 2017) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,506,359.18 $0.00 $0.00 $1,506,359.18 Collier County According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1505-0250. Comments concerning the time required to complete this information collection, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information, should be directed to the Department of the Treasury, Office of Gulf Coast Restoration, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20220. $1,506,359.18 4. TOTAL ALLOCATIONS PLUS KNOWN FUNDS NOT YET DEPOSITED IN TRUST FUND FOR DIRECT COMPONENT: 1. MULTIYEAR PLAN VERSION (INITIAL OR AMENDMENT NUMBER): 2a. DATE OF INITIAL MULTIYEAR PLAN ACCEPTANCE (mm/dd/yyyy):2b. DATE OF LAST MULTIYEAR PLAN ACCEPTANCE: 12. ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ACTIVITY(IES) (refer to Instructions) 8. Estimated Total Funding Contributions For Proposed Activity(ies)(refer to Instructions) Please note: Grant awards may reflect non-material changes in proposed dates and estimated funding. 6. Activity Title (Static Field)7. Location (Static Field) 5. Primary Direct Component Eligible Activity Further Described in Application (Static Field) 9. Proposed Start Date mm/dd/yyyy 10. Proposed End Date mm/dd/yyyy 11. Status (refer to Instructions) Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Attachment 1 Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Co-sponsored by Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve September 23, 2016 Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 Table of contents Chapter Pages Executive summary 5 1. Introduction 11 1.1. History of the Region 11 1.2. Future Challenges and Guidance Documents 12 1.3. Goals of this Report 13 2. Studies Completed and Summary of Findings 14 2.1. Overview of Impacts to Coastal Waters and Ecosystems 14 2.2. Overview of Impacts to the Watersheds 15 2.3. Proposed Restoration Projects to Address Hydrologic Alterations 15 2.4. Location of Freshwater Diversion 16 2.5. Conclusion 17 3. Evaluation of Diverted Flow Capacity 19 3.1. Collier County Watershed Management Plan Model 19 3.2. Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary Project Model 19 3.3. Modeling Results for Naples Bay 20 3.4. Modeling Results for Rookery Bay 20 3.5. Preliminary Flow Diversion Modeling and Flow Availability 24 3.6. Conclusion 24 4. Project Goals and Approach to Project Design 25 4.1. Use of Existing Studies 25 4.2. Changes that Affect Previous Concepts 25 4.3. Conceptual Design Approach 26 4.4. Project Overview 26 5. Critical Issues 29 5.1. Flow Capacity through the I-75 corridor 29 5.2. Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF) 30 5.3. Picayune Strand Restoration Project (PSRP) Coordination 35 5.4. South Belle Meade Property Evaluation 37 5.5. Six L’s Area Plan and Future Coordination 38 5.6. Flow Capacities through US 41 to Rookery Bay 39 5.7. Adaptive Management 40 6. Overall Project Scope & Plan 41 6.1. Project Area A (North Belle Meade Pump Station and Flow-way Recreational Area) 41 6.2. Project Area B (I-75 Canals Improvements) 42 6.3. Project Area C (South Belle Meade Pump Station, Flow-way and Spreader) 42 6.4. Project Area D (Sabal Palm Road Culvert Crossings) 43 6.5. Project Area E (Six L’s/U.S. 41 Flow-ways and Conveyance Improvements) 43 7. Project Benefits 46 7.1. Naples Bay 46 7.2. Picayune Strand State Forest 55 7.3. Rookery Bay 55 7.4. Secondary CCCWIP Project Benefits 55 Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 8. Future Phase Projects (Phase II) 56 8.1. Increased Pumping Capacity 56 8.2. North Belle Meade 56 8.3. Six L’s Masterplan 59 9. Project Costs, Schedule & Implementation 60 9.1. Planning-Level Opinion of Probable Costs 60 9.2. 10-Year Project Implementation Schedule 61 10. Funding Sources and Strategies 62 10.1. Introduction 62 10.2. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Funding Sources 62 10.3. Program Coordination 63 10.4. Recommended Funding Strategy 64 11. References 66 Appendices Appendix A. CCCWIP Conceptual Plan Set 68 Appendix B. Detailed Estimates of Construction Costs 69 Tables Table 3-1 Comparison of Wet Season Model Predicted Flows ............................................................... 22 Table 5-1 Comparison of Land Use Types by Acres ............................................................................... 33 Table 7-1 Flow diversions expected with anticipated diversion schedule in o peration ........................... 49 Table 7-2 Summary of water quality data from Rookery Bay freshwater inflow and the GGC at White water quality station ................................................................................................................. 49 Table 7-3 Predicted salinities at Gordon River at Rowing Club during days when diversions would occur ........................................................................................................................................ 53 Table 7-4 Predicted salinities at Naples Bay at City Dock during days when diversions would occur .... 53 Table 7-5 Predicted salinities at Naples Bay at Mid Estuary during days when diversions would occur ........................................................................................................................................ 53 Table 7-6 Predicted salinities at Naples Bay at Gordon Pass during days when diversions would occur ........................................................................................................................................ 54 Table 9-1 Planning-Level Opinion of Probable Costs .............................................................................. 60 Table 9-2 Project Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................ 61 Table 10-1 Breakdown of Transocean and BP Legal Settlements for the State of Florida ....................... 62 Figures Figure 1-1 Watershed Location Map ......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-1 Potential for additional wet weather storage in select Collier County watersheds .................. 18 Figure 3-1 Comparison of the NSM vs. ECM Average Monthly Discharge to Naples Bay Estuary ......... 20 Figure 3-2 Comparison of the NSM vs. ECM Average Monthly Discharge to Rookery Bay Estuary ....... 21 Figure 3-3 Comparison of the Modeling Results to Salinity-Based Analysis Results for Rookery Bay Estuary ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3-4 Transect Locations for Inflow Comparisons to Rookery Bay ................................................... 23 Figure 4-1 Overall Project Concept ........................................................................................................... 27 Figure 5-1 I-75 Corridor Area Map ............................................................................................................ 29 Figure 5-2 Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF) Area Map .................................................................... 31 Figure 5-3 Belle Meade Area Historical & 2007 Land Use Comparison ................................................... 32 Figure 5-4 Red-cockaded Woodpecker Habitat ........................................................................................ 34 Figure 5-5 Water Depth and Hydroperiod Changes During Model Pumping Scenarios .......................... 36 Figure 5-6 Properties of Interest within the Picayune Strand State Forest ............................................... 37 Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 Figure 5-7 Identified Historical Flow-ways from the BMSMMP (Figure from the BMSMMP Report)........ 38 Figure 5-8 Six L’s/US 41/Fiddler’s Creek Area Map ................................................................................. 39 Figure 5-9 Typical Adaptive Management Process .................................................................................. 40 Figure 6-1 Conceptual Six L’s Area Flow-ways Design from the BMSMMP (Figure from the BMSMMP Report, Parsons, 2006)............................................................................................................ 44 Figure 7-1 Golden Gate Canal Structures and Gages .............................................................................. 47 Figure 7-2 Estimated nitrogen load reduction (kg TN / yr) into Naples Bay associated with implementation of the proposed project. ................................................................................. 50 Figure 7-3 Estimated nitrogen load reduction (kg TP / yr) into Naples Bay associated with implementation of the proposed project. ................................................................................. 50 Figure 8-1 Locations of Potential Future Phase Projects ......................................................................... 57 Figure 8-2 North Belle Meade Rehydration Concept from the CCWMP (Figure from CCWMP Report, Atkins/PBS&J, 2011) ............................................................................................................... 58 Acronyms BA Biological Assessment BMSMMP Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan CBC Concrete Box Culvert CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project CCCWIP Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan CCWMP Collier County Watershed Management Plan cfs Cubic Feet per Second CWA Clean Water Act DBHYDRO SFWMD hydrometeorologic, water quality, and hydrogeologic data retrieval system DEM Digital Elevation Model ECM Existing Conditions Model ERP Environmental Resource Permit ESA Endangered Species Act EXP Exponent FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FFS Florida Forest Service FPL Funded Priorities List FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission GGC Golden Gate Canal GGWIP Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Program GIS Geographical Information System NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NSM Natural Systems Model NRD Natural Resource Damages NNC Numeric Nutrient Criteria NGVD29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 ppt Parts Per Thousand PSRP Picayune Strand Restoration Project PSSF Picayune Strand State Forest Q Flow RCW Red-cockaded Woodpecker RFMU Rural Fringe Mixed Use SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SWIM Stormwater Improvement Plan TDR Transferrable Development Rights TN Total Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorous Regional NSM Big Cypress Basin Natural Systems Model SEP State Expenditure Plan Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 5 Executive summary History of the Region Collier County encompasses over 2,300 sq miles and is located in southwestern Florida. Approximately 70 percent of Collier County (ca. 1,400 sq miles) has been altered by human modifications of the local hydrology (Atkins 2011). Prior to human alterations, rainfall either infiltrated into the surficial aquifer or flowed through extensive wetland features into the coastal waters of Collier County. Most of these hydrolo gic alterations were due to coastal development in Collier County since the early 1950s, as dredge -and-fill became the established method to meet the growing post-World War II demand for waterfront housing. The canals served to create waterfront property, increasing access for boating, and provided fill material needed for the creation of buildable lots (Antonini et al 2002). In addition to shoreline modifications, extensive canal construction for urban and agricultural drainage has changed the timing and quantity of freshwater inflows to coastal waters. These changes have dramatically affected water quality and quantity of many of Collier County’s estuaries. For example, the construction of the Golden Gate Canal (GGC) network increased the size of the Naples Bay watershed and freshwater flows to Naples Bay, as lands that originally drained southward into the Rookery Bay watershed were redirected. Consequently, the Rookery Bay watershed is now much smaller and, combined with alterations in drainage pathways and changes in wet and dry season storage capcities, receives less freswater inflow than it did historically. These altered freshwater inflow patterns have been identified as the most important threat to the natural biodiversity of Rookery Bay. Figure ES-1 shows the current extents of these watersheds in Collier County. Figure ES-1 Watershed Location Map Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 6 Modifications to drainage patterns have resulted in significant impacts throughout the watersheds in Collier County. The historic areal extents of oyster bars and seagrass beds have been reduced by salinity alterations, reduced water clarity, and increased sediment loads. Tidal mangrove habitat has also been affected by coastal development and hydrologic alterations. Changes in the timing and amount of freshwater inflows into coastal waters, drainage alterations, and urbanization have also lowered groundwater levels, degraded or eliminated wetlands, altered wildlife distribution patterns or reduced populations, and increased the delivery of nutrients and other pollutants to coastal waters. This plan has been developed to address these conditions. In addition to the altered hydrology of Naples Bay and Rookery Bay caused by the hydrologic alterations within Collier County, the natural systems of the Belle Meade area within the Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF) have also been impacted by hydrologic alterations. In 1985, Conservation and Recreation Land (CARL) funds under the Save Our Everglades Project were used to start the purchase of properties which became the PSSF in 1996. These lands were purchased to help promote hydrologic and ecologic restoration and encourage passive recreation in this area. While there is broad scientific consensus that Naples Bay is adversely impa cted by excessive freshwater inflow, and that the Rookery Bay estuary is adversely impacted by too little freshwater inflow, the location of any proposed freshwater diversion (restoration) has not received as much attention. Existing management plans may have used the location of Henderson Creek as a default location for waters diverted out of the GGC system. However, more recent modeling work has suggested that areas farther east would benefit the most from flow diversions. As such, current information suggests that the benefit of a freshwater flow diversion out of the Naples Bay watershed from the Golden Gate Canal and into the Rookery Bay watershed would be greatest if freshwater was diverted through the Belle Meade region of the PSSF, rather than via Henderson Creek. Hydrologic restoration projects focusing on diversions in the Belle Meade region are included in both the Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan (Parsons 2006) and the Collier County Watershed Management Plan (Atkins 2011). Such actions thus represent both project types and locations that are consistent with both the historical literature and the most recent modeling efforts. Project Background Recently, Collier County and the City of Naples developed the Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Program Initiative. The goal of this initiative is to foster the implementation of recommended projects based on environmentally sustainable management system strategies aimed at protecting, preserving, and restoring the resource in areas that have experienced the highest impact due to human activity, while encouraging efficient urban development in areas with the highest existing and potential urban development in the County. To further implement the Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Program Initiative, the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan (CCCWIP) was created. The purpose of this project, described herein, is to identify and develop a specific series of linked projects identified in the previous watershed management plans that will have the largest impacts to hydrologic and ecologic recovery within the County. The goals of this CCCWIP report are to:  identify and address all of the critical issues related to each project;  identify any issues that could possibly derail a project;  utilize existing studies as the basis for the overall project concept;  develop each project such that it is comprehensive, feasible, fundable and can be completed within the next 10 years ;  validate that recommended projects can be accomplished ; and  develop projects consistent with objectives of the RETORE Act Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 7 The CCCWIP is being co-sponsored by the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (RBNERR). RBNERR has been involved from the very beginning of project development and are represente d on the Technical Advisory Committee for Collier County Watershed Management Plans. This project is, in part, based on the modeling that the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve has recently completed. In addition, Collier County has worked diligently to gain the support and partnership of all other interested local groups/organizations. These groups/organizations include the following:  Audubon of the Western Everglades/ Audubon Florida  Big Cypress Basin/South Florida Water Management District  City of Naples  Conservancy of Southwest Florida  Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission  Fish and Wildlife Service  Florida Wildlife Federation  Florida Forest Service  Collier County Watershed Technical Advisory Committee Diverted Flow Capacity This project included an evaluation of the availability of flows to be diverted from the GGC and the capacity of the downstream (Rookery Bay) watershed and estuary to receive additional flows (which includes the Belle Meade portion of the PSSF). Both the Collier County Watershed Management Plan and the Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary (Henderson Creek Watershed Engineering Research Project) modeling results were used to evaluate existing flows to estuary systems in comparison to estimates of pre-development flow rates. The flow analysis focused on defining the appropriate diversion flow rate for the project based on the ability of Rookery Bay to assimilate additional flows. The constraint in the system is, then, the receiving water body, the Rookery Bay. Previous studies considered various pumping rates to divert water from the GGC and reduce flows to Naples Bay. Although these studies indicated larger pumps would have a greater benefit on Naples Bay via great diversions, they would likely result in too much water to the receiving wetland systems and Rookery Bay. Review of the data indicated that a 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) pump station would divert enough water from the GGC to benefit both Naples Bay and Rookery Bay. Project Conceptual Plan Figure ES-2 presents an overview of the primary set of recommended projects for the CCCWIP. This set of projects has been carefully planned out with respect to potential effects to both Naples Bay and receiving wetlands (in the PSSF major road crossings (in Florida Department of Transportation right-of-ways), agricultural lands and Rookery Bay. These projects have also been developed in concert with the governmental, non-governmental and citizen groups (mentioned above) that will be directly impacted by the implementation of this plan, as to be consistent with the Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Program. A brief description of how the overall system would work is described below. The projects start in the north where a 100 cfs pump station (Pump Station A) will be constructed on County- owned property along the GGC, appromixately one mile east of Collier Blvd. and upstream of the GG -3 structure. The pump station would start pumping when the gate for the GG -3 structure is lowered to elevation 6.5 ft NAVD88, which roughly corresponds to elevation 8.0 ft NAVD88 in the Golden Gate Canal. The pump station would then pump to a one-mile long channel flow-way (linear pond) controlled by outfall structures. The linear pond flow-way would be designed with wetland plantings to improve water quality and have a multi-use recreational trail amenity. This would divert flows south, under White Lake Blvd. to the north I -75 cross canal. Once flows enter the I-75 north canal, flows would be converyed through the existing box culverts u nder this section of I-75 to the south canal. Operational structures or ditch blocks would be designed to contain the flows within the west segment of the canals. The I-75 south canal is not contiguous, so portions between the ditch segments would need to be excavated to convey flows the entire to the next pump station intake. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 8 Figure ES-2 Overall Project Concept A second pump station (Pump Station B) will be constructed on the south side of the I -75 south canal, also with a 100 cfs capacity, and would start pumping when water begins flowing into the north I -75 canal. The pump station would pump into a 4,000 foot (dry) channel flow-way which would convey flows south to a spreader swale that would discharge flows south through the Belle Meade wetland area flow-way. This flow would continue south to Sabal Palm Road where additional siphon culvert cross drains would be constructed to convey the additional flow under the road and south through the flowway. As diverted flow continues south, it would flow in one of three directions. Some flow could circumvent the Six L’s agricultural lands to the west, while the majoity would flow into one of two control structures, each with a designed flow-way that would take flows through the Six L’s lands. All flows would continue to the existing north US 41 drainage system, where additional culverts would be installed under US 41. From there the flows would continue south through the Fiddler’s Creek residential area stormwater system and ultimat elty to Rookery Bay. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 9 Critical Issues One of the primary goals of this report was to determine the critical issues associated with implementing the CCCWIP, particularly the issues that could derail the project, and to identify and/or perform the preliminar y analyses needed to resolve these issues. The following are the critical issues that were identified and evaluated as part of this study:  Flow Capacity through the I-75 corridor  Flows through the Picayune Strand State Forest (Particularly the effects on RCW habitat)  Picayune Strand Restoration Project (PSRP) Coordination  South Belle Meade Property Evaluation  Six L’s Agricultural Area Plan and Future Coordination  Flow Capacities through US 41 to Rookery Bay Project Benefits The water quality in Naples Bay, specifically salinity, has been drastically impacted within the l ast 50 years, particularly from the construction of the canal system. The impacts of the magnitude of freshwater surplus and the extreme freshwater “shock loads” to the bay during the wet season, have been long documented. The benefit to Naples Bay by diverting flows south during the wet season is not necessarily as large as previous studies concluded, but the volume of freshwater that can be diverted represents a significant enhancement to the Naples Bay estuary. On average, the proposed project would operate 42 days per year. On those days when operating, it would divert approximately 19 percent of flows to Naples Bay (18.78 percent). The amount diverted would equal about 9.5 percent of the wet season inflows to Naples Bay, and 8 percent of the total inf low each year. The amount of water diverted from Naples Bay would average 2,688 million gallons per year (2.7 billion gallons per year), which is equivalent to 8,250 acre-feet per year, or just over 10 billion liters per year. The vegetation in the PSSF has shifted over the past 50 years due to hydrologic alterations and subsequent impacts to wetlands in general swamp forest in particular. Hydroperiods and water depths in this area have declined and there is general consensus that the Belle Meade area of the PSSF is in need of rehydration. This is validated by the forest’s Ten-Year Resources Management Plan (dated 8/15/2008) under Goal 1, Objective 3, “Evaluate and develop work plan for restoring hydrology”. With the implementation of the CCCWIP, at least a portion of the historical flows would be restored within the region helping to re -establish historical wetland hydroperiods to at least some degree and assisting the Florida Forest Service with their goals for the PSSF. Although full restoration would likely include more than 100 cfs of additional wet season flow diversions, it has been shown that the limitations of the system that are now in place (Red-cockaded Woodpecker habitat, Picayune Strand Restoration Project and Rookery Bay), currently prevent more than the 100 cfs based on the conservative and preliminary analyses conducted as part of this project. The CCCWIP also significantly benefits Rookery Bay. When comparing the areas within the Rookery Bay estuary that have flow deficits, to the location(s) of the diverted flows to the estuary from the CCCWIP project, it can be seen that these areas correspond, indicating the diverted flows are going to the areas that need water. Not only do diverted inflow locations correspond to the locations of inflow defi cits, but diverted flow volumes (approximately 50 cfs from the preliminary modeling estimates) are also consistent with the documented inflow deficit volumes in corresponding areas of Rookery Bay. Project Costs The preliminary opinion of probable construction costs for the projects is presented below in Table ES-1. These estimates are based on best available information for quantities and unit prices for the year 2016, and are equivalent to a 15 percent design level. Sources for these estimates include the current Florida Department of Transportation tabulated costs for item average unit cost; and local bid tabs for similar projects in Collier County and throughout the South Florida Water Management District and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Costs for any property acquisition (if needed) are not included. Construction costs include 2 percent for Maintenance of Traffic (MOT), 10% for Mobilization and a 30% contingency. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 10 Additional costs are presented in the overall CCCWIP project cost estim ate including a more detailed project development (5%), design/plans preparations (10%), permitting (5%) and mitigation (5%). An estimated cost is also included for monitoring and SCADA telemetry systems. Considering that this project has a ten -year planning horizon (approximate) for completion of construction, a cost escalation factor of 23% (3% per year compounded over 7 years) has also been included. Also included in the overall cost is funding for other minor projects that may be necessary or beneficial to enhance the system and for the future phase projects (North Belle Meade Flow-way and the Six L’s Area Masterplan). Table ES-1 Planning-Level Opinion of Probable Costs System Operations Management Additional planning and analysis will be required to accurately manage the flow diversions throughout the project area. Although preliminary analysis has been completed to determine how and where the diverted water will flow, including a modeling analysis using the MIKE SHE/MIKE -11 2D surface water/groundwater model, some level of uncertainty remains as to the flow direction. Collier County recognizes this uncertainty and the need for further analysis and plans additional in-depth analyses in future planning phases prior to project design. For this reason, this project includes an adaptive management approach to operating the diversion system. Adaptive mnagement is a structured and systematic process for continually improving decisions, management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of decisions previously taken, and changing operations accordingly, as needed. In this manner, the operational protocol for the system will be continuously refined and optimized such that maximum benefit can be obtained while eliminating or minimizing any impacts. Monitoring sites will be set up throughout the project area that would encompass not just hydrologic monitoring, but wetland and habitat monitoring as well. The results and careful evaluation of these monitoring efforts will help drive the future operations and management of the system. These monitoring efforts will be defined as part of the future project development phase and will address system optimization and permitting needs. Project Element Estimated Cost Total Construction Cost $18,800,000 Project Development $1,000,000 Design/Engineering/Permitting/Mitigation (20%) $3,800,000 Monitoring and SCADA Telemetry Systems $1,000,000 Associated Projects, Engineering and Master Planning $3,000,000 Cost Escalation over 7 years (3% per year) $4,400,000 Total $32,000,000 Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 11 1. Introduction 1.1. History of the Region Collier County encompasses over 2,300 sq miles and is located in southwestern Florida. Approximately 70 percent of Collier County (ca. 1,400 sq miles) has been altered by human modifications of the local hydrology (Atkins 2011). Prior to human alterations, rainfall either infiltrated into the surficical aquifer or flowed through extensive wetland features into the coastal waters of Collier County. The majority of the se hydrologic alterations resulting from coastal development in Collier County began in the early 1950’s, as dredge -and-fill became the established method to meet the growing post-World War II demand for waterfront housing. The canals served to create waterfront property, increase access for boating, and provided fill material needed for the creation of buildable lots (Antonini et al 2002). In addition to modifications along the shoreline, extensive canal construction for urban and agricultural drainage has changed the timing and quantity of freshwater inflows to coastal waters. These changes have dramatically affected the health of many of Collier County’s estuaries . For example, the construction of the Golden Gate Canal (GGC) network dramatically increased the size of the Naples Bay watershed (Atkins 2011). As a result, Naples Bay now receives much more freshwater inflow than in pre -development times, as lands that originally drained southward into the Rookery Bay watershed have now been redirected. Consequently, the Rookery Bay watershed is now much smaller than it was historically. Combined with alterations in drainage pathways and changes in wet and dry season storage capcities , Rookery Bay now receives less freswater inflow than it did historically, paticularly in specific locations. These altered freshwater inflow patterns have been identified as the most important threat to the natural biodiversity of Rookery Bay (Shirley et al., 2004). Figure 1-1 shows the locations of these watersheds within Collier County. Figure 1-1 Watershed Location Map Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 12 Significant impacts have been experienced throughout the watersheds of Collier County as a result of the modifications to drainage patterns. The historic areal extents of oyster bars and seagrass beds have been reduced by salinity alterations, reduced water clarity, and smothering from increased sediment loads. Tidal mangrove habitat has also been affected by coastal development and hydrologic alterations as well. Changes in the timing and amount of freshwater inflows into coastal waters, drainage alterations and urbanization have also lowered groundwater levels, damaged wetlands, altered wildlife distribution patterns, and increased the delivery of nutrients and other pollutants to coastal waters . These impacts generated the need for a plan(s) to improve these conditions. 1.2. Future Challenges and Guidance Documents Collier County’s population is expected to continue to grow at a rapid rate, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach to address the issues of flood protection, protecting water supplies, and preserving or restoring water quality and natural habitats. As far back as 1980, the need for restoring the historical water flows was identified. Over the past thirty-five (35) years, there have been many studies that looked at restoring the historic flow-way from the Naples Bay watershed (sometimes referred to as the Naples Bay-GGC watershed) to Rookery Bay. Some of these studies include:  Golden Gate Water Management Plan (Johnson Engineering for SFWMD-BCB, 1980)  Big Cypress Basin Water Management Plan (SFWMD BCB 1998)  Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan (Parsons, 2006)  SWIM Plan for Naples Bay (SFWMD 2007)  Horsepen Strand Conservation Area Feasibility Study Phase 1 (Collier County, 2008) With all of this prior work that had been accomplished, the groundwork was laid for the Collier County Watershed Management Plan (CCWMP) which developed a holistic approach to protecting and/or restoring the altered hydrology of the priority watersheds of the Cocohatchee River and Corkscrew Swamp; Golden Gate Canal and Naples Bay; Rookery Bay and its watershed; and the watersheds and estuaries of the Ten Thousand Islands. The plan was subsequently adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2011. The CCWMP identified a number of linked hydrologic and ecological restoration projects that would function on a regional basis to allow the County to manage its natural resources in a more holistic manner. More than 100 potential projects were identified in the CCWMP (Atkins 2011). The plan was presented at a number of public workshops and was reviewed for technical accuracy by staff from Collier County, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the South Florida Water Management District. Projects from the CCWMP were preliminarily screened for their ability to be permitted and constructed. Twenty- seven (27) projects were recommended for further detailed evaluation. After a final detailed evalution, ten (10) projects were determined to be capable of being permitted and constructed. The CCWMP prioritized these capital improvements projects (structural projects) for each of the County’s main watersheds based on a methodology that evaluated potential projects on their viability to be p ermitted and constructed; the benefits yielded though performance measures; estimated cost; and calculated benefit versus cost (B/C) ratio. Additionally, the CCWMP proposed complementing the recommended structural projects with non-structural initiatives in order to achieve the plan’s restoration goals. More recently, Collier County and the City of Naples developed the Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Program (GGWIP) initiative. The goal of this initiative is to foster the implementation of recommended projects based on environmentally sustainable management system strategies aimed at protecting, preserving, and restoring the resource in areas that have experienced the highest impact due to human activity, while encouraging efficient urban development in ar eas with the highest existing and potential urban development in the County. The proposed series of linked projects outlined in this report are consistent with both the CCWMP and the GGWIP. In addition, the implementation of these proposed projects is also consistent with the goals of the RESTORE Act. The bipartisan RESTORE Act was passed by the U.S. Congress on June 29, 2012 and signed into law on July 6, 2012 by President Obama. The purpose of the Act is to optimize the distribution and use of Clean W ater Act fines paid by the parties responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to improve the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 13 ecology and economies of the Gulf of Mexico area. Among the five Gulf States impacted by the oil spill, Florida is unique in terms of the significant role played by County governments. 1.3. Goals of this Report To further implement the GGWIP inititive, the Collier County Watershed Improvement Project (CCCWIP) was created. The purpose of this project, described herein, is to identify and develop a specific series of linked projects idenitified in the previous watershed management plans that will have the largest impacts to hydrologic and ecologic recovery within the County. The goals of this report are to:  identify and address all of the critical issues related to each project  identify any issues that could possibly derail a project  utilize existing studies as the basis for the overall project concept  develop each project such that it is comprehensive, feasible, fundable and can be completed within the next 10 years  validate that recommended projects can be accomplished  develop projects consistent with objectives of the RETORE Act Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 14 2. Studies Completed and Summary of Findings 2.1. Overview of Impacts to Coastal Waters and Ecosystems Historically, Naples Bay was a shallow estuarine system containing mangrove islands that were surrounded by oyster reefs and seagrass beds. Extensive oyster bars were found along the shorelines and at the mouths of various tidal creeks and seagrass beds were likely more limited in their distrubion, compared to oysters and mangroves (Schmid et al 2006). The com bination of hardened shorelines and newly dug residential canals resulted in an increase in the amount of shoreline in Naples Bay of nearly 50 percent between 1927 and 1965, followed by an additional 11 percent increase between 1965 and 1978 (Schmid et al 2006). While the Naples Bay shoreline may have increased significantly over the pas t few decades, the direct and indirect impacts of this level of development resulted in a 90 percent decl ine in seagrass habitat and an 80 percent decline in the amount of oyster reef habitat over the same time period (Schmid et al 2006). Schmidt et al also reported that 70 percent of the fringing mangrove shoreline of Naples Bay had been converted to residen tial development. More recent assessments have verified the magnitide of the loss of these important habitats in Naples Bay (Atkins 2011). Along the shoreline of Rookery Bay, there has been a net loss of 2,170 acres of mangrove/tidal marsh habitat, or 12 percent of the pre-development quantity, with losses occurring primarily due to conversion to urban land uses (Atkins 2011). In addition to direct impacts to coastal ecosystems, the natural resoruces of both Naples Bay and Rookery Bay have been adversely impacted by changes to the quantity, quality, and timing of freshwater inflows to their coastal waters. For example, the Naples Bay watershed increased from approximately 10 square miles to 120 square miles in size, due to various land drainage activities (SFWMD 2007). As a result, Naples Bay now receives much more freshwater inflow than in pre-development times. Consequently, the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan for Naples Bay highlighted the need to reduce freshwater inflows into Naples Bay from its expanded watershed (SFWMD 2007). As much of the increase in the Naples Bay watershed came from land that originally drained southward, Rookery Bay’s watershed is now smaller than it was historically. The salinity regime of the Naples B ay and Rookery Bay estuaries are more influenced by canal management than by tides or rainfall, and altered freshwater inflow has been identified as the most important threat to the natural biodiversity of these coastal waters (e.g., SFWMD 2007, Shirley et al. 2004, 2005). Rubec et al. (2006) concluded that Rookery Bay’s ecological health is impacted by altered hydrology, and Lewi et al. (undated manuscript) concluded that “…a number of estuarine species would benefit from more freshwater inflow into the Rookery Bay system during the latter part of the wet season…” However, Shirley et al. (2004 and 2005) concluded that Rookery Bay, and in particular the tidal portions of Henderson Creek, was impacted by both too little freshwater inflow in the dry season, as well as too much freshwater inflow in the wet season. Oyster reefs are critical to the estuarine ecosystems of southwest Florida, as they provide the foundation on which mangrove islands develop and also serve as habitat for many fish and shellfish spec ies. In addition, the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is the primary suspension feeder in the area’s estuaries, which helps to reduce the impacts of sediments and algal blooms in estuarine waters. As many of Southwest Florida’s estuaries lack large seagrass beds, oyster reefs (which are sensitive to the impacts of increased freshwater discharges) have been promoted as being a superior indicator of estuarine health and a bio -indicator of the efficacy of various restoration and management efforts (Savarese et al. 2003). Studies in the Faka Union Bay, the Blackwater River estuary and the tidal portions of Henderson Creek have shown that excessive amounts of freshwater inundation have adversely affected oysters and oyster reef development, and that greater mortality of juvenile oysters occurs in estuaries that receive excessive amounts of freshwater inflow (Savarese et al. 2003). Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 15 2.2. Overview of Impacts to the Watersheds The CCWMP confirmed prior reports of widespread impacts to the vegetative communities of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds. The approach taken was to build upon prior documentation of impacts by developing an assessment of the potential for increased wet weather storage, if appropriate, associat ed with some of these changes. This task was accomplished by comparing two data sets: 1) historical vegetation maps developed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), as summarized by Duever (2004), and 2) recent vegetation data based on SFWMD Land Use/Land Mapping data from 2004 , as updated to reflect changes through 2007. Changes in vegetation types were then interpreted based on likely hydrologic causes for such changes, based on established relationships between vegetation and the combination of water depths and hydroperiods (Atkins 2011, as informed by Duever 2004). In this way, vegetation changes could be associated with the hydrologic impacts that likely caused such changes. The amount of wet weather storage capacity available in these areas could thus be determined. However, it should be noted that output from these comparisons represent “average” conditions for each of the ecological communities and that the differences between historical and current hydrology would vary from year to year due to differences in rainfall, as well as short and long-term flood and drought cycles. In the Naples Bay-GGC watershed, the CCWMP concluded that the ecological health of the vegetative communities was quite low, mostly due to the finding that 67 percent of the watershed had been convert ed to urban or agricultural land uses. However, the eastern portion (approximately one-third) of the watershed was less impacted by development, although impacts were evident due to altered hydrology from the extensive canal systems (Atkins 2011). In the Rookery Bay watershed, impacts of reduced wet season water depths and shorter hydroperiods were found in the areas of Belle Meade and near Henderson Creek. However, since only 27 percent of the Rookery Bay watershed had been converted to urban or agricultural land uses, the vegetative communities of the Rookery Bay watershed were mostly healthier than those in the adjacent Naples Bay-GGC watershed. The most significant impact to the vegetative communities of the Rookery Bay watershed was found to be hydrologic alteration, particularly in those portions of the watershed north of Belle Meade. 2.3. Proposed Restoration Projects to Address Hydrologic Alterations The ecological impacts associated with alterations in the amount, quantity and timing of freshwater in flows into Collier County’s estuaries have been noted for at least 30 years (e.g., Yokel, 1975; Browder et al. 1988, Shirley et al. 2004, 2005, and multiple references within). As a result, resource management plans have attempted to build upon the general consensus of diagnosed problems in Naples Bay and Rookery Bay to develop resource management projects to act on those problems. For example, the latest SWIM Plan for Naples Bay included a budget request for $2,500,000 for a project to divert water from the GGC into Henderson Creek, which would then flow to Rookery Bay (SFWMD 2007). This proposed project was intended to not only address the well-documented problem of excess freshwater inflow into Naples Bay, but it would also address the goal to “…provide a more natural timing and variation in patterns of freshwater inflow into Henderson Creek, thereby creating more suitable habitats for various species’ life stages” (Rubec et al. 2006). In a report produced for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the water quality responses of both Naples Bay and Rookery Bay were modeled based on the scenarios of 50 and 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) diversions of water out of the GGC and into Henderson Creek (Weisberg and Zhang 2007). The CCWMP included a list of priority actions for the County to consider implementing, including the proposed project to take water out of the GGC system and divert those flows into Henderson Creek (Atkins 2011). More recently, a report for the City of Naples stated that “diversion of GGC flow from Naples Bay to the Henderson Creek watershed to restore a more natural salinity regime is a major focus of Naples Bay restoration” (Cardno 2015) which is consistent with the project description included in the Naples Bay SWIM Plan (SFWMD 2007). Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 16 While there is a scientific consensus that Naples Bay is impacted by too much freshwater inflow, and that Rookery Bay is impacted by too little inflow, there has not yet been the same level of consensus on the specific locations for diversions of freshwater inflow. Although the SWIM Plan for Naples Bay (SFWMD 2007), the CCWMP (Atkins 2011) and the Naples Bay Water Quality and Biological Analysis Project (Cardno 2015) all focus on diversions of water out of the GGC system and then into Henderson Creek, there is some disagreement about the need for a diversion of flows into Henderson Creek, versus other locations in the Rookery Bay watershed. 2.4. Location of Freshwater Diversion Although a diversion of freshwater inflows from the expanded Naples Bay watershed to the diminished (in size) Rookery Bay watershed has been called for in various resource management plans and research papers, the need for a diversion out of the GGC and into Henderson Creek is perhaps an assumption of the most beneficial location for added flows to the Rookery Bay watershed. And while prior studies have concluded that Rookery Bay is impacted by reduced freshwater inflows (e.g., Rubec et al. 2006, Lewi et al., undated manuscript) there is evidence that Henderson Creek in particular may not be similarly impacted. Shirley et al. (2004 and 2005) concluded that water management activities in the Henderson Creek watershed were strongly influenced by weir operations, rather than simply changes in the size of the waters hed. Henderson Creek was determined to suffer from both too little freshwater inflow when water control structures are closed in the dry season (to prevent saltwater intrusion) and too much freshwater inflow when these same structures are opened in the wet season (to prevent flood damage). Thus, Henderson Creek was thought to be impacted by too little inflow, too much inflow, and too variable a salinity regime (Shirley et al. 2004 and 2005). This is a more complex understanding of the impacts to Henderson Creek than that outlined by Rubec et al. (2006) and Lewi et al. (undated manuscript). Within the CCWMP, two different techniques were used to determine if the coastal waters of the County were impacted by hydrologic alterations, and if so, what was the general pattern of impact? The two methods used were empirical (aka statistical) approaches, based on deriving flow vs. salinity relationships for coastal waters and using Fakahatchee Bay as a “reference” site (as in Yokel 1975, Browder et al. 1988, Shir ley et al. 2004, 2005) vs. the use of a combined surface water and groundwater model (MIKESHE /MIKE 11). For Faka Union Bay, Naples Bay and the Cocohatchee River / Wiggins Pass estuary, the two techniques (empirical vs. mechanistic model) gave very similar findings. However, for Henderson Creek, the empirical model suggested freshwater inflow deficits in both the wet and dry season, while the mechanistic model concluded that inflow deficits were restricted to the dry season alone. In a summary of recent findings from a separate modeling exercise run for the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Interflow, 2014), it was concluded that overall flows into Rookery Bay via Henderson Creek have stayed “about the same…” when comparing current conditions to modeled flows from a pre-disturbance landscape (slide 26 in presentation by Tabitha Whalen Stadler, Principal Investigator). However, the same model output concluded that freshwater inflows into the wider Rookery Bay estuary had decreased from historical conditions in the vicinity of Belle Meade and in that portion of the Rookery Bay estuary’s watershed east of Belle Meade and west of County Road 92 (slide 26). Thus, while the portion of the Rookery Bay watershed that would benefit from increased freshwater inflow might have been given as Henderson Creek as a sort of default location in various management plans, more recent work suggests that diversions might be more appropriate into portions of the Rookery Bay watershed located farther east than Henderson Creek. Fortunately, freshwater diversions from the GGC system into that portion of the Rookery Bay watershed near Belle Meade appear to be consistent with prior hydrologic restoration project planning efforts (e.g., Parsons 2006, Atkins 2011). In the CCWMP, a comparison was made between the hydrological characteristics of pre -development and current (2007) vegetation communities throughout the County (Atkins 2011). This assessment concluded that there were several areas that had untapped potential for additional wet season water storage. The largest opportunity for storage, based strictly on the difference in hydrological characteristics between pre - development and 2007 vegetation, was the central and eastern portion of the Rookery Bay watershe d, which includes the south Belle Meade area within the Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF). In that region, there Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 17 were found (at the time) to be over 20,000 acres that had capacity for additional wet season storage, with a range between 0.5 feet up to more than 2.5 feet. Figure 2-1 below shows the potential for additional wet weather storage in select Collier County watersheds based on the comparison of the historical (Deuver) and 2007 (SFWMD) vegetation maps. A diversion of water from the GGC system into the Belle Meade region could thus be done without overwhelming the existing wetland systems in the Rookery Bay watershed, as long as the additional water would not exceed the tolerances in terms of water depths and hydroperiods for those currently impacted wetlands. A diversion of freshwater from the GGC system into the wetlands of the Rookery Bay watershed thus could have several advantages over previously discussed diversions into Henderson Creek: 1) diversions into Henderson Creek would not benefit the impacted wetlands of the Rookery Bay watershed, while a diversion into the Belle Meade region could benefit those wetlands, 2) diversions into Henderson Creek may not have the same amount of freshwater inflow loss as a diversion into the impacted wetlands of Belle Meade, and as such might not allow for as much diversion from the Naples Bay watershed without adversely impacting Rookery Bay, and 3) diversions into Henderson Creek would not allow for as much nutrient assimilation prior to entering Rookery Bay, as opposed to discharges into the types of wetland systems found in South Florida (i.e., Rudnick et al. 1999). Furthermore, a Henderson Creek diversion would not allow for additional water quality enhancements or the re-hydration of wetland areas within south Belle Meade. 2.5. Conclusion While there is broad scientific consensus that Naples Bay is adversely impacted by too much freshwater inflow, and that the Rookery Bay estuary is adversely impacted by too little freshwater inflow, the location of any proposed freshwater diversion has not received as much attention. Existing management plans may have used the location of Henderson Creek as a default location for waters diverted out of the GGC system. However, more recent modeling work has suggested that area s farther east would benefit the most from flow diversions. As such, current information suggests that the a diversion of freshwater inflows out of the Naples Bay watershed from the GGC and into the Rookery Bay watershed would be most advantageous if such a diversion would take place in the Belle Meade region of the PSSF, rather than via Henderson Creek. Hydrologic restoration projects focusing on diversions in the Belle Meade region are included in both the Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan (Parsons 2006) and the Collier County Watershed Management Plan (Atkins 2011). Such actions thus represent both project types and locations that are consistent with both the historical literature and the most recent modeling efforts. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 18 Figure 2-1 Potential for additional wet weather storage in select Collier County watersheds Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 19 3. Evaluation of Diverted Flow Capacity Just as there were some differing views on the location of the freshwater diversion from the GGC, there was also differing views for the magnitude of the potential flow diversion. This section outlines the availability of flows to be diverted from the GGC and the capacity of the downstream (Rookery Bay) watershed and estuary to receive additional flows. Both the CCWMP and the Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary (Henderson Creek Watershed Engineering Research Project) modeling results were used to evaluate existing flows to estuary systems in comparison to estimates of pre-development flow rates. 3.1. Collier County Watershed Management Plan Model The CCWMP evaluated the existing conditions in terms of volume and timing of fresh water discharges to the Naples and Rookery Bay estuary systems from the contributing watersheds by comparing them to a baseline, which was represented by the predevelopment condition. The evaluation consisted of comparing the results of a MIKE SHE/MIKE11 Existing Conditions Model (ECM) to those of a MIKE SHE/MIKE11 Natural Systems Model (NSM) to define the monthly water surplus or deficit in each estuary. The ECM was a model updated specifically for the CCWMP, whereas the NSM, or pre-development model, was developed as part of the USACE Southwest Florida Feasibility Study. A full description of the NSM can be found in the report ti tled “Final Report, Natural Systems Model (NSM) Scenario Southwest Florida Feasibility Study” (SDI, 2007). The ECM represents the 2007 land use condition in Collier County and was calibrated against measured flow and stage data in the canal network, as well as measured groundwater head elevation data. The simulation period for this model was January 2002 through October 2007. The primary drainage system and most of the secondary drainage system was explicitly represented in the model. The average monthly f low to each estuary was extracted from the model results for comparison purposes. The NSM was developed as part of the Unites States Army Corps of Engineers Southwest Florida Feasibility Study by modifying the original SFWMD Big Cypress Basin (BCB) model in terms of land use and conveyance systems to represent pre-development conditions. The NSM simulation period extended from 1976 to 1986. The NSM uses overland flow to predict the movement of water across the ground surface and into the estuaries. The average monthly flow to each estuary was extracted from the model results for comparison purposes. 3.2. Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary Project Model As part of the Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary project, two local scale MIKE SHE/MIKE11 models were developed and are documented in the technical report, Henderson Creek Watershed Engineering Project (Interflow, 2014). The first model was a Local Scale - Existing Conditions Model (Existing LSM) developed from the existing Collier County Existing Conditions Model (CC-ECM). The Existing LSM was developed with a refined model domain covering 167 square miles, at a grid-cell size of 375-ft. Features added to local scale MIKE11 network included the Marco Island Utilities Lakes, Winding Cypress Subdivision, and thr ee branches which were deemed to contribute flows to Henderson Creek. Each of these branches run east/west south of Sabal Palm Road. Another revision to the MIKE11 network, was the removal of the Belle Meade Flow -Way. While the Belle Meade Flow-Way is still represented within the MIKE-11 model, it is now simulated explicitly in the overland flow portion of the MIKE SHE. This model was run for the 2002 – 2012 time period. The second model, a Local-Scale - Historical Conditions Model (Historical LSM), was also prepared for the Henderson Creek / Rookery Bay watershed study for the purpose of estimating the changes in volumes and timing of freshwater inflows to Rookery Bay that have occurred over the past several decades due to anthropogenic impacts. These changes in flow were estimated by comparing the results of the Existing LSM with the results of the Historical LSM. Development of the Historical LSM utilized components of the Existing LSM model in conjunction with the BCB Natural Systems Model (Regional NSM) provided by the SFWMD (District). The Historical LSM was run using the same rainfall data (2002 – 2012) as the Existing LSM model. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 20 3.3. Modeling Results for Naples Bay Modeling results for Naples Bay are only available from the CCWMP model as the Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary model only includes the Rookery Bay watershed. Figure 3-1 shows a comparison of the average monthly volume of fresh water discharge to the Naples Bay Estuary from the Golden Gate -Naples Bay watershed as predicted by the CCWMP. The results indicate a significant increase in the magnitude of water volume released to the estuary, particularly in the wet season. The results do not indicate a significant change in the timing of discharges. The increased discharges are primarily attributed to construction of the GGC that resulted in an increase of the watershed’s drainage area from approximately 10 square miles to approximately 120 square miles. It is apparent from Figure 3-1 that increases of freshwater flow volumes to Naples Bay are significant. Based on estimates and preliminary assessments from the previous studies (Belle Meade Stormwater Management Mater Plan, CCWMP and others) it was presumed that diversions of 200 cfs (or higher) would be available from the GGC to divert south through the historical flow-way. These presumptions were based strictly on the flow data from the existing conditions and natural systems (historical conditions) model comparisons from these projects. The diversion flow rates (200 cfs or higher) from these previous studies were never explicitly modeled in scenarios, or coordinated with the SFWMD in terms of groundwater impacts from withdrawing water from the GGC. Figure 3-1 Comparison of the NSM vs. ECM Average Monthly Discharge to Naples Bay Estuary 3.4. Modeling Results for Rookery Bay Modeling results for Rookery Bay were available from both the Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary model and the CCWMP model. The models gave similar overall results, although the Rookery Bay model completed a more detailed analysis as the results were analyzed by distinct inflow locations to the estuary. Figure 3-2 shows a comparison of the average monthly volume of fresh water discharge to the Rookery Bay Estuary as predicted by the ECM and NSM models developed for the CCWMP. The results indicate a small increase in the total volume of water released to the estuary, primarily in the early part of the wet season. It is noted that the ECM model tended to over-predict wet season flows at the Henderson Creek monitoring station, so the wet season flows for the ECM may be over-estimated. The CCWMP also completed a salinity-based flow 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Volume (Inches)Existing Conditions Model Natural Systems Model Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 21 evaluation of the inflows to Rookery Bay to confirm the seasonal flow patterns shown by the ECM vs. NS M comparison. The results of the salinity based analysis are shown in Figure 3-3 and confirm the magnitude of the flow volume surplus to Naples Bay, but actually predict a wet season flow deficit in Rookery Bay, opposing the model results. Figure 3-2 Comparison of the NSM vs. ECM Average Monthly Discharge to Rookery Bay Estuary 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Volume (inches)Existing Conditions Natural Systems Model Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 22 Figure 3-3 Comparison of the Modeling Results to Salinity-Based Analysis Results for Rookery Bay Estuary The Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary model included a more detailed analysis of flow to Rookery Bay from each of six sub-basins in the watershed. The analysis included comparisons of surface water flows to Rookery Bay and the surrounding estuarine waters for specific locations within the estuary. Table 3-1 below shows a summary of the difference in flows calculated by subtracting the Historical LSM results from the Existing LSM results. Figure 3-4 shows the locations of the MIKE-11 model inflow points as well as the alignment of their corresponding coastal transects (summarized in the table below) based upon upstream contributing basins (Lely Main, Lely Manor, Henderson Creek, BelleMeade-9, US-41 Outfall Swale No-2, and Bridge 37). A negative value indicates that natural system flows exceed existing condition flows. Table 3-1 Comparison of Wet Season Model Predicted Flows Transect Flow Difference (cfs) (Calculated as Existing LSM – Historical LSM) July August September October Lely Main 5 3 3 8 Lely Manor 3 0 0.25 4 Henderson Creek -10 12 25 20 Belle Meade-9 -8 -10 -23 -4 US 41 Outfall Swale No-2 0 4 -1.5 2 Bridge 37 -8 -11 -25 -10 Totals -3 -2 -21.25 20 Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 23 Figure 3-4 Transect Locations for Inflow Comparisons to Rookery Bay Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 24 As Table 3-1 indicates, the modeling analysis shows an overall flow deficit under existing conditions, which also agrees with the salinity flow analysis from the CCWMP. It also shows that specific locations have flow deficits while others have a flow surplus, particularly the Belle Meade 9 and Bridge 37 locations which show a combined 50 cfs flow deficit. It should be noted that this analysis also shows a flow surplus at Henderson Creek, further indicating that Henderson Creek is not the optimal discharge location for a freshwater diversion project. 3.5. Preliminary Flow Diversion Modeling and Flow Availability Considering the results of the previous studies, in terms of Rookery Bay’s capacity to receive additional flows from a flow diversion project, it was appropriate to simulate the downstream effects of pumping water from the GGC, through the Belle Meade area within the PSSF, and down to Rookery Bay. The MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 model from the CCWMP was used simulate various pumping scenarios with the focus being on the availability of Rookery Bay to receive additional flows. Because it is recognized that not all of the diverted flows will make it to Rookery Bay due to the hydrologic losses of storage, infiltration and evapotranspiration, the MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 model is the best way to make reasonable estimates of the portion of the diverted flows that are likely to discharge to Rookery Bay and where in Rookery Bay they would go to. Model simulations of 100 cfs and 200 cfs were simulated to obtain some preliminary results. Model results indicated that, in general, about 50 cfs of diverted flows would go to losses. For the 100 cfs pumping scenario, that meant that roughly 50 cfs would make it to Rookery Bay, corresponding to the flow deficit identified in the Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary project. These preliminary results indicated that a flow rate of 100 cfs was a feasible diversion rate. To continue the due diligence on selectin g the most appropriate flow rate, a flow availability analysis was completed for the GGC in terms of diverting freshwater flows during the wet season. This analysis and results were completed in coordination with the SFWMD to assure flow diversion would not affect groundwater stages for local water use. The results of the analysis determined, at least at this time, that flows could only be diverted when the GGC GG-3 weir structure is lowered to elevation 6.5-feet NAVD88. Based on this elevation and the available data from the structure gage (from 2009-2014), water could be diverted, on average, 40 days per year at 100 cfs. This diversion protocol is considered conservative and appropriate at this time considering the project is still in the preliminary phase. 3.6. Conclusion This chapter focused on defining the appropriate diversion flow rate for the project based on the limiting constraint of the system. This constraint is the receiving water body, the Rookery Bay. Previous studies considered various pumping rates to divert water from the GGC in order to reduce flows to Naples Bay. Although these studies indicated that larger pumps would provide a greater impact to Naples Bay, they would likely provide too much water to the wetland systems and Rookery Bay. Review of the data indicate that a 100 cfs pump station used to divert water from the GGC will provide a benefit to Naples Bay, while hydrating wetlands in the PSSF and providing an appropriate volume of water to Rookery Bay. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 25 4. Project Goals and Approach to Project Design Based on the findings from the previous studies, the overwhelming consens us is that Naples Bay is adversely impacted by too much freshwater inflow and that Rookery Bay is adversely impacted by too little freshwater inflow. As such, a project (or set of projects) that would divert flow from the GGC (Naples Bay watershed) to Rookery Bay would serve to enhance both estuaries. A regional project (or set of projects) of this magnitude would certainly have a high potential for overarching impact to C ollier County. For this reason, the set of projects developed in this report focuses specifically on those projects. In previous studies, various diversion volumes and flow-way configurations through the Belle Meade area have been investigated. This section briefly describes the previous study efforts and an overview of the recommended set of projects based on the previous work, new information and the evaluation of the most recent data and information. 4.1. Use of Existing Studies As discussed in Chapter 1, this area of Collier County has had many studies completed that have identified ecologic and hydrologic restoration projects, specifically, that include flow diversions through the north and south Belle Meade areas. Because so much time and effort have already been spent on studying this area, the goal of this report is to build upon that which has already been accomplished and not “reinvent the wheel”. In all of the previous studies (listed in Chapter 1), identified projects were very conceptual and all ana lysis were very preliminary in nature. Further evaluation was still needed to determine the optimal set of projects that would maximize project benefits while considering the system’s hydrological and ecological constraints. That being said, these projects provided a great “starting point” and are the basis for the proposed set of projects discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of this report. 4.2. Changes that Affect Previous Concepts Since the completion of the above-mentioned studies, not a lot has changed in terms of land use (development). While development has not significantly changed, more data and information has been acquired in terms of the availability and use of lands, as well as hydrological and ecological constraints of the system. The subsections below describe each of the major changes that have occurred relative to previous project assumptions. 4.2.1. Use of the North Belle Meade Area for Flow-way Conveyance In previous studies (particularly the CCWMP and the Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan), it was presumed that a significant portion of the north Belle Meade area, which are natural wetland areas and are predominantly sending lands in the County’s Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) program (see Section 5.4 for more discussion on sending lands and the TDR program), could be used to convey flows south via a spreader swale system. After some further investigation by Collier County, it appears that these lands will likely not be available within the immediate project timeframe, although they may become available in the future. This project concept assumes the lands are not available, but the possibility of adding a north Belle Meade spreader system as a future phase is discussed later in the report (Chapter 8). 4.2.2. Limitation of Rookery Bay to Accommodate Excess Flows In the previous reports, pumping diversions at flow rates of 400 cfs up to 800 cfs were evaluated (Northern Golden Gate Estates Flow-way Restoration Project). In some of these evaluations, the downstream impacts of conveying that much flow were not fully investigated. The most recent research into the overall system indicates that flow rates of 400 – 800 cfs would likely be problematic to the ecology of not only the south Belle Meade area, but also Rookery Bay itself. Further research and analysis concluded that diverting that much water into the south Belle Meade area and ultimately Rookery Bay could have negative effects to habitat and water quality in the receiving estuary. As concluded in Chapter 3, analysis of flow receiving areas (PSSF) and Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 26 estuary systems (Rookery Bay), and preliminary modeling results indicate a pumping rate of 100 cfs is more practical. 4.2.3. APAC mining pits In previous reports, the use of the existing APAC mining pit located just south of the GGC in north Belle Meade could be used as a location for the pump withdrawals to divert water. Additionally, the area to the south of the mining pit was to be used as part of the location for the north Belle Meade spreader swale. Based on the most recent information acquired by Collier County, APAC plans to expand the mining operations to the south and does not desire to have their property used as part of this project. 4.3. Conceptual Design Approach In the studies previously mentioned, project concepts were identified that have b ecome the basis for the conceptual project design described herein. The goal of this report was to take the concepts from the previous efforts, re-eveluate and re-configure them, and turn them into a series of implementable and constrcutable projects that provide a significant benefit to Naples Bay, PSSF and Rookery Bay while also holistically improving hydrology and ecology throughout the Collier County region. The goal of the conceptual designs in this report is to provide a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of each project component, and sketch out project concepts that are conservative, realistic, feasible and can become the foundation for full project designs in the future. Designs are completed such that cost estimates are practical for establishing preliminary project budgets to secure future project funding. Conceptual design project elements were developed using best available information. This includes the Collier County digital elevation model (DEM) for ground elevation references. No survey wa s accomplished as part of the project development. Generally available soil survey information was used to estimate soil infiltration characteristics and depths to water tables. Existing groundwater well information was also used to estimate groundwater information. No geotechnical work was performed during his project. Property data was obtained from Collier County’s latest GIS property boundary information. Predicted surface water elevations and flows through the region for pumping scenarios were based on the latest MIKE SHE/MIKE-11 model. This model is the County-accepted model and is the best information for simulating such a complex set of projects. Conceptual design details are presented by project area in Chapter 6 and Engineer’s opinions of probable cost (at a 15% design level) are included in Chapter 9. 4.4. Project Overview Figure 4-1 presents an overall view of the primary set of recommended projects for the CCCWIP. This set of projects has been carefully planned out, considering its effects to not only Naples Bay, but also to receiving wetlands (in the PSSF), major road crossings (in FDOT right-of-ways), agricultural lands and Rookery Bay. These projects have also been developed in concert with the governmental, non -governmental and citizen groups that will be directly impacted by the implementation of this plan , as to be consistent with the GGWIP. A brief description of how the system would work in the five major project areas is descrbed below. The overall project concept is described in more detail in Chapter 6. The projects start in the north where a 100 cfs pump station (North Belle Meade Pump Station) will be constructed on County-owned property along the GGC, appromixately one mile east of Collier Blvd. and upstream of the GG-3 structure. The pump station would start pumping when the gate for the GG-3 structure is lowered to elevation 6.5 ft NAVD88, which roughly corresponds to elevation 8.0 ft NAVD88 in the GGC. The pump station would then pump to a one-mile long channel flow-way (linear pond) controlled by outfall structures. The linear pond flow-way would be designed with wetland plantings to improve water quality and have a multi-use recreational trail amenity. This would convey flow diversions south, under White Lake Blvd to the north I-75 cross canal. Once flows enter the I-75 north canal, flows would be converyed through the existing box culverts under this section of I -75 to the south canal. Operational structures or ditch block would be designed to contain the flows within the west segment of the canals. The I-75 south canal is not contiguous, so portions between the ditch segments would need to be excavated to make the south canal contiguous. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 27 Figure 4-1 Overall Project Concept Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 28 A second pump station (South Belle Meade Pump Station) will be constructed on the south side of the I-75 south canal, also with a 100 cfs capacity, and would start pumping when water begins flowing into the north I- 75 canal. The pump station would pump into a 4,000 foot (dry) channel flow-way which would convey flows south to a spreader swale that would discharge flows south through the south Belle Meade wetland area flow- way. This flow would continue south to Sabal Palm Road where additional siphon culvert cross drains would be constructed to convey the additional flow. As diverted flow continues south, it would flow in one of three directions. Some flow will circumnavigate the Six L’s agricultural lands to the west, while the remaining flows would flow into one of two control structures, each with a designed flow-way that would take flows through the Six L’s lands. All flows would continue to the north US 41 drainage system, where additional culverts would be installed under US 41. From there the flows would continue south through the Fiddler’s Creek residential area stormwater system and ultimatelty to Rookery Bay. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 29 5. Critical Issues As mentioned previously in Chapter 1, one of the primary goals of this report was to determine the critical issues associated with implementing the CCCWIP, particularly the issues that could derail the project, and to identify or perform the preliminary analyses needed to resolve these issues. The following sub-sections discuss these issues, the evaluation(s) and analyses performed during this phase, as well as what actions would need to be taken during the next phases of the CCCWIP project development. 5.1. Flow Capacity through the I-75 corridor The proposed flow diversion from Naples Bay will start with pumping water from the GGC. The proposed pump station at the GGC and the downstream flow-way are proposed on a County-owned property. These elements can be designed to meet the flow rate capacity proposed, so conveying the diverted flows from the GGC south to the I-75 canal system should be without issue. Once the diverted flow discharges to the north I-75 canal from the designed flow-way, it must pass through a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)-owned property. Figure 5-1 shows the general location of the project relative to the I-75 corridor. Because this property is not County-owned (or controlled), measures must be taken to assure the additional flows to the I- 75 do not cause adverse impacts. Figure 5-1 I-75 Corridor Area Map Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 30 In the CCCWIP conceptual plan, diverted flows would enter the north I-75 canal south of White Lake Blvd, just east of the location where the north I-75 canal crosses under I-75. When diverted flows are discharging to the canal, an operable weir structure would force water to the east and prevent flows from heading south under I- 75. East of this location there are four concrete box culverts (CBC) within the project area that connect the north and south canals, equalizing stages within the two canals. The CCCWIP c oncept proposes to pump flows to the north canal and utilize the existing CBC cross drains to convey flows to the south canal where the second pump station will withdraw flows to continue the diversion to the south through Belle Meade. Preliminary analysis using the CCWMP existing conditions MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 model showed minimal changes in water levels in the two canals under pumping scenarios, indicating that the existing CBCs under I- 75 will be sufficient to convey flows during normal flow conditions. Conveyance improvements within the canals themselves would need to be conducted to optimize canal conveyance in terms of clearing vegetation and silt (or ditch blocks). A phone meeting was held with the FDOT District 1 Drainage Engineer on April 7, 2016 to inform them of this potential project and to start open communications. The FDOT was supportive of the project and indicated they would be cooperative in future phases of the project. The CCCWIP project would need to obtain a FDOT drainage connection permit and demonstrate that the project would not impact any of the FDOT’s facilities. It should be noted that a more complete and detailed modeling analysis would need to be conducted in a future project development phase to define operable weir configurations and refine model analysis. 5.2. Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF) The PSSF is the fourth largest state forest in Florida and is named after the largest of several cypress strands that once occupied much of the eastern portion of the property. The 78,000 -acre forest is comprised of two tracts, the South Golden Gates Estates Tract to the east and the Belle Meade Tract to the west . It is located in southwest Florida in eastern Collier County, approximately 2 miles east of Naples. Figure 5-2 shows the location of the PSSF. The PSSF is a critical element in the CCCWIP project concept. Because flow diversions would travel through the Belle Meade portion of the PSSF, coordination efforts and preliminary analyses are necessary to determine the effects and benefits of d iverting flows through the PSSF. The forest is currently undergoing hydrologic restoration, similar to the CCCWIP initiative, from the Picayune Strand Restoration Project (PSRP) in the South Golden Gates Estates Tract. The improvements proposed as part of the CCCWIP has many of the same goals and actually compliments the work being accomplished in the PSRP. Not only does the CCCWIP compliment the PSRP, it is also consistent with the PSSF overall management plan. However, the CCCWIP project described in this report is strictly limited to the Belle Meade Tract of the PSSF, and coordination with the PSRP during future project development will be necessary (the PSRP is discussed later in this section). Because the hydrology and ecology of the PSSF in Belle Meade has changed since the construction of the interstate and canal systems in the 1950`s, several critical issues must be addressed. The following sub-sections discuss these issues and the actions taken during this phase to address them. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 31 Figure 5-2 Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF) Area Map 5.2.1. Vegetation Community Changes (2007 vs. Historical) Because of the regional hydrologic alterations from development, the vegetation communities within the PSSF have changed as well. These changes need to be understood in order to fully optimize project benefits and prevent project impacts. This section provides a comparison of the pre-development (historic) vegetation versus the 2007 vegetation (land use). An area around the South Belle Meade project area within the PSSF was defined for the purpose of this comparison. Figure 5-3 shows the distribution of land use vegetation for the pre-development and 2007 land cover conditions. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 32 Figure 5-3 Belle Meade Area Historical & 2007 Land Use Comparison Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 33 A visual inspection of Figure 5-3 indicates that large areas of Mesic and Hydric Flatwood have been converted to agriculture and urban land uses. It is also clear the general hydrology of the area has changed. Large areas of pre-development Swamp Forest that would typically have a hydroperiod of 8 – 10 months have changed to Cypress or Hydric Flatwood, which have hydroperiods of 6 - 8 months and 1 – 2 months, respectively (Deuver). Table 5-1 shows a comparison of land use classification for the pre-development and 2007 periods. The total acreage of urban and agricultural land uses is approximately 10,600 acres which is almost equal to the loss of Swamp Forest lands. Table 5-1 Comparison of Land Use Types by Acres Land Use Type Historical Land Use 2007 Land Use Area (ac.) Percent of Area (%) Area (ac.) Percent of Area (%) Bare Ground 0 0 254.9 0.5 Citrus 0 0 137.8 0.3 Cypress 8,897.9 17.9 8,939.1 18.0 Golf Course 0 0 194.1 0.4 Hydric Flatwood 21,076.4 42.4 16,654.9 33.4 Mangrove 34.2 0.1 50.7 0.1 Marsh 139.4 0.4 4,871.6 9.8 Mesic Flatwood 6,111.8 12.4 5,339.9 10.7 Pasture 0 0 1,416.5 2.8 Swamp Forest 13,200.5 26.6 2,006.8 4.0 Truck Crops 0 0 5,336.4 10.7 Urban 0 0 2,720.3 5.5 Water 0 0 571.4 1.2 Wet Prairie 347.8 0 1,313.6 2.6 Totals 49,808 100 49,808 100 The increase in marsh lands appears to be related to the construction of road s and berms in the area. The construction activities appear to prevent the natural sheet flow that would have occurred in the pre- development condition. The total areas of Cypress, Hydric Flatwood and Mesic Flatwood in 2007 are approximately equal to the pre-development areas; however, the areas have shifted to lands that previously were considered to be Swamp Forest. Generally, it is apparent that the overall land cover within the Belle Meade area has shifted to vegetation types with shorter hydroperiods and shallower wat er depths. This indicates that increased flows to this area would serve to rehydrate areas similar to pre -development conditions. 5.2.2. Wildlife The PSSF is home to many species of flora and fauna. Confirmed sightings of wildlife in the forest currently listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern include the eastern indigo snake, Florida black bear, Florida panther, gopher tortoise, Red-cockaded woodpecker, Florida bonneted bat and wood stork. All of these species will need special attention during t he development of the CCCWIP project. Because there are known endangered species within the forest, a full Biological Assessment (BA) will have to be performed to conform with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The purpose of a BA is to describe proposed actions and their effects on ESA-listed species. No BA was completed as part of this project, but preliminary discussions with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) took place and the project concept was developed using their guidance. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 34 During the project concept development, it was noted that there are large colonies of Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) within the Belle Meade area. Considering that the scope of this project is to increase flows through to forest, slightly increasing wetland depths and hydroperiods, the RCWs became the species of biggest concern for this project in terms of the location and the amount of flows that could be diverted to the PSSF. RCWs make their nests within the Mesic Flatwood areas of the PSSF and it is cr itical that the existing trees that have established active nests/colonies are not impacted. For this reason, preliminary modeling efforts were accomplished to determine the effects (changes in water depths and hydroperiod s) to wetland areas with the Belle Meade area of the PSSF. Figure 5-4 shows the locations of the RCW colonies relative to the project rehydration area. The modeling analysis was accomplished using the MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 model from the Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary project (discussed in Chapter 3). The results of the preliminary modeling analysis concluded that the most significant changes to water depths and hydroperiods in wetlands would be to Cypress and Hydric Flatwoods. In areas of Mesic Flatwood, minimal changes were observed with average water surface depth increases of less than one inch and hydroperiods increases of 5-10 days. These are both very small numbers and would likely not impact Mesic Flatwood areas. Furthermore, all of the active RCW colonies actually lie outside the “project flow-way area” based on the modeled pumping scenarios. Based on this analysis, it appears no RCW habitat would be impacted by the proposed pumping flow rates through the PSSF. Figure 5-4 Red-cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 35 5.2.3. PSSF Hiking/Horse Trails Over 25 miles of trails exist within the Belle Meade tract of the PSSF (see Figure 5-2). These trails are used for a variety of recreational activities including hiking and equestrian and are one of the primary reasons that attract the public to the PSSF. The Florida Forest Service (FFS) staff also uses these trails frequently for maintenance access during their daily activities. Several coordination meetings were held with forest staff to garner input on the CCCWIP project concept. One of the concerns that was raised by the staff was maintaining trail connectivity. A portion of the project area involves constructing a large conveyance swale and spreader swale to convey flows from the I-75 canal through some high ground and discharge them to the cypress wetlands to the south. This would be constructed through two of the primary trails. It was agreed that any earthen features constructed through the existing trails would be designed such that they would either be reconstructed at the nearest location or have a crossing installed as part of the design. 5.2.4. Sabal Palm Road Sabal Palm Rd is primarily a dirt road that essentially bisects the Belle Meade tract of the PSSF. It runs east to west between Collier Blvd (to the west) and Miller Blvd (to the east). The road is paved for the first mile and a half from the Collier Blvd intersection and is dirt from there on. The road serves as the primary entrance to the PSSF and most of the hiking/horse/access trails are connected to Sabal Palm Rd. Although the road can be accessed from both ends, at roughly its half way point the road is usually impassable due to soggy conditions and the road is therefore often closed by forest service staff . Sabal Palm Rd has several siphon culvert cross drains at its low points along the west segment that allow flow to continue south during the wet season when the water table is high. As part of the CCCWIP project concept, additional siphon culverts would be installed adjacent to the recently installed existing culverts to convey the additional flows. During coordination meetings, staff members indicated that it is critical to add these culverts and keep Sabal Palm Rd. drivable as it is often the best or only road to access the forest during the wet season. 5.3. Picayune Strand Restoration Project (PSRP) Coordination The PSRP was the first Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) to begin construction. The project involves plugging of almost 50 miles of drainage canals , removing 250 miles of roads, and constructing three large-scale pump stations that restore the natural surface flow to 85 sq. miles of natural Florida habitat. The project is led by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in partnership with the SFWMD. The intent of the project is to restore historic flows to benefit coastal estuaries, recharge the aquifer , and protect water supply. The project is being constructed within the South Golden Gates Estates tract within the PSSF. Three pump stations will be constructed as part of this project: the Merritt Pump Station, the Faka Union Pump Station and the Miller Pump Station. Currently only the Merritt Pump Station is operational, but all three stations will be online within the next two years. Because the PSRP is directly adjacent to the CCCWIP conceptual project, it is important to coordinate the planning efforts. Meetings have been held with SFWMD staff to begin this process. The input from SFWMD staff indicated that no flows (surface water or groundwater) from the CCCWIP project can impact the PSRP area. Considering this input from the SFWMD, preliminary modeling analyses were conducted to determine what flows, if any, could possibly impact the PSRP. Again, the MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 model from the Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary project was used for the modeling analysis. It should be noted that the modeling analysis conducted did not incorporate any information from the PSRP pumping, as no information was available at the time of this report. Figure 5-5 shows that preliminary model results, without PSRP pumping, do indicate the potential for a small increase of water stages on the fringe of the PSRP boundary. However, these results do not include the effects of the Miller Pump Station which will be online within the next few years and capable of pumping 1,250 cfs. A review of the groundwater data from the Merritt Pump Station (which started full-scale pumping in August 2015) shows that average groundwater elevations increased by than one foot after pumping started. It is anticipated that when the Miller Pump Station begins pumping activities (before the CCCWIP project would be permitted) that similar groundwater increases would be observed and the adjacent groundwater effects Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 36 Figure 5-5 Water Depth and Hydroperiod Changes During Model Pumping Scenarios Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 37 would prevent water from “leaking” to the PSRP project area, whereby meeting the SFWMD requirements. Currently the PSRP is building a model that will incorporate pumping from all the pump stations. Once that model is available, the data can be used to refine the MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 boundary conditions and re -analyze the results. 5.4. South Belle Meade Property Evaluation The project area within the PSSF encompasses about 8,000 acres, most of which is publically-owned lands. There are, however, several tracts of privately-owned land. Figure 5-6 shows the project rehydration area and the privately-owned parcels that are within the project boundary (flow-way extent). Collier County has several options in dealing with these properties. In addition to potentially avoiding the properties by controlling pumping or constructing protection features, the County could bring them into the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) program. Because these private parcels lie within the PSSF, Collier County has designated them as “Sending Lands” and eligible for the TDR program. By owning Sending Land property, a property owner can retain use of the land for limited permitted and conditional uses as listed in the Colli er County Growth Management Plan’s Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) District Sending Lands, while gaining some monetary benefit from selling off the development rights. Market conditions will determine the price between a willing seller and buyer (Collier County Growth Management Plan). Once the property owner sells the development rights, the property enters the TDR program and the property could be used for public purposes. Collier County is currently in the process of assisting these property owners in ente ring the TDR program which would ultimately benefit the CCCWIP project. Currently there are 61 private parcels within the project area: 16 are already in the TDR program and there are 45 parcels for which the TDRs must be addressed. There is also some new development occurring at this time in the most south-western portion of the project area. Coordination efforts need to be taken in the future to fully determine the effects, if any, of this development on the CCCWIP. It is anticipated that the majority of the flows will discharge through the Six L’s agricultural lands, so the effects will likely be minimal or none. Figure 5-6 Properties of Interest within the Picayune Strand State Forest Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 38 5.5. Six L’s Area Plan and Future Coordination The Six L’s agricultural lands encompasses almost 10 square miles in southern Collier County. The properties generally lie north of US 41 about five (5) miles south of the Collier Blvd/US 41 intersection, see Figure 5-7. The properties have grown tomatoes and vegetables for the Six L’s Packing Co. for about 50 years, and are one of the largest tomato producers in the United States. The property lies in a strategic area in terms of surface water flows from the Belle Meade area to Rookery Bay. . This area was identified in the Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan (BMSMMP) as an area that contains historical flow-ways for surface water flows from the Belle Meade area to Rookery Bay. The BMSMMP identified these flow-ways using overlay analysis that utilized historical soils data, wetlands inventory and historical aerial imagery dating back to the 1940’s. See Figure 5-7 for the identified flow-ways and alignments from the BMSMMP. Figure 5-7 Identified Historical Flow-ways from the BMSMMP (Figure from the BMSMMP Report) Because the Six L’s agricultural lands lie in such a strategic location, it is critical to the CCCWIP that, at least, a portion of these historical flow-ways be re-established. The County has already begun preliminary discussions with Six L’s representatives. The County’s plan is to work together with the Six L’s group and develop a plan for this project that would allow the County to obtain the much needed easements within the area over the next ten (10) years, while not interfering with the current operations on the properties, and potentially benefitting the Six L’s group if/when the properties transition to development in the future. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 39 5.6. Flow Capacities through US 41 to Rookery Bay US 41 (Tamiami Trail E) lies south of the Six L’s agricultural area and north of Rookery Bay. The state road runs diagonally from northwest to southeast through the overall project flow-way. Figure 5-8 shows the overall area. The County understands that additional conveyance is needed to convey the diverted flows through US 41. Once diverted flows pass through the Six L’s properties area, they must pass under US 41 and through the Fiddler’s Creek area. The segment of US 41 between Collier B lvd and Greenway Rd has already been widened from 2 lanes to six lanes by the FDOT as development along this stretch of road has increased dramatically over the last 10 years. The next segment of US 41 to the south is from Greenway Rd to Six L’s Farm Rd and is currently in design by the FDOT. The County has already been in contact with the FDOT about adding additional cross drains under US 41 as part of the road widening design for this section, as well as adding additional crossings under the existing Collier Blvd/Greenway Rd segment. In addition to constructing the additional culverts under US 41 to improve conveyance, it is recognized that the roadside ditch/canal on the north side of US 41 would need conveyance improvements as well. This canal is contiguous, but there are several locations along this 5 mile stretch of canal that have very thick vegetation, and removal of these flow obstructions will likely be necessary. After flows pass under US 41 the majority of the additional flows would traverse through the Fiddler’s Creek outfall system, which is considerable in size. Preliminary modeling analysis of pumping scenarios indicate the system would have capacity to pass additional water during normal wet season flows (non -storm events), but a more comprehensive modeling is needed in future phases. Additional flow-way conveyance improvements will likely be needed as well and the County has developed a preliminary plan to incorporate them. Figure 5-8 Six L’s/US 41/Fiddler’s Creek Area Map Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 40 5.7. Adaptive Management Additional planning and analysis will be required to accurately manage the flow diversions throughout the project area. Although preliminary analysis has been completed to determine how and where the dive rted flows will go, including a modeling analysis using the MIKE SHE/MIKE-11 2D surface water/groundwater model, there is still some some level of uncertainty of where a por tion of the water may go. Collier County understands this, and realizes there is more analysis needed, and the County intends on completing more, in- depth analyses in future planning phases prior to project design. At the same time, the County is confident in the preliminary model results and that any future challenges or issues that may arise can be overcome. The series of projects proposed in this report does involve diverting millions of gallons of freshwater flows through more than 15 miles of flow-ways. These flows will traverse through channel flow-ways, existing cross-canals, portions of the PSSF and several other existing water conveyance features. These flows will constantly be interacting with groundwater in the wet season and be subject a significant evepotraspiration during its path. Because of this, the County realizes that, t o better operate the system, they must adopt management techniques that allow for a better understanding and adapt the system operations accordingly. For this reason, this project will adopt an adaptive management approach to operating the diversion system. Adaptive mnagement is essentially a structured and systematic process for continually improving decisions, management policies, and practices by learning from the outcomes of decisions previously taken, and changing operations accordingly. In this manner, the operational protocol for the system will be continuously refined and optimized such that maximum benefit can be obtained while eliminating or minimizing any impacts. Figure 5-9 shows an illustration of the typical adaptive management process. Monito ring and evaluation are the key steps in the adaptive management process. Once the series of projects have been designed and implemented, monitoring sites will be set up throughout the project area. This effort would encompass not just hydrologic monitoring, but wetland and habitat monitoring as well. The results and careful evaluation of these monitoring efforts will help drive the future operations and management of the system. These monitoring efforts will be defined in the future project development phase and will consider not just system optimization, but also be consistent with permitting requirements. Figure 5-9 Typical Adaptive Management Process Assess Design Implement Monitor Evalute Adjust Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 41 6. Overall Project Scope & Plan As briefly discussed in Chapter 4, this project can be broken down into 5 major areas. A preliminary conceptual design for each project element has been prepared using the best available information. It should be noted that no topographical or geotechnical surveys were conducted as part of the development of these conceptual designs, but best available data (including the latest digital DEM) was used and is adequate to develop realistic and feasible project design concepts. Site-specific ground thruthing and surveys would need to be accomplished during the next project phase. The following subsections present the conceptual designs for each project component and discusses the assumptions and details associated each component. Project components are listed in order from north to south (and upstream to downstream) for reference. See Figure 4-1 for an overview of all project components. 6.1. Project Area A (North Belle Meade Pump Station and Flow- way Recreational Area) The first component in Project Area A is a pump station that initiates the flow diversion from the GGC. The pump station, shown in the project conceptual plan set in sheets A-1 – A-3 in Appendix A, would be located on the east side of the bend of the GGC located about 5,000 feet east of Collier Blvd and 3,000 feet east of the GG-3 strucure. The pump station would, initially, be equipped with 2 – 50 cfs variable speed electric pumps (100 cfs total) that would pump water from the GGC into a 4,500 foot channel flow-way that would convey flows to the south. Each pump would draw water from the GGC (when stages in the canal allowed, per system pumping protocol) through an intake pipe that would discharge south to a 60-foot armorred section at the north end of the channel flow-way. Pumps would be remotely operated either by telemetry or user operations. The pump station would be accessed by a constructed access road that runs north from White Lake Blvd. and be equipped with fence protection and stabilized areas for parking and station access. The pump station would also be designed to easily expand to a 200 cfs facility by installing pipe, conduits and pump housing infrastructure during the original construction. As discussed eariler in the report (Chapter 3) initial evaluations indicate pumping (diverting) 100 cfs from the GGC south towa rds Rookery Bay is optimal and conservative based on preliminary analysis. It should be noted that, additoinal flow diversions may be allowable in the future depending on hydrologic system response and results of future monitoring. Designing the pump station for possible future expansion would be financially judicious and additional costs would be relatively minimal compared to the overall cost of the project and much less expensive than expanding the existing facility later without the existing infrastructure. The second component in Project Area A is a 4,500 foot long channel flow-way that would start just south of the pump station, and continue southward to White Lake Blvd. Both the pump station and the channel flow- way would be constructed in a 230 foot wide section on the western side of the County-owned parcel fronting White Lake Blvd. The channel would convey the diverted flows from the pump station south to the I-75 canal system. The channel would be armorred with fabric formed concrete rip rap on the very north end where the pump outfall pipes discharge to prevent erosion. The channel would be designed as a dry channel with the bottom elevation at approximately ground level (9.5 ft - 12.0’ ft NAVD88). The flow-way would have a 100 foot top width at typical water surface when pumping and a 62 foot bottom width. Typical water surface elevations when pumping would be about elevation 13.5 ft. NAVD88. The channel flow-way would have 6:1 sideslopes and a top-of-bank at elevation of 15.0 ft. NAVD88. The channel flow-way would contain a series of created wetalnd islands planted with Cypress trees and other wetland plantings that can become habitat for local wildlife. The flow-way design will also function as a linear pond, and combined with the wetland planted islands will provide significant water quality benefits to the diverted flows, with expected nutrient removals of 29 and 62 percent for nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively . The flow-way parcel would also be designed with a 10 foot wide multi-use path that would circumvent the entire channel flow-way and be a recreational park amentity. Other park features would be added including parking, shelter and additional landscape features. The flow-way channel will discharge through an outfall structure into a small ditch before crossing under White Lake Blvd. and discharing into the north I-75 canal. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 42 6.2. Project Area B (I-75 Canals Improvements) Once the flows from the North Belle Meade Flow-way discharge under White Lake Blvd., the water will enter the I-75 canal system. This component consists of the imperovements required along the I-75 canal system (see sheet B-1 in Appendix A). The segment of I-75 between north and south Belle Meade and west of the Miller canal has two large canals on either side. The north canal is approximatly 80 feet wide and is contiguous through this section of the highway. The south canal is approximately 50 feet wide but is not completely contiguous. Currently there are seven 5-ft x 10-ft concrete box cross culverts that connect these two segments of ditch from north to south. The four western-most culverts will be utilized as part of this project concept. Once the diverted flows enter the north I-75 canal the water would be free to flow west to Henderson Creek or east to the Miller canal. Because additional flows are prohibited from entering the Miller canal (as it discharges to the PSRP area, described in Section 5.3) and not desired to pass through Henderson Creek the north I -75 canal with be equipped with operable control structures at both ends of the canal. The west I-75 canal structure will be located just west of the North Belle Meade Flow-way outfall and the east control structure wil be located about 18,000 feet east of the North Belle Meade Flow-way location. The structures would be open during normal conditions, but would close during periods of pumping diversions. The east control structure could possibly be designed as an earthern weir (ditch block) but more pumping scenario modeling would need to be accomplished to determine if this is viable. Approximately 2,000 linear feet of canal would need to be cleared of excessive vegetation/silt at six locations and two canal ditch blocks must be removed to have contiguous canal segments and to optimize flow capacity within both the north and south canals. 6.3. Project Area C (South Belle Meade Pump Station, Flow-way and Spreader) The next component in the overall project is a second pump station that would continue the flow diversion from the south I-75 canal. This pump station, shown sheets C-1 & C-2 in Appendix A, would be located just south of the I-75 corridor about 2.5 miles east of the intersection of Benfield Rd and Beck Blvd. The exact location of the pump station would be determined in the future, but would be located east of the north/south PSSF trail that dead end’s at I-75 .The pump station would also, initially, be equipped with 2 – 50 cfs variable speed electric pumps (100 cfs total) that would pump water from the I -75 south canal into a 4,000 foot dry channel flow-way that would convey flows south to a spreader swale system. Each pump would draw water from the I-75 south canal (when diverted flows from the North Belle Meade system entere the north canal) through a n intake pipe that would discharge south. Pumps would be remotely operated either by telemetry or user operations. The pump staion would be accessed either by a constructed, stabilized access road that would run along the south bank of the I-75 south canal starting at Beck Road or from I-75, and be equipped with fence protection and stabilized areas for parking and station access. Similar to the North Belle Meade Pump Station, it would also be designed to easily expand to a 200 cfs facility by installing pipe and pump housing infrastructure during the original construction phase. A wide and shallow dry channel flow-way would receive flows from the pump station and convey them south to a 1,600 foot spreader swale. The channel flow-way would be armorred with fabric formed concrete rip rap for the first 60 feet to prevent erosion during times of pump discharges.The ditch would be nearly flat with less than a 0.001 ft/ft slope, so flow velocities would be very low. The ditch would be designed as a dry ditch which would minimize excavation but, because it is dry, would need to be maintained several times a year to prevent excessive vegetation from growing and reducing conveyance capacity. The channel would be about 4,000 feet long, have a bottom width of 100 feet (at roughly elevation 10.0 ft NAVD88) and be 3 feet deep with 4:1 sideslopes. The maintence berms would be 15 feet in width on either side for a total corridor width of about 175 feet. The spreader swale portion of this component would be located at the end of the ditch just north of the subtle drop off in elevation to the south where the large areas of cypress are located. The swale would be approximately 1,600 feet in length and have a 50 foot wide bottom width. The spreader swale would be equipped with six 100-foot spreader concrete weirs at elevation 10.5 ft NAVD88 that would convey flows to the receiving wetlands. The spreader system would also have four 12-inch bleeder pipes that would bleed the system dry during times of no pumping. This would allow the system to dry out for maintenance activities. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 43 The designed ditch and spreader swale system would easily convey the 100 cfs flows diverted from the GGC. As in the North Belle Meade Flow-way, the system would be designed to handle 200 cfs in the event future analysis and evaluations from monitoring determine additional flow diversions could be handled by the downstream receiving waters (south Belle Meade wetlands and Rookery Bay). Again, designing and constructing the system for expanded capacity now would be much more cost efficient than enlarging the system in the future. 6.4. Project Area D (Sabal Palm Road Culvert Crossings) This component consists of constructing four (4) additional double 48” siphon culvert cross culverts under Sabal Palm Road that would be required to convey the increased flow from the spreader swale system (see sheet D-1 in Appendix A). Recently, Collier County construcuted four (4) double 48” siphon culvert cross drains under Sabal Palm Road to help restore flow through this corridor that the existing road had restricted. This component would simply m imic these structures. 6.5. Project Area E (Six L’s/U.S. 41 Flow-ways and Conveyance Improvements) The next series of project components combine to convey diverted flows through the Six L’s agricultural area, US 41 and the Fiddler’s Creek residential area to convey the flows to their ultimate destination of Rookery Bay (see sheet E-1 in Appendix A). This flow-ways concept that would be created through the Six L’s agricultural area would be a slightly modified version of the South Central Belle Meade flow -ways concept identified and idealized in the BMSMMP. Figure 6-1 shows the general flow-ways concept from the BMSMMP as developed in 2006. Several things have changed since the South Central Belle Meade flow -ways as conceptualized in the BMSMMP. The most notable concern that has impacted the CCCWIP updated design concept is the implementation of the PSRP. The PSRP, as permitted, has set strict requirements concerning additional flows entering the project area (refer to Section 5.3 for more details about the project). Due to the PSRP, the CCCWIP flow-ways concept for this area has eliminated the eastern-most flow-way (D) from the BMSMMP concept. Figures 5-5 – 5-7, in the previous section, shows the proximity of this flow-way to the PSRP project area. It is essential that diverted flows avoid the PSRP area, and keeping the flow-way entries into the Six L’s properties away from the PSRP helps to prevent CCCWIP flows from entering the PSRP area. Furthermore, the CCCWIP project, as conceptualized herein, is currently estimating 50 cfs of flows to convey, whereas the BMSMMP concept was designed for 200 cfs, so flow-way D conveyance in not necessary. Sluice gate control structures would be installed at the northernmost end of the Six L’s area at the inflow points of the flow-ways to control the flows into the area. The flow-ways, as conceptualized in this report, would utilize (to the extent possible) the existing canals and canal berms that currently exist along the flow -way corridors. The existing berms are typically 20 – 25 feet across and are drivable which would allow access for maintenance and construction activities. The existing berms would require inspection, and geotechnical surveys would need to be conducted to confirm their stability for use. The rim ditches around the farming cells would not be utilized and are assumed to be filled in, if/when those areas are developed in the future. In several cases, there are parallel canals that could be utilized. Multiple large culverts would be installed between them along their parallel path to equalize the flows, utilizing both as one conveyance. Installing culverts (instead of just creating berm openings) would preserve access along the berms. In some cases berms would be degraded to allow flow into adjacent wetlands, and in other cases, berms or levels would need to be constructed (or rehabilitated) to contain and direct the flows to the designed outfall locations. Additional control structure weirs would be installed at specific locations along the flow-ways to maintain groundwater elevations as they southward, and to maintain preserved wetland water surface elevations. Two outfall locations have been identified for conveyance into the large canal on the north side of US 41. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 44 Figure 6-1 Conceptual Six L’s Area Flow -ways Design from the BMSMMP (Figure from the BMSMMP Report, Parsons, 2006) When the diverted flows leave the Six L’s area, they will enter the north roadside canal of US 41. This canal extends the length US 41 across the entire project area. The canal is essentially flat and is contiguous allowing flows entering it to make their way to one of the many cross drains along these segment. Although the canal is sizeable, about 30 feet wide, in some cases the canal is fairly shallow and there are several locations along the roadside canal that have excessive vegeation. These locations would need to be cleared to allow flows entering the canal to be evenly distributed along the road and utilize all of the cross drains under US 41. Additional cross drains will be incorporated into the design of the Greenway Rd/Six L’s Farm Rd segment and additional culverts will be jack and bored under the Collier Blvd/Greenway Rd segment just west of Greenway Rd. To assist in enhancing flows discharging to Rookery Bay, a water quality treatment area would constructed on the (triangle-shaped) parcel, located north of US 41 at Manatee Blvd., and just west of Naples Reserve Blvd (see sheet E-1 in Appendix A). The parcel is publically-owned and was identified in the CCWMP as a prime location for water quality treatment. For this element, flows would be pumped from the US 41 canal north to north-eastern most corner of the property. These flows would be pumped to a sediment forebay where they would settle and then discharge to the south by shallow sheetflow before discharging back into the US 41 canal and then flowing south to the Fiddler’s Creek area outfall systems to Rookery Bay. Once flows pass under US 41, they will have multiple routes to tak e to make it to before making it to Rookery Bay. The majority of the flows will pass through the Fiddlers Creek outfall system which currently has two inflow locations (and will have a third added via jack and bore described above). A small amount of flows could also currently make it to the Henderson Creek system to the north or can go south to the agricultural area on the southern side of US 41 and near Auto Ranch Rd. A new flow-way will be added just west of Auto Ranch Rd to convey the flows from the added culverts under US 41 in this area. The existing, and sizable, Fiddler’s Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 45 Creek conveyance system combined with the new flow-way will have the capacity to convey the additional 50 cfs. When flows get through the development, a portion of the water must c ircumvent an old railroad embankment which runs east/west, just south of the Fiddler’s Creek area. Several openigs will be created along the railroad grade to allow water to flow more freely and south to Rookery Bay. Conveyance improvements (construction of a new culvert crossing) will also be constructed along Collier Blvd (CR 951) just north of Marco Shores Country Club to permit water to flow freely to the west and allow better assimilation of fresh and saltwaters. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 46 7. Project Benefits 7.1. Naples Bay As discussed in Chapters 1 & 2, the water quality in Naples Bay, specifically in terms of salinity, has been drastically impacted within the last 50 years, particularly from the construction of the canal system. The impacts of not only the magnitude of freshwater surplus, but also the extreme freshwater “shock loads” to the bay during the wet season, have been long documented. The benefit to Naples Bay by diverting flows south during the wet season is not necessarily as large as previously conceived studies believed, but the overall enormity of the project and magnitude of freshwater that can be diverted are still significant enhancements to the Naples Bay estuary. The following subsections describe those benefits and document the methodology used to determine them. 7.1.1. Data Sources Used The benefits of the proposed hydrologic restoration project are described below in terms of the expectations of benefits in terms of eutrophication and moderation of altered historical salinity regimes. The data set used to calculate these benefits was derived from a combination of sources: 1) flow data from the SFWMD, 2) salinity data from the City of Naples, 3) water quality data from the GGC system, and 4) empirically-derived equations relating salinity at various locations in Naples Bay to freshwater inflows from the GGC Canal system, as contained within the Naples Bay Water Quality and Biological Analysis Project (Cardno, 2015). Hydrologic and water quality data were both downloaded from DBHYDRO, the public website maintained by SFWMD for the dissemination of hydrologic and water quality data. The website may be found at this address: http://my.sfwmd.gov/dbhydroplsql/show_dbkey_info.main_menu. For the purposes of this effort, flow data were evaluated over the time period of January 1, 2011 to September 9, 2015. Water quality data from the station titled “Golden Gate Canal at White” was used to characterize the nutrient concentrations relevant for project implementation. This location is the most relevant long-term water quality sampling site in the GGC system, based on potential freshwater diversion locations outlined in the BMSMMP and the CCWMP. Previously derived flow vs. salinity relationships at four long -term water quality sampling location in Naples Bay were used, as shown in Cardno (2015). The equations used varied between locations, but all four equations represent statistically significant relationships between inflows into Naples Bay at the GG1 struct ure vs. salinity, described below in more detail. 7.1.2. Methodology Flow data from the GGC at the G1 structure represents the farthest downstream measurement of freshwater inflows into Naples Bay. Farther upstream, gate level data from the structures at GG2 and GG3 were used to determine the dates during which freshwater could be diverted out of the GGC system, and into the Rookery Bay watershed. Both the GG2 and GG3 structures are Obermeyer Weirs (overflow structures) that operate automatically to maintain upstream water levels. Since the gate crest is lowered to increase flow, the data was carefully reviewed to identify a minimum gate level that ensures excess flow over the weir. After consultation with staff at the BCB office of the SFWMD, it was agreed that the 85th percentile gate level value of 6.5 ft. NGVD29 would be used to identify days when excess flow was available upstream of the GG3 structure. If the measured gate level was greater than 6.5 ft. NGVD29, then the diversion pump could not be operated. Figure 7-1 shows the locations of the GGC structures relative to Naples Bay and the local watersheds. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 47 Figure 7-1 Golden Gate Canal Structures and Gages According to the latest modeling efforts for the Rookery Bay watershed (Whalen-Statler, updated Rookery Bay presentation), the coastal waters of Rookery Bay have a freshwater inflow deficit of approximately 50 cfs when comparing historical to existing conditions. Based on model runs using an integrated surface water/groundwater model (MIKE SHE/MIKE 11) that was recently calibrated for the BCB, it was estimated that approximately 50 percent of wet weather flows added to the upper reaches of the Rookery Bay watershed would eventually reach the coast. The remaining 50 percent of additional wet weather flows would not make it to the tidal waters of Rookery Bay, as they would end up being “lost” to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration, or they would end up restoring some of the lost historical wet weather s torage capacity in this altered landscape. Consequently, on those days where water could be available for diversions out of the GGC (without interfering with consumptive water use via private and public water supplies), a maximum of 100 cfs would be diverted from the GGC system so as not to exceed the 50 cfs wet weather inflow deficit for Rookery Bay. To determine the nutrient reduction benefits to Naples Bay, water quality data from the GGC at White station were analysed (see Figure 7-1). Consistent with the Numeric Nutrient Concentration (NNC) criteria for Naples Bay (FAC Chapter 620-302.531), nutrients were characterized for both Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorous (TP). To estimate the concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous in runoff from the Rookery Bay watershed, nutrient concentrations in Rookery Bay (WBID 3278U) were compared for conditions when Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 48 concurrent values for specific conductance were lower than the highest specific conductance value from the GGC at the White water quality station. In this way, nutrient concentrations for the freshwater inflow from the existing Rookery Bay watershed were compared to the nutrient concentrations in the waters of the GGC system closest to the location of proposed diversions. To develop estimates of the benefits of reduced freshwater inflows to Naples Bay, salinity values were derived for all days during the period of January 1, 2011 to September 9, 2015, based on the salinity vs. flow equations listed in Cardno (2015). For the Gordon River at Rowing Club location, the relationship between inflows and salinity is represented by: Salinity (ppt) = 22.4241*EXP(-0.007*Q); where Q = daily average flow (cubic feet per second; cfs) at the GG1 structure on the same day that salinity was measured. For the Naples Bay at City Dock location, the relationship between inflows and salinity is represented by: Salinity (ppt) = =31.269*EXP(-0.003*Q) where Q = daily average flow (cfs) at the GG1 structure on the same day that salinity was measured. For the Naples Bay at Mid Estuary location, the relationship between inflows and salinity is represented by: Salinity (ppt) = 34.359*EXP(-0.0023*Q) where Q = daily average flow (cfs) at the GG1 structure on the same day that salinity was measured. For the Naples Bay at Gordon Pass location, the relationship between inflows and salinity is represented by: Salinity (ppt) = =34.641*EXP(-0.0004*Q) where Q = daily average flow (cfs) at the GG1 structure on the same day that salinity was measured. 7.1.3. Results Flow Reductions To determine the amount of freshwater inflow that could be diverted from Naples Bay, consultations with staff at hydrologists at the BCB office of the SFWMD were made to ensure concurrence with all estimates, and the best available data to derive estimates. Based on these discussions, it was concluded that: 1) the most recent (as of January 2016) and revised flow data from site GG1 would be used as the baseline 2) the data to be used would be for the dates of January 1, 2009 up to September 16, 2014, 3) diversions would only occur on days when the measured gate level s at the GG2 or GG3 structures were below the defined elevation, indicating that excess flows were available, 4) flow diversions would be restricted to the “wet season” which was defined as the period of May 15 to October 31 of each year, 5) the list of days when diversions could be made would be dependent on meeting agreed -upon criteria to protect upstream water users, and 6) a flow diversion of 100 cfs at GG1 would equal the flow diversion benefit applied to Naples Bay. Flow data were found to be problematic for the year 2011, as there was no flow data for the period of March 20, 2011 until August 2, 2011, a period of 137 days. As such, discussions with SFWMD staff led to the decision to exclude data from 2011 from further calculations. Also, although data from 2014 did not include the entire wet season, it included a substantial amount of the 2014 wet season, and as such it was concluded that the values from 2014 should also be used in further calculations. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 49 The data used to estimate flow reductions with anticipated operation of the proposed freshwater diversion are shown below in Table 7-1. Table 7-1 Flow diversions expected with anticipated diversion schedule in operation Flow Reduction Year Total Diversion Days Percent of Flow Diverted when Operating (%) Percent of Flow Diverted During the Wet season (%) Percent of Flow Diverted for the Year (%) Total Volume Diverted Million Gallons Acre- feet Liters 2009 27 25.95 13.62 10.42 1,745 5,354 6,604,538,908 2010 40 20.54 7.87 5.83 2,585 7,932 9,784,502,086 2012 18 18.96 6.64 5.39 1,163 3,570 4,403,025,939 2013 90 12.64 10.45 10.10 5,816 17,848 22,015,129,693 2014* 33 15.83 8.72 8.72 2,132 6,544 8,072,214,221 Average 41.6 18.78 9.46 8.09 2,688 8,250 10,175,882,169 *The year 2014 data only went through September – not the entire calendar year On average, the proposed project would operate 42 days per year. On those days when operating, it would divert approximately 19 percent of flows to Naples Bay (18.78%). The amount diverted would equal about 9.5 percent of the wet season inflows to Naples Bay, and 8 percent of the total inflow each year. The amount of water diverted from Naples Bay would average 2,688 million gallons per year (2.7 billion gallons per year), which is equivalent to 8,250 acre-feet per year, or just over 10 billion liters per year. Nutrient Loads Table 7-2 compares the data sets for water quality representing freshwater inflows into R ookery Bay with water quality in the GGC system. Table 7-2 Summary of water quality data from Rookery Bay freshwater inflow and the GGC at White water quality station Location Specific conductance (µmhos/cm) Total Phosphorous (mg/l) Total Nitrogen (mg/l) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Rookery Bay freshwater inflow NA 620 253 0.002 0.181 0.008 0.09 1.34 0.56 Golden Gate Canal NA 650 509 0.004 0.079 0.021 0.33 2.00 0.91 Water within the GGC system appears to have approximately twice the mineral content of typical watershed - level freshwater runoff into Rookery Bay, based on mean (average) specific conductance values of 509 and 253 µmhos/cm, respectively. However, maximum specific conductance values wer e similar, and maximum values from both data sets are well below the maximum allowable value for specific conductance, 1,275 µmhos/cm, for drinking water supplies in Florida (water quality standards for Class I waters; FAC 62-302). For phosphorous, the m ean value for TP in the Golden Gate Canal was 2.6 times as high as the mean value derived for runoff into Rookery Bay, at 0.021 and 0.008 mg TP / liter, respectively. For nitrogen, the mean value for TN in the Golden Gate Canal was 1.6 times higher than the mean value derived for runoff into Rookery Bay, at 0.91 and 0.56 mg TN / liter, respectively. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 50 To calculate the estimated benefit to Naples Bay, in terms of nutrient reduction, the diverted flow volumes described above were combined with the average TN and TP estimates from the GGC at White station. Load reductions for both TN and TP were summed for each of the years of 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Data from 2015 were not used, as the data set for 2015 ended in the middle of the typical wet season. Figure 7-2 Estimated nitrogen load reduction (kg TN / yr) into Naples Bay associated with implementation of the proposed project Figure 7-3 Estimated nitrogen load reduction (kg TP / yr) into Naples Bay associated with implementation of the proposed project As shown in both Figures 7-1 and 7-2, no reductions in nitrogen or phosphorous loads to Naples Bay would have been expected in 2011, as a reduced amount of rainfall and lower than normal water levels in the GGC system would have precluded the diversion of water out of the GGC system at the GG3 structure. In 2012 and 2014, there was sufficient availability of water in the GGC system for substantial diversi ons, and thus nutrient load reductions in the range of 3,200 to 8,300 kg TN and 740 to 1,910 kg TP would occur. In the very wet year of 2013, nutrient load reductions of 15,800 kg TN and 3,700 kg TP would have been possible. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 51 The SFWMD has previously summarized nutrient load reductions for various stormwater retrofit projects in terms of equivalent amounts of nutrients in bags of residential lawn fertilizer. Assuming a 20 pound bag of fertilizer with 32 percent nitrogen content, each bag contains approxim ately 6.4 pounds (2.9 kg) of nitrogen. In 2013, as an example, the proposed project would reduce nutrient loads to Naples Bay equivalent to the amount of nitrogen in more than 5,000 20-pound bags of lawn fertilizer. As many lawn fertilizers no longer contain phosphorous, a similar comparison cannot be made, although the magnitude of the nutrient load reduction to Naples Bay for phosphorous would be similarly impressive. The nitrogen and phosphorous load reductions achievable with project implementation would be consistent with the desire of the City of Naples to continue to implement water quality improvement projects focusing on eutrophication, and to assist the City of Naples in their efforts to prevent Naples Bay from exceeding its newly established (as of 2013) numeric nutrient concentration criteria (NNC) for Naples Bay (FAC Chapter 62- 302.531). The implementation of nutrient load reductions to Naples Bay is consistent with a recent report on the status and trends of water quality in Naples Bay (Car dno 2015) as well as the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan for Naples Bay (SFWMD 2007). For Rookery Bay, the proposed project is expected to have little impact, in terms of nutrient loads to coastal waters, as 50 percent of the diverted flows are not expected to reach tidal waters of Rookery Bay, and the proposed project involves the diversion of water into a vast area where it would flow overland for a considerable distance prior to encountering tidal waters. However, waters in the GGC system (Table 7-1) have a higher nutrient concentration than typical values for freshwater inflow into Rookery Bay. If those nutrient concentrations would not be altered during their passage from the GGC system to Rookery Bay, then the change in nutrient load would be similar to the expected change in the hydrologic load. However, prior experience in hydrologic restoration projects suggest that significant amounts of nutrient uptake and assimilation would be expected as water flows through wetland flow paths. Quantification of expected nutrient reduction associated with the proposed freshwater diversion project was conducted using a two-step process. First, the amount of nutrient reduction associated with the Northern Flow- way (located north of I-75; see Figure 4-1 and Appendix A) was derived based on the size of the Northern Flowway and the previously derived relationship between nutrient removal efficiency (for both TN and TP) compared to area-normalized nutrient loads (grams / m 2 / yr). The equation used for nitrogen removal was derived from over a dozen studies, and is summarized from Richardson and Nichols (1985) as: Y =-14.479*LN(X) + 107.71 Where: Y = expected nutrient removal efficiency for Total Nitrogen (TN), 14.479 = derived value from the empirical relationship, LN = natural log, X = area-normalized nitrogen load, in units of grams TN per square meter per year, and 107.71 = derived value from the empirical relationship. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 52 The equation used for phosphorous removal, also from Richardson and Nichols (1985) was: Y = -15.507*LN(X) + 87.399 Where: Y = expected nutrient removal efficiency for Total Phosphorous (TP), -15.507 = derived value from the empirical relationship, LN = natural log, X = area-normalized nitrogen load, in units of grams TP per square meter per year, and 87.399 = derived value from the empirical relationship. These expected reductions in TN and TP concentrations were applied only to the Northern Flow -way, which is that portion of the project located north of I-75. Based on these equations, TN and TP loads would be expected to decrease by 29 and 62 percent, respectively, as diverted waters pass through the Northern Flow- way. The output from the Northern Flow-way would then become input to the rest of the project area. To estimate additional nutrient reductions associated with the sheetflow of diverted waters across the landscape, results from Rudnick et al. (1999) were used. These authors studied water quality along a transect in the eastern Everglades, where the flow path was less than the anticipated length for those project elements located south of the Northern Flow-way. Based on Rudnick et al. (1999), it is anticipated that TN and TP loads would be further reduced by approximately 89 and 77 percent, respectivel y. Combined, the passage of diverted waters into the Northern Flow-way followed by sheetflow across the remainder of the project’s foot print would be expected to reduce nutrient loads by 89 and 77 percent, respectively, for TN and TP. This would likely r esult in reductions in nutrient concentrations of runoff into Rookery Bay and its watershed similar to that which occurs from the wider watershed. Thus, a nutrient load reduction of “X” pounds from Naples Bay does not result in an increased load to Rooker y Bay of “X” pounds, as nutrient concentrations would decline based on uptake, assimilation, and (for nitrogen) denitrification as diverted volumes sheetflow across the project’s landscape. A freshwater diversion from the GGC system into Belle Meade thus h as benefits of allowing for hydrologic restoration of these currently impacted wetlands without the concurrent likelihood of nutrient over -enrichment. This benefit may not arise should a diversion take place with waters added to Henderson Creek, which resembles a drainage canal in its northernmost portions. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 53 Salinity Based on the approach described above, differences in salinity were calculated by comparing the predicted salinity on days when diversions could occur to the same day salinities predicted without the flow reductions implemented. At the Gordon River at Rowing Club location, the differences in salinities expected with project implementation are summarized in Table 7-3. Table 7-3 Predicted salinities at Gordon River at Rowing Club during days when diversions would occur During operation Salinity (ppt) w/out project Salinity (ppt) w/ project min 0.01 0.02 max 8.92 15.62 mean 1.09 1.90 median 0.73 1.28 At the Naples Bay at City Dock location, the differences in salinities expected with project implementation are summarized in Table 7-4. Table 7-4 Predicted salinities at Naples Bay at City Dock during days when diversions would occur During operation Salinity (ppt) w/out project Salinity (ppt) w/ project min 1.10 1.40 max 21.07 26.78 mean 7.44 9.46 median 7.17 9.11 At the Naples Bay at Mid Estuary location, the differences in salinities expected with project implementation are summarized in Table 7-5. Table 7-5 Predicted salinities at Naples Bay at Mid Estuary during days when diversions would occur During operation Salinity (ppt) w/out project Salinity (ppt) w/ project min 2.65 3.18 max 25.38 30.51 mean 11.18 13.44 median 11.11 13.35 Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 54 At the Naples Bay at Gordon Pass location, the differences in salinities expected with project implementation are summarized in Table 7-6. Table 7-6 Predicted salinities at Naples Bay at Gordon Pass during days when diversions would occur During operation Salinity (ppt) w/out project Salinity (ppt) w/ project min 22.18 22.90 max 32.86 33.93 mean 28.16 29.07 median 28.46 29.39 On average, mean salinities at the Gordon River at Rowing Club location would increase 74 percent, from 1.09 to 1.90 ppt with the proposed project. However, there is little evidence that the absolute change in salinity (0.81 ppt) would have a meaningful impact on the biological communities in that portion of Naples Bay. Although the percentage difference in mean predicted salinities at the Naples Bay at City Dock would differ by less than at the Gordon River at Rowing Club location (27 percent vs. 74 percent), the absolute difference in salinity (2.02 ppt) is potentially large enough to be detected, although ecological benefits might be expected only for the most stenohaline organisms that might occur or re-establish themselves in the uppermost portions of Naples Bay. The percentage difference in mean predicted salinities at the Naples Bay at Mid Estuary location would be expected to differ by 20 percent with project implementation. The absolute difference in salinity (2.26 ppt) is likely large enough to be detected, with potential benefits to at least the more stenohaline organisms that might occur or re-establish themselves in this lower part of Naples Bay. For those portions of Naples Bay from the City Dock location down to the Mid Estuary location, the predicte d change in salinity during times of operation of the proposed project would average about 2 ppt. While this does not appear to be a very large change in salinity, similar changes in salinity were found to be sufficient to influence the ratio between stenohaline vs. euryhaline species of crabs, as shown in Figure 10 of Shirley et al. (2004). In that paper, the authors found that salinity changes less than 4 ppt were sufficient to bring about a change in the ratio between a stenohaline species of crab, Panopeus herbstii, and a more euryhaline species of crab, Eurypanopeus depressus (Shirley et al. 2004). For at least that portion of Naples Bay between the City Dock and Mid Estuary water quality stations, it is likely that the proposed project could bring a bout a change in salinity large enough to detect with a well-designed water quality monitoring program. In addition, the proposed project could potentially bring about a detectable change in the biological health of Naples Bay. The detection of an ecological benefit associated with project implementation would be dependent upon the development of a monitoring program that focuses on organisms particularly sensitive to salinity variation (e.g., Shirley et al. 2004). In contrast, the differences in salinity predicted for the Naples Bay at Gordon Pass location are likely statistical noise, and also not likely to be large enough to have any ecological benefits. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 55 7.2. Picayune Strand State Forest 7.2.1. Wetland Rehydration As discussed in the previous section, the CCCWIP project proposed to divert 100 cfs, when flows are available, during the wet season months. These flows represent (at least a portion of) the flows that historically made its way to the PSSF prior to the construction of the GGC and I-75. As discussed in Section 5.2, and shown in Figure 5-3 and Table 5-1, the vegetation in the PSSF has transformed over the past 50 years due to these hydrologic alterations (and others) causing impacts to all wetland land covers and particularly to the Swamp Forest areas. Hydroperiods and water depths in this area have changed significantly and there is general consensus that the Belle Meade area of the PSSF is in need of rehydration. With the implementation of the CCCWIP, at least a portion of the historical flows would be restored within the region helping to re-establish historical wetland hydroperiods to at least some degree. Although a true restoration would likely include more than 100 cfs of additional wet season flow diversions, it has been shown that the limitations of the system that are now in place (RCW habitat, PSRP and Rookery Bay) and discussed previously in Chapters 3 and 5, currently prevent more than that (100 cfs) based on the conservative and preliminary analyses conducted as part of this project. 7.2.2. Wildfire Suppression and Prevention The Florida Forest Service (FFS) has over 1,000 employees and their mission is to protect and manage Florida’s forest resources to be sure these valuable resources are available for future generations. Two key aspects of their efforts are fire prevention and suppression which help protect nearby homeowners from forest fires. The PSSF is no exception. The PSSF has had its share of wildfires during times of unusually dry weather during the past. The implementation of the CCCWIP project provides the infrastructure that can also become a tool to help reduce and/or control wildfires. Because the project uses pump sta tions to transfer and direct flow south directly through the middle of the Belle Meade tract of the PSSF, if water is needed at a given time to prevent the spread of wildfires, the pumps could potentially be turned on for just that purpose. 7.3. Rookery Bay The project benefits to Rookery Bay are touched on briefly in Chapter 3 (Evaluation of Diverted Flow Capacity). In that section of the report, the most recent studies that have been completed for the Rookery Bay are discussed, in terms of historical flows to the estuary relative to current conditions. Although there are minor inconsistencies with the studies, the majority of analyses (studies), including the most detailed and most recent (Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary), conclude that Rookery Bay has a freshwater wet season inflow deficit. Furthermore, the study also indicates the specific locations of the flow deficits (as can be seen in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-4), which is generally the southeastern-most area of the Rookery Bay estuary (Belle Meade-9, US 41 Outfall Swale 2 and Bridge 37). When comparing the areas within the Rookery Bay estuary that have flow deficits, to the location(s) of the diverted flows to the estuary from the CCCWIP project (Figure 4-1), it can be seen that these areas correspond, indicating the diverted flows are going to the areas that need water. Not only do diverted inflow locations correspond to the locations of inflow deficits, but diverted flow volumes (approximately 50 cfs from the preliminary modeling estimates) are also consistent with the documented inflow deficit volumes in corresponding areas of Rookery Bay (Section 3.5). 7.4. Secondary CCCWIP Project Benefits The CCCWIP project provides a substantial hydrologic and ecologic uplift to a significantly large region within Collier County. The sub-sections above describe the primary benefits to the region which include the hydrologic and ecologic benefits. There are also secondary benefits to CCCWIP flow diversion. By sending additional water and restoring the wet season flows to a more historical regime, the project is also recharging the aquifer which, in turn, helps to protect the water supply for Collier County as this is the County’s primary means of drinking water. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 56 8. Future Phase Projects (Phase II) The suite of projects described in detail in Chapter 6, together form the CCCWIP and make significant County- wide hydrologic and ecologic enhancements to Naples Bay, Rookery Bay and the PSSF. These are the projects that are feasible to construct within the next ten years. However, t here are additional project components that have been identified that could increase the system capacity and enhance and expand the overall effects overall of the system. Figure 8-1 shows the locations of these potential future phase projects relative to the primary system elements. These are additional projects that, given further analysis and years of monitoring data, could be integrated into the overall system. Details of these possible future phase projects are discussed below. 8.1. Increased Pumping Capacit y The current conceptual design discussed in Chapter 6 includes pump stations that would convey 100 cfs, but the earthen infrastructure elements (Project Areas A & C) will be designed to accommodate 200 cfs in the primary phase of the project. Once constrcuted and operational, the system will be monitored to determine the potential for diverting as much as 200 cfs at given times. Currently the system limitations are the amount of additional flow that Rookery Bay could accommodate and the changes in wetland vegetation within the PSSF. If it turns out, through system monitoring, that hydrologic losses (storage, infiltration and evapo -transpiration) in the system are greater than expected, then more water could potentially be diverted from the GGC by adding additional pump stations and would further enhance the benefit to Naples Bay without impacting flow-ways and estuaries downstream. 8.2. North Belle Meade Just like the south Belle Meade area within the PSSF, the north Belle Meade area has also been impacted by the construction of the GGC. Historically flows from the north flowed through this area to south Belle Meade and on to Rookery Bay. While the implementation of the CCCWIP will significantly benefit Naples Bay, Rookery Bay and south Belle Meade, it will not benefit north Belle Meade, and there will still be a need for wetland rehydration in this area. As mentioned previously (in Section 4.2.1), the acquisition (or use) of properties within the north Belle Meade area is not feasible within the County’ desired 10-year timeframe for implementing the CCCWIP. However, because the majority of the north Belle Meade area is designated as Sending Lands in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, it is likely that these lands could be acquired in the future as many of the properties will most likely become part of the County’s TDR program. As part of the CCCWIP, the County intends on planning beyond the 10-year time frame for this area by focussing on evaluating the properties while also conducting a preliminary engineering project for the North Belle Meade Flow-way based on the concept identified in the BMSMMP and the CCWMP. Figure 8-2 shows the north Belle Meade Rydration project as conceptualized in the CCWMP. This preliminary evaluation and feasiblilty analysis would include the results of the more in-depth analysis of the overall CCCWIP flow capacity that will be conducted as part of the next phase of the CCCWIP. This will help better define the potential additional capacity of the system based on more thorough and detailed modeling and refined later based on collected monitoring data. A dding this project element to the overall system in the future, would not only rehydrate wetlands in the north Belle Meade areas but would also provide additional water quality benefits to the diverted flows by further reducing nutrient loads. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 57 Figure 8-1 Locations of Potential Future Phase Projects Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 58 Figure 8-2 North Belle Meade Rehyd ration Concept from the CCWMP (Figure from CCWMP Report, Atkins/PBS&J, 2011) Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 59 8.3. Six L’s Masterplan As discussed in Section 5.5, the Six L’s agricultural lands area lies in a strategic location, in terms of the historic flow-way for Rookery Bay. As part of the primary phase of the CCCWIP, described in Chapter 6, flow- ways would be re-established through the area to the extent possible and coordinated with the current land owners. These flow-ways would likely need to be constructed in coordination with the current agricultural activities (tomato farming) that exist today. If/when the properties transition to residential development in the future, further engineering and design will likely be required to develop a long -term and overall “Masterplan” for the area. This would involve augmenting or expanding the flow-ways constructed during the CCCWIP to incorporate discharges from the new development if and when that transition occurs in the future. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 60 9. Project Costs, Schedule & Implementation 9.1. Planning-Level Opinion of Probable Costs The preliminary opinion of probable construction costs for the projects described in Chapter 6 and presented in Appendix A is presented in Table 9-1. These estimates are based on best available information for quantities and unit prices for the year 2016, and are equivalent to a 15% design. Sources include; current Florida Department of Transportation tabulated costs for item average unit cost, local bid tabs for similar projects in Collier County and throughout SFWMD and SWFWMD. Costs for any property acquisition (if needed) are not included. Costs include 2% for Maintenance of Traffic (MOT), 10% for Mobilization and a 30% contingency. Additional costs are presented in the overall CCCWIP project cost estimate including, a more detailed project development (5%), design/plans preparations (10%), permitting (5%) and mitigation (5%). An estimated cost is also included for m onitoring and SCADA telemetry systems. Considering that this project has a ten-year planning horizon (approximate) for com pletion of construction, a cost escalation factor of 23% (3% per year compounded over 7 years) has been included. Also included in the overall cost, is funding for other minor project that may be necessary or beneficial to enhance the system and for the future phase projects; North Belle Meade Flow-way and the Six L’s Masterplan. Table 9-1 presents a planning-level opinion of probable costs for the implementation of the CCCWIP. More detailed breakdown of construction cost estimates are presented in Appendix B. Table 9-1 Planning-Level Opinion of Probable Costs Project Element Estimated Cost Project Area A $5,1000,000 Project Area B $1,400,000 Project Area C $4,620,000 Project Area D $160,000 Project Area E $7,610,000 Construction Cost (Areas A-E) Total $18,890,000 Project Development $950,000 Design/Engineering (10%) $1,890,000 Permitting (5%) $950,000 Mitigation (5%) $950,000 Monitoring and SCADA Telemetry Systems $1,000,000 Additional Minor Projects $1,000,000 North Belle Meade Preliminary Engineering $1,000,000 Six L's Area Future Masterplan $1,000,000 Cost Escalation over 7 years (3% per year) $4,350,000 Total $32,000,000 Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 61 9.2. 10-Year Project Implementation Schedule Collier County understands that implementing the CCCWIP project will take time and planning but the preliminary work that has been accomplished as part of this report has laid the necessary ground work and provides the foundation for successful project in the future. Considering the magnitude of the project, in terms of engineering, designing, permitting, and the planning and funding strategies that that need to be accomplished, a 10-year project schedule is the goal for project completion. Table 9-2 below presents the desired overall project schedule for implementation of the CCCWIP. Table 9-2 Project Implementation Schedule CCCWIP Project Phase Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Project Development Design Construction Permitting Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 62 10. Funding Sources and Strategies 10.1. Introduction This section provides an overview of various funding sources potentially applicable to the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan (CCCWMP). In addition, an overall funding strategy for the implementation of the Watershed Management Plan is recommended. 10.2. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Funding Sources While the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a disaster for the coastal communities and living resources of the Gulf States, the resulting legal settlements with the responsible parties (Transocean and BP) have created unprecedented funding streams to effect meaningful and sustainable improvements to the ecolog y and economy of the Florida Gulf coast. These settlements include:  RESTORE Act funded by Clean Water Act penalties;  Natural Resource Damages (NRD) funded by Oil Pollution Act penalties;  National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund funded by criminal penalties; and  State and local economic claims. 10.2.1. Clean Water Act (CWA) and Natural Resource Damages (NRD) In 2014, Transocean agreed to pay $1 billion to settle pending Clean Water Act penalties. These funds were deposited in the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund, and beginning in 2015, a portion of these funds was subsequently allocated to Gulf Coast counties and parishes under the RESTORE Act Direct Component. Collier County’s 2015 allocation under this disbursement was $982,660. In July 2015, BP announced a tentative comprehensive $20.8 billion settlement with the U.S. Justice Department as well as the five Gulf States that would resolve pending Oil Pollution Act and Clean Water Act penalties as well as state and local economic claims. The final Consent Decree was signed on April 4, 2016, settling all remaining claims. Table 10-1 below shows the final breakdown of the Transocean and BP legal settlements by the various components for the State of Florida. Table 10-1 Breakdown of Transocean and BP Legal Settlements for the State of Florida Component Dollars RESTORE Act Direct Component (Pot 1) $373,000,000 RESTORE Act Spill Impact Component (Pot 3) $293,000,000 RESTORE Act Centers of Excellence (Pot 5) $27,000,000 Natural Resource Damages $680,000,000 Economic Damages $2,000,000,000 Total $3,373,000,000 It should be noted that, compared to the other four Gulf States, a much greater proportion of the total Florida settlement ($2 billion) is dedicated to economic damages. Nonetheless, the RESTORE Act and NRD components of the Florida settlement earmark approximately $1,373,000,000 for environmental restoration and related monitoring and research. Furthermore, it should be no ted that up to 20 percent (approximately $320,000,000) of the RESTORE Act Council Selected Component (Pot 2) could also be spent on Florida projects. Therefore, the final Transocean and BP settlements could generate up to $1,693,000,000 environmental restoration in Florida over the next 15 years. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 63 10.2.2. Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund The Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund was established in early 2013 as a result of two plea agreements resolving the criminal cases against BP and Transocean after the Deepwater Horiz on oil spill. The agreements direct a total of $2.544 billion to NFWF over a five -year period. The funds are to be used to support projects that remedy harm to natural resources (e.g., habitats, species) where there has been injury to, or destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of those resources resulting from the oil spill (http://www.nfwf.org/gulf/Pages/home.aspx). Projects are expected to occur within reasonable proximity to where the impacts occurred, as appropriate. Consistent with the terms of the plea agreements, funding priorities include, but are not limited to, projects that contribute significantly to the following natural resource outcomes:  Restore and maintain the ecological functions of landscape -scale coastal habitats, including barrier islands, beaches and coastal marshes, and ensure their viability and resilience against existing and future threats;  Restore and maintain the ecological integrity of priority coastal bays and estuaries; and  Replenish and protect living resources including oysters, red snapper and other reef fish, Gulf Coast bird populations, sea turtles and marine mammals. The State of Florida received a $356,000,000 Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund grant from NFWF in 2013 to develop a “Restoration Strategy” and to implement identified priority projects. The Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is the implementing entity within Florida, and is currently conducting a planning program to identify, evaluate, and prioritize various projects, programs and activities that address NFWF programmatic goals as well as the targeted natural resource outcomes. The Florida “Restoration Strategy” document is expected to be complete in 2017, with project implementation to follow. 10.3. Program Coordination At this time, multiple planning processes are underway to identify, evaluate, prioritize, and implement projects that address the programmatic goals and criteria of the respective programs. These processes include the following:  County development and implem entation of Multi-Year Implementation Plans (RESTORE Act Direct Component – Pot 1);  Restoration Council development of the annual Funded Priorities List (RESTORE Act Council Directed Component – Pot 2).  Gulf Consortium development of the Florida State Expenditure Plan (RESTORE Act Spill Impact Component – Pot 3);  Florida Institute of Oceanography development of the Gulf Research Plan (RESTORE Act Centers of Excellence – Pot 5); and  Federal and State (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) trust ees implementation of the Florida Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) and associated restoration and remediation projects. In addition to these ongoing coastal planning processes, the Florida Gulf Coast Water Management District’s and National Estuary Programs have also turned their focus to Gulf restoration, and are exploring ways they can leverage their existing respective funding sources with the Deepwater Horizon related funding streams. For example, both the Northwest Florida Water Management D istrict and the Suwannee River Water Management District will be utilizing grant funds from NFWF to update their Surface Water Improvement and Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 64 Management (SWIM) Plans for priority water bodies in their respective districts, and to identify and prioritize projects that contribute to the NFWF mission. In addition, the South Florida Water Management District will be updating the Naples Bay SWIM Plan, and monies from the District Cooperative Funding Program will be available for project funding. While these coastal planning processes all have their own unique statutory focus, there is the potential for a significant amount of duplication and overlap among them. For example, a living shoreline project that crosses two county boundaries could be identified as a priority project in those county’s Multi-Year Implementation Plans, in the Florida State Expenditure Plan, in the Council’s Funded Priority List, and in the NRDA trustee’s phased program. Including the same or similar projects in multiple coastal restorat ion plans could potentially lead to confusion and the potential squandering of limited financial resources. Therefore, to ensure the success of the Restoration Strategy project it will be critical to:  Effectively communicate and coordinate with other ongo ing Florida coastal restoration planning processes;  Minimize the duplication and overlap among these processes; and  Leverage and optimize the use of all available funding streams to effect meaningful and sustainable improvements to the ecology of the Florida Gulf coast. If Florida coastal restoration planning efforts are well coordinated, there should be no duplication and overlap of same or similar projects in the various plans. Furthermore, it should be possible to cross -link the most ecologically significant projects in such a way as to optimize available funding sources across project phases. For instance, in the living shoreline project example discussed above, Phase 1 (project engineering design and permitting) could be funded using RESTORE Act Direct Component funds, Phase 2 (construction) could be funded under the State Expenditure Plan, and Phase 3 (success monitoring) could be funded under the Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund. The key point here is that the success of Florida Gulf coast restora tion efforts in general will be dependent on the effective coordination amongst and communication between the various ongoing coastal planning efforts, and it will be incumbent upon all recipient governmental units to maintain situational awareness of the status of these efforts in order to optimize their funding opportunities. 10.4. Recommended Funding Strategy As discussed above, there are many timely opportunities for the funding of the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan (CCCWMP). What follows are recommended elements of an overall funding strategy. 1. Propose the CCCWMP as Collier County’s priority project for inclusion in the State Expenditure Plan (SEP). Collier County is projected to receive approximately $12.7 million under the RESTORE Act Spill Impact Component (Pot 3), all of which could be applied to the CCCWMP. The process for SEP initial project nominations will be conducted during the summer of 2016. 2. Identify the NRD Water Quality component as a leveraged funding source. A total of $330 million has been set aside in Florida’s NRD Water Quality component, and these funds are eligible for use throughout the entire Florida Gulf coast, not just the panhandle counties. Since the CCCWMP project is clearly water quality focused, there is strong justification for requesting leveraged funds to augment Collier County’s Pot 3 allocation for its SEP project. 3. Continue to coordinate with the FDEP with regard to inclusion of the CCCWMP in the next Funded Priorities List (FPL). The Restoration Council is expected to open the next FPL window during the fall of 2016, and the FDEP is currently in the process of evaluating and prioritizing projects to be submitted as part of Florida’s funding request. It is expected that the next suite of Florida FPL projects will be focused in peninsular Florida to provide geographic balance, so the timing is critical. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 65 4. Dedicate a portion of Collier County’s Direct Component funds to serve as matching funds for CCCWMP implementation. Project proposals that include matching funds from existing county funding sources are more likely to receive leveraged funds from other non-secured sources, and more likely to be ranked higher for inclusion in future FPLs. 5. Consult with the FWC with regard to inclusion of the CCCWMP in the Florida Restoration Strategy. Although Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund monies will be spent primarily in panhandle Florida counties that received direct environmental impacts from the oil spill, a portion of the funds will be dedicated to peninsular Florida to offset impacts to fish, shellfish and other coastal migratory species. The CCCWMP will clearly provide benefits to these wildlife guilds, and thus should be eligible for NFWF funding. 6. Consult with the South Florida Water Management District with regard to the update of the Naples Bay SWIM Plan. As required by statute, SWIM Plans must be periodically updated and must identify priority projects. The CCCWMP should be recognized by the District as well as well as other stakeholders such as the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve as a high priority restoration project. Finally, although not related to Florida’s Gulf restoration efforts, there have been recent changes in Florida regulatory programs that allow for alternatives to onsite stormwater treatment systems to meet water quality treatment requirements for new development. In 2012, the Florida legislature passed HB 559 which included direction to the water management districts and FDEP to “…allow alternatives to onsite treatmen t, including, but not limited to (emphasis added) regional stormwater treatment systems.” Upon the Governor’s signature, this provision was enacted into law as Section 373.413(6), Florida Statutes (F.S.). Additionally, Section 5.1 of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) ERP Basis of Review (BOR) states that “The applicant may also provide reasonable assurance of compliance with state water quality standards by the use of alternative methods that will provide treatment equivalent (emphasis added) to systems designed using the criteria specified in this section.” Because this provision allows for hydrologic restoration projects to serve as alternatives to typical stormwater treatment, it may be possible for Collier County to obtain mitig ation and water quality treatment “credits” for future infrastructure projects through the implementation of the Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 66 11. References Atkins North America (formerly PBS&J), 2011. Collier County Watershed Management Plan Interflow Engineering LLC, 2014. Restoring the Rookery Bay: Henderson Creek Watershed Engineering Research Project Parsons, 2006. Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan Johnson Engineering, 1980. Golden Gate Water Management Plan South Florida Water Management District, 1998. BCB Basin Watershed Management Plan and Environmental Assessment South Florida Water Management District, 2007. Naples Bay Stormwater Improvement Management (SWIM) Plan South Florida Water Management District, 2008. (Phase I) Horsepen Strand Conservation Area (HSCA) Feasibility Study Collier County, 2015. Collier County Growth Management Plan Mike Duever, 1984. Relationship of Hydrology to Major Plant Community Types (hydroperiods and water depths) Browder, J.A., Tashiro, J., Coleman-Duffie, E., and A. Rosenthal. 1988. Comparison of Ichthyoplankton Immigration Rates into Three Bay Systems of the Ten Thousand Islands Affected by the G olden Gate Estates Canal System, Volume I. Final Report to the South Florida Water Management District. Cardno. 2015. Naples Bay Water Quality and Biological Analysis Project. Final Report to City of Naples. 147 pp. http://www.nfwf.org/gulf/Pages/home.aspx Lewi, J., Rubec, P., Shirley, M., O’Donnell, P., Henderson, G., and S. Locker. Undated paper. Spatial Modeling to Determine Optimal Freshwater Inflows into Estuarine Habitats in the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Richardson, C.J. and D.S. Nichols. 1985. Ecological analysis of wastewater management criteria in wetland ecosystems. Ecological considerations in wetlands treatment of municipal wastewaters. E.R.K. Paul J. Godfrey, Sheila Pelczarski, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: 351-391. Rubec, P., Lewis, J., Shirley, M., O’Donnell, P., and S. Locker. 2006. Relating changes in freshwater inflow to species distributions in Rookery Bay, Florida, via habitat suitability modeling and mapping. Pp. 61 -75, In: Proceedings 57th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. Rudnick, D.T., Chen, Z., Childers, D.L., and T .D. Fontaine. 1999. Phosphorus and nitrogen inputs to Florida Bay: The importance of the Everglades watershed. Estuaries 22: 398-416. Savarese, M., Volety, A., and G. Tolley. 2003. Oyster physiology and ecological distribution as an indication of environmental health and as a performance measure of restoration effectiveness of southwest Florida’s estuaries. Joint Conference on the Science and Restoration of the Greater Everglades and Florida Bay Ecosystem "From Kissimmee to the Keys". Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 67 Schmid, J., K. Worley, D.S. Addison, A. R. Zimmerman, and A. Van Eaton, 2006. Naples Bay Past and Present: A Chronology of Disturbance to an Estuary. Report to the City of Naples, FL. Shirley, M., McGee, V., Jones, T., Anderson, B., and J. Schmid. 2004. Relative abundance of stenohaline and euryhaline oyster reef crab populations as a tool for managing freshwater inflow to estuaries. Journal of Coastal Research 45: 195-2089. Shirley, M., O’Donnell, P., McGee, V., and T. Jones. 2005. Nekton species composition as a biological indicator of altered freshwater inflow into estuaries. Pp. 351-364. In: S.A. Bortone (ed.). Estuarine Indicators. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Weisberg, R., and L. Zheng. 2007. Estuarine Hydrodynamic Modeling of Rookery Bay. Final Report to Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 31 pp. Yokel, B. 1975. A Comparison of Animal Abundance and Distribution in Similar Habitats in Rookery Bay, Marco Island and Fakahatchee on the Southwest Coast of Florida 1971-1972. Final Report to Deltona Corporation. 137 pp. Whalen Stadler, T. Undated presentation. Restoring the Rookery Bay Estuary: A Project Connecting People and Science for Long-term Community Benefit. PowerPoint presentation for Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. 54 pp. Appendices Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 68 Appendix A. CCCWIP Conceptual Plan Set PROJECT AREA MAPN.T.S.PROJECT LIMITS CLIENTPROJECTTITLE123456789101112ORIGINALREVISIONS:JOB NO.DRAWNPECHECKEDQCTel. (813) 282-7275Tampa, Florida 336074030 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700MARK D. ERWINFLORIDA P.E. NO. 65600Fax (813) 282-9767WWW.ATKINS.COMFBPE Certificate of Authorization No. 24100046576CLTMDECOLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN09/2016CONCEPTUAL PLANKEY SHEET21000050000FeetINTERSTATE 75 (I-75)ROOKERY BAYPICAYUNE STRANDRESTORATION PROJECT AREATAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41)GOLDEN GATE CANALCOLLIER BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA A - NORTH BELLE MEADE PUMPSTATION AND FLOW-WAY RECREATIONAL AREAPROJECT AREA B - INTERSTATE 75 (I-75) CANALS IMPROVEMENTSPROJECT AREA D - SABAL PALM ROAD CULVERT CROSSINGSPROJECT AREA C - SOUTH BELLE MEADE PUMPSTATION, FLOW-WAY, AND SPREADERPROJECT AREA E - SIX L'S/U.S. 41 FLOW-WAYSAND CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTSFAKAUNION CANAL MILLER CANAL MERRITT CANAL CITY OFNAPLESSIX L'S AGRICULTURALAREASABAL PALM ROADCITY OFMARCO ISLANDSA N M A R C O ROADRATTLESNAKEHAMMOCK ROADDAVIS BOULEVARD 87654311141011111111101111111011101111 1091113 10 101110101111 121010 12111011121110 10 121110 1111 111210 1210101110 111111101411111011 121110111111111111111111 6121012111111111211101111111114111011121111111211 10 11121011111011 10 11111110 111010 10111112121010111211 10 1210 121110101010101211 1212111211101111 101112 12 11 12 1010 12121112101011111111111211101291010121011121110111111111311111011 10101211121011 111412 1111111211 11111110111211 10 1110111111 11101110 11111 0 1110 1110111011111011111011 1112111112111011 121011101110111111111111101111 1211101012 121111111110 1011121011 10101010109 121110 121112 101011 12111111 10 411101112101110111191111 1012 1113121011912101011 1211 101011121011910 10101111111011101111 1211 1210 111111111010 10 1111 11111011 101010 12 11111111111211 1010111010111211111010 11101011109 1011 10101011111211101010 11 11111210 811111111111011111111101310121110 10 111112 12111011111111128111110101111 1011101111 1013 1110111010 111010111011 10 1010 1110 121010 111011 1211101191011101110101010 1 0 1110101111 12121010 1010 11 1110 12101111 10 111011 10 11101011 111011111111111010 10101110 10 111110 101010 10 10 1112 11 1110111110101110 10NORTH BELLE MEADEPUMP STATION(SEE DRAWING A-3)NORTH BELLE MEADE FLOW-WAY(SEE DRAWING A-2)BURNEDWETLANDWETLANDSEE INSET 'A'NOTES:1. PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY2. WETLAND LINES SHOWN ARE FROM CENTURY PARK CENTER ERP APPLICATION NO. 040301-15 (NOT PERMITTED), DATED 2011. IT IS UNKNOWN IF WETLAND LINES HAVE CHANGED OR BURNED AREAS HAVE RE-ESTABLISHED3. ESTIMATED WETLAND IMPACTS: WETLANDS = 3.36 AC BURNED WETLANDS = 3.28 ACWHITE LAKE BLVD.INTERSTATE 75 (I-75)AABBEL. 14.5' EL. 10.5'EL. 9.5'EL. 9.0'EL. 0.0'CREATED WETLAND ISLANDSEL. 15.0'4 - 36" PIPESCONTROL STRUCTURE TO DIVERT WATER EASTTOWARD SOUTH BELLE MEADE PUMP STATIONOUTFALL CONVEYANCEFLOW-WAY (WET)4 - 42" PIPESOUTFALL STRUCTURECONVEYANCE FLOW-WAYFROM NORTH BELLE MEADEPUMP STATION (NORMALLYDRY, EXCEPT FOR CREATEDWETLANDS)10' MULTI-USE PATHCREATED WETLANDISLAND (TYP)SODDED ACCESS ROADWITH GEOGRID STABILIZATIONSHELTERPARKING LOTWETLAND(TYP)NORTH BELLE MEADE PUMPSTATION AND FLOW-WAYRECREATIONAL AREA PLANCLIENTPROJECTTITLE123456789101112ORIGINALREVISIONS:JOB NO.DRAWNPECHECKEDQCTel. (813) 282-7275Tampa, Florida 336074030 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700MARK D. ERWINFLORIDA P.E. NO. 65600Fax (813) 282-9767WWW.ATKINS.COMFBPE Certificate of Authorization No. 24100046576CLTMDECOLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN09/2016CONCEPTUAL PLAN0600FeetN0100FeetN30050PLAN VIEWINSET 'A' - PLAN VIEW OF PARKING LOT & OUTFALL TO I-75 CANALA-1INTERSTATE 75 (I-75)WHITE LAKECORPORATE PARKGOLDEN GATE CANALI-75 NORTH CANAL 1:41:61:61:3PEAK WATERELEVATIONAT 200 CFS = 13.6'EL. 15EL. 14.5EL. 15EL. 14 .51:41:61:3EL. 15EL. 14.5PEAK WATER ELEVATIONAT 200 CFS = 13.6'EL. 15EL. 14 .51:6NTSNTS1:61:6SECTION A-A OF NORTH BELLE MEADE FLOW-WAYSECTION B-B OF NORTH BELLE MEADE FLOW-WAYSHWT ASSUMED 1' BELOWEXISTING GROUNDSHWT ASSUMED 1' BELOWEXISTING GROUNDEXISTING GROUNDVARIES 9.5'-12'EXISTING GROUNDVARIES 9.5'-12'SOD(VARIES)4' SOD20' ASPHALTACCESS ROAD18' LONGPARKINGSPACE6' SOD SWALE10' MULTIUSE PATH2' SOD24' SOD62' SOD24' SOD2' SOD10' MULTIUSE PATH4' SODSOD (VARIES)SOD(VARIES)4' SOD20'REINFORCEDSOD ACCESSROADWAY6' SOD SWALE10' MULTIUSE PATH2' SOD24' SOD20' SOD42' PLANTED WETLANDAT OR BELOW SHWL20' SOD82' WIDE BOTTOM24' SOD2' SOD10' MULTIUSE PATH4' SODSOD (VARIES)TOTAL WIDTH OF DITCH CORRIDOR = 230'TOTAL WIDTH OF DITCH CORRIDOR = 230'CLIENTPROJECTTITLE123456789101112ORIGINALREVISIONS:JOB NO.DRAWNPECHECKEDQCTel. (813) 282-7275Tampa, Florida 336074030 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700MARK D. ERWINFLORIDA P.E. NO. 65600Fax (813) 282-9767WWW.ATKINS.COMFBPE Certificate of Authorization No. 24100046576CLTMDECOLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN09/2016CONCEPTUAL PLANA-2NORTH BELLE MEADEFLOW-WAY RECREATIONALAREA TYPICAL SECTIONS CLIENTPROJECTTITLE123456789101112ORIGINALREVISIONS:JOB NO.DRAWNPECHECKEDQCTel. (813) 282-7275Tampa, Florida 336074030 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700MARK D. ERWINFLORIDA P.E. NO. 65600Fax (813) 282-9767WWW.ATKINS.COMFBPE Certificate of Authorization No. 24100046576CLTMDECOLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN09/2016CONCEPTUAL PLAN40200FeetA-3GOLDEN GATE CANAL20' REINFORCED SODACCESS ROADWAYSTILLING WELL FORPUMP FLOAT CONTROLSFUTURE PUMP NO. 4FUTURE PUMP NO. 3PUMP NO. 2 (50 CFS)PUMP NO. 1 (50 CFS)INTAKE PIPES (TYP)PUMP CONTROLPANEL PADDISCHARGEPIPES (TYP)FENCE AND ACCESS GATE20' REINFORCED SODACCESS ROADWAY10' MULTIUSE PATHFABRIC-FORMED CONCRETE RIPRAPPROPOSEDCONVEYANCEFLOW-WAYNORTH BELLE MEADEPUMP STATION PLAN INTERSTATE 75 (I-75)CANALS IMPROVEMENTS PLANCLIENTPROJECTTITLE123456789101112ORIGINALREVISIONS:JOB NO.DRAWNPECHECKEDQCTel. (813) 282-7275Tampa, Florida 336074030 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700MARK D. ERWINFLORIDA P.E. NO. 65600Fax (813) 282-9767WWW.ATKINS.COMFBPE Certificate of Authorization No. 24100046576CLTMDECOLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN09/2016CONCEPTUAL PLAN01400FeetNINTERSTATE 75 (I-75)I-75 SOUTH CANALLAKE BLVD.WHITEBECK BLVD.REMOVE DITCH BLOCKREMOVE EXCESSIVE VEGETATIONREMOVE EXCESSIVE VEGETATIONI-75 NORTH CANALEXISTING 5'X10' CROSS DRAINEXISTING 5'X10'CROSS DRAINEXISTING 5'X10' CROSS DRAINREMOVE EXCESSIVE VEGETATIONCONTROL STRUCTURE TO PREVENTEXCESS FLOWS TO MILLER CANALNORTH BELLE MEADE PUMP STATIONAND FLOW-WAY RECREATIONAL AREA(SEE DRAWINGS A-1, A-2, AND A-3)SOUTH BELLE MEADE PUMP STATION,FLOW-WAY, AND SPREADER(SEE DRAWINGS C-1 AND C-2)700B-1CONTROL STRUCTURE TO PREVENTEXCESS FLOWS TO MILLER CANAL 1:41:415'MAINTENANCEBERM15'MAINTENANCEBERMEL 13'EL 13'EL. 10'NOTE:APPROX. TOTAL LENGTH OFFLOW-WAY IS 4,150'1:41:4EL 13'EL 13'EL. 10'EL 10.5'15'MAINTENANCEBERM (TYP)1:41:4NTSNOTE:APPROX. TOTAL LENGTH OFSPREADER SWALE IS 4,150'899999999991010101010101010CLIENTPROJECTTITLE123456789101112ORIGINALREVISIONS:JOB NO.DRAWNPECHECKEDQCTel. (813) 282-7275Tampa, Florida 336074030 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700MARK D. ERWINFLORIDA P.E. NO. 65600Fax (813) 282-9767WWW.ATKINS.COMFBPE Certificate of Authorization No. 24100046576CLTMDECOLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN09/2016CONCEPTUAL PLAN10005000FeetI-75 NORTH CANALI-75 SOUTH CANALINTERSTATE 75 (I-75)SOUTH BELLE MEADEPUMP STATION(SEE DRAWING C-2)SOUTH BELLE MEADE FLOW-WAYSPREADER SWALECONCRETE SPREADERWEIR (TYP) - 9 TOTALINSET 'A'EXISTING GROUNDEL. VARIES (10'-11')CONCRETE WEIRDITCH RUBBLERIPRAP (TYP)EXISTING GROUNDEL. 10' (+/-)DITCH RUBBLERIPRAP (TYP)CONCRETE SPREADER WEIR (TYP)12" BLEEDER PIPEBOTTOM WIDTH = 100'APPROX. TOTAL WIDTH = 175'BOTTOM WIDTH = 50'100' WIDE WEIRHORSE TRAIL CROSSINGSRECONSTRUCT HORSE TRAILON BACKSIDE OF SWALESOUTH BELLE MEADEFLOW-WAY AND SPREADERPLAN AND TYPICAL SECTIONSC-1INSET 'A' - PLAN VIEW OF SPREADER SWALE WEIRTYPICAL SECTION OF SOUTH BELLE MEADE FLOW-WAYTYPICAL SECTION OF SPREADER SWALEPLAN VIEWNTSNTSEXISTING HORSE TRAILS 4MAINTENANCE B E R MCLIENT PROJECTTITLE123456789101112ORIGINALREVISIONS:JOB NO.DRAWNPECHECKEDQCTel. (813) 282-7275Tampa, Florida 336074030 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700MARK D. ERWINFLORIDA P.E. NO. 65600Fax (813) 282-9767WWW.ATKINS.COMFBPE Certificate of Authorization No. 24100046576CLTMDECOLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN09/2016CONCEPTUAL PLANC-2040FeetN20FABRIC FORMEDCONCRETE RIPRAPI-75 SOUTH CANALDISCHARGE PIPES (TYP)FENCE AND ACCESS GATESPVC PIPECONCRETE DITCHPAVEMENTINTAKE PIPES (TYP)FUTURE PUMP NO. 4FUTURE PUMP NO. 3PUMP NO. 2 (50 CFS)PUMP NO. 1 (50 CFS)STILLING WELL FOR PUMPFLOAT CONTROLSPUMP CONTROL PANEL PADMAINTENANCE B E R MPROPOSEDFLOW-WAYEL. 13' EL. 10' EL. 10' EL. 13'STABILIZED PARKING AREAEL. 1'EL. 10'EXISTING HORSE TRAILEL. 10'EL. 13'EL. 13'EL. 16'SOUTH BELLE MEADEPUMP STATION PLAN 200Feet0100NTSCLIENTPROJECTTITLE123456789101112ORIGINALREVISIONS:JOB NO.DRAWNPECHECKEDQCTel. (813) 282-7275Tampa, Florida 336074030 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700MARK D. ERWINFLORIDA P.E. NO. 65600Fax (813) 282-9767WWW.ATKINS.COMFBPE Certificate of Authorization No. 24100046576CLTMDECOLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN09/2016CONCEPTUAL PLANTYPE H DBI WITH PAVEMENTEXISTING ROADWAY TO BE OPEN CUT ANDPATCHED FOR CULVERT CONSTRUCTIONTYPE H DBI WITH PAVEMENT48" PIPESUMP BOTTOM (TYP)TYPICAL SECTION OF SIPHON CULVERT CROSSINGSABAL PALM ROADCULVERT CROSSINGSD-1EXISTING SIPHONCULVERT CROSSINGEXISTING SIPHONCULVERT CROSSINGPROPOSED SIPHONCULVERT CROSSINGEXISTING SIPHONCULVERT CROSSINGEXISTING SIPHONCULVERT CROSSINGPROPOSED SIPHONCULVERT CROSSINGPROPOSED SIPHONCULVERT CROSSINGPROPOSED SIPHONCULVERT CROSSINGSABAL PALM ROAD CLIENTPROJECTTITLE123456789101112ORIGINALREVISIONS:JOB NO.DRAWNPECHECKEDQCTel. (813) 282-7275Tampa, Florida 336074030 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700MARK D. ERWINFLORIDA P.E. NO. 65600Fax (813) 282-9767WWW.ATKINS.COMFBPE Certificate of Authorization No. 24100046576CLTMDECOLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEWATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN09/2016CONCEPTUAL PLAN03000FeetNCOLLIER BOULEVARD (FL-951)ROOKERY BAYSIX L'S AGRICULTURAL AREATAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41)JACK AND BORE DOUBLE CULVERTSUNDER COLLIER BOULEVARDEXISTING CULVERTS ( )OLD RAILROADEMBANKMENTPROPOSED ADDITIONAL CULVERTS ( )HENDERSONCREEKEXISTING FLOW-WAYS ( )PICAYUNE STRAND STATE FORESTCREATE OPENINGS IN OLDRAILROAD EMBANKMENT (TYP)PROPOSED FLOW-WAYS ( )JACK AND BORE CULVERT ( )1500PROPOSEDCONTROLSTRUCTUREPROPOSED CONTROL STRUCTUREPROPOSED CONTROL STRUCTUREPROPOSED CONTROL STRUCTUREPROPOSED CONTROL STRUCTUREWETLANDSWETLANDSFIDDLER'SCREEKSIX L'S/U.S. 41 FLOW-WAYS ANDCONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTSPLANE-1PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT AREA WATER QUALITY ANDATTENUATION AREAPROPOSED CONTROL STRUCTUREEXISTING SHEETFLOW AREAWETLANDSWETLANDS Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Atkins Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan | FINAL | September 23, 2016 69 Appendix B. Detailed Estimates of Construction Costs COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN ESTIMATE OF COST Prepared By: CLT, PE Checked By: MDE, PE ITEM PAY ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL AMOUNT 1 01-ELEC Electrical Equipment - (control panel, site elec.) 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000 2 01-ENCL VFD Package with NEMA 3R Enclosure 4 EA $7,317.00 $29,268 3 01-PUMP 50 CFS Vertical Axial Flow Pump powered by 60hp, 1800 rpm Electric Motor.2 EA $55,274.00 $110,548 4 01-STRT Freight to the jobsite, installation and start up service 1 EA $20,648.13 $20,648 5 104-10-3 Sediment Barrier 11,300 LF $1.50 $16,950 6 104-11 Floating Turbidity Barrier 200 LF $10.50 $2,100 7 104-11-X Turbidity Monitoring 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 8 104-15 Soil Tracking Prevention Device 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000 9 110-1-1 Clearing and Grubbing 27 AC $15,000.00 $405,000 10 120-5 Channel Excavation 8,248 CY $30.50 $251,564 11 120-6 Embankment 72,165 CY $10.50 $757,737 12 145-71 Reinforcement Grid for Soil Stabilization (Access Rd & Station Parking)10,789 SY $6.50 $70,129 13 160-4 Type B Stabilization 12,230 SY $3.50 $42,805 14 285-709 Optional Base Group 09 12,230 SY $15.00 $183,450 15 334-1-13 SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONC, TRAFFIC C (220 lb/sy) 1,345 TN $100.00 $134,530 16 337-7-43 ASPH CONC FC, TRAFFIC C, FC-12.5, PG 76-22 (165 lb/sy) 111 TN $140.00 $15,538 17 400-1-25 Conc. Class I, Substructure (Electrical Pad) 4 CY $580.00 $2,320 18 400-2-25 Conc. Class II, Substructure (Pump Support Slab) 12 CY $667.00 $8,004 19 400-91 Dewatering (For Pump Cans) 4 EA $20,000.00 $80,000 20 425-2-62 Manhole, P-8, >10' 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 21 425-1-611 Inlets, Ditch Bottom, Type K 1 EA $21,000.00 $21,000 22 430-174-112 Pipe Culvert, Round 12" 192 LF $57.00 $10,944 23 430-175-136 Pipe Culvert, Round 36" (Discharge Piping, 36" PVC) 569 LF $114.00 $64,866 24 430-175-142 Pipe Culvert, Round 42" (Intake Piping, PVC) 506 LF $130.00 $65,780 25 430-175-142 Pipe Culvert, Round 42" (Outfall Pipes from ditch/pond) 440 LF $130.00 $57,200 26 430-175-148 Pipe Culvert, Round 48" (Pipe from ditch to I-75 ditch) 460 LF $160.00 $73,600 27 430-880-2 Flap Gates (36") 4 EA $10,000.00 $40,000 28 430-982-140 Mitered End Sections, Round 42" CD 8 EA $3,500.00 $28,000 29 430-982-141 Mitered End Sections, Round 48" CD 8 EA $4,000.00 $32,000 30 430-984-140 Mitered End Sections, Round 42" SD (with bars) 4 EA $6,000.00 $24,000 31 430-984-181 Mitered End Sections, Round 12" SD (with bars) 1 EA $700.00 $700 32 455-133-1 Sheet Piling Steel, Temporary-Critical 9,000 SF $12.50 $112,500 33 530-3-4 Riprap, Rubble, Ditch Lining (Pump Intake) 65 TN $85.00 $5,525 34 530-74 Bedding Stone (Stabilized Parking Area - 8" Depth) 400 TN $70.00 $28,006 35 530-7-4 Regular Excavation 8,476 CY $5.00 $42,380 36 547-70-2 Riprap, Fabric-Formed Concrete, 10" Filter Points 826 SY $104.00 $85,904 37 550-10-220 Fencing, Type B, 5.1-6.0', Standard 800 LF $11.00 $8,800 38 550-60-224 Fence Gate, Type B, DBL 18.1-20' Opening 1 EA $1,150.00 $1,150 39 570-1-2 Performace Turf (Sod) - North Canal and North Belle Meade Pump Station 114,769 SY $2.50 $286,923 40 01-PLANT Trees for planted wetlands (1.2 acres total) 524 EA $50.00 $26,200 42 Electrical Service Connection 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 43 01-LAND Landscaping 1 LS 5% $166,653 44 102-1 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 1 LS 2% $69,994 45 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS 10% $349,972 46 Contingency (30%) 1 LS 30% $1,175,906 $5,095,600 47 110-1-1 Clearing and Grubbing (Inludes channel vegetation removal) 16 AC $15,000.00 $240,000 48 120-5 Channel Excavation 11,054 CY $30.50 $337,154 49 104-11 Floating Turbidity Barrier 1,780 LF $10.50 $18,690 50 104-11-X Turbidity Monitoring 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 41 01-CANALW Canal Weir 2 LS $180,000.00 $360,000 51 102-1 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 1 LS 2% $19,217 52 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS 10% $96,084 53 Contingency (30%) 1 LS 30% $322,844 $1,399,000 PROJECT AREA A - NORTH BELLE MEADE PUMP STATION AND FLOW-WAY RECREATIONAL AREA North Belle Meade Pump Station & Flow-way Sub-total I-75 Canal Excavations & Vegetation Removal PROJECT AREA B - INTERSTATE 75 (I-75) CANALS IMPROVEMENTS Sub-total 9/22/2016, 12:29 PM 1 OF 4 COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN ESTIMATE OF COST Prepared By: CLT, PE Checked By: MDE, PE ITEM PAY ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL AMOUNT 54 01-PUMP 50 CFS Vertical Axial Flow Pump powered by 60hp, 1800 rpm Electric Motor.2 EA $55,274.00 $110,548 55 01-ENCL VFD Package with NEMA 3R Enclosure 2 EA $7,317.00 $14,634 56 01-STRT Freight to the jobsite, installation and start up service 1 EA $39,397.75 $39,398 57 01-ELEC Electrical Equipment - (control panel, site elec.) 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000 58 400-1-25 Conc. Class I, Substructure (Electrical Pad) 4 CY $580.00 $2,320 59 400-2-25 Conc. Class II, Substructure (Pump Support Slab) 12 CY $667.00 $8,004 60 430-175-142 Pipe Culvert, Round 42" (Intake Piping, PVC) 320 LF $130.00 $41,600 61 430-175-136 Pipe Culvert, Round 36" (Discharge Piping, 36" PVC) 200 LF $114.00 $22,800 62 SPECIAL 5'X10' Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert 310 LF $400.00 $124,000 63 430-880-2 Flap Gates (36") 4 EA $10,000.00 $40,000 64 430-984-140 Mitered End Sections, Round 42" SD (with bars) 4 EA $6,000.00 $24,000 65 430-984-181 Mitered End Sections, Round 12" SD (with bars) 1 EA $700.00 $700 66 455-133-1 Sheet Piling Steel, Temporary-Critical 4,000 SF $12.50 $50,000 67 524-1-29 Conc. Ditch Pavt, 4" Reinforced 410 SY $83.00 $34,030 68 530-3-4 Riprap, Rubble, Ditch Lining (Pump Intake) 65 TN $85.00 $5,525 69 550-10-220 Fencing, Type B, 5.1-6.0', Standard 480 LF $11.00 $5,280 70 550-60-224 Fench Gate, Type B, DBL 18.1-20' Opening 2 EA $1,150.00 $2,300 71 425-2-62 Manhole, P-8, >10' 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 72 430-174-112 Pipe Culvert, Round 12" 100 LF $57.00 $5,700 73 145-71 Reinforcement Grid for Soil Stabilization (Parking Area) 4,260 SY $6.50 $27,690 74 530-74 Bedding Stone (Stabilized Parking Area - 8" Depth) 1,470 TN $70.00 $102,879 75 120-1 Regular Excavation 9,244 CY $5.00 $46,220 76 120-5 Channel Excavation 1,060 CY $30.50 $32,330 77 120-6 Embankment 31,336 CY $10.50 $329,028 78 524-1-2 Conc. Ditch Pavt, 4" Non Reinforced 406 SY $63.50 $25,781 79 524-1-29 Conc. Ditch Pavt, 4" Reinforced 3,667 SY $83.00 $304,361 80 530-3-4 Riprap, Rubble, Ditch Lining (Outfalls) 902 TN $85.00 $76,670 81 110-1-1 Clearing and Grubbing (Pump Station & Spreader Swale) 29 AC $15,000.00 $435,000 82 110-1-1 Clearing and Grubbing (Dirt Access Road) 6 AC $15,000.00 $96,419 83 Dirt Access Road Compaction 31,111 SY $20.00 $622,222 84 570-1-2 Performace Turf (Sod) - South Ditch and South Belle Meade Pump Station 47,768 SY $2.50 $119,420 85 570-1-2 Performace Turf (Sod) - South Channel Bottom 52,973 SY $2.50 $132,433 86 400-91 Dewatering (For Pump Cans) 4 EA $20,000.00 $80,000 87 104-11 Floating Turbidity Barrier 250 LF $10.50 $2,625 88 104-11-X Turbidity Monitoring 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 89 104-10-3 Sediment Barrier 11,600 LF $1.50 $17,400 90 Electrical Service Connection 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 91 102-1 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 1 LS 2% $63,326 92 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS 10% $316,632 93 Contingency (30%) 1 LS 30% $1,063,882 $4,610,200 94 110-1-1 Clearing and Grubbing 1 AC $15,000.00 $15,000 95 160-4 Type B Stabilization 150 SY $3.50 $525 96 285-709 Optional Base Group 09 150 SY $15.00 $2,250 97 334-1-13 SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONC, TRAFFIC C (220 lb/sy) 16.5 TN $100.00 $1,650 98 337-7-43 ASPH CONC FC, TRAFFIC C, FC-12.5, PG 76-22 (165 lb/sy) 2 TN $140.00 $280 99 425-1-585 Inlets, Ditch Bottom, Type H, <10' 8 EA $7,000.00 $56,000 100 430-175-148 Pipe Culvert, Round 48" 160 LF $160.00 $25,600 101 570-1-2 Performace Turf (Sod) 356 SY $2.50 $890 102 104-10-3 Sediment Barrier 400 LF $1.50 $600 103 102-1 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 1 LS 2% $5,000 104 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS 10% $10,280 105 Contingency (30%) 1 LS 30% $35,422 $153,500 PROJECT AREA C - SOUTH BELLE MEADE PUMP STATION, FLOW-WAY, AND SPREADER PROJECT AREA D - SABAL PALM ROAD CULVERT CROSSINGS South Belle Meade Pump Station, Flow-way, and Spreader Sub-total Sabal Palm Road Culvert Crossings Sub-total 9/22/2016, 12:29 PM 2 OF 4 COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN ESTIMATE OF COST Prepared By: CLT, PE Checked By: MDE, PE ITEM PAY ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL AMOUNT 106 110-1-1 Clearing and Grubbing 0.5 AC $15,000.00 $7,500 107 430-185-148 Pipe Culvert, Round 48" (Jack and Bore) 70 LF $800.00 $56,000 108 430-175-148 Pipe Culvert, Round 48" 80 LF $160.00 $12,800 109 430-982-141 Mitered End Section, Round 48" 2 EA $4,000.00 $8,000 110 570-1-2 Performace Turf (Sod) 556 SY $2.50 $1,390 111 104-10-3 Sediment Barrier 100 LF $1.50 $150 112 104-12 Staked Turbidity Barrier 200 LF $7.00 $1,400 113 102-1 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 1 LS 2% $5,000 114 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS 10% $8,724 115 Contingency (30%) 1 LS 30% $30,289 $131,300 116 01-PUMP 10 CFS Vertical Axial Flow Pump Station 1 EA $40,000.00 $40,000 117 110-1-1 Clearing and Grubbing 12 AC $15,000.00 $180,000 118 120-1 Regular Excavation 10,400 CY $5.00 $52,000 119 120-6 Embankment (New Berms) 12,500 CY $10.50 $131,250 120 120-SPECIAL Finish Grading 24,000 SY $10.00 $240,000 121 104-10-3 Sediment Barrier 7,000 LF $1.50 $10,500 122 104-12 Staked Turbidity Barrier 100 LF $7.00 $700 123 400-2-25 Conc. Class II, Substructure (Pump Support Slab) 12 CY $667.00 $8,004 124 550-10-220 Fencing, Type B, 5.1-6.0', Standard 150 LF $11.00 $1,650 125 550-60-224 Fence Gate, Type B, DBL 18.1-20' Opening 1 EA $1,150.00 $1,150 124 570-1-2 Performace Turf (Sod) 50,000 SY $2.50 $125,000 125 SPECIAL Concrete Spillways 3 EA $11,000.00 $33,000 126 SPECIAL Outfall Weir Structure 1 EA $30,000.00 $30,000 127 102-1 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 1 LS 2% $17,065 128 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS 10% $85,325 129 Contingency (30%) 1 LS 30% $286,693 $1,242,300 130 110-1-1 Clearing and Grubbing 1 AC $15,000.00 $15,000 131 120-1 Regular Excavation (Assumed RR = 12' top, 3' high, 1:3 SS) 700 CY $5.00 $3,500 132 570-1-2 Performace Turf (Sod) 4,000 SY $2.50 $10,000 133 104-10-3 Sediment Barrier 1,800 LF $1.50 $2,700 134 102-1 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 1 LS 2% $5,000 135 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS 10% $3,120 136 Contingency (30%) 1 LS 30% $11,796 $51,100 137 110-1-1 Clearing and Grubbing 1 AC $15,000.00 $15,000 138 430-185-148 Pipe Culvert, Round 48" (Jack and Bore) 200 LF $800.00 $160,000 139 430-175-148 Pipe Culvert, Round 48" 160 LF $160.00 $25,600 140 430-982-141 Mitered End Section, Round 48" 4 EA $4,000.00 $16,000 141 570-1-2 Performace Turf (Sod) 1,112 SY $2.50 $2,780 142 104-10-3 Sediment Barrier 200 LF $1.50 $300 143 104-12 Staked Turbidity Barrier 400 LF $7.00 $2,800 144 102-1 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 1 LS 2% $5,000 145 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS 10% $22,248 146 Contingency (30%) 1 LS 30% $74,918 $324,600 Tamiami Trail Water Quality and Attenuation Area (U.S. 41) Sub-total PROJECT AREA E - SIX L'S / U.S. 41 FLOW-WAYS AND CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS Old Railroad Embankment Removal (U.S. 41) Sub-total Collier Boulevard (FL-951) Conveyance Improvement Sub-total Tamiami Trail Conveyance Improvement (U.S. 41) Sub-total 9/22/2016, 12:29 PM 3 OF 4 COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN ESTIMATE OF COST Prepared By: CLT, PE Checked By: MDE, PE ITEM PAY ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL AMOUNT 147 104-10-3 Sediment Barrier 140,000 LF $1.50 $210,000 148 104-11 Floating Turbidity Barrier 700 LF $10.50 $7,350 149 104-11-X Turbidity Monitoring 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 150 110-1-1 Clearing and Grubbing 50 AC $15,000.00 $750,000 151 120-1 Regular Excavation 7,580 CY $5.00 $37,900 152 120-6 Embankment (New Berms) 14,710 CY $10.50 $154,455 153 120-6 Embankment (Berm Plugs) 250 CY $10.50 $2,625 154 120-SPECIAL Finish Grading 27,800 SY $10.00 $278,000 155 400-91 Dewatering (For Control Structures) 5 EA $60,000.00 $300,000 156 425-158-9 Inlets, Ditch Bottom, Type H, Modify 10 EA $7,500.00 $75,000 157 430-175-172 Pipe Culvert, Round 72" (Cross Drain, RCP) 400 LF $500.00 $200,000 158 430-175-172 Pipe Culvert, Round 72" (Outfall, RCP) 500 LF $500.00 $250,000 159 430-982-645 Mitered End Sections, Round 72" CD (with bars) 16 EA $3,000.00 $48,000 160 455-133-2 Sheet Piling Steel, Temporary-Critical 6,000 SF $12.50 $75,000 161 530-3-4 Riprap, Rubble, Bank and Shore (24", Cross Drains, Includes Filter Fabric)260 TN $85.00 $22,100 162 530-3-4 Riprap, Rubble, Bank and Shore (24", Outfalls, Includes Filter Fabric)160 TN $85.00 $13,600 163 530-74 Bedding Stone (8", Cross Drains, Includes Filter Fabric) 90 TN $70.00 $6,300 164 530-74 Bedding Stone (8", Outfalls, Includes Filter Fabric) 55 TN $70.00 $3,850 165 570-1-2 Performace Turf (Sod) - New Berms 27,550 SY $2.50 $68,875 166 SPECIAL Geotechnical Exploration and Berm Inspection 1 LS $500,000.00 $500,000 167 SPECIAL Berm Rehabilitation Allowance 1 LS $500,000.00 $500,000 168 SPECIAL Sluice Gates Weir Structures 2 EA $204,000.00 $408,000 169 102-1 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 1 LS 5% $195,803 170 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS 10% $391,606 171 Contingency (30%) 1 LS 30% $1,351,039 $5,854,500 $18,862,100 $943,100 $1,886,200 $943,100 $943,100 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 North Belle Meade Preliminary Engineering $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,338,300 $31,916,000 Construction Cost Estimate Total (Project Areas A-E) Permitting (5%) Design/Engineering (10%) Project Development (5%) Total Estimated Cost Cost Escalation compounded over 7 years (3% per year) Six L's Area Future Masterplan Additional Minor Projects 6L's Agricultural Area Improvements Mitigation (5%) Monitoring and Scada Telemetry Systems Sub-total PROJECT AREA E - SIX L'S / U.S. 41 FLOW-WAYS AND CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS (CONT'D.) 9/22/2016, 12:29 PM 4 OF 4 © Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd. Mark Erwin, PE, CFM Atkins North America 7030 West Boy Scout Blvd Suite 700 Email: mark.erwin@atkinsglobal.com Direct: 813.281.7369 Fax: 813.636.8583 Letters of Support 735 EIG HTH STREET SOUT H • NAPLES. FLORIDA : 34102-6796 TELEPHONE (239) 213-1000 FAX (239) 213-1010 CELL (239) 777-7952 EMA IL: Mayorbill@ naplesgov.com BILL BARNETT M A YOR July 25, 2016 Gary McAlpin, Manager Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Email: GaryMcAlpin@colliergov.net Re: Collier County RESTORE Act Funding Request “The Golden Gate Canal Flow Diversion and Historical Flow way Restoration Project” Dear Sir or Madam: The City of Naples is writing in support of Collier County’s application for RESTORE Act funding for its Golden Gate Canal Flow Diversion and Historical Flow way Restoration Project. This project includes the diversion of Golden Gate Canal waters away from Naples Bay and to the historic flow ways through Belle Meade. The City supports this important project because it will significantly decrease freshwater flows into an impaired water body. Naples Bay is on the EPA 303(d) List of Impaired Waters for copper, iron, fecal coliforms and dissolved oxygen. Naples Bay provides many benefits to the region, including commercial and recreational activities that improve the quality of life for residents and attract visitors to the area. As a result of the construction of the Golden Gate Canal drainage system, the Naples Bay watershed has been drastically changed from its historic 10 square mile receiving area to its current 120 square mile receiving area. This massive increase in freshwater input has been a major stressor on Bay organisms, having a significant effect on the ecology and water quality of the Bay. Since the 1950s, Naples Bay has lost 90% of its seagrass beds, 80% of the oyster reefs and 70% of its mangrove fringe. The City recognizes this project as one important step in the restoration of water quality and ecological systems. But, in this letter of support, the City urges Collier County to expand the restorative effort of this project by including the restoration of oyster reefs within Naples Bay. Degrading water quality is both a cause and an effect of the oyster decline, because fewer oysters mean less filtration capacity. The decrease in oyster reefs in the Bay is a direct effect of the fresh water inflows from the Golden Gate Main Canal. To this end, the City has designed a $1 million project to restore oysters in suitable areas of Naples Bay and is currently in the final stages of permitting. 735 EIG HTH STREET SOUT H • NAPLES. FLORIDA : 34102-6796 TELEPHONE (239) 213-1000 FAX (239) 213-1010 CELL (239) 777-7952 EMA IL: Mayorbill@ naplesgov.com The City strongly urges Collier County to include this important restoration component within the County’s grant application as a part of the entire watershed improvement/restoration project. We thank you for your time and consideration for funding this most vital part of our region's efforts to restore Southwest Florida’s estuarine coastal ecosystem. Restoring our coast will not only improve the ecosystem, but will also improve the quality of life for those who live and visit our area. Sincerely, Mayor Bill Barnett August 1, 2016 Donna Fiala, Chair, Commissioner District 1 Georgia A. Hiller, Esq., Commissioner District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner District 3 Penny Taylor, Commissioner District 4 Tim Nance, Vice-Chair, Commissioner District 5 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 Re: Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan RESTORE Act Project Application Dear Chair Fiala and Commissioners: The Conservancy of Southwest Florida conceptually supports the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan project seeking federal funding through both the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) RESTORE Council for Category 2 funding and also through the Gulf Consortium for Category 3 funding. The Conservancy has been closely involved in the process through which local governments may receive RESTORE Act Funding. Conservancy staff have served on the Collier, Lee, and Charlotte County RESTORE Act Advisory Committees and worked closely with Collier County staff in developing project ranking criteria. We are committed to supporting coastal communities in Southwest Florida in securing funds for restoration projects. This project, once fully vetted, funded and implemented, will provide the opportunity to restore, enhance and protect priority restoration areas within Collier County. The intended benefits of the project are: • Reduction of peak freshwater flows to Naples Bay by approximately 15% and associated nutrient pollutant reduction to Naples Bay • Restoration of historic hydroperiods and flow patterns in South Belle Meade/Picayune Strand State Forest • Freshwater flows of approximately 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) routed to Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve when needed In communications with County staff, the Conservancy has preliminarily identified several components which we feel are critical to the ultimate success of the proposed project. Firstly, the plan should not contribute to a decrease in water quality in Rookery Bay. Rookery Bay is currently on FDEP’s impaired waters list for nutrients (chl-a), dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform, and the project should not contribute to these, or any other water quality impairment. In order to assess and address any potential impacts, the Conservancy supports robust water quality monitoring and filtration at both the Golden Gate Canal pump station as well as at a site in the vicinity of Six L’s, and prior to any discharge of water into Rookery Bay. Secondly, the GSSHA model analysis must confirm that there are no negative impacts on native plant communities or hydroperiods, as several listed wildlife species rely on the area. Our understanding is that additional modeling and ground-truthing will be conducted in regards to this issue, when the funding is in place. Additionally, we recommend that the County continue discussions with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), to determine if the improvements made at I-75 can assist with ongoing efforts to improve panther movement between north and south Belle Meade. In this unfenced area, there have been at least 14 panthers struck and killed since 2004. FDOT is currently beginning a feasibility study with lands that overlap this project, and there may be opportunities through both the FDOT project and this proposed project that can also benefit wildlife movement and motorist safety. In conclusion, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida strongly encourages the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to submit the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Project for RESTORE Act funding. The Conservancy looks forward to remaining engaged, as well as reviewing additional information in the design and implementation phases of the project regarding the topics raised above. Sincerely, Jennifer Hecker Director of Natural Resource Policy CC: Gary McAlpin, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Commissioners Brian S. Yablonski Chairman Tallahassee Aliese P. “Liesa” Priddy Vice Chairman Immokalee Ronald M. Bergeron Fort Lauderdale Richard Hanas Oviedo Bo Rivard Panama City Charles W. Roberts III Tallahassee Robert A. Spottswood Key West Executive Staff Nick Wiley Executive Director Eric Sutton Assistant Executive Director Jennifer Fitzwater Chief of Staff Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people. 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Voice: (850) 488-4676 Hearing/speech-impaired: (800) 955-8771 (T) (800) 955-8770 (V) MyFWC.com Office of the Executive Director Nick Wiley Executive Director (850) 487-3796 (850) 921-5786 FAX August 2, 2016 Gary McAlpin, Manager Collier County Coastal Zone Management 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 GaryMcAlpin@colliergov.net Re: Golden Gate Canal Flow Diversion and South Belle Meade Hydration Project, Technical Assistance Request, Collier County Dear Mr. McAlpin: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff has participated in initial planning meetings for the above-mentioned project. We offer the following comments and recommendations as technical assistance at your request based on our initial review of the proposed project and in accordance with Chapter 379, Florida Statutes. Project Description The proposed project would divert inflows out of the Golden Gate Canal, when sufficient water is available (June – October), through the Belle Meade region via proposed water control features to increase freshwater flows into Rookery Bay. The primary goals are to reduce the excessive amount of freshwater flows to Naples Bay, to rehydrate wetlands in the Belle Meade region, and to reestablish historical freshwater inflow quantities into Rookery Bay, while improving the associated estuarine habitat. The project aims to improve the balance, timing and distribution of fresh and salt water in both Naples Bay and Rookery Bay. Collier County has proposed an adaptive management approach with hydrologic, wetland and habitat monitoring, and has noted that the system will be flexible, with the ability for the diverted flows to be decreased or the system capacity to be increased as necessary. The overall restoration plan includes the following project components: Project Area A (north of Interstate-75 (I-75)) is comprised of a 5,000-foot flowway planted with wetland islands, a multi-use recreational trail, outfall system under Lake Boulevard to the I-75 north canal, and a 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) pump station to draw water from the Golden Gate Canal (infrastructure designed to be expanded to 200 cfs). Project Area B (along I-75 corridor) includes removal of ditch blocks and vegetation to improve conveyance and operational control structures to control flows to Henderson Creek and the Miller Canal. Gary McAlpin Page 2 August 2, 2016 Project Area C is a conveyance flowway and spreader swale built at grade, realignment of horse trails to maintain trail connectivity, and a 100 cfs pump station to draw water from the I-75 north canal (with infrastructure designed to be expanded to 200 cfs). Project Area D (known as Sabal Palm Road conveyance improvements) is the installation of four new siphon culvert crossings to convey additional flow and reconstruct the road to existing conditions. Project Area E includes construction of new flowways though historical flowway areas, construction of new culvert crossings under U.S. Highway 41 and State Road 581, creation of openings in the historic railroad berm, and creation of water quality and attenuation areas on a public parcel. Another project component is flowway corridors through the Six L agricultural lands and will be coordinated when Six L lands transition to residential development in the future. Potentially Affected Resources FWC staff conducted a geographic information system (GIS) analysis of the project area. Based on this analysis, the project area is located near, within or adjacent to:  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) consultation areas for: o Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi, primary and secondary zones, Federally Endangered [FE]) o Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens, Federally Threatened [FT]) o Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis, FE) o Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus, FE) o Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus, FE)  Within one or more wood stork (Mycteria americana, FT) nesting colony core foraging area (CFA). The CFA constitutes an 18.6-mile radius around the nesting colony.  Primary range for the Big Cypress population of Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) (South Bear Management Unit)  Bald eagle ((Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests o CO011 o CO015 o CO037 o CO961* *CO961 is an unconfirmed nest reported by residents as active this year  Potential habitat for state- and federally listed species: o Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi, FT) o Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris, FE) o Red-cockaded woodpecker Gary McAlpin Page 3 August 2, 2016 o Wood stork o Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus, State Threatened [ST]) o Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia, ST) o Everglades mink (Neovison vison evergladensis, ST) o Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea, State Species of Special Concern [SSC]) o Limpkin (Aramus guarauna, SSC) o White ibis (Eudocimus albus, SSC) o Snowy egret (Egretta thula, SSC) o Tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor, SSC)  Florida Natural Area Inventory Managed Areas: o Collier-Seminole State Park (Managed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Division of Recreation and Parks) o Rookery Bay Reserve Lands (Managed by the FDEP Florida Coastal Office) o Picayune Strand State Forest (Managed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and Florida Forest Service) Comments and Recommendations FWC staff appreciate being involved with this project during the early stages of the planning process. We recommended that Collier County investigate specific measures to protect listed species and ensure that any species that may be utilizing the site are not negatively impacted by the proposed activities. FWC staff met with County staff and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service most recently on June 8, 2016, to discuss the project in greater detail. As a result of the multi-agency coordination efforts, the County has addressed initial project concerns by providing the following commitments regarding the proposed project: no impact to the red-cockaded woodpecker population, the project flowway cannot impact red-cockaded woodpecker current or expansion area habitat, avoid degradation to mesic or hydric flatwoods, avoid functional decrease in recreational features or roads (no permanent earthen features), continued monitoring and adaptability, invasive species management, ensure the project is consistent with the latest management plan for Picayune Strand State Forest, and avoid impacts to the federal Picayune Strand Restoration Project. FWC staff supports the proposed project and restoration of the natural hydrology of wetlands with water levels that are compatible with the historical environment in Picayune Strand State Forest. We also support the goal of enhancing Rookery Bay and Naples Bay habitats for use by various fish, wading birds, and wildlife species. We will continue to work with the County to provide technical assistance regarding fish and wildlife resources and their habitat. We offer the following comments and recommendations for consideration as the project moves forward to help ensure protection of listed species during construction activities and project implementation. Gary McAlpin Page 4 August 2, 2016 Wildlife Surveys To better identify the potential for impacts, surveys for listed species should be completed prior to any clearing or development. Species-specific wildlife surveys are time sensitive, and FWC staff recommends that all wildlife surveys follow established survey protocols approved by the USFWS and the FWC. Surveys should also be conducted by qualified biologists with recent documented experience for each potential species. Basic guidance for conducting wildlife surveys may be found in the Florida Wildlife Conservation Guide (FWCG) (http://myfwc.com/conservation/value/fwcg/). Habitat/Vegetative Land Cover The project includes pumping potentially nutrient-loaded canal water from the Golden Gate Canal to sheetflow over north and south Belle Meade natural lands to eventually flow into Rookery Bay. Materials provided by Collier County show the flowway in Project Area A will contain wetland islands that will provide water quality improvement prior to flows entering Picayune Strand State Forest. The information provided notes that further water quality treatment via sheetflow will act to reduce nutrients to ambient concentrations when the flows eventually reach Rookery Bay. Hydroperiod and nutrient load are major factors that shape vegetative communities. These vegetative communities are habitats for several listed species and significant changes may alter the habitats and wildlife usage for foraging, nesting, and denning. FWC staff recommend an adaptive management approach to this large-scale project which would include baseline wildlife and habitat mapping, specific quantifiable and measurable goals, avoidance and minimization measures, potential effects of climate change, monitoring for the associated vegetative communities within the project area, and any potential mitigation measures should negative impacts occur. Florida Manatee Florida manatee use of this area is limited to specific waterways within the project site. Attached is a depiction of where manatees are believed to be able to access the area of the Golden Gate Canal and South Belle Meade Hydration project. At the terminus of Henderson Creek, there is a basin that provides warm water refuge that is used regularly during the winter by a small number of manatees (3-10 individuals). The water from this basin flows approximately ¾ of a mile east down Henderson Creek, under County Road (C.R.) 951 and then continues southwest eventually flowing into Rookery Bay. Up to 20 manatees have been documented using the basin at one time and this site provides important habitat in an area with limited warm-water options for manatees. The basin is regulated as a manatee protection No Entry area, and the access route to Henderson Creek is posted Idle Speed, which becomes Slow Speed after C.R. 951. It is difficult to tell from the information submitted what, if any, effect this project may have on this manatee refuge. As the project moves forward, FWC staff would like to stay involved in order to understand what, if any, impacts may occur to this warm-water site. In addition, it is difficult to tell if proposed structures are located in areas accessible to manatees. Changing accessibility for manatees, as well as installing structures (such as Gary McAlpin Page 5 August 2, 2016 pipes and culverts greater than 8 inches, but smaller than 8 feet in diameter that are submerged or partially submerged) may create entrapment situations, posing risks to manatees. FWC staff would like to continue discussions on project details as they become available to ensure that no inadvertent risks are created for manatees as a result of this project. Please contact the staff identified below for further coordination. Gopher Tortoise If gopher tortoises or their burrows may be impacted by the proposed project, we recommend that the applicant refer to the FWC's Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines (Revised February 2015) (http://myfwc.com/license/wildlife/gopher-tortoise-permits/) for survey methodology and permitting guidance prior to construction. Survey methodologies require a burrow survey covering a minimum of 15 percent of potential gopher tortoise habitat to be impacted by development activities; including staging areas (refer to Appendix 4 in the Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines for additional information). Specifically, the permitting guidelines include methods for avoiding impacts as well as options and state requirements for minimizing, mitigating, and permitting potential impacts of the proposed activities. Any commensal species observed during burrow excavations should be handled in accordance to Appendix 9 of the Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines. State Listed Wading Birds The potential exists for wading bird nesting activity to occur in forested wetlands within the project area. We recommend that additional surveys for nesting wading birds be conducted during their breeding season, which extends from March through August. Basic guidance for conducting wildlife surveys may be found in the FWCG. If there is evidence of nesting during this period, we recommend that any wading bird sites be buffered by 100 meters (328 feet) to avoid disturbance by human activities. If nesting is discovered after construction has begun, or the removal or trimming of trees with active nests is unavoidable, or if maintaining the recommended buffer is not possible, we recommend that the applicant contact the FWC staff identified below to discuss potential permitting alternatives. Hydrologic restoration can benefit state-listed wading birds. If the project results in rising and falling water levels that correspond as closely as possible to historic patterns, benefits are expected. FWC staff recommends that the County conduct the project in an adaptive management framework with clear, measurable objectives and sufficient funding for monitoring to evaluate progress toward those objectives to account for the additional benefits to state imperiled species. Recreation Sabal Palm Road is one of the main designated access routes for recreational users heading into Picayune Strand Wildlife Management Area and is currently listed for improvements under the proposed project. FWC staff recommends that Sabal Palm Road Gary McAlpin Page 6 August 2, 2016 and trails remain open to the public, and that the project avoid or minimize any impacts to the trails or public access in these areas wherever feasible. If closures are anticipated, please contact the FWC staff identified below for additional discussion. Marine Fish Freshwater flows at a natural rate into estuaries can be beneficial to estuarine fish, invertebrates, and their associated habitats. Several species of ecologic and economic importance depend on freshwater flows during important parts of their life cycle and are more abundant in areas of freshwater flow, or in years following high flows, including: red drum, spotted seatrout , shrimp, blue crab, and certain marine baitfish (Spanish sardine, round scad, and Atlantic thread herring). Oysters have an optimal salinity range of 14-28ppt; thus, a healthy state of freshwater flows are necessary for maintaining salinities within that range. These species can benefit from freshwater inputs, given natural and healthy water flow. Compared to natural flows, rapid influxes of freshwater can be damaging to estuaries. The rapid drop in salinity from a large pulse of freshwater can cause mortality for many estuarine species, including fish (spotted seatrout, white grunt, pinfish, and rainwater killifish), oysters, and seagrasses. Rapid freshwater inputs can also lead to increased nutrient loading, turbidity, sedimentation, hypoxia-induced fish kills, and light limitation to seagrasses. Reducing canal discharges to Naples Bay, while providing a more natural sheetflow to Rookery Bay, would be beneficial for the estuaries by reducing the damaging effects of having either too much water, too little water, or too poor quality of water. Bald Eagle Based on the GIS analysis, there are four bald eagle nest territories located within or adjacent to the project site. While the project goals may not directly impact nests, FWC staff recommend that Collier County ground truth nest locations and determine if any construction work will be occurring within 660 feet of a nest. The bald eagle has been removed from state and federal listing but is still governed by the state bald eagle rule and the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The FWC has developed a bald eagle management plan to further guide eagle conservation in Florida. Eagle permits are not required for activities that occur more than 660 feet from any active or alternate bald eagle nests. Not all eagle nests in Florida have been documented by the FWC, and non- documented nests receive the same level of protection as FWC documented nests. Please keep in mind that eagle nests may become reactivated at any time or eagles may establish a new nest, at which point the FWC Bald Eagle Management Plan (http://myfwc.com/media/427567/Eagle_Plan_April_2008.pdf) guidelines found in the section entitled Permitting Framework April 2008 would apply. Hunting Timeframes All efforts should be made by the County to schedule construction activities so they do not coincide with established hunting timeframes in the Picayune Strand State Forest. If overlap is unavoidable, the County should inform Picayune Strand State Forest staff and Gary McAlpin Page 7 August 2, 2016 the FWC of the planned construction activities as far in advance so that hunters may be notified. Federally Listed Species The project area may contain suitable habitat for the federally listed species identified above. We recommend the applicant coordinate with the USFWS for information regarding potential impacts to these species. The USFWS South Florida Ecological Services Office can be contacted at (772) 562-3909 to discuss any necessary federal requirements. Florida Bonneted Bat The project is located within the USFWS Consultation Area for the federally endangered Florida bonneted bat and potential habitat for this species may exist onsite. While specific guidance has not yet been approved by the USFWS for the Florida bonneted bat, we recommend the applicant take steps to determine if and how bonneted bats may be using the project area. This could include conducting acoustic surveys to determine presence of bonneted bats and searching for potential roost sites that could be used by any bat species, such as tree cavities or under dead palm fronds, within the project area. For any potential roost site that is located, the site should be examined by a trained wildlife professional and the area around it should be searched for signs of bats (guano, staining around the cavity entrance, chirping sounds). If bats are found roosting within or near the project site, they should be identified to species to determine if they are Florida bonneted bats. If Florida bonneted bats are identified, the applicant should immediately contact the USFWS and also provide that occurrence information to the FWC. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Conservation efforts for the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) are underway in Picayune Strand State Forest. The Belle Meade tract has an estimated 13 potential breeding groups of RCWs. We recommend the County continue coordination efforts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Forest Service as this project moves forward to ensure protection of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. The USFWS can provide additional guidance on RCW protection measures and the County may want to consider the follow recommendations during discussions with the USFWS and FWC. Surveys should be conducted before clearing or construction activities. If RCW nesting is evident, the use of heavy machinery and vehicles should be avoided entirely within 50 feet of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). The use of mechanized equipment within a red-cockaded woodpecker cluster should be avoided entirely during their breeding season (April-July) (Rodgers, 1995). Please contact the USFWS South Florida Ecological Services Office for additional information. Gary McAlpin Page 8 August 2, 2016 Florida Panther The project is located along a stretch of Interstate-75 (I-75) where FWC has documented numerous panther deaths from vehicle collisions. The Florida Department of Transportation is planning to extend the 10-foot tall panther fence through this area to help prevent future panther deaths. This fencing does not include any new wildlife crossings so there will be a seven mile stretch where the fence will prevent access onto the highway by restricting north-south movements across the road. This project may provide some opportunity for accommodating wildlife movement across the highway if new water structures are required, such as the proposed new pump station on the south side of I-75. It would be helpful to see the County’s vision of how much preservation will occur north of I-75 in order to better inform any discussion regarding new wildlife crossings. Information regarding wildlife crossings should be directed towards Darrell Land, at either Darrell.Land@MyFWC.com or (239) 417-6352. We look forward to working with Collier County staff and other agencies as the project moves forward and the adaptive management plan is developed. If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Jane Chabre either by phone at (850) 410- 5367 or by email at FWCConservationPlanningServices@MyFWC.com. If you have specific technical questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact Marissa Krueger by phone at (561) 882-5711 or by email at Marissa.Krueger@MyFWC.com. Sincerely, Jennifer D. Goff Land Use Planning Program Administrator Office of Conservation Planning Services jdg/mk ENV 1 Golden Gate Canal and South Belle Meade Hydration_22285_080216 Citations: Rodgers, J.A., Jr., and H.T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9: 89-99. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296pp. cc: Heather Ferrand, Florida Forest Service, Heather.Ferrand@FreshFromFlorida.com Kim Dryden, USFWS, kim_dryden@fws.gov FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION Affiliated With National Wildlife Federation Southwest Florida Office Office Phone: (239) 643-4111 2590 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite 105 Cell: (239) 784-5119 (Call First) Naples, Florida 34105 Email: nancypayton@fwfonline.org July 25, 2016 Donna Fiala, Chair Tim Nance, Vice Chair Tom Henning Georgia A. Hiller, Esq. Penny Taylor Board of Collier County Commissioners Naples, Florida 34112 RE: Support for RESTORE Comprehensive Watershed Management Project Dear Commissioners: Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) endorses the RESTORE Comprehensive Watershed Management Project as presented by Collier County staff and urges the Board of Collier County Commissioners to submit it for RESTORE funding. This project proposes to: 1. improve freshwater flows into Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, 2. rehydrate 10,000 wetland acres in Picayune Strand State Forest/South Belle Meade Natural Resources Protection Area, 3. help create positive conditions for habitat restoration in Naples Bay by upgrading water quality, and 4. provide funding for preliminary plans to rehydrate the North Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area and create a masterplan for the Six L’s receiving area. FWF’s strongest area of support is for the rehydration of 10,000 wetland acres in Picayune Strand State Forest/South Belle Meade Natural Resources Protection Area. It furthers Collier County’s Rural Fringe Mixed Use District goals; is in accord with the Picayune Strand Everglades Restoration Project; and understands the need to maintain healthy relationships between wetlands and uplands. Collier County’s RESTORE project will enhance 10,000 of the 21,000 acres currently in public ownership in Picayune Strand State Forest/South Belle Meade Natural Resources Protection Area. Plus the project has been crafted to complement upland habitat restoration and recovery of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. FWF looks forward to working with Collier County and all interested parties as the design details of this regionally significant project are developed. Sincerely, Nancy A. Payton Nancy A. Payton Southwest Florida Field Representative cc: Gary McAlpin September 1, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Section ATTN: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Management Manager 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34104 Submitted via email: GaryMcAlpin@colliergov.net Re: Comments on Collier County’s Draft Multi-Year Implementation Plan (MYIP) Dear Mr. McAlpin, Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on Collier County’s Draft Multi-Year Implementation Plan (MYIP). Our collective organizations (Audubon Florida, Defenders of Wildlife, Florida Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation, Ocean Conservancy, and The Nature Conservancy) represent nearly 100,000 members and supporters along Florida’s Gulf Coast, several of whom are Collier County residents. Working together as a coalition as well as within our individual organizations and chapters, we have been advocating for Gulf restoration that is comprehensive, and targets watersheds for protection of coastal and marine resources. Our collaboration began with the crafting and passage of the RESTORE Act and is now focused on ensuring the best allocation of restoration funds. In anticipation of the diverse perspectives on how to spend restoration funds, our groups collaborated to develop a framework, including comprehensive restoration principles and outcomes, designed to inform project selection and Multi-Year Implementation Plans (MYIP). We encourage Collier County to consider these themes throughout the planning and implementation of both current and future restoration activities. A successful MYIP should have four key project outcomes: environmental impact, fisheries management, wildlife resource enhancement and community resiliency. The cornerstone of a strong MYIP should be careful consideration of environmental impact; we are pleased to see that the Collier County MYIP has focused on this element. A MYIP should include projects that protect water quality and wildlife habitat , and provide the public with environmentally sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities. The Plan should promote restoration, health and sustainability of coastal habitats, fisheries, marine resources and vulnerable species. Projects included in the MYIP should work together to maximize environmental benefits. Most importantly, the plan should not include projects that would result in further damage to the Gulf ecosystems. MYIPs should include regional projects that advance priorities toward achieving identified restoration goals that enhance watersheds and estuaries along the Gulf Coast. We are pleased to see Collier County address environmental impacts in its proposed project. Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan (CCWIP) will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. The MYIP should also consider the sustainability and health of its commercial and recreational fisheries, building in projects that protect and restore habitats and estuaries, and remove threats to fisheries such as marine debris and invasive species. Addressing hydrology in your watersheds should improve fisheries. In addition, the MYIP should prioritize wildlife resource enhancement as a means to ensure healthier communities and a thriving nature-based economy. Improving hydrology of the Naples Bays and Rookery Bays is anticipated to improve wildlife habitat in Collier County. Another key project outcome is enhanced community resiliency. Investments in projects that will enhance resiliency may reduce the impact of hurricanes and other disasters. Restoring and protecting marshes, wetlands, reefs and other coastal habitats also mitigate storm surge, erosion and coastal flooding, further reducing the costs of insurance and disaster relief, which may be addressed with several of the planning projects already mentioned. We support the CCWIP which is anticipated to reestablish lost wetlands. In order to efficiently and effectively achieve these outcomes, we encourage several guiding principles for project selection: science-based metrics and evaluation, phased approach to implementation, clear outcomes, local input/participation, leverage opportunities, and mutual project compatibility. We are pleased that Collier County MYIP appears to have considered some of these principles, based on the criteria used to establish MYIP priorities. Employing the guiding principle of science-based evaluation is instrumental to proper project selection and plan development. Every project should be evaluated across a broad metrics of science-based criteria. In addition, project implementation should be monitored and subject to an ongoing review process to ensure short and long -term goals are being met, allocated funds are being spent responsibly and projects are performing and managed adaptively. We applaud Collier County for conducting (and including with the MYIP) its CCWIP review and evaluation. Furthermore, project descriptions should state clear, measurable and achievable ecological and community outcomes. Making these outcomes understood by the public and stakeholder groups, and providing opportunities for meaningful input into project selection and evaluation increases public confidence in the success of these projects and will elicit more public support. Counties should consider ways to leverage resources across RESTORE funding allocations and as a match for other local, state and federal funding sources. We are pleased to see Collier County’s approach in investing all of their County-designed RESTORE funding in a single project and applaud efforts to see additional local, state, and federal funding. Collier County should also seek to achieve mutual project compatibility to ensure that discrete projects or elements within a larger project (such as the multi-facetted CCWIP) are not inadvertently working at odds with one another. Accordingly, it would be beneficial for a panel of resource and economic managers to provide oversight and ensure project designs avoid unintended impacts to key resources that are also restoration targets. The ultimate success of the RESTORE Act rests on selecting and implementing integrated ecological restoration projects, consistent with state-wide plans, and rigorous application of criteria to ensure that only the best and most appropriate projects are funded. We feel these themes have been well considered in Collier County’s CCWIP and encourage Collier County to continue to keep these themes in mind in planning and implementing future restoration activities. We applaud Collier County for its efforts to prepare a Draft MYIP. We respectfully request Collier County to consider our comments and incorporate them as appropriate into both the current Draft MYIP, as well as in future MYIPs (which may be prepared as additional RESTORE Act funds become available). Thank you very much for considering our comments. Sincerely, Kent L. Wimmer, AICP Defenders of Wildlife on behalf of: Audubon Florida Defenders of Wildlife Florida Wildlife Federation National Wildlife Federation Ocean Conservancy The Nature Conservancy From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of alan Mickey To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Friday, August 25, 2017 7:01:51 PM Aug 25, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Mr. alan Mickey 9654 Winterview Dr Naples, FL 34109-1516 (239) 597-2399 shakeitmoo@aol.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Cheryl DeShaies To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 12:29:11 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Cheryl DeShaies 4329 Covey Cir Naples, FL 34109-2502 (239) 592-7027 svandcd@aol.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Constance Parry To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Saturday, August 26, 2017 10:41:07 AM Aug 26, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Mrs. Constance Parry 9791 Autumn Haze Dr Naples, FL 34109-1548 (239) 598-1717 conyad7@aol.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Darlene wolf To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 5:29:43 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Mrs. Darlene wolf 1705 Gordon Dr Naples, FL 34102-7553 (239) 435-6492 blackfoot1@protonmail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Deborah Spahn To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:00:04 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Deborah Spahn 3720 52nd Ave NE Naples, FL 34120-4535 (954) 450-0440 hptcgl@hotmail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Diane Rupnow To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:29:28 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Thank you! Sincerely, Mrs. Diane Rupnow 14555 Juniper Point Ln Naples, FL 34110-3664 (402) 580-1545 rupnowdiane@gmail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Dimitra Arneson To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 12:29:11 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Mrs. Dimitra Arneson 111 Doral Cir Naples, FL 34113-7434 (239) 304-6607 tropicalequine@gmail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of eileen tegg To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 4:29:38 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Mrs. eileen tegg 3100 la costa naples, FL 34105 (239) 608-3108 9esct@gmail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Fay Bracken To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:00:14 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Mrs. Fay Bracken 15015 Savannah Dr Naples, FL 34119-4803 (239) 597-5007 faybracken@yahoo.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Glenn Watkins To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:59:07 AM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Glenn Watkins 439 3rd Ave N Naples, FL 34102-8411 (239) 537-3072 glenngwatkins@gmail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Herminia Mendoza To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:59:06 AM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Herminia Mendoza 823 Flower Ln Immokalee, FL 34142-5539 (239) 657-2166 herminia95@yahoo.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Jennifer Hug To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 31, 2017 12:42:36 PM Aug 31, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Jennifer Hug 197 Caribbean Rd Naples, FL 34108-3408 (239) 287-7589 jenniferjhug@ymail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Jill Rupprecht To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 2:29:25 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Jill Rupprecht Collier Marco Island, FL 34145 (847) 533-7554 richandjill@mac.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Judy Mickey To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Friday, August 25, 2017 9:31:01 AM Aug 25, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Mrs. Judy Mickey 9654 Winterview Dr Naples, FL 34109-1516 (239) 450-6112 jmmickey5@aol.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Karen Gudknecht To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 7:59:58 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Karen Gudknecht 5975 Trophy Dr Unit 1701 Naples, FL 34110-7367 (239) 250-0699 gudknka@gmail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Lauren Devine To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Wednesday, August 23, 2017 12:26:42 PM Aug 23, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Miss Lauren Devine 1377 Walnut Ter Boca Raton, FL 33486-6909 (561) 391-8473 lrdevine@yahoo.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Lorrie Scott To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:59:06 AM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Lorrie Scott 7696 Classics Dr Naples, FL 34113-3340 (239) 529-2430 lorrie.scott@comcast.net From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Marsha Schaub To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 5:59:43 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Marsha Schaub 141 Big Springs Dr Naples, FL 34113-8327 (239) 307-8701 marshaschaub@gmail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Martin Becker To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 4:29:44 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Mr. Martin Becker 834 Hyacinth Ct Marco Island, FL 34145-6814 (239) 394-8959 mcbecker1@aol.com September 1, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Section ATTN: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Management Manager 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34104 Submitted via email: GaryMcAlpin@colliergov.net Re: National Wildlife Federation’s Comments on Collier County’s Draft Multi-Year Implementation Plan (MYIP) Dear Mr. McAlpin, The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is the nation’s largest conservation organization , and we are dedicated to protecting wildlife and their habitats and inspiring a future generation of conservationists. On behalf of our more than six million members and supporters nationally, including hundreds of Collier County residents, we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on Collier County’s Multi-Year Implementation Plan (MYIP). Working with our state partner, the Florida Wildlife Federation, we have been on the ground, making the case for comprehensive Gulf restoration in the wake of the 2010 BP oil spill. NWF worked towards the passage of the RESTORE Act, and since then we have supported the investment of dollars resulting from the oil spill in ecological restoration projects that benefit the Gulf’s economy, with an emphasis on coastal and watershed protection. Our Florida policy specialist has been closely following as Florida’s 23 Gulf Coast Counties consider projects to fund with their Direct Component funds available through the RESTORE Act, as they develop Multi-Year Implementation Plans (MYIP). Working with a coalition of organizations in Florida, NWF and its partners crafted a restoration framework with project outcomes and guiding principles (outlined in a September 1, 2017 comment letter, and attached as an appendix). We encourage Collier County to keep these themes in mind while planning and implementing restoration activities. NWF has reviewed Collier County’s MYIP, and supports the use of RESTOTE Act Direct Component Funds to conduct planning for the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan (CCCWIP). We offer the following comments on the two main components of the MYIP: Process and Projects. 2 PROCESS: In 2014, the U.S. Treasury Department issued their “Direct Component Guidance and Application to Receive Federal Financial Assistance”. This Guidance provides critical context for ensuring an effective process. NWF believes that Collier County has fulfilled the basic requirements outlined in the Treasury Guidance (specifically, the inclusion of the Matrix, Map, Narrative, and 45-day Public Comment). The maps and Conceptual Plan diagrams in Appendix A are especially enlightening and user-friendly, and provide an excellent visual overview of the project. The public engagement process was also thorough, as evidenced by the numerous letters of support and resolutions included with the MYIP package and information detailed in Section 2 of the Narrative. The MYIP itself is also extremely comprehensive, with the inclusion of the entire CCWIP Concept Plan, diagrams, and budget . NWF applauds Collier County for their process. PROJECTS: The Gulf Coast’s economy and way of life are deeply entwined with the health of the land and water. The fines and penalties from the Deepwater Horizon disaster have great potential to restore and protect the Gulf of Mexico’s lands, waters, wildlife, communities, and economy. NWF believes that recovery monies should be spent in a science-driven, transparent process that ensures a healthy Gulf of Mexico for wildlife as well as for future generations. NWF supports the Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan (CCWIP), which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Naples Bay has been adversely impacted by an abundance of freshwater from the Golden Gate Canal while Rookery Bay has been adversely impacted by too little freshwater inflow. Collier County is wisely planning to fix this long-standing problem. Due to the construction of numerous canals, Naples Bay receives extreme freshwater “shock loads” during the wet season, harming the bay’s ability to support wildlife. Meanwhile nearby Rookery Bay has been starved of the freshwater it would naturally have received. Collier County’s Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan will use the best available science to recreate more natural flow patterns, improve water quality, and reestablish lost wetlands, benefitting coastal fish and wildlife and their habitat. NWF supports Collier County’s approach towards large-scale ecological restoration: improving the hydrology of the watershed. We applaud Collier County for pledging all of its RESTORE Direct Component funds ($6,500,000) and Spill Impact Component funds ($12,000,000+) to design, permit and construct the projects associated with the CCWIP planning project. NWF commends Collier County for focusing its MYIP on a project that will lead to important ecological improvements in the county, and NWF asks Collier County to continue to 3 prioritize and develop this project as it can provide strong ecological benefits while supporting economic gains to the local community. Conclusion: We applaud Collier County for their efforts to select a meaningful project and develop a MYIP. NWF supports Collier County’s large-scale approach, focusing on just one, impactful projects, rather than a diverse assortment of projects. We hope to see other counties follow Collier’s lead and recommend they continue to pursue this large-scale, ecological approach with future Direct Component funds, as well as other oil spill-related funds. Thank you very much for considering our comments. Please do not hesitate to contact Jessica Bibza, our Florida Policy Specialist (bibzaj@nwf.org) to further discuss these comments and recommendations. Sincerely, David Muth Director, Gulf Restoration Program National Wildlife Federation From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Patricia Rogers To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:59:07 AM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Patricia Rogers 8362 Danbury Blvd Naples, FL 34120-1633 (718) 448-2902 patrogers99@yahoo.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Rocio Lario To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 4:29:38 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Rocio Lario 4930 30th Ave SE Naples, FL 34117-9381 (239) 348-1984 rociolario@hotmail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Sharon Hanlon To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Friday, August 25, 2017 5:01:40 PM Aug 25, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. As a 25 year resident of Naples and who raised my children here, we are all committed to maintaining and building on the beautiful area we all live in . Thank you. Sharon M. Hanlon Sincerely, Ms. Sharon Hanlon 4555 Shearwater Ln Naples, FL 34119-8838 (239) 592-6353 drawlsmh@gmail.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Stephanie Letellier To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:59:22 PM Aug 24, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Mrs. Stephanie Letellier 3131 Riviera Dr Naples, FL 34103-4140 (239) 434-7203 steph404@aol.com From:National Wildlife Federation on behalf of Tammy Gossard To:McAlpinGary Subject:I support wildlife-friendly restoration. Date:Monday, August 28, 2017 12:39:37 PM Aug 28, 2017 Collier County Coastal Management Manager FL Dear Coastal Management Manager, I care deeply about the fish, wildlife, and natural areas in Collier County. The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a horrible tragedy, and it is imperative that we use the restoration funds resulting from the spill to improve the water quality and restore fish, wildlife, and their habitats locally, so we can repair the Gulf Coast as a whole. Some of the highest priorities for our community are clean water, abundant fish and wildlife, and improving natural habitats, which is why I support projects that will improve the health of Collier County's coastal bays. I enthusiastically support the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, which will help restore the hydrology of the Naples Bay and Rookery Bay watersheds, thereby improving water quality and wildlife habitat in Collier County. Sincerely, Ms. Tammy Gossard 1961 Sunshine Blvd Apt 2 Naples, FL 34116-6185 (239) 595-5726 tgoss47@yahoo.com Collier County Board of County Commissioners Meeting May 23, 2017 Collier County Board of County Commissioners Meeting September 27, 2016 City of Naples Workshop Meeting September 19, 2016 Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Program Technical Advisory Ad Hoc Meeting July 8, 2016 Legal Advertisement