The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10/13/2009 Item #10B Agenda Item No. 10B October 13, 2009 Page 1 of 83 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approves Change Order 1 to Contract # 08-5122 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan at a cost of $1,303,397.38 to implement Phase 2 of the Watershed Management Plans required by the Growth Management Plan OBJECTIVE: To have the Board approve Change Order 1 to contract # 08-5122 with Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) to continue the development of Watershed Management Plans (WMP) in order to protect Collier County water resources pursuant to Objective 2.1 of the Coastal Conservation and Management Element as amended in the 2006 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). --- CONSIDERATION: During the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on June 23, 2009, under Item 10G (formerly Item 16A 10), staff presented a proposal to amend the existing contract with PBS&J and to proceed to Phase 2 of the Watershed Management Plan project. After a lengthy discussion regarding the cost and merits of the program as well as the potential impacts to the County if the project is not completed as specified in the GMP, the Board, by a vote of 3 to 2, directed staff to bring the item back in September for further discussion and consideration, and in doing so to include the complete history of this program (copy of minutes attached). Resource protection including water, wetlands, and estuaries is a required element of local comprehensive plans (F.S. 163.377). The Board has identified WMP commitments in the GMP since 1989: · Complete by 1993 in the 1989 GMP; · Complete by 2000 in the 1996 EAR based amendments; · Complete by 2010 in the 2005 EAR based amendments. This new date was accepted by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) only after the County agreed to adopt interim water resource protection standards that are now part of the GMP (minutes of the transmittal and adoption meeting attached). The staff initially proposed a completion date of 2012; however, at the recommendation of the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) and Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) the date was changed to 2010 and the Board approved the 2010 completion date. Subsequently, the Board has taken the following actions to meet the current commitment: · Provided $4,000,000 in the 2007 Budget to complete the WMPs; · Approved Work Order URS-FT-3657-07-11 with URS Corporation Southern (URS) for a total cost not to exceed $825,250 with a first phase Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 2 of 83 cost of $198,840 to provide project management and oversight services for the development of the WMPs (09/25/07); . Prioritized the WMPs (11/27/07); · Contracted with Wool pert, Inc. to acquire L1DAR topography for $1,052,259 (2/12/08); · Approved Contract # 08-5122 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan for a Phase 1 cost of $575,736.95 to update the Big Cypress Basin regional hydrologic model (03/10/09). As noted in the Executive Summary, the scope and cost of Phase 2 would be brought back to the Board at a later date (copy of minutes attached). If the Watershed Management Plans are not completed by the GMP identified deadline of 2010, we will be required to report to DCA in the EAR to that effect. The report will include a brief summary of progress that had been made to date, and the anticipated completion date. However, if the Watershed Management Plan funding is removed from the budget, it could trigger DCA sanctions if stakeholders notified DCA of the County's intent not to meet the policy deadline. There have been Big Cypress Basin (BGB) and County stormwater management assessments but no comprehensive assessment of water resources or the effects of development on the resource. The proposed WMPs will integrate the past and current efforts of the BCB and the Stormwater Management section. WMPs will provide a water budget, address elements of flood control, water quality, natural systems, ground water recharge, and water supply. Results obtained from Phase 1 will be used to evaluate 5, 10, 25, and 100 year frequency design storm event effects on flooding and to re-evaluate Level of Service standards for basin discharge rates. Performance Measures will be defined to evaluate alternatives. The model developed in Phase 1 will be used to compare existing conditions for recharge, runoff, and wetlands with historic and future alternatives. A Water Quality model will be developed for the Golden Gate basin and a pollutant loading model will be developed for the other basins to assist with the evaluation. Recommendations from prior studies and new alternatives will be evaluated using the developed Performance Measures. Some selected alternatives will be evaluated using the updated model. Key deliverables for the proposed Phase 2 will include water budgets by basin, defined performance measures, water quality model for the Golden Gate basin, and an evaluation of alternatives and WMPs that include the highest ranked alternatives. The modeling of alternatives and water quality will allow a quantification of the changes that can be expected in ground water recharge, impacts to wetland habitat, and water quality in the canals and estuaries. The current schedule now contemplates that the draft results will be available for review by May 2010. The WMPs will be completed by September of 2010. Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 3 of 83 FISCAL IMPACT: The Board of County Commissioners as part of the FY 2007 approved budget allocated $4,000,000 in General Fund (001) money to fund this initiative. During the initial year FY 2007, $103,063 was spent to offset personal services and operating expense. In FY 2008, $315,668 in actual expenses were posted to the program. To date during FY 2009, the dollars spent or encumbered total $1,988,793. Thus, the remaining balance which will be budgeted in FY 2010 totals $1,592,476. The FY 2010 budget is based upon the initial $4,000,000 allocation minus what has been spent in FY 2007, FY 2008 and that amount spent and encumbered in FY 2009. Sufficient budget does exist to approve this change order. As this project approaches completion, an evaluation of all actual and encumbered expenses will be performed and, if necessary, budget amendments will be processed to make sure that the initial $4,000,000 allocation is not exceeded. Any excess funds would be placed within General Fund (001) reserves. In the event this project requires additional funds above the $4,000,000 allocation, an executive summary will be brought before the BCC. It should be noted that the County received $496,405.50 from the South Florida Water Management District to offset expenditures on the L1DAR project in August 2008, which is part of the Watershed Management Plan budget. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Execution of the Contract will support Objective 2.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the County Growth Management Plan. Failure to comply with Objective 2.1 would have to be reported in the next EAR. The EAR will either be found sufficient or insufficient. If found insufficient, the County would have 12 months to correct insufficiencies which include an analysis of goals, objectives and pOlicies and whether amendments are necessary. In addition, the County would have to note new issues that need to be addressed in the GMP that are currently not present. An example would be the green amendments required by House Bill 697. In this context, if the Watershed Management Plans are not completed by 2010, we would include a statement in the EAR to that effect, what progress had been made to date, and the anticipated completion date. However, if the Watershed Management Plan funding is removed from the budget, it could trigger DCA sanctions if stakeholders notified DCA of the County's intent not to meet the policy deadline. DCA has some latitude in this regard. For example, at this time DCA has informed the County that we need to synchronize all of our maps based on a specific time frame. If not, the sanction would be no GMP amendments until such time that the maps are corrected. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and is a legally sufficient, regular agenda item only requiring a majority vote for approval-SRT RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approves Change Order 1 to Contract 08-5122 to PBS&J in the amount of $1,303,397.38 to provide Services for Phase Agenda Item No.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 4 of 83 2 of the Watershed Management Plans and authorize the Chairman to sign Change Order 1 after County Attorney review. PREPARED BY: Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialist Item Number: Item Summary: Meeting Date: Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 5 of 83 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10B Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approve Change Order 1 to Contract # 08-5122 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan at a cost of $1 ,303,397.38 to implement Phase 2 of the Watershed Management Plans required by the Growth Management Plan. (Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist, Engineering & Environmental Services Dept., CDES) 10/13/2009 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Mac Hatcher Environmental Specialist Date Environmental Services 8/19/2009 5:35:25 PM Approved By Randall J. Cohen Community Development & Environmental Services Comprehensive Planning Department Director Date Comprehensive Planning 8/20/20098:32 AM Approved By Lyn Wood Administrative Services Purchasing Agent Date Purchasing 8/28/20099:30 AM Approved By Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development & Environmental Services Community Development & Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. 8/28/200912:16 PM Approved By Scott R. Teach County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney Office 8/28/20091:15 PM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney County Attorney Date County Attorney Office 8/28/2009 3:45 PM Approved By Judy Puig Community Development & Environmental Services Operations Analyst Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. Date 8/31/200910:10 AM Approved By William D. Lorenz, Jr., P.E. Community Development & Environmental Services Director Date Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 6 of 83 Environmental Services Environmental Services 8/31/200910:24 AM Approved By Robert C. Wiley, P.E. Prinicipal Project Manager Date Community Development & Environmental Services CDES Engineering Services 9/1/2009 12: 15 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator OMB Coordinator Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 9/1/2009 1 :25 PM Approved By John A. Yonkosky Director of the Office of Management Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 9/4/200910:42 AM Approved By Steve Carnell Purchasing/General Svcs Director Date Administrative Services Purchasing 9/25120098:55 AM Agenda Item NO.1 OS October 13, 2009 Page 7 of 83 - I CIIANGE~ CIfANOE 0Rl)E1. NO. CONTRACT NO. OI-SI22 ace DIll: MM=h IP 1MIQ ~....: 16. A. 10 TO: IDIMIt L 1"''-'" P.B. Pall ......"" ~ a. ..... ... S300 Wllll~""" 1'--200 T.... Fl. J1WI DA 11i: PIOJECTNAMB: W..... ~ I ~ l" PROJECT MO.: ar.- ~ AaIo8ftt S s... tJlPnMauI a- IT' S I' ,- 1'hiI a..., 0nIIr... S ,.... ~ Amount S u.detow AGREEMENT..... M8n:h 10. 2009 Voullenlby ..1UIIIoriaId .. ~.. to .... .. foIlowin.a chlap(f) in ~ widt -- .... ~ or..~ To'" PI.- Z IOOPIIM..... POll THE.AddiIM Swn of. Oat Mil.. ........... five.,. r t tow....... ..... ($I.30S.4OO.oo). S 575.736.95 S l.,1Q.).:J9'7 ,]1 S 1.119.134,]) De .. for CCIIIIpImon thall be i...... by ~73 _ 011.... .,. .. 10 .. a-. Older. ~. die ec.nr.:t r_ ilnow _ . _ (5.S.4J ~.,.. 11Ie .....ndII compIIdaR'" ii_Nil. _ .... .. fiuI ~ .... ~",lIJ1N of 1his Chup 0nIIr ...... co..lllbtlt . modi&cIIiaa 10 cg Alt. rm7\1t .. will be to ....... ..... ......1IIId ~ . c-.,.. .. om' ......... W.....Ibow.. ftIUy u if.. _ ... "'I Ik II iD dill ~IMOI. TIll .._.... if "'.10 die ~111I....1baIl ~.. ...1_ &IlII.a.IltMt oI-.y.. aU clainll or.. CoIIncIoI... _<<......ID the..... III btIa ..... inoludlaa cIIiIaI far impIIClt'" delay COllI. ""~k1uM- zS .-. CONTRACTOR: ~~ OWNER: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONSRS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA By: ~ 11\...... 1fJ,L, MIc~t Prajeet ~ r~ . ' By: U . D. Jr.. P.E. DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR ,..- Agenda Item No.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 8 of 83 CONTRACT SPECIALIST rJ By: ~ '-ft? 'td Lyn Date: AITEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Dwight E. Brock, Clerk BY: BY: Donna Fiala, Chairman Approved As To Form and Legal Sufficiency: ~ Ii -I Print Name: .A.!l";,,LA'h County Attorney 0Ip"f)' II PROJECT NAME: Watllnlhed Manaaement Pima PROJ CT #: PROJECT MANAGER: MIIc HIdCher B1D1RFP II: 08-61:Q MOD.: 1 POll: WORK ORDER .: DEPARTMENT: Enalneerlna &Environmental s.mc.. I CONTRACTOR/FIRM NAME: Post BuckleY Schuh a JernIGan. Inq. Oriel..1 Contract Amount: $ unt App/'ov'8d by the ace) Current see Appro,," Amount S Curntnt ContnIct Amount: s Chllllg8S Prtor To 1'hia Modification) Change Amount: RevI.-d Contr8ct/Wot'k Order Amount: Change Order) Cumulative Dollar v.lue of Changes to au. Contr8ctIWork Order: DaW of Lat see Approval March 10.200' A ,1tIIm t# 18. A. 10 Percent8ge of the change overtunder current eontract J unt 227 % Formula: (Revised Amount I Last sec approved MIOUnt)-1! CURRENT COMPLETION DATE (8): ORIGINAL: CURRENT: 1/3012010 d ~P" -I-~ Oeacribe . the change{a): Spedfy the reaD'" for the change(s) X 1. PlaEEn I Dr Elective r 2. Unforeseen Conditions (' 3. Quantity ~ustments (' 4.. Correction of ElTOn (Plans, IflcatlDM or Scope of Work) (' 5. Value Added (' 8. Schedule Adju.tmenm Note: One or more be checked, depending on the nature of the chang...). identify all negative Impact. to the project If this ~hange order we,. not procened: Growth Maoaaement Plan reauirecl atudle,p would not be comDIeted. This change wu requested by: ik:ontracto Rant n owner n Using Department X CDES Coeslgn Profeaional nRegulatory Agency (Spec r Other (Specify) I CONTRACT SPECIAUST PARTICIPAnON IN NEGO nONS: i Yes i No This tonn Is to be .Igned a APPROVED BY: M"" \ ~ect Manager APP~rul( _ Date: '3/25 /Oq REVIEWED BY: Date: Date: 8/ J. qo9 Revised 2-22-08 -. Agenda Item No.1 08 October 13, 2009 Ju8Sg2j~ ~~b9 Okay. And with that, we're going to take a ten-minute break. I'm sorry that we ran over. (A brief recess was had.) Item #10G RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT #08-5122 WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN FORA PHASE 2 COST OF $1,303,397.38 TO DEVELOP WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS REQUIRED BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING - APPROVED MR.OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to lOG, which was previously 16A10. That is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves change order one to contract 08-5122 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan for Phase II cost of $1,303,397.38 to develop Watershed Management Plans required by the Growth Management Plan. And this item was moved at Commissioner Henning's request. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Tom, would you -- I mean, Commissioner Henning, would you like to just tell us why you'd like to discuss this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It reminded me of this picture of the boat with the dinghy, and the dinghy says in the back on it, original contract, and the boat says change order. The -- you know, I'm looking at this. This is a 300-percent increase on the consent agenda change order for a contract. This amount would take care of our shortfalls in parks and rec, you know, beach parking fees, closing down libraries or library fees, and probably help out the animal services. And, you know, to -- I know the studies in the Growth Management Plan, but what I would Page 163 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Juh~g:Z3~ ~~D9 really like to do is change the Growth Management Plan and push this out and use these monies for upcoming budget shortfalls. So that's -- I mean, that's where I'm going to try to get a discussion going. Instead of doing studies and studies that would result in more monies to spend or more government regulation, let's try to take care of our existing problems now. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that we have made a commitment in regards to the Stormwater Management Plan, in fact, of the watershed plan that we have to have -- we've pushed this out once before, and I believe it's due the end of this year. And my understanding is, I think we need to move forward on this; am I correct? MR. WILEY: Yes, you are. Robert Wiley with the county's Engineering and Environmental Services Department. This is a requirement of the Growth Management Plan. It has been pushed out multiple times, not just once. We went into the contract back in March understanding there were going to be multiple phases. The initial phase was to go and do the background work for setting up the modeling, and this takes the modeling and begins to develop the actual watershed plan. So this is what we knew; back in March we knew we would be coming to this at this point. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I also think it's going to affect some other issues that may be coming forward from South Florida Water Management in regards to additional waters that may be imposed upon us; is that correct? MR. WILEY: What it has the ability to do is evaluate should there be a desire to transfer waters from Lee County down into Collier County. That would be able to put into a model to determine impacts from it. It's -- as you and I have discussed in the past, it's a very broad, very usable tool covering a lot of different functions for water quantity as well as quality. Page 164 Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 JuKSg23~ ~609 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Am I also correct in saying that this also addresses federal requirements ofTMDLs? MR. WILEY: In a long-term look at it, it does go towards that. What we're looking at right now is a couple of our basins have impaired waters issues. We're facing the need to produce BMAPs, Best Management Action Plans. By producing the Watershed Management Plans, that will be utilized to prevent us from having to do a totally separate BMAP production. So it lumps it together. But to directly say it will prevent a TMDL is really not correct, but it's a part of the process to evaluate. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? And before I call on you, you said that it went up how many percent from the original order to this -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three-hundred percent. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three-hundred percent -- original order was 300 -- was one amount, and this -- the change order is 300 percent more? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- is there a reason why this didn't go back out on the street for rebidding, or not rebidding, but put it out there to other firms? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. The original contract that we put out, the RFP, called for the development of the Watershed Management Plans. When we selected the firms, we selected them on their ability to do the whole package. As we have developed the contract, the initial phase of the contract was to pull together the front-end work that had to be done, and that was developing of the computer modeling, taking the existing models we have right now through the Big Cypress Basin, and the software. All this gets pulled together as the initial tool that will then be used. Page 165 Agenda Item No.1 08 October 13, 2009 JUh~~3: <15b9 So all the firms that responded to the RFP understood there's a modeling portion, there is a Watershed Management Plan development portion. Everyone responded to that package. It was a big package, and we opted to take the first bite, and now we're taking the second bite. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm going to make a motion not to approve and direct staff to put this money into next year's budget for the funding of the beach parking and libraries and museums and the dog -- cats and dogs. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm really not satisfied with the explanation of the increase in cost. I understood that it's an obligation we have, but it's -- an obligation that goes from 575,000 to 1,879,000 is absolutely ludicrous, and I would like to explore alternatives that would get us a lot closer to our original estimate than we are right now. I don't think that we could or should be obligated to make expenditures this outrageous. And so I'm looking for alternatives from the staff. I mean, we don't have -- we don't have enough to start throwing it around on projects like this if we're so far off on our estimates. MR. WILEY: Well, let's talk about that. We're not so far off on our estimates. The original budget going in two years ago in fiscal year 2007 was an estimated $4 million, and that was for us to evaluate just up front what we thought would be a rough idea. Now, we started off -- if you really go back to the history of it, when staff put together the initial scope of understanding what will be entailed with this, we figured with the number of watersheds we have, we're going to be probably closer to eight million. As it got to the County Manager, he proposed to the board six million. You allu Page 166 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 JuE~g~3~ '1609 approved four million with the understanding that if additional funding was necessary as we got through the different watersheds towards the end of the process, we needed more, to come back to you at that time. You approved the $4 million budget. We have taken that, and through the process we've used money out of it to do the lidar contract, as you heard us present that to you a while back, and that is coming -- wrapping up. That's in the state review process right now. That's going to be the information we will put into the modeling effort here. We hired URS Corporation to act as the overall master consultant for this team. They have helped us pull together the scope of work that is involved that Post, Buckley and the others applied for through the RFP process. Then we went through the RFP, and we selected Post, Buckley as the firm knowing that we did not want to come in up front with a full contract to cover everything until we had time to work with them, for them to look at what we had, looking at the existing modeling. So we took that initial effort that everyone had a real good grasp upon, pulled that together as a Phase I understanding. And at the time you even approved Phase I, they put together a draft budget for the future Phase II that we knew would be subsequently coming. That is brought to you today. And they have not exceeded that estimate either. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, it isn't a change order; it's Phase II? MR. WILEY: It is Phase II. We use the term change order because it is a change to the contract terms, but it is Phase II of the original contract, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of$4 million. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the $4 million understood all along. I think that that's -- you know, that's maybe -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the misleading part. Page 167 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Jurt~~3; ~669 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The change order thing is clearly very misleading. It says, the original agreement amount was five million, and this change order adds 1 ,303,000. You know, that's one of the problems here. But honestly, I simply cannot understand how you can spend that much money taking a look at lidar data. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It isn't lidar. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, he says he's going to use lidar data to develop the -- MR. WILEY: What I said was we used monies from the-four million to acquire the lidar, which is the topographic data, and that is one of the base bits of information that you utilize within the modeling itself to help you determine where flows are going to be going. It is an update to the lidar we have now, which is a 2001 product, covers a small portion of the county. We have it overlap with the Army Corps of Engineers lidar, and that's what we're using in the FEMA floodplain studies. This lidar takes us out all the way out past State Route 29 as a single entity, so it's uniformity from the coast to 29. That is just one product. The study that Post, Buckley's going to be doing here takes the information and goes through the various watersheds identifying from water-quality issues, water-quantity issues, the water budget, the availability for long-term -- what will happen in the long-term effects in development continues at current layouts. Do we need to make changes with water qualities? Are we better to come up with some reasonable perspectives? Those are all the analyses that will be done to come up with a long-term plan for directing growth as we go through the county to make sure we have sufficient water resources to handle them. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Couple questions. What would Page 168 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Ju8~g23~ ~{jb9 happen if we didn't approve this? What would be the net results? MR. WILEY : Well, at that point we would look to see, do we continue on in with the Phase 1. If we're not going to continue the process, do we continue on with the Phase I to pull the modeling together? Recommendation probably would be to at least finish that product out so we have the two in hand ready to go when we do decide to go into the Phase II portion to finish out the Watershed Management Plan. The impact to the Growth Management Plan is we are coming up this year with the EAR process. So real quickly we get to declare to DCA, sorry , sir, we went back on our word again for about the third time. How they will react to that, I do not know, but we will have to declare to them that we have not fulfilled our own commitments. And at that point we go through the process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. My second question is, is how time sensitive is this, that we couldn't bring this back in September when we had some time to digest the -- all the ramifications of this? MR. WILEY: You can delay it. We have said we would have them done in 2010. So instead of finishing up right at the start of 2010, that would move us much later on into 2010. But it's not -- a short delay is not going to derail the project. A lengthy delay would. Now, the other issue really gets to be, from a standpoint of the consultant firm, Post, Buckley, we would also have to inform them of this delay and see what their reaction would be. It could result in coming back with an increased cost to us. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and that may be, but I mean, based upon what we've got in front of us right now, I can understand where my fellow commissioners are. This seems a little troublesome when you look at it and the amount of money we're talking about and the poor choice they used of change orders, you Page 169 Agenda Item No.1 08 October 13, 2009 Jutleg23~ ~db9 know, to be able to get to the number it was. It's problematic. So I don't want to -- I don't want to kill something that could be an extreme benefit to the county. You know, it may be even something that's absolutely essential that we go forward, the ramifications with FEMA and everyone else, I don't know. But possibly if we brought it back in September, we could meet with staff numerous times, be able to work this out, maybe even have a workshop on it to be able to find out where we stand. Everyone's concerned up here about the amount of money and the choice of the words. I would feel more comfortable if we bring it back. That would be my own opinion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo? MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if I might, again, just to refresh the board. This was a $4 million budgeted item. That money had been earmarked. We've been bringing it forward in phases. If the boards would want to use that money somewhere else, that's fine, just tell us. But if you still want to move forward with the project, I'm just having a little trouble with trying to figure out what it is you're trying to reconcile between now and September, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think it's just being able to get our arms around the whole thing. I mean, a lot of time has lapsed since we worked with this in trying to give all the commissioners a refresher in where we were and how we got to be where we are in the absolute essential necessity of spending this money at this point in time to keep everything on schedule. Is it something that's mandated? Is it something we can work around? Is it something that we come up with something a little less ambitious to be able to take some of the load off the budget? I just don't know. And I hate to throw the whole baby out with the bathwater based upon that. I'd rather have a little bit of time to be able to work through this. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is this also the item that brings our Page 170 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 JUl~~923~ ~d09 insurance down? MR. WILEY: No. This is a totally separate issue than that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: How many watersheds are you dealing with here that we're talking about when we looked at the total thing and approved the $4 million to go forward in regards to these watersheds? How many watersheds is there? That's number one. MR. WILEY: This particular contract addresses six of them. There are still a couple more. One of them is right along the coastline. It's being handled somewhat to the side issue right now through Mr. McAlpin's effort on some water quality issues in -- right in the edge of the urban area, and we're going to wait to see his results coming out of there. It may preclude us from needing to spend additional dollars with Post, Buckley because his product may produce for us what we need. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's enough. MR. WILEY: The other issues are, the very far eastern portion of the county are not addressed, but there's no development pressure there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. How does this affect the citizens as far as addressing issues in regards to flooding? MR. WILEY: This one is designed to address flooding from the standpoint not of the flood insurance program, but from the overall flooding such as you would work with the stormwater management section, and because it will identify capital needs for the various storm levels where you could anticipate having flooding. Those are one of the issues that we have in here, and it goes through the various storm iterations also. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the bottom line is, this is a study to address watershed problems and how it affects not only the quality of water but in regards to the citizens and the possibility of flooding? MR. WILEY: It would -- that is one portion of it, yes, sir. Page 171 Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 JuE@~3~ ~(j09 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I feel that this is an important program, and I think it's something that we've been putting off for a long period of time, and obviously we're get into the rainy season, and we really don't know how it's going to affect the particular watersheds. How far out east do they go that would impact the citizens? MR. WILEY: The watersheds that we're talking about here, the primary ones of focus deal with, we call it Golden Gate Estates, Gordon River, but it's basically the watershed goes into Naples Bay. You know, that goes quite a distance out in -- all the way through the northern part of the Estates. The Cocohatchee watershed goes all the way up to Immokalee. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. WILEY: That's going east. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the question, the one up there that we're talking about or the one that I'm concerned with is the watershed that goes all the way back to almost Immokalee; is that correct? MR. WILEY: That would be the Cocohatchee, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so we've got all the other communities that -- along that whole northern border between Lee County and Collier County are affected -- are affecting the citizens; is that correct? MR. WILEY: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. WILEY: The third major one is down in the East Naples area. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. In East Naples, okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Robert, I think you misunderstood what I was saying based upon your comments to the commissioners. I was stating, because of the budgeting problem, is to Page 1 72 Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Ju8eg13~ ~(j09 put this off for a while. I understand your priorities, but also you stated exactly what my fear is. This is going to call for more capital needs. And it's -- my feeling is the county or government doesn't have a budgeting problem. It's got a spending problem. That's where -- the problem in the budget that I see coming up. Priorities -- my priorities is what we offer our existing residents and historical, free beaches, parking at the beaches. And I don't see any need why we can't put this off. I just wanted to let you know how I feel. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are a lot of unanswered questions as far as I'm concerned. Just as an example, you're going to have a detailed water-quality model for the Golden Gate Canal system, including the Gordon River. South Florida Water Management District is already planning on diverting millions of gallons per day from the Golden Gate Canal. When are you going to study this thing, before it's diverted or after it's diverted or while it's being diverted? My bet is we'll study it before and we'll have to study it again after it's been diverted. I just don't know how you put all these pieces together in the amount of tin1e that we have in a logical way. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying, I think we can develop a better plan, because there are a lot of components to this plan that have to be integrated. And I'm just absolutely flabbergasted that South Florida Water Management District doesn't have models for water flow in Collier County already. We had Mirasol. We required them to have a model to show the water flow of that watershed through their development and to justify how they could possibly destroy certain wetlands to build on it, and they did that, and I'd be willing to bet you they didn't spend anywhere Page 1 73 Agenda Item No. 10B October 13, 2009 June913; 1~09 near $250,000 on that study. So I just -- I'm uneasy about this. This is a complex document which leads to a lot of interpretation and appears to turn loose a bunch of consultants to go out and take samples of everything in the world and spend a year or two doing it, and then we find out we don't have enough information to develop. It reminds me exactly of the floodplain analysis issue that we had, that drug on for years and years and years and years and I don't think ever got resolved. So I -- we should make a good-faith effort to-meet our requirements for the Growth Management Plan. But my question is, how do you do that when you're short of money? Is this the best use of funds right now, or can we postpone it a little while, six months maybe? I don't know. What is our minimum deliverable in 2010 to meet our obligations under the Land Development -- or the Growth Management Plan? I don't know that. And when we're struggling with providing the subsequent citizens services in Collier County, it just is hard to justify going through the process of developing things that I believe should pretty much already exist in Collier County in many, many cases. And I think we're just reinventing the wheel in a lot of things here. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, everything I'm hearing is true. Obviously, the executive summary and your answers just have not given us the comfort level to proceed. I'm sure there's a lot more to this that -- if we get into it. Once again though, Commissioner Coyle is right about the fact that -- what could be done to maybe approach this from a different perspective as far as holding the costs down to be able to start the process going forward and maybe extending it over a number of years. I, for one, would like to put this offuntil September and give staff the chance to be able to come back with a more detailed Page 174 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Jun~92j; ~~()9 explanation, maybe meet with us individually, and come up with a justification for spending any portion of this money in whole or in part at a September meeting. I'd make a motion to that effect. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to continue this till the September meeting and meet with staff in the meantime. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staff, and I think they've got a pretty good idea what our concerns are. Let's find out exactly what we need to do now and act upon the absolute necessity that have to deal with it, and then the rest of -- to leave to a time that -- when the economy restores itself and we have the funds to be able to work with it. But I'm not too sure what that is, and I don't think anyone can tell us today. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And a second. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that when we discussed this -- how many years ago was this, three years ago? MR. WILEY: We started in 2007. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. And at that time we had a detailed discussion in regards to the importance of this study, and at that time I believe we had a unanimous vote that we needed to move forward on this because there were some commitments that were made by -- to the state that we were going to have to get this Watershed Management Study done. Am I correct in that? MR. WILEY: That's my recollection. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that we had stalled it once before, and here we are today. And I believe the money has been set aside for this particular study. And the amount of money that was set aside was $4 million. And all you're doing is saying at this point in Page 175 Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Ju8~92j: ~~69 time, with the money that we spent, we're going to now address this -- the amount of money that you discussed earlier is needed to finish this project; is that correct? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. That's what we're saying. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we're not going to exceed the amount of money that has been already allocated for the study? MR. WILEY: We have not exceeded it or proposed to, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. WILEY: What is also included, if you'll look on your fiscal impact, is we basically got roughly, and just lightly under, a half-million dollars reimbursed back to us by the Water Management District for -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Preparing for the study. MR. WILEY: -- cost sharing on lidar, which that number's also not included in your information as far as showing an expenditure. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So actually the information that we've received seems to mislead us in many instances, including calling it a change order if we've already got the money aside. MR. WILEY: Well, it's not intended to mislead in any form or fashion. That just happens to be the form that we use through the purchasing department. When you go to make a change to a contract, it's called a change order. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There hasn't been any -- there was the money allocated, and so they were going forth with the study. And so when they said change order, it isn't really a change order. It was, okay -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Phase II. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- we've got to Phase II and we're going to try to get this thing done before the end of -- I think they were talking about the end of this year, which is December, and -- am Page 176 Agenda Item No.1 OB October 13, 2009 Jun~92j; ~(j69 I correct? The end of this year, which is 2009, beginning of 2010. This is going to get this taken care of. MR. WILEY: That is its purpose, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. So we're actually under budget. MR. WILEY: So far. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So far, exactly. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, this isn't three years ago, this is now. We've got 20 percent plus whatever of our employees laid off. We've got a job freeze in place. We're seeing a devaluation of properties. It's going to be about 11 percent this year on top of an $84,000 cut over the last couple of years. There's a money issue here. I n1ean, yeah, we made a commitment back when there was plenty of money. I guess the question would be, what's the ramifications as far as other government agencies if we don't follow through with this in a timely fashion? MR. WILEY : Well, that would be a decision made by the Department of Community Affairs. On your Growth Management Plan planning, you gave me the plans that were not in compliance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no idea what that means as far as what they would do. Maybe-- MR. WILEY: Well, it could be fairly nominal. It could have serious impacts if you choose to ever go back and amend your Growth Management Plan, they -- where you're found in noncompliance, it could have implications to prevent you from doing that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let the County Attorney weigh in, okay? MR. KLA TZKOW: We can -- we can bring that back in September as to what the ramifications might be. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. KLA TZKOW: If any. I mean, you know, the state's under their own pressures. I think they understand the issues the counties Page 177 Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Ju8~92j~ ~d09 are under. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second to bring this back in September. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 3-2 vote. We'll bring it back in September. MR. WILEY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We move on to Item 10H. Item #10H RECOMMENDATION TO (1) GRANT THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT THE AUTHORITY TO PURSUE AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 2005-46 TO REZONE BEMBRIDGE PUD TRACT A FROM RESIDENTIAL PUD TO COMMUNITY FACILITY PUD TO BE PROCESSED BY CDES ON AN EXPEDITED OR FAST TRACK BASIS; (2) CONTINGENT UPON REZONE APPROVAL, APPROVE A TRANSFER OF 5.11 ACRES, BEMBRIDGE PUD TRACT A, FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT (EMS) TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE NAPLES RECYCLING CENTER AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $450,000 AND (3) APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 178 Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 26 of 83 This is a partial excerpt from the May 16, 2006 EAR Transmittal Hearing. 1\'1ay ] 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, we'll continue on with Gene. !\1R. CALVERT: Thank you, 1\.1r. Chairman, Members of the Board. For the record, Eugene Calvert with stom1\vater management department. I appreciate the opportunity to present you today a little bit of a background of \vhat the stormv.'ater or -- not just stormwater management, but also the county, in fact, is looking for for \vatershed management planning. I apologize. How do you switch the screen? co~UvnSSI07'-JER COLETTA: They've eliminated half the problem. I\1R. CALVERT: I've got it on a PowerPoint presentation here that's already on the computer. lfs on here, but I'm not sure \vhich button to lLse. There we go. Thank you. I'd like to step you through some slides real quickly and talk a little bit about \vhat watershed planning is all about. To better understand ",,"hat the planning is -- involves I think you']) better understand what some of the changes in the Grm:vth Management Plan, and particularly the Conservation and Coastal Management, entails. Under goal number two, there are some significant changes to the coastal and -- or the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, and those significant changes do reflect a need to proceed \\lith the watershed management planning. A little bit of background on the planning itself The Gro\\.1h !\1anagement Plan, or part of the CClvfE, defines that we should be doing some type of water management planning. In fact. it was referred that we should have completed these things back in 2000, or 1999, I believe -- 2000. \Ve haven't done that yet. And so \\'hat some of the things are that you're going to be seeing in this CC!vlE is to step that timeline up and to proceed v."ith Page 10 Agenda Item No.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 27 of 83 May 16~ 2006 completing it. It doesn't define how we're going to get there, and that's sonl.e of the things I'm going to walk you through real briefly today with. TIle watershed management plans \vilf provide a blueprint, if you will, or some tools so that \\"e can proceed \vith developmen~ particularly out in the Estates. That \~...as mentioned, and we'll also look at providing input from the stakeholders, \vhethel" it's environmental groups, development rights advocates, et cetera. All those stakeholders \vin be a part of developing these plans. The Gro\\o'th Management Plan does define some of the requirements, and that's identified on page 6 under policy 2.1.4 of \-\That should be in these plans. As I n1entioned, they don't really define how they should be developed, but they do define some of the things that should be in that plan. Incidentally, I do have a copy of this Po,verPoint presentation I'll make available after my presentation to anybody in the public, as well as the board. Watershed Jnanagelnent plans ,viiI go not only for looking at development in the future, but vvil1 also provide us some tools for addressing the NPDES, or the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systenl, as well as the T^1DLs, that was nlentioned early. It v.~Il provide us some background on how to address those TMDLs. So it's not only to pro\<;de that access to the Gro\vth ~1anagement Plan, it \-vill also provide us tools to address other issues as \vell. The task that we're presenting to you today is to cornplete the \Vatershed managernent plans for 10 nlajor"!atersheds that are developable areas by the year 20 I O. No\v, there are about three watersheds \vithin the county. Three of those \vatersheds are in areas in the Everglades that aren't going to be developed. So we're look at concentrating our efforts on any of those areas that could be developed in the future, and so \\,'e're looking at 1 0 \vatersheds. Page 11 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 28 of 83 J\1ay 16, 2006 There are really t\\'o nlain parts to this project. One is to develop a comprehensive hydrologic conlputer model or a storm\vater drainage Illodel, if you \viII, to address it, that \vay we can define where sOIne of these flo\vways are, \vhat the impact might be on sonle of the developrnent and how the deve]opnlcnt may impact the drainage. And the second is to actually develop the plans themselves. The cornprehensive -- or the water Inanagelnent plan is not just a \vatershed plan or not just a hydrologic \vatershed plan, but it's much more. It involves a Jot of other things. It involves natural-.. many of our natural resources, as \vell as a balance bet\veen hurnan development. The h~/o pa11s should be developed concun"ently. As I said, we had developed a plan as \\fell as a hydrological lTIodel. It does rely __ the \vatershed rnanagen1ent plan does rely on infonl1atIon that is used and results are generated frOIn this stonnwater study, if you v.lilt. It \vi]] also take quite a bit of time to develop all of these 10 storm\vater studies, and so that's the reason \ve need to proceed inlnlediately and proceed concurrently. \Ve believe it \viIl take about three years to complete it completely. Phase one of this process is to actually define the project, how are \\'e going to do it, where are \ve going to it. And we envision using the steering group. \Veln define the purpose, define the scope of the water n1anagement plans, detennine the content of the plans, and tI)' to standard theln. As I said, we have 10 different \vater management drainage areas, so we'd like to have all those 10 plans be consistent. \Ve111 also provide points of contact \\<'ith county-owned data. There1s a lot of data out there that \ve can plug into this. Therets certainly been a lot of the hydrological studies that have been completed by the Big Cypress Basin that \,,,'i11 be a part of this tool as \vell. \Ve've identified already S0l11e of the critical habitat. That \",in be Page 12 Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 29 of 83 May I6t 2006 a part of the process. So bring aJl this stuff together. The second phase \vill be the actual developnlent. In the phase I, we really envision using county staff to develop the -- as a steering group to define the definition, including environmental staff, planning staff, storm water management staff, and specialized consultants for guidance in facilitating. Under phase II of the planned development, we plan on taking all of the initial group -- initial steering group and then add the stakeholders. And I've listed a few of the stakeholders here, and certainly there will probably be others. But we think it's very ilnportant that we have these stakeholders as a part of the planning process. \Vithout their input, ,ve're not going to have a plan that will \vork for CoI1ier County. Let me restate that --what the purpose of the \vater management plans are. To provide a blueprint and guidance for setting goals for land use within a \vatershed. It identifies special areas of concern. Identifies water quality concerns, development density, \viJdlife habitat, ground\vater recharge, and any type of infrastructure shortfaIls that lnay be in that area. So it is a comprehensive land use tool. The watershed computer models -- ,vhich this will actually envision rn"o computer models probably being generated -- one, the hydrological computer model as \vell as a watershed managen1ent computer model that \viIl serve as a core repository of data. In other \\lords, as developnlent COUles in, how is that development going to affect and impact the overall \vatershed management of the 'watershed? How weIl is it going to ilnpact the \vildlife? How ,vell is it going to inlpact the drainaget et cetera? .A,nd it \\rill also then provide results in a geospatiaJ format, something that \ve can look at A GIS format, ifyouwiJl. As I said, it will be used to assess existing conditions that we have out there. It \vill also test effects that we may have with development. In other \vords,what happens if we have 50 percent Page 13 Agenda Item No. 10B October 13, 2009 Page 30 of 83 May 16, 2006 buildout or 100 percent buildout in that area, particular area; how is that going to impact wildlife? How is it going to impact \vater quality? i\nd what are the results of the current regulations in 10 years or 25 years? Do we need to change these regulations to make those addresses? \Vhat \\!ill be those benefits if \'lC do nlake changes? Developing the \vatershed nlodeIs. \\' e need to determine what the scope of the \\'ork is, and thatls \:vhere that initial group __ spearhead group will be. \Ve need to collect the data, we need to develop a model, and then we need to calibrate that 111odel, and then we need to come up \vith results that we can use in our development process for the counties. This data \vill be in layers so it will alIo\v flexibility for us to change itenlS, change \\'hat-ifs, if you \:vilL It certainly will be compatible "rith the GIS in the counties. It win also be compatible with similar nlodcls that have been used in other subwatershedst such as \:vhat has already been c0l11pletedwith BeB. Here's our time frame that \~Ie think \ve can get this done. As itls stated in the coastal -- or Conservation and Coastal I'vfanagenlent Elernent, \\re want to try to conlpJete this in year 2010. I believe \ve can do that by 2010. \Ve need to start this year and start \\lith some of the definitions that \ve've outlined \:\lith that initial group. County staff can start the process. It \viII certainly cost some nloney to do some of these computer development n10dels and everything, and that \\.:ill come in year 2007. Our stonn\vater department has submitted a budget request for your consideration that will include costs to carry us through 2007 to 20 I O. For the remainder of2006, as I mentioned, our county staff\vill \\tork in coordination \vith the BCB to try to define \vhat we're trying to acconlpIish and layout a step-by-step franlework. \~r e'lI detennine the scopes and deliverabIes. \Vell deten11ine the sequence of events of\vhat \ve need to get done first, and v'.'e'll also Page 14 Agenda Item No. 10B October 13, 2009 Page 31 of 83 May 16,2006 determine the approach for that development. The cost. We estin1ate the cost wiU be about $6 million over a three-year period, and this is based on \vhat it has cost Big Cypress Basin to develop a hydrological model for the South Belle 1\1eade. As I said~ there's a lot of information that's out there. The South Belle Meade hydrological data, well) be able to plug that into our w'atershed management plan \vithout having to run that nlodel again; ho.wever, there are other areas that we do need to actually develop a model. So this -- at this point it's a -- \ve estirnate it to be a $6 million project over a three-year period. .A.nd in my budget proposal to you is, live proposed a $2 nliHion per year budget request. Our recommendation frotn our staff is to adopt the 1110difications of the CCME as recommended by the Planning Conunission and the staff~ and then secondly, to support the development of \vatershed rnanagenlent plans. Be glad to ans\ver any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you for your presentation. CoU'unissioner Henning? C01VfMISSIONER HEN'NING: The -- correct me if I'm wrong. After the steering group determines \\'hat - the project definitio~ are you going to come to the Board of Commissioners for approval? tvfR. CALVERT: Oh, absolutely, because I envision this to be not only -- we're going to have to con1e for a consultant to actually do SOUle of the \vork~ and so it's going to have to come to the board for approval of a contract. ....\nd I \\lould envision that as \ve progress through this process, "tefll be also not only \vorking \vith the commissioners, but the Planning Comnlission as \vell as the EAC. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The phase 1:\vo of it is getting out to the stakeholders. Being that the taxpayers are paying tor this, don~t you think that should be the highest priority, to get that infonnatioll out to them? MR. CALVERT: \VeIl) the envision ,vas the phase two would Page 15 Agenda Item No.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 32 of 83 fvfay 16~ 2006 really kick in in fiscal year '07 as \ve get defined ,"",hat \velre looking at from the staff. No\\<', wetd certainly ~leIc.ome the Plalming Commission, EAC, or any other taxpayers as \ve go along developing this scope. I think \vhaCs inlportant is to realize that iCs not just a stom1\vater project. Itls really a Planning Conmlission. res a CDES project. It's a COWlty project. Stakeholders and the public, absolutely. They should be involved. \Vhether they be involved initially or shortly thereafter, that's sonlething we need to -- C01\.1MISSIONER HENNL'JG: I 111ean, I just feel that you have special interests out there, and really the end payer of this is the taxpayers. Is there any partnership of other government agencies that can be tapped for resources of funds? MR. CALVERT: \Ve haven't explored that yet. I would certainly hope there n1ay be. There luay be opportunities not only BCB, but South Florida or through out legislative, both state and federal legislative advocates. COM1vlISSIONER HENNING: The -- is there other agencies, government agencies, that are tasked to do this'! l'vIR. CAL V"ER T: A.re you talking \vithin Collier County or outside of Collier County'? I can -- COMivfISSIONER HENNING: \VeIl, I nlean, I haven't found a government -- \\"ell, state and fed era 1. I think they do have jurisdiction of this area, if that answers your question. MR. C,AL VERT: Certainly. The jurisdictional level from state and federals \vith V.later quality issues and endangered species does inlpact this. I know other counties have taken on the task of developing watershed managenlent plans, and it has been a rong process. Broward County, 1\.1iami-Dade County have completed some for their areas. C01\1~lISSIONER HEN~ING: Okay. Is there other state and federal agencies, that part of their charge is to develop watershed Page 16 Agenda Item No. 10B October 13, 2009 Page 33 of 83 1-v1ay 161 2006 plans? MR. CALVERT: J dontt believe so. I think all of their charge is in regulatory -- regulating the clean "rater act or regulating the endangered species act. But actually in developing the plan~ 1 don't believe there are state and federal agencies responsible for that. CO~'fMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. live seen a public notice from Big Cypress Basin vvhere they're doing a ,\Iatershed managenlent plan for the community of Imn1okalee. Is that sOJnething different than what \ve're going to be developing? MR. CALVERT: \Vell, {think \vhat they developed wasn't a 'watershed management plan, but it \\'35 really a \vatershed drainage plan or a master drainage plan. They developed that in coordination \\rith our department to define \vhat the in1pact of SOIne of these drainages would be. And '~,le're going to use that infonnation both as part of this ,vatershed management plan, as well as our capital inlprovement program. But it addressed strictly drainage. It didn't address other land use, it didn't address \\riJdlife habitat or anything, just strictly drainage, one that the BCB c0111pJeted. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm sorry, just one more question. CHAI~\1AN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to understand ho\v that drainage plan affects what \ve're trying to do. It appears that itts just the opposite, they \\rant to drain it and we \vant to retain it. MR. CALVERT: \VeIl, the idea, particularly on the BCB, the one that they did on Inunokalee, it defined \vhere the probleul areas 'were, it defined \vhat the historic fevels might be or \vhat level ,,,Ie want -- we don't ,vant to exceed for son1e of our drainage. And, in fact, thatfs exactly ,vhat they did is they defined what ,ve want to retain in sonle of those areas so that \ve don't overflow our banks and 'we don't flood the people out~ so that w'e increase the water Page ] 7 Agenda Item No.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 34 of 83 May 16, 2006 quality by increasing treatment i\nd so it \vas part of that -- their plan. CO^1MISSIONER HENNING: Maybe Ijust don't understand the difference yct. ~1R. CALVERT; Yeah. The \vatershed Inanagement plan rea1Jy is a little bit -- is rTIore -- is broader than just drainage. It involves water treatIuent, it involves recharge of groundwater, and it involves anything that happens ,:vithin a \vatershed. UnfortunateJy~ they use the tenn watershe~, and people think of water running off It's really a way to geographically detlne an area, because these areas are inlpacted by drainage runoff and 11o\\'s. But it is nlore than just drainage. COl\1J\1ISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIR1v1AN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMl\HSSIONER COLEITA: Yes~ thank you. Good morning. 1\1R. CALVERT: Good Bloming. corvnvHssIONER COLETTA: The stakeholders, I -- and I appreciate COlllmissioner Henning bringing that up~ because that 'vas also a concern of 111ine, you kI10\V. I think son1etimes werre a little shonsighted, and \\orhen \\"e look at the stakeholders bTJ"OUPS, exactly who they should Coo1pose of, COlllmissioner Henning's right \vhen he says taxpayers, but I \vQuld go another step past that and say such groups as a civic association and property owners' association, should be in the original declaration that this is what we're looking for so that ,\re -- these people arenrt under the category of others as a catchall, becau..~e r think the)/re one of the 1110St driving forces out there. And if 'Vve're ever going to accOlnpJish our goals, we need to have these entities behind us. The other thing \vas is, of course, the concern, \vhenever we say \vatershed preservation, is, exactly who does it impact and at what degree? Can you assure me that what \\'efre talking about today is not designed to make Golden Gate Estates or Inunokalee or the Page 18 Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 35 of 83 May 16, 2006 agricultural area of Collier County become the floodplain for the rest of the county? MR. CAL VERT: I call, because what this w'atershed management plan \viII do is it will identify the issues. It Vttin be up to the board \\'hether they \\rant to block it off or put it into 100 percent development. This \llatershed management plan will need to be adopted by the board. And so it's going to be a decision tool that the board will be undertaking and decide ho\v much preservation they \vant. W]l~t kind of balance are \ve going to have between natural resources and hUnlan development? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, of course, thafs very inlportant that we do COlll.e up with that balance. That's very important. But at all times, is there any \vay that, in this particular docunlent of \vhat ,velre talking about today that \v~'re talking about reimbursenlent to those people that we nlay cause haml to by taking a,vay use of their land? MR. CALVERT: That's certainly a good ..-while I canlt address it specifically today, thats certainly an element that should be considered as we develop these plans. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very nluch. CHAIRMAN rIA.LAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COM1.11SSIONER FIALA: Yes. Are you doing this because the watershed affects our future \vater sources? MR. CALVERT: Oh, absolutely. Not only our \:vater sources, but our \vater quality and our \vay of life. I think it's -- that's the reason I'm very much in support of doing a watershed nlatlagement plan. It addresses not just \\'ater, but as I mentioned before, other \viJdlife, natural resources, and balance \\lith the hunlan development. So the human deveIopn1ent is not out of the picture. It's a part of the picture~ just like habitat is, wildlife habitat. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One last question. I noticed in Our Page 19 Agenda Item No.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 36 of 83 l\1ay 16, 2006 preparatory \\'ork that it mentioned that you ,^'ere going to have this done actually by the year 2000. And none of us \vere here then~ so I can ask this question. \\l'Oat happened? We should have been preparing long before an this developnlent took place. ~1R. CAL VERT; Yes. And I don't really know \vhat happened. \Vhy -- \:vhether it \vas just not funded through the board, \vhether there was no champion, if you ,vill, to take the lead. I don't know ,,,hy it vvasn't cOlllpleted by 2000. It doesn't seem like there \vas a \vhole lot of steps going towards this direction. COl\.1MJSSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMA.N HALAS: Is this to be federally mandated eventually? l\1R. CALVERT: I don't believe the watershed management plan is federaI1y mandated. It 111ay become state nlandated. No\v, there are elements in that plan that we're going to be addressing as far as TMDLs and clean water and endangered species that we can address in that. But the actual development of the watershed 111anageInent plan \-viII probably not be federally mandated. CH..A.IRrvlAN HALAS: But the T~lDLs \vill be federally inandated~ correct? IYIR. CAL \TERT: That's correct. It's actually coming through the clean 'vater act do\vn through the state. CHAlRi\1.AN H.A.LAS: So it does have a tie-in? I\1R. CALVERT: It does tie to it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Does this also, the biggest effect, does this bave -- in regards to cleaning up the estuary systenl? rvfR. CALVERT: It certainly has a factor into that, and that's one of the iteITIs that are listed in the -- what the watershed managelnent plan should be. Those are t\\'O itenls that were included by the Planning Conmlission~ that they need to address those estuaries. CHAIR1\.1AN H.AL..~S: Because \ve knO\V \ve've got some probJenls \\lith OUf neighbors up to the north \vho are fighting Page 20 Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 37 of 83 May I 6t 2006 discharges from Lake 0, an<L of courset that's going to have an effect as far as \\fatershed management for them up there. So I'm just looking at what tbe effects are down here ,vith the different watersheds tbat \\fe have here and how that ties into our estuary system and also into red tide. !viR. CALVERT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HALAi\S: So does it have aneffeet? ~1R. CAL \'ERT: 'Yau know, definitely therets an effect in through there. It is a balancing act. CHAIRMAN HALAi\S: A cause and effect is what we have then? Okay. ^1R. CALVERT: Right. CHAIR1\.'fAN HALAS: Is that right? ~1R. CALVERT: I believe so, yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN tIt\LAS: Okay. I'nl not trying to put \vords in your ll10Uth. MR. CALVERT: No. CHAIRMAN H.4.LAS: rIU just trying to get a big picture __ Iv1R+ CALVERT: To understand it, yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: - exactly of what this watershed managenlent is going to incorporate as far as for present and in the future in regards to resources here or w'ay of life here in Collier County . MR. CAL \'ERT: And the big thing it \viIl do is give you some tools 011 how you address the development of land in the future. CHAJRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any other questions? (No response.) CH AIRMAN HALAS: Hearing nouet do you \vant us to .... is there any speakers on this'? MR. C.,-\.L VERT: I believe there may be. MS. FILSON: Yes) sir. I have -.. this is J, I have 12 speakers. CHA.1R1v1AN HALAS: Okay. Would the public like to -- would Page 2) Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 38 of 83 May 16~ 2006 you like to caB the first speaker? MS. FfLSON: Yes, sir. Brad Cornell. IIe'Il be foHowed by \Vayne Arnold. MR. CORNELL: Good n1onling, Cmnmissioners. rm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about the Gro\vth Managenlcnt Plan EAR anlendments that relate to viatershed management plans. \Ve are very supportive of the accompJ ishment and execution of these plans. They're overdue, as Comnlissioner Fiala pointed out~ by six years, and theire absolutely essential to good planning, good ste\vardship, and a sustainable conlnlunity, which we believe \ve all desire here in Collier County. The objectives under 2. I need to be done as soon as possible. t\.1r. Calvert gave you a good outline and description of ''''hat we're talking about. This needs to be aggressively scheduled and funded \-'lith prioritization of those 10 \vatersheds. And I believe I sa\v in his presentation that they \\fould be prioritizing those. Rookery Bay Belle ivfeade watershed is obviously yery in1portant. That's one of our 1110st and Ill0st sensitive w'atersheds in this county. North Golden Gate Estates and Naples Bay, obviously, also is very important~ has not had the extensive resource description and management done for itt and the Cocohatchee River \\o'atershed also is very high on the list. \Ve need to approach those first. \Vatershed Inanagell1ent plans are much more than just stonnwater plans. TIley include \vetland protection, habitat considerations and need -- and a needed restoration \vherever the study indicates. The preserves and protection areas Hlust be protected beyond state and federal allowances and permit processes concerned, as their permitting, state and federal pemlit process, don't necessarily consider Page 22 Agenda Item No. 10B October 13, 2009 Page 39 of 83 1\1 ay 16~ 2006 \vhat Collier County watershed needs are. They don't look at that They just look at the projects. And so that's a real problem. So if anybody's going to look at it~ \ve need to do that, and a \vatershed management plan is the process to look at that very c0l11prehensively. The county can use a variety of tools to direct incompatible uses away from these protection areas~ the \vatershed nlanagement plan protection areas, the wetlands and the habitat areas that are in these watersheds. TDRst you could acquire the lands, use incentives for lando""ners, or even use regulation or a combination of those carrots on sticks are the ways that \.ve \vould recommend that you do, and you're already using these kinds of tools in the rural fringe and the rural J and ste\vardship area. And one final thing I want to note is that there needs to be coordination amongst the stom1\Vater management process, planning process, the floodplain nlanagenlent process, which you heard from Robert Wiley last week, and the \vatershed management planning process. These are all obviously very related. They involve JTIany of the same elenlents. You need a central coordinating body to do that Obviously you look at aU the policies, but we need to have some \vay of coordinating those processes. Thank you very much. CHAIRlv[AN HAL.A.S: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MS, FILSON: Your next speaker is Wayne Arnold. He'll he follo\\'ed by Shannon Chesser. MR. ARNOLD: Good J110mingt Commissioners. ':Vayne AmoJdj for the record. I dOlltt have comnlents specific to your water management basin studies, and I didntt know if I should address the other comnlents that I have in the Coastal and Conservation Management Elen1ent at this tilue. If I do, just a coupJe of points that I would highlight that Mr.. Lorenz pointed out in his suolmary presentation, and those both relate Page 23 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 40 of 83 May 16,2006 to the use of preservation areas in the county. \Ve like the idea that -- moving toward an idea \vhere you can do off-site nlitigation for some of the preservation and to deal \vith the standards in the Land Development Code. And, secondly, the idea that we can have limited use of our preservation areas for stonnwater management. That's been done in the past specifically with the wetland areas \vith \vater quality pretreatInent. And I think this just fillthers the notion that that is an acceptable practice and 'what -- the standards that are to be adopted in - the LDC, we would encourage you to agree vvith the Planning COlllnlission and pursue that. Thank you. CHAIRJ\1AN HALAS: Next speaker, please. 1\.fS. FfLSON: The next speaker is Shannon Chesser. Shetll be follo\ved by f\.fichael Reagen. CHAIRJ\.1AN HALAS: Yeah. Just before you start, I'd like to make sure that everyone that is going to speak~ if you're representing an organization and not yourself: you need to register up at minutes and records, \vhich is on the fourth floor. It's $25. And it's a yearly fee. So if yodre here as a lobbyist for a particular group, you need to register before you can speak. '{ es, sir? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 'Vould that include a grass-roots organization? CHAIRJ\1AN HALAS: No. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just a group that's -- if you're a lobbyist for a particular group, then you need to register. Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKE.R: Thank you. CHA.lR1v1AN H.A..LAS: If you're here just on your O\Vn, then you don't But if you're here to represent an organization, you need to register upstairs. Okay. Page 24 Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 41 of 83 May 16,2006 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN K~LAS: Thank you. Continue. MS. CHESSER: Good nloming. I\1y name is Shannon Chesser, and I'm duty registered and all that good stuff. And I'm here this l110rning on behalf of the Collier Business Conlmunity Political Action Committee. We are a coalition of business leaders frOln a variety of Collier's major industries, hospitality, agriculture, healthcare, banking~ finance, retail, and many others. \Vetre created to advance the free enterprise system and to help you and work \vith you to identify \vays to improve the quality of life for all Collier County residents. And I'm here this morning because we have son1e concerns about several of the EAR an1endments that you'll be revie\\ring today. ..t\.nd r '''Ianted to let you knO'lll that \ve've fonned an action group to further study some of the recomnlendationsl and we're really looking fonvard to ?lorking \vith you in the coming months to establish good public policy. CHAIR..\1AN HALAS: Thank you very much. 1\1S. FILSON: The next speaker's Michael Reagen. He'll be foUo\ved by Brenda Talbert. rvlR. RE..~GEN: Good moming,Mr. Chairman and ConIDlissioners. My name is Mike Reagen, for the record. I'm the president of the Greater Naples Chanlber of Commerce. I've been asked to read a statement to you by Jeffrey Fridkin, ,,,ho's the chair-elect of the challlber, who I'm told is in court this morning and fnay not be here. And I quotel Dear COllunissioners, the executive committee of the Chamber of Comn1erce fnet in special session yesterday lnoming and asked to relay our housing concerns to you. The lack of affordable housing in -- for all emp.Joyees in Collier County is a severe danger to the present and continued quality of life Page 25 Agenda Item NO.1 OS October 13, 2009 Page 42 of 83 May 16,2006 for all OUf citizens. You in the general public know \vell about the data, much of ",that's been shared by \vell-attended forums, numerous lneetings of govemn1ental and civic groups, and \-veIl highlighted by the Naples Daily Ne\llS series. The leaders of Collier County's business conununity agree with the Florida legislature, this is a very cmnplex issue affecting the entire state. \VhiJe no one knO\\'8 exactly completely how to solve the workforce housing crisis, the state legislature has crafted a series of programs v..-hich \ve should all consider in the I110nths ahead. \Ve're COllcenled that there are new inlpediments, perhaps in many to \vorkforce housing throughout the proposals that you'lJ be considering today. Reasonable men and \vomen can understandably vie\v the same issues differently and make different conclusions. Debate's healthy and usually leads to velY positive solutions. \Ve should llot~ obviously, limit any public conunent nor debate in the days ahead. The chaJllber believes that we need to \\lork to seek reasonable solutions. The chan1ber believes that \-ve, as a cOlnmunity~ ought not be hindered from considering all possible rellledies. The chan1ber believes no topics, no tools, no geographical areas of Collier County should be excluded nor exernpt from being considered as part of the solution in the future. Rather the chamber urges you to keep all options open and on the table for possible future use. The chamber urges you not to take steps today that will limit the communitis ability to creatively cooperate to keep our \vorkforce housing crisis from getting \~lOrse. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Fridkin and on behalf ofI'v'fr. Fridkin; end quote. Thank you, Commissioners. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Brenda Talbert. ShelU be followed by Robert l'vfulhere. Page 26 Agenda Item No.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 43 of 83 May 16t 2006 CO~1MISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I think what Vle have is conmlents on different elements of our anlendments. CHAIR:MAN HALAS: Yeah. And I'd like to -- and I think we ~rant to keep focused in regards to the issues that v,"e ,vere discussing. So if you'd like to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, maybe _. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- retract until \\!e get to that point in time when we discuss -- l\1S. TALBERT: I would prefer that. _, CHAIRMA'N HALAS: -- coastal high -- coastal high hazard area and the densities in there, I think that would probably be the realm that we w'ant to be in. Right no\v 'vetre just discussing ,vatershed fllanagement. So if anybody's got any comments on watershed management, we'll take those COlnments. Is there any other speakers on this watershed management? ?vIS. FILSON: Yes. On \\<'atershed Inanagement? CHAfRM.AN HALAS: Yes. MS. FILSON: \VeIl, the speaker slips aren't real clear. I can call the names. CHAIRMA.N HALAS: Anybody raise their hands in regards, that they \vant to speak on watershed managen1ent? Okay. Three. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm here if you have questions. MS. FILSON: Okay. Nicole Ryan~ she'll be folIo\ved by Nancy Payton. MS. RYAN: Good nlorning.. For the record~ Nic-ole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. i\nd the conservancy really appreciates the ()pportunity to C0nll11ent on \\'atershed management plans and have the opportunity to comnlent on an of the EAR-based amendInents and review them. The EAR is a really good process for looking through the gro\\rth plan, seeing 'what targets have not been nlet, seeing \vhat needs to be Page 27 Agenda Item No.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 44 of 83 Ivfay 16, 2006 modified and updated. And the watershed management plans reaHy struck us as the one area where the county needed to get up to speed. Your Planning Commission has recommended that \~latershed managelnent plans be conlpleted -- inlplemented by the year 2010, and this is sonlething that we do support. The current GMP states that these plans should have been done by the year 2000. But in doing some further research, the original 1989 CCME actually had \vatershed lnanagement plans due in 1993, so \ve1re even further behind than \:ve had thought. The good news is that we now have the opportunity to correct this. The bad nev."s is, just think how we could have used these watershed management plans as a planning tool if \ve \vould have had them in place. So it's really important that Collier County, with the rate of growth that we're experiencing, the rate and pace of development, that we do get these in place in a timely 111anner. And the presentation that was given this rnoming, I think, \vas veIY, very good. It sho\ved an aggressive timeline. It showed coordination behveen not just the stOnTIv...-ater and transportation departnlent, but aH of the county departn1ents. \\.'hich is vel)'~ very inlportant~ because th is is n10re than just a storn1\vater issue. This takes into account \vetlands, areas that should be protected, areas that could potentially be restored, habitat. All of these di fferent components need to be put in there. Stakeholders will be son1ething tbat \vill be vel)', very crucial for this; in addition, having other agencies that could bring expertise, that could bring plans and data that they have already con1plcted and completed to the table so that everything can be compiled. So very, very in1pressed \VitJl what \~/e sa\\' this rnonling. and we'll be looking fonvard to being part of that process. In additiont this is something IHore than just a 111issed deadline, a missed opportunity. This is son1ething that if Collier County really Page 28 Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 45 of 83 May 16,2006 wants to take SOllIe control over the total nlaximum daily load requirements that will c0l11ing do'wn to USt \ve need to do that now. \Ve don't \vant to get into a pattern of expensive retrofits that are mandated by state or federal government. This gives us the opportunity to take a look at \vhat will \vork for our community, for our counties, and for our \vatersheds. So \\>Te, again, plan to be part of the process. \Ve support the 2010 deadline, and \ve appreciate all the work that staff and you commissioners have done on this iteul. And I would just lnake a brief comment about the stonnwater in preserve question, because that \vas brought up earlier. And just to mention that the \\"ater Inanagement district uses presumptive criteria "vhen they give penuits for stom1\vater and stonl1\Vater managementt so it ,,'ill be very important that Collier County, if stonnw'ater is allo\ved into preserves, that there's some sort of nlonitoring plan so that we know that there \\!Quld be no adverse impact fro In the stomlv.rater crossing over into preserves. Thank you. CHAIRl\1AN HALAS: Yeah, \\rait. I got a question from Commissioner Henning. Conlmissioner Henning? COMl\.1ISSIONER HENNING: Well, that \vas before when I "vas trying to make a statement, and didn't finish, but __ CHAIRJ\.lAN HALAS: Thank you very nluch. ]\,18. FILSON: The next speaker is J\Tancy Payton. She'll be follo\ved by Judith Hushon. 1ViS. PAYTON: Good Il1oming. Nancy Payton, representing the Florida \Vildlife Federation, and we're here to support the presentation that just \vas given for a comprehensive approach, and ,ve feel it is conlprehenshre to local land use planning. Local land use planning is the responsibility of the county. There aren't local ....- other regional, state, or federal agencies that are responsible for land use planning, and that's \\'hy xes important that the Page 29 Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 46 of 83 J\'fay 16, 2006 county take the lead on this and take this responsibility before sonlething Draconian comes do\vn frolll the state or federal agencies. ,1./ e are curious to kno,v ho\\' this \vill mesh ,vith the rural fringe and the rural ste\'~lardship plans, as \vell as the habitat conservation plan that's under discussion and evaluation by your comn1ittee. But we do think they could be a good tit and could \vork well as this process goes fonvard. Because \ve support landscape or macro planning, \ve encourage funding of this project in this upconling budget cycle, and also to be sure that it's completed in 2010. Thank you very much. CHAIRl\.1AN HALAS: Thank you. !\1S. FILSON: The next speaker is Judith Hushon. And Mr. Kraso\vski, did you \vant to speak on this issue? 1\18. HUSHON: Okay. I'm on the EAC of Collier County, and I also chair the subgroup that revie\ved these amendnlents before they CaIne to you and brought thenl through our conmlittec. And \ve \vere extrenlely interested and concerned about ,vater quality. That \vas really one of our major themes as \\'e \vere revie\-ving this. ,And the concern is t\vofold. One, that ''''hat \ve have built that is in place and are building e'ven no\v, that the "vater quality is ensured in future years. \Ve don't want to be back retrofitting. So \ve ,vant to be sure that we're doing our jobs properly. And that \Vas why we asked -- there's one request that's built into this \vhich ,viII have a nlonetal)r request to do sonle studying that some of these vcry elaborate pond surface \:vater nlanagelnent treatnlent systems are, in fact, working as the Jllodelers tell us they are working. But \ve have no other \vay of kno\ving that they are really \vorking that \vell. The nlodeler, \ve have to take his word for it. ,,~nd in fact, therets sonle question on v~"here he got some of his data. So \ve as an EAC are concenled about that; that's \vhy \\'e\'e asked to bring that up. In ternlS of \\.'atershed nlanagement plans, yes) \ve really need Page 30 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 47 of 83 ~1ay 16,2006 these. Because as you -- and we, like you, look at it piecemeal. And \ve don't even see a lot ofprojects out, for example, in North Golden Gate Estates because they aren't covered in the same Vt'ay by the planning. And so \\re don't even get a chance to look at water issues and things related to those. This is part of the reason this is so critical right no,v, these 'watershed management plans~ and \\'e can't put therll off. They really need to be done soon and quickly. South Florida \Vater Management District has done a lot of modeling, w'ater 1110deling. \Ve need to bring this into our county planning and incorporate it, \lie need to bring it in \vith the species information that \ve've been collecting about where the endangered _ threatened and endangered species are, what Vt-'e need to do to presenre thenl. This is part of the HCP effort as\vell as just in general on revic\\ring each project. 'Ve are a little bit concerned that plants were \vritten out. Vle had really \vnrten listed plants and animals -- or animals and plants, it doesn't matter -- because w'e do have a number of species of plants that are fairly unique down here. and we don't like thell1 just clear-cut. \Ve'd like them to be either relocated or into preserved areas as rnuch as we can. So that \vas a concern. And the fact that Vtre wrote that language out has lne a little concerned. It \vasn't -- that happened at Planning Con1mission level. r\nd \ve think that this can hdp us 'when \ve COIne around to TMDLs and other water quality issues that will be coming up as part of what's going to be happening. But any watershed planning that \ve can do now is for our future. lfwe don't do it now, \ve don't have an area to \;v'atershed plan for. It \vill be built out. \Ve just can't ,vait to start this effort. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MR. COHEN: 1\1r. Chairman" Members of the Commission, I Page 31 Agenda Item No.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 48 of 83 May 16~ 2006 just wanted to point out also in your packet at the back of your executive SUllUllary at the end of that, you have a nlenlorandum fronl the EAC that deals particularly with the watershed management issue because they felt so strongly about that issue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. Is there -- that.s the last of the public -- !viS. FILSON: I believe thatls the last one that actually says watershed on it. ~1ost ofthenl just say CCME. CHAIR..1\.1AN HALAS: Okay. \Velll close the public hearing at this time on \vatershed rnanagement. Is there any further discussion? \Vhat guidanc.c would you like to give us? Okay. Con1nlissioner Fiala? COl'vl1\lISSJONER FIALA: Yes. I had understood that \\le added back in the listed plants as \vell as aninlaI species. MR. LORENZ: Commissioner, on page 30 in the CCME policy -- excuse me -- 7.1.6, '''Ie state that \~"'e \\.'i11 evaluate the need for protection of listed plants, and within one year of the adoption of these amendments, weill adopt land development regulations. So we put the policy in for us to do an analysis, and then CODle back \\"ith Land Development Code a01endments. COrvH~1ISSIONER FIALA: You knov~l, I think 'Ne ought to study it \\rhile \ve keep listed plant species in there. Better that \vay than maybe eradicate sOlnething that \:ve're sorry for later. I think it would behoove all of us to leave that in there. \Vould that be acceptable to the other board nlembers? corvn....fISSIONER HENNING: No. Lefs -- I'm going to make a Illotion to accept the watershed Il1anagenlent plan as staff has presented. CfL-'\IRJ\..1AN HALAS: Do I hear a second? C01\1J\HSSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. If I may Page 32 Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 49 of 83 May 16, 2006 comment? CHAIRMAN :HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETI A: I didn't want to put dOV\1J1 Commissioner Fiala's suggestion. I'm just veryconcemed that ,ve need to take this one step at a time because there are certain antigro\vth elenlents out there that v,'ill do anything they can to stop all gro\\1h, and if they have an open run \l,lith -- the listing of any particular piece of plant species out there, lizard or w'hatever, they could find anything in anyone given area to bring a particular project, - like a needed road, to a dead stop. And so I mean, not that you're wrong. You're absolutely correct that we\re got to approach this \vith great care and thought before \Ve COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I agree ,~vith you, because sometimes people \vilI use any excuse in the VI/odd. Vlhat I was -- the thing that popped into nlY head were those rare orchids that they found that they didn't even know still existed. And I'm thinking, you knO\V, there might be other things that we should at least sonleho\v preserve, you know, to -.. until the study is completed. And if it -- if it doesn't need to be there, good. rvlaybe we could nlake some provisions ,""hereby during the study, any listed plants that are, you kno\v, rare or endangered ulaybe are, you know, just removed or placed in another area until such tinlC as this study is completed. We have like four years yet, and I'd hate to see thenl obliterated. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no probleul, you knO\V, \vith ahvays looking at \vhat's out there, but I dontt \vant to leave it too open ended. I think \vhat \ve have here before us is a \\"orkable document. i\nd any issues like that that the environmental community brings fonvardt rIn sure ~.'e'll respond on a case-by-case basis to it. I knOv.' I \\'111. CHAIRMAi'1 HALAS; Commissioner Coyle? CO:\1J\itISSIONER COYLE: rm going to need the attention of Page 33 Agenda Item No.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 50 of 83 May 16,2006 staff to get this question ans\\~ered. Yau presented to us a proposed change w'hich elinlinated the v."ord animal. So that sentence now needs, any listed species. That includes ani111al or plant. !\1R. LORENZ: That's correct. That particular __ COr\lf~lISSIONER COYLE: Cite, okay. MR. LORENZ: -- policy does, yes. C01...fl\lISSrONER COYLE: Now, how does that particular policy relate to the intent of the rest of this element? MR. LORENZ: Okay. That particular policy -- and 1'11 get to it -- is 6.1.2(4) on page 19. And the net effect of this policy is, this policy sets the priorities for \vhat native vegetative conununities Or habitats \vill be preserved as part of the preservation requiren1ent. .And \\"hat it says is that \vetland or upland areas known to be utilized by listed species, that does take care -- that does require -- that does look at listed species as plants and anin1als as v,rcl1. \Vhat we have not done, however, is we have not gone in very explicitly to identi(v all the listed plants. \Ve need to have a little bit 1110re criteria to do that. The EIS -- the EIS provisions does provide an identification of the listed plant species, but \'~e don't have any criteria to detern1ine exactly how' that's going to work through. And thatts \\"hy we need to really identify the criteria much nlore definitively with that one policy. COMl\:lISSIONER COYLE: So bottom line IS, the intent of this change does not ignore plant species but it provides for a 1l10re detailed report \vithin one year, which will address those plant species'! IvlR. LORENZ: That's correct. COtv11\.lISSIONER COYLE: .And you've done that prin1arily because it is a more conlplex rnatter and nlore tin1e-consurning and it's going to take you a little 1110re time to deal \vith it; is that a fairly correct statement? IvfR. LORENZ: That's correct. ,~re do not have -- \vhat we don't Page 34 Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 51 of 83 May 16, 2006 have in here is we do not have specific standards that saYJ if you fmd this particular plant, you have do this with it. That's ,,,,'here -- that's where we \vant to evaluate those requirements. We do, ho\vever, identify that if you do have listed plant species in an area, that begins to create that priority setting for the ,,,,hole habitat or vegetative cOlnnlunity to be part of our retained vegetation. So to that degree it's in there. But as you try to work through a variety of those kinds of priorities, listed plants in and of themselves ,vill not make 100 percent o_fthe difference, I guess that's \vhat I'm trying to say. COMl\lISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRM..AN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COl\1MISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Listed, you1re talking about those that are endangered, not -.. 1\1R. LORENZ: \~Tel1, that's one -- C0111missioner, that's one of the problems because plants are different -- they have a variety of different listings and a variety of different sources for a variety of different reasons, and so that's \vhy we have to -- that's \vhy we have to identify specifically v{hat plants have \-vhat reasons to be listed, and then how \\Ie \vill identify the protection mechanisnlS in the future. So that's one of the problems 'vith regard to just trying to say \ve are going to handle listed plants and adopt all the lists. So that's why we \\"ant to develop some nlore criteria to bring back to you. COMMISSIONER COLEIT A: Let's go back to the list. Who's the keeper of the list? I\1R. LORENZ: \\leH, these lists would be -- there's a federaJ -- and I don't recall the citations at the moment, but there's a federal list and there's sonle state lists as \\,'ell. U.S. Dcpartnlent of Agriculture, and then the state Department of Agricultural Services maintains several lists. COMl\1ISSIONER eOLETT A.: But \ve don't define list? It's any level of govenlment list that exists out there? Page 35 Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 52 of 83 May 16, 2006 MR. LORENZ: \Vell, \vhat we \"'ere -- '~lhat \ve \vouJd _.. initially we \vere proposing \vould be to utilize those federal and state lists, but then it was pointed out to me that a number of those plants on those lists have listings for a variety of different reasons, not necessarily for protection. And then the next question that comes iSt \\That -- \",hat specific plants are we reaIly truly needing to protect in Collier County and how -- what \vouJd be the appropriate mechanisll1s? Can you -- for instance -- - C01\1MISSIONER COLETTA: \Vell, \vhat \'vetre authorizing you to do is look at it. MR. LORENZ: Look at it. CO!\1t\1ISSIONER COLETTA: But ,ve're not taking an action at this point in time. Okay. I understand. CHAI1WAN HAL.AB: Okay. COIl1111issioner-- !\.1R. LORENZ: Ivfr. Chair? CHAIRMAN H.ALAS: Yes. MR. LORENZ: If you may give Ole a couple of seconds, I \~.rould like to address an ans\ver that 1 provided Cornmissioner Coletta before. I think I need to explain a little bit n10re after \\'e go through this. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, please do. J\1R. LORENZ: Conllnissioner, you had asked earlier about the effect of these an1endnlents on lando\\'11ers in North Golden Gate Estates, specifically singIe-faoliIy residents. And I just \vant to -- and I related to you about the EIS requirements. I do \vant, ho\vever, to give a little bit more -- J need to give you a little bit nlore cOlnplete answer. Ao-nd on page 28 under policy 62.7(3), 'we do have a reference v...ith regard to North Golden Gate Estates, and, of course, that \vQuld affect single-family residences as to, as the \vatershed managenlcnt plans and programs becollle developed, those plans may identify sonle Page 36 Agenda Item No. 10B October 13, 2009 Page 53 of 83 May 16, 2006 very sensitive areas with regard to watershed management planning that, of course, may encompass, in the North Golden Gate Estates, North Golden Gate Estates' residences. And in the middle of the paragraph there, paragraph 3, it says, the county may issue single-family building permits within or adjacent to such \vetlands subject to appropriate nlitigation requirements which preserve the functionality of the wetland \vithin the applicable watershed management plan. So this policy amendnlent envisions that as the \vaters~ed management plans move fonvard, they may address some specific criteria for single-family residents \vithin North Golden Gate Estates, so I just -- CO~1MISSIONER COLETTA: Bu1 at this point in time we're nat addressing it, and we're not talking in any shape or form about going in there and taking properties- MR. LORENZ: Correct. COr...fMISSIONER COLETTA: -- especially homesteads, to be able to make room for water retention? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CJIAIRl\4AN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FI.A.LA: Last fast C011U11ellt. CHAIRM:AN H~A..LAS: Commissioner Fiala, yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm so delighted \-\lith this, I'm excited and eager to see it ga fon\1'ard, alI of the results that come out of it, and I really appreciate Conlmissioner Coletta and Conunissioner Coyle for clearing that up. I thought you had eliminated the plant species, and I see, no, you did not. It's just addressed in a different '\\,'ay. But that's -- I just want to tell you~ thank you. CHAIR.M:AN HALAS: Okay. Are there any other discussions? 1\.'IR. COHEN: rv1r. Chainllan? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Page 31 Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 54 of 83 I\1ay J 61 2006 MR. COHEN: My understanding is that there are some other speakers that \vant to discuss other issues \vith respect to the CCl\.'1E, and I knO\V that you closed the public hearing after discussing watershed managen1ent plans. I didn't -- 1 think it was probably the understanding that you \vere finished with those particular issues. And nlY understanding is) in talking to ~;fs. Filson, that there are other speakers that want to address some other issues. MS. FILSON: I do have six additional speakers for CCME __ CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: -- that are other subjects other than \vatershed. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Conln1issioner Henning, you had a -- COMMTSS10NER HENNING: The nlotion is just to accept \vhat \vas presented for the \vatershed managenlent plan, not the \~'hole entire chapter of the CC!\'IE. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. That's ,,,'hat \ve're still talking about is strictly the watershedmanagen1ent plan, is that \vhat __ COl\UvnSSJONER HENNING: Because I have other things in the -- ~1S. FILSON: I don't believe that's '\That the others are registered for. It just says CCrvtE) but you asked everyone to raise their hand, and there \vas only three. CHAI~1\.1.A.N HALlAS: In regards to \vatershed 1l1anagen1ent. Is this still dealing with the \vatershed managenlent plan? I don't believe so. Okay. T think \\'e clarified that. Okay. So \ve have a motion on the tloar and w'e have a second. ~'1otion by Conunissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIR1v1AN lIALAS: If not, rn call the question, .All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 38 CONll\1JSSIONER COYLE: Aye. COt\.1I\1ISSIONER COLETTA: .A,ye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COl\1MISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRJ\.1AN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIR1v1AN HALAS: Carries. Okay, next element This concludes the discussion on the Watershed Plans on this date. Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 55 of 83 May 16,2006 Agenda Item No.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 56 of 83 This is a partial excerpt of the EAR Adoption Hearing January 25,2007 regarding Watershed Management Plans (WMP). The discussion is regarding the all of the CCME report. Consequently the discussion on the WMPs is not together in consecutive pages. I have copied the pages that include discussion of the WMPs below and the vote on the CCME report. January 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. \VEEKS: And, again, if there's a specificity in identifying these particular aquifers in that water master plan because the master plan does not presently include the Tamiami, then I \vould suggest it's not appropriate to place it in here. But, again, I believe Commissioner Coyle's language covers this. CHAIRI\1AN COLETTA: Okay. "' COI'vUvlISSIONER HALAS: Just so long as we've got the flexibility. I'vlR. \VEEKS: Yes. sir. COMMISSIONER BALAS: That's the biggest thing, \\'ithout changing the Grov,-th :\.1anagcment Plan aU the time. CHAIRl'v1AN COLETTA: Everyone agreed? l'v'IR. GRA.MATGES: Understood, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, absolutely. CHAIR.MAN COLETTA: Okay. Please move on. i'vlR. SCHJ\.fIDT: All right. Then on to page 25. Under the policy 1.5, there has been an added sentence at the end of that policy regarding watershed management plans. And I move next on to page 29, the next time you see text as proposed per adoption. Now we're into the hosing element. COMl\HSSIONER COYLE: 1 have some questions, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind. CHAIR.\1A~ COLETTA: Y cs~ could you please. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go to 19, objective I relating to affordable housing. I'm troubled by the \vording that says, the number ofne\\' affordable/workforce housing units shall increase by 1,000 units each year. \Ve don't build these. Can we -- so we can't guarantee they're going to increase no matter how many we approve, so why can't \'\:e change this statement to say, the number of new affordable/workforce housing units approved by the Board of County Page 72 Agenda Item No.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 57 of 83 January 25, 2007 Vlhat else you got? l\.1R. YOV ANOVICI-I: Jun.1ping back to objective 2.1, which I think is page 33 in the staff response to the ORC. Actually it's page 24. And it's subparagraph C. \Ve've had Dominick Amico from AgnoJi, Barber & Brundage look at this provision, and his conunents were, he doesn't -- he doesn't see ~- I won't read you straight what he said., but he says it doesnit make any engineering sense to indude this provision because essentially these are -- these are stOlTIn....aters that are coming as a result of high winds related to stonns, and there's really no need -- tbese are periodic even L<;. And to require that we evaluate and compensate for floodplain stor..lge on these periodic events really makes no sense. I think staff said that al1\ve're really doing is evaluating. '\Ve're not going to do any storage for it. So we're just evaluating and \ve're not going to store for it, then why do \ve have the provision in there? So our coneenl is, if you are -- if this really is another \\'ay to require that we provide storage for these periodic storms, I think there could be quite an inlpact on, you know, proposed projects and unnecessary impacts of proposed projects. CHAIR1v1AN COLETTA: Staff, I guess? I don't see any light on here. I\1R. \VILE'{: For the recordt Robert Wiley, with your engineering services department. ''''bat we're talking about is the FE!\,t~ definition of a floodplain. And under the current flood maps that we have, they are strictly surge related. So they're aU along the c.oa~tlinc when you look at AE and VE. \Tlle looked at an A flood zone. Those are the ones that are currently located up nosih of, \vest of, and east of ImmokaJeeand particularly along State Route 29. So we have areas of floodplain identified on tbe flood maps for which there is no ba.<ie flood elevation. Those are approxinlate A Page 115 Agenda Item No. 10B October 13. 2009 Page 58 of 83 January 25, 2007 zones. \Vithin your coastal floodplain, \\'here your AE and VE zones are currently identified, what the speaker's referencing -- and I've talked to Dominic is the one. I've talked to him about it too --there is the thought that, well, it's saltwater, it's coming in, so what do we care if we fill it and \ve block it off? \Vell, that is one \vay to look at it if you consider at the peak of the 1 percent annual chance storm event. But you could look at that san1e, which is our current flood zone along the coastline, those are also areas that when \\'e have, not the surge come in from a stoml, but the rain that accOlnpanie-s such a stonn, it likc\\fise gets flooded. And if you begin to inundate all of that area, you've got a place for a tenlporary storage \vhile it works its \vay out into the tidal regions. But if you don't provide 'conlpensating storage for it~ you let it fill up, what you\!C done is you've displaced that volun'le of water to be held further inland. H cannot even get out in a reasonable nlanner at the sarne rate of which it \,",ould if it had the current storage area. ..... So \\lc\re put this in as an interinl until \ve can come up \vith a good resolution through the development of the \:vatershed Inanagement plans, and also at the saBle tinle we're trying to '''Tap up our effort on the FEIvL\ flood lnaps which involve tidal surge as well as rainfall induced flooding. \Ve put this language in here. A.nd ifyou111 look at 1t, it says that it's -- that it shall be evaluated for developlnents within these. A.nd then \vhat it goes on to say is~ that it shall also be evaluated for areas known to appear to be inundated by intense rainfall or sheet HOVl conditions. Nowhere in that statement does it mandate that they \vill have to provide compensation. It will be evaluated, and that is an evaluation to be reviewed by staff for areas that \ve know necd to have the storage rcrnaining so you don't create an adverse condition adjacent to properties. Pane 116 o Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 59 of 83 January 25, 2007 Vie didn1t put a statement here that says, if you're in an AE, VE or an l.\. zone you absolutely have to have cOIupensation, but it wants the evaluation. It gives us the lee\vay to \lr,lork with the developer for \1v'here we need to. It also let1s us back off and let them put the fill in \vithout encompassing storage if\ve agree that there's no need for it because of a typical location. Right. This was -- asl\.1r. Schmitt was referencing there, we went through it \\'ith the Planning Commission. This was a very serious concern that "'e also had \~rhen we '\-'ere addressing the sheet flow conditions a~ you approach into those flood zone areas. Now, just to tie it in further through the COlllll1unity rating system \vith the flood insurance program, of\"hich we are a participant, we have a condition in there that says \ve're supposed to protect our floodplain. This is one \,,'ay to do it. I'm not saying it's the only \\'ay, but it's one way to protect it, to require an evaluation. And so combining aU that together, that1s w'hy we put this in as your interinl regulation. CI-IAJRl\.fi\N COLETTA: Any challenges to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Just in a sense. COMIVlISSIONER HALAS: It clears upa lot of ~- :t\.1R. yav ANOVICH: \Vell -- but in a sense, this is already being addressed by the \\later r..,.fanagcment District. And, again, \vhy are we put sOlnething in our conlprehensive plan that's already being dealt with by other agencies? And thatts our -- you know~ our concern, and I certainly can't argue technicalities with rvu. \Viley~ you lmow. CHAIR...\o1AN COLETTA: Let's go on to your next itenl. 1\1R. YOVANOVICH: I think that's it in this, other than when \ve get to the Future Land lTse Element, and I'm assuming section 24's not being revised in the Future Land Use Elelnent., but there are -- therets SOllle provisions within these two elements that need to make Page 1 i 7 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 60 of 83 January 2St 2007 sure that they properly jive \",'ith each other depending on ho\v you treat section 24 in the Future Land Use Element. CHAIRf\1AN COLETTA: Thank you, ~1r. Y ovanovich. \1S. FILSON: The next speaker is Judy llusholl. IvlR. \\lEEKS: ~lrT Chairman, if Inlay inteIject. CHAIRlvfA.N COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. COllllllissioner Henning, l'nljust seeing your light now. COrv1t\1ISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. \Ve -- this is a part of our insurance rating for Collier_County, the flood protection, to give us extra points. ~1R. \VILEY: Through the community rating system, this is one of the effbrts that we sho\v how we are affecting our floodplain, that's correct. COj\JHvHSSIONER I IENNNG: Yeah. ~.1R. \VILE'l: \Vhich does affect our conununity rating. CO~{:VlISSIONER HEN'NING: Right. So it needs to be in there. i\.1R. \VILEY: '{cs. co~.nvlISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your time on that. Appreciate that. CO~.1MISSIONER FIA.LA: Boy, anl I glad you brought that up. l\1S. HLJSHO;-.I: Hi. 1'111 Judy Hushon, and I'n] a menlber of the EAC. And I was just here because the EAC -- one of the things that the EAC felt totally strongly about -- and I just want to Blake sure that you're a~rare ofho\v strongly we feel, are \vatershed managements plans. Like you, \ve revie\v projects, and they end up on a piecenleal basis. \Ve can revic\v this one, then this one. A.nd it's a big county, and \ve jump all over the place. Our problenl is that it tnakes it difficult to take a far-av.ray long-tenl1 view without having something like these plans. And the county's Inanagen1ent of stornn\'ater is be.coming an area of Page 11 8 Agenda Item NO.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 61 of 83 January 25,2007 contention, especially in localized flooding areas. And the only way to directly address this is to have sOInething like tllese stonn\\>'ater management plans, \vhich are going to evaluate flows, water quality, 'water quantity by source, drainage patterns, man-nlade structures, their capacities, this type of thing on a watershed by watershed basis. And we also think that they ought to do the watersheds in an order of priority based on 'where the n10st developn1ent is occurring because those are the areas \\-'here \ve could make the biggest difference. On areas that are pretty well blJiJt out, \ve canlt have a huge impact, you know, you just -- but at other areas you could have just a major inlpact if you had sOInething like these plans. \Ve think this is a good managenlent tool and \ve endorse having all of these plans conlpleted as soon as possible by 2010. \Ve think that's really important that the lnoney gets put against this and that these plans get incorporated in our county planning structure. \Ve propose that you \,",ould do this in conjunction ,....ith the South Florida\Vater r-..1anagcment District. Obviously this is a hand-in-hand operation) but we just-- and some of these \\'ill be cOJnpleted sooner, which is good. i\S soon as they're cOll1pleted, we all want to use them. So I just \vant to put ina little plug for \vatershed nlanagenlent plans frorn the EA C. Iv1S. FILSON: r-..1.r. Chairman, thafs your final speaker. CHAlRI\1A.N COLETTA: Thank you. ~.1R. SCH~.lIDT: All right" thank you. Unless there are other questions, that should finish page 34. CHAIRJ.\.fAN COLETTA: J see no lights on at tlus time. MR. SCH!vfIDT: AU right. On page 35 then is CCI\1E policy 2.2.5. Yau already had a speaker addressing that. Unless there are questionsJ flll move frOOl there, CHAIRJ\4AN COLETTA: I se.e none. Go ahead. !\1R. SCH1vfIDT: Then on to page 37, again, CCME objective 3.1. Here the language changes were required since transmittal to Page 119 Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 62 of 83 This concludes the discussion on the WMPs and the following discusses the vote. January 25,2007 co~nvHSSIONER lIALAS: \Vhat's 7.1? ~1R. LORENZ: Objective 7.1 deals with listed species -- listed species protected measures. It will also deal \\l1th the federal and state utilization of technical assistance from the federal and state agencies for evaluating the harnl to listed species. Just to point out now~ this is one thing I had the discussion with Rich just before we came up here, the \\!ording that you have there does not result in the loss of the minimum required vegetation. Sometimes \vhen you go from, let's say, a systenl \\.'here you liave a dryer cnviromnent and you move it into a wetter environment, the vegetation -- C01\.1i\.lISSIONER HALAS: Changes. ~vIR. LORENZ: u potentially changes. This is -- right hcre~ this particular phrase, unless you \\'ant to specify it differently, this phrase, as I would take it, is taking the total amount of vegetation. So as long as the total amount of vegetation, \vhether it changes or not, is maintained, the quantity is maintained. That's what this policy -- we \\lould apply the policy that \vay unles~ you have a ditTerent direction~ CO!vfI\1ISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIM1AN COLETTA: Sounds like we're there. You there? !vIR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIR1\.fAN COLETTA: Thank you. I\:fR. 'YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHArMiAN COLETrA: Okay. No problem. Everybody's aboard. Good, l110ve on. fvIR. sCHrvnDT: AU right. No\v, Commissioners, that does complete the CCME if you -- COJ\.f\HSSIONER HENNH\G: ~1ove to approve the amended CCI\..IE final report. CO!\.lI\'lISSIO~ER l-IALAS: \Ve1ve got one conunissioner mlsslng. COI\..UvHSSIONER FIALA: Second that motion though. Page 124 Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 63 of 83 January 25.2007 CH.A.IRl'\o'1AN COLETTi\: \Vell, if we're in agreementt. ,,'e-re going to be. fine. If we're not! \ve're in a lot of trouble. I don't know if I dare go. COMIvlISSIONER HENNING: Let's try it. CHAIRJ\.1AN COLETTA: Huh? COl\1fvlISSIONER HENNING: Let.s try it. CHAIRl\1i\.N COLETTA.: Yeah. It could be a long time coming back again. I feel like it's a -- COI'vfMISSIONER FIALA:\Vell~ n1aybe you could look around and see -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There he is. Thank God you-re here. CO~1~1]SSIONER CO'{LE: You've got a quorum. CHAIM1AN COLETTA: No, \ve had a quorunl. \Ve 'were just worried \"hat n1ight happen with the vote to approve the CCP (sic). C01'vlf\.fISSIONER COYLE: All you need is four votes. CHAIRlvlAN COLETT.A.: That's correct. There VI/as just four here, and \....e don-t trust each other. C01\.fl\1ISSIONER CO'~lLE: Vote, vote. CHAIR.J.\1A.N COLETTA: Okay. \lIe just -- ,\re had a motion by Comnlissioner Henning, a second by Comnlissioner Fiala, to approve it as amended. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CH.AIRl\1AN COLETTA: Ave. .; CO~l!\.lISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COJ\.1lvlISSIONER HE1\.TNING: Aye. CHAIRrv1AN CO LETr.A.: Opposed. COMJ\.lISSIONER HALAS: l\ye. CHAIR1\.iAN COLETTA: Okay. Geez, talk about intuition, huh? CO!vli\.1ISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, J guess so. CHAIRl\1AN COLETTA: That \vould have been -- Page 125 Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 64 of 83 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approve Contract # 08-5122 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan for a Phase 1 cost of $575,736.95 to update the Big Cypress Basin regional hydrologic model and begin the development of Watershed Management Plans required by the Growth Management Plan OBJECTIVE: To have the Board approve a contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) to update the South Florida Water Management District Big Cypress Basin (BCB) MIKES HE 1 MIKE 11 MODEL with new topography and other updated information and to develop Watershed Management Plans (WMP) in order to protect Collier County water resources pursuant to Objective 2.1 of the Coastal Conservation and Management Element as amended in the 2006 EAR based amendments to the Growth Management Plan. CONSIDERATION: Request for Proposal (RFP) 08-5122, Watershed Model Update and Plan Development was posted by the Purchasing Department on September 11, 2008. Four hundred nine notices were sent and 119 firms downloaded the RFP from the E-Procurement site. Nine fIrms submitted proposals by the closing date of October 9, 2008. On November 25, 2008, the Selection Committee ranked PBS&J number one by consensus. Objective 2.1 of the Coastal Conservation and Management Element, recently amended in the 2006 EAR based amendments to the Growth Management Plan, requires WMPs to be completed by 2010. Furthermore, since the process should integrate with past and current efforts of the Big Cypress Basin Board (BCBB), the proposed contract and its scope of work also addresses the integration of these efforts. WMPs will address elements of flood control, water quality, natural systems and water supply. Phase 1 of the subject contract will include obtaining results from the SFWMD 1 USACE models developed for pre-development conditions, 2001, and future conditions. PBS&J will also update the existing BCB MIKE SHE 1 MIKE 11 model, an advanced integrated hydrological modeling system for building and simulating surface water flow and groundwater flow. The model will be updated with new UDAR topography, 2008 land use and cover, recent climactic data, ground water withdrawals, and new hydraulic data from the County's stormwater system. The updates to the model will improve its estimation of stormwater runoff, ground water exchange, and water elevations. The updated model will be used to evaluate 5, 10, 25, and 100 year frequency design storm event effects on the canal system and estuaries. The model results will be used to re- evaluate Level of Service standards for basin discharge rates. Water Quality data and conditions will be assessed to provide recommendations for water quality models which will be developed in Phase 2. Agenda Item No. 10B October 13, 2009 Page 65 of 83 Key deliverables for Phase I will include the development of a Digital Terrain Model for the western part of the county, update of the BCB MIKE SHE 1 MIKE 11 model, as applied for the identified basins in Collier County, calibration reports, model results for the design storm events, Level of Service standards, comparison of water budgets for pre- development, 2001 and current conditions, and evaluation of water quality conditions and recommendations for water quality models for Lake Trafford and Gordon River Extension. Completion of the BCB model will be by September 30, 2009 to allow time to run alternatives and complete the plans by 2010. Development of the WMPs will occur in Phase 2 and this scope will be brought to the BCC for approval at a later date. The results of the modeling will be used with recommendations of existing studies and some alternative analysis with the updated model to develop WMPs and assist with the development of Basin Management Action Plans for Gordon River Extension, and Lake Trafford. FISCAL IMPACT: The Board of County Commissioners, as part of the FY 2007 approved budget, allocated $4,000,000 in General Fund (001) money to fund this initiative. The original FY 2007 programmed allocation less that spent in FY 2007 is re- budgeted in FY 2008. Incidental expenses were incurred in FY 2007 and funds were encumbered for LIDAR and Project Management costs; thus the FY 2008 available budget for this program is $ 2,692,400. There are sufficient funds in cost center 001- 138347 to cover the costs of this contract. The cost of the Phase 1 portion of this lump sum contract is for $575,736.95. As noted above, the scope and cost of Phase 2 will be brought back to the Board at a later date. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Execution of the Contract will support objective 2.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the County Growth Management Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: This item is ready for Board consideration. This item is not quasi-judicial, and as such, ex parte disclosure is not required. A majority vote of the Board is necessary to approve this item.--HF AC RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve Contract 08-5122 to PBS&J to provide Services for Phase 1 of the Watershed Management Plans and authorize the Chairman, to sign the a standard contract after County Attorney review for Phase 1 for a cost of $575,736.95. PREPARED BY: Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialist Agenda Item No. 10B October 13, 2009 Page 66 of 83 ****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner Page 221 March 10, 2009 Coletta and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16AI0 CONTRACT #08-5122 WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN FOR A PHASE 1 COST OF $575,736.95 TO UPDATE THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN REGIONAL HYDROLOGIC j\10DEL AND BEGIN THE DEVELOP:\1ENT OF \V A TERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS REQUIRED BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - ADDRESSING AND IMPROVING ELEMENTS OF FLOOD CONTROL, WATER QUALITY, NATURAL SYSTEIVlS AND PROTECTING COLLIER COUNTY'S WATER RESOURCES Agenda Item No. 10B October 13, 2009 Page 67 of 83 Collier County Watershed Model Update and Plan Development Phase 2 Scope of Work Watershed Management Plan Development INTRODUCTION Following is the proposed scope of work budget and schedule to develop the watershed management plans for Collier County. SCOPE OF WORK The proposed scope of work for this project has been divided into seven (7) work elements, as described below. Individual watershed management plans will be developed for each of the three highest priority watersheds: Cocohatchee-Corkscrew, Golden Gate, and Rookery Bay. However, proposed projects identified by others in the Faka Union, Okaloacochee / SR 29, and the Fakahatchee basins that may impact other watersheds, will be considered for impact analysis to all affected watersheds. ELEMENT ELEM ENT DESCRIPTION 1 Assessment of Existing Conditions - Watersheds 2 Assessment of Existing Conditions - Estuaries 3 Development of Performance Measures 4 Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations 5 Public Involvement 6 Watershed Management Plan Reports 7 Project Management and Meetings Following are descriptions of the tasks included in each work element. Element 1: Assessment of Existing Conditions - Watersheds In this element, the PBS&J/DHI team will conduct a detailed assessment of existing conditions for the three highest priority watersheds in Collier County: Cocohatchee-Corkscrew, Golden Gate, and Rookery Bay. The assessment will encompass surface water, groundwater, and natural system conditions and will be completed individually for each of the priority watersheds. In addition, an assessment of existing conditions based on literature review will be conducted for the Faka Union, Okaloacochee / SR 29, and Fakahatchee basins. The assessment will include comparisons of existing conditions (including existing conditions model results) against the Performance Measures identified in Element 3 to identify both watershed problems and potential opportunities. The element tasks are described below. In must be noted that the items related to water reservations and minimum water levels in Element 1 Tasks 1.1 and Element 3 Task 4 will require a separate Notice to Proceed due to an incomplete assessment related to pending permits. County Manager approval will be necessary to issue these Notices to Proceed. Agenda Item No.1 OB October 13, 2009 Page 68 of 83 Task 1. Surface Water The assessment of existing conditions for surface water will include water quantity, water quality, and pollution loads as well as a detailed water quality model for the Gordon River based on the ECO Lab software. Task 1.1 Water Quantity The assessment will include the items described below. A Water Budgets and Seasonal Water Levels. The Phase I scope of work for this project includes comparisons among of the results from the Big Cypress Basin Project Implementation Report (BCB PIR) MIKE SHE model, the BCB Natural Systems model (BCB NSM), and the BCB Future Conditions Model (BCB FCM). The effort focuses on comparing predicted flows to the estuaries and average wet and dry season water levels~Work on this project phase will encompass adding to the comparison the results of the MIKE SHE model currently being updated. A Water Reservations and Minimum Water Levels. The PBS&J/DHI team will compare model results and existing targets that have been developed to manage water levels and uses within Collier County. As indicated above, this Task will require a separate Notice to Proceed due to an incomplete assessment related to pending permits. County Manager approval will be necessary to issue the Notice To Proceed. Specific issues to be addressed include: · Water Reservations - A water reservation is a legal mechanism to set water aside from consumptive use for the protection of fish and wildlife or public health and safety. The reservation represents the quantity of water to be protected from consumptive use and includes seasonal and location components. The PBS&J/DHI will review the water reservation targets for Picayune Strand and compare it to model results and determine current conditions relative to targets. · Minimum Water Levels - Minimum water levels for the aquifers are established to define levels required to protect water resources in an area. The PBS&J/DHI team will review the existing minimum level requirements defined for the Lower West Coast Aquifer system. The team will also seek to identify the key characteristics that will be considered during development of an MFL for Rookery Bay (scheduled for 2011). The information will be compared against model results to determine the current conditions relative to the established targets. A Flood Risk - The PBS&J/DHI team will use the results of the levels of service and storm event analyses included in the current project phase (per Element 3, Tasks 13 and 14) to assess flood conditions at identified representative locations within each of the watersheds. Flooding conditions outside of designated Conservation Lands will be considered in the development of alternatives. A Conveyance System and Structure Operations - In this analysis, the PBS&J/DHI team will evaluate model results to identify areas where culverts or other structures restrict conveyance. The assessment will also identify conveyance restrictions resulting from the current operations of the water control structures. Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 69 of 83 4 Sensitivity of Modeled Conveyance Parameters - This item will be used to evaluate the sensitivity of the hydraulic system to changes in hydraulic conveyance parameters such as roughness coefficients. 4 Regulatory Environment - The PBS&J team will evaluate the existing state and local stormwater regulations and assess the impacts of the proposed stormwater rules. Task 1.2 In-Stream Water Quality Given time constraints, data limitations, and lack of specific familiarity with local conditions, there are occasions when the listing and de-listing stages of the TMDL process contain errors. If errors in impairment identification are not fully recognized, the TMDL process proceeds to the next step, that of TMDL development. For those systems where "impairment" does not accurately reflect the ecological health of the system in question, TMDL development can involve a considerable expenditure_~f time and resources for a system not necessarily needing such attention. A refined understanding of water quality conditions will be the basis for the development of site-specific and locally-relevant protection and/or restoration strategies. To address these concerns, the PBS&J/DHI team will provide Collier County with the following services as they relate to the highest priority watersheds: 4 Review of all data, both within IWR and in other databases, related to verified and planning lists for Collier County's watersheds. 4 Review relevant reports from the SFWMD, FGCU, and others as they relate to target setting for natural resources dependent upon maintenance of adequate water quality (i.e., oysters, seagrass, etc.). 4 Identification of potential conditions and/or locations where "impairment" is possibly related to natural conditions of the physical setting of the WBID itself. 4 Determination of. likely nutrient responsible for phytoplankton growth via three techniques: TN: TP ratios, comparison of regression coefficients when examining nutrient vs. chlorophyll-a relationships, and quantification of the percent of TN and TP remaining in an inorganic fraction, as related to chlorophyll-a levels. 4 Based on the above steps, a determination of the nutrient most likely responsible for phytoplankton growth. 4 Dependent upon the availability of data and the appropriateness of such a step, develop alternative criteria for nutrients, as related to appropriate chlorophyll-a target. 4 When possible, development of conceptual models that explain the observed water quality will be assessed. Task 1.3 Pollutant Loading A pollutant loading model will be developed for each of the highest priority watersheds to estimate loads associated with the NPDES parameters. Loads will be estimated for each model grid cell in the MIKE SHE model. Results will then be aggregated by watershed as well as by Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 70 of 83 identified subwatersheds of interest to the County. A period of rainfall that best represents average annual conditions will be identified from the historical record and flows for this period will be assumed to be representative of average annual conditions. Pollutant concentrations associated with surface runoff by land use category (event mean concentrations or EMCs) will be obtained from the County's NPDES data. If these data are not available, literature values will be used. Loads associated with atmospheric deposition will be assumed to be included in the reported EMCs. Average annual point source loads will be added to the model based on their grid cell location. The SWFFS pollutant loading model results will be used to assess conditions in the Faka Union, Okaloacochee / SR 29, and Fakahatchee basins. Task 1.4 ECO Lab Water Quality Modeling of Golden Gate Canal System A detailed water quality model based on the ECO Lab s9ftware will be developed for the Golden Gate canal system, including the Gordon River. The model will be used to a) provide a better understanding of potential impairment conditions in the water body, and b) assess the benefits of potential improvement projects in the watershed. In addition, the proposed model will serve as a pilot project to assess its applicability to other watersheds, canal systems and water bodies in the County that have similar hydrologic characteristics. The development of the WQ model will start by creating a higher-resolution hydraulic! hydrodynamic (H&H) MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 model for the Golden Gate watershed from the developed Collier County model, which will serve to establish the boundary conditions. Where applicable, higher resolution details of the drainage system will be added into the local scale model. The model will combine the physically based spatially distributed hydrodynamics derived from MIKE SHE with the numerical ecological model ECO Lab. ECO Lab is a generic and open tool for customizing aquatic system models to describe water quality and eutrophication. The ECO Lab eutrophication template describes the physical, chemical and biological processes from various sources such as urban and agricultural runoff and various physical conditions such as sediment processes and pollutant loads. The eutrophication model describes nutrient cycling, phytoplankton and zooplankton growth, growth and distribution of rooted vegetation and microalgae in addition to simulating oxygen conditions. The model results describe the concentrations of phytoplankton, chlorophyll-a, zooplankton, detritus, organic and inorganic nutrients and oxygen. In addition a number of derived variables are stored: primary production, total nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations, sediment oxygen demand and turbidity. The eutrophication model is integrated with the advection-dispersion (AD) component at each grid cell of the model, based on land use. The AD module will transport dissolved pollutants in the overland, drainage (interflow), and ground-water model components. Decay rates and the solubility limits will be established in the overland layer. Decay and sorption processes will be simulated in the ground-water layers. The MIKE SHE AD module exchanges directly pollutants with the rivers, canals, and lakes in MIKE 11. Once they reach the surface water system in MIKE 11, pollutants from those non- point sources and from other point sources are transported in the rivers and lakes by the MIKE Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 71 of 83 11 AD module. ECO Lab will be coupled to MIKE 11 AD to incorporate the eutrophication processes and simulate the biochemical and ecological fate of these pollutants. Pollution loads will be an external model input and they will be determined consistent with Task 1.3. Point source discharge of pollutants of interest into the rivers and canals will be identified in order to include them as boundary conditions in the MIKE 11 AD component. The WQ model will be built and calibrated by adjusting model parameters inside their uncertainty range to better match the available WQ monitoring data. It will be used to a) provide a better understanding of potential impairment conditions in the water body, and b) assess the benefits of potential improvement projects in the Golden Gate watershed. In addition, the proposed model will be consider a pilot project to assess its applicability to other canal systems and water bodies in the County that have similar characteristics. Water quality modeling of the remaining watersheds will be analyzed based on the Golden Gate model results as the success of the Golden Gate ECOLab modeling- effort will provide substantial insight into the modeling scope of additional water quality modeling in the County. Additional water quality modeling may be considered as a follow-up project to this project phase. Task 2. Groundwater The assessment of existing conditions for groundwater will include an analysis of hydrologic conditions, water uses, water quality, and pollution loads. Task 2.1 Hydrogeology Water balance calculation from the MIKE SHE model results will be conducted to estimate the incoming and outgoing water fluxes in the aquifers. Maps with the typical distribution of the water balance components (including the recharge) will be generated for two times of the year corresponding to dry and wet conditions. Head drawdowns will be used to indicate areas of intensive / excessive pumping. Head maps will be generated for the different aquifers corresponding to dry and wet conditions. Planning implications may include such factors as protection measures for groundwater recharge areas or suggested reduced pumping in areas where impacts to wetlands may be predicted. Conversely, modeling results may indicate the best places to locate new water supply wells, while minimizing other impacts. Task 2.2 Water Uses This subtask will include the two items discussed below. ..a. Water Supply (Municipal and Domestic Self-Supply). The PBS&J/DHI team will conduct a water supply analysis involving water balance calculations to assess the quantity of water being extracted from each aquifer and the use of that water, such as private wells, public supply, or agriculture. Maps depicting the spatial distribution for each type of groundwater source will be developed to include information of the County's water supply system. This information will aid in determining what areas may be contributing to over use of water supply resources and indicate what areas may be available to be added to the municipal water supply system. Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 72 of 83 ..a. Irrigation (Agriculture, Golf Courses). As with the potable water supply evaluation, water used as irrigation for agriculture and golf courses will be evaluated. Detailed water balance calculations from the MIKE SHE model results will be developed for each Irrigation Command Area and the golf courses to indicate the quantity of water extracted from each aquifer and the use of that water. The groundwater extraction rate predicted by the model for irrigation will be compared to permit limits to indicate whether permit limitations are reasonable or likely to be exceeded. Seasonal variation of the groundwater extraction rate will be also evaluated with respect to crop needs and permit limitations. Task 2.3 Groundwater Quality The groundwater quality issues will be assessed by an analysis of wellhead protection zones. These zones will be evaluated from MIKE SHE model results and current State and local standards. Areas where results indicate an increased risk for contamination of water supplies or transport of pollutants due to excessive withdrawal rates will be mapped and reviewed against current well head protection practices. As in the water quantity budget analysis, recommendations may come from the modeling results as to the best way to minimize water quality impacts induced by land use practices or excessive water supply production. Task 2.4 Pollutant Loading Pollutant loads associated with groundwater will be calculated as the product of the modeled groundwater flow and groundwater quality data available from local monitoring programs. A general assessment of pollutant loading that may be associated with septic tank groundwater recharge will also be conducted for those areas with large numbers of active septic drainage systems. The assessment will rely on established septic contributions of pollutants based on technical literature reviews. Maps depicting areas where septic tank recharge is conceptualized in the model will be developed. Task 3. Natural Systems The existing areal extent and functional quality of native wetland and upland communities will be assessed for each of the three primary study basins using a combination of methods. Task 3.1 Reference Period Comparison A reference period was identified as part of the SWFFS. The land cover associated with this period was derived from 1940 vintage aerials and the first soil survey and is available for this project. From this information, it is possible to discern historic hydrologic conditions by mapping the extent of hydric soils and other soil indicators. Such soil indicators are also strongly correlated with the distribution of native plant communities. Once a spatial database has been developed for historic native plant communities, it will be possible to conduct a quantitative change analysis using current GIS land use cover data available from SFWMD. This will be done using a digital overlay process that generates a table that quantifies from/to changes in land use and cover (e.g., cypress swamp to row crops). For each primary basin GIS maps and tables for the reference and current periods will be prepared. Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 73 of 83 From this analysis, it will be possible to quantitatively estimate the losses and conversions of native plant communities and habitats over the past 50-60 years. This information will then be used to develop defensible performance standards and restoration targets. Task 3.2 Functional Assessment Using the wetland areal extent information developed in task 1.3.1, the PBS&J/DHI team will conduct a landscape-level functional assessment of native wetland and upland communities. This will be accomplished using a modified approach to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM - 62-345 Florida Administrative Code). This method involves a quantitative scoring approach to assessing three primary metrics: ..a. Location and landscape support (e.g., adjacent development; loss of connectivity). ..a. Water environment (e.g., hydrologic alterations; water quality degradation). ..a. Community structure (e.g., presence of exotics). A scoring procedure will be conducted for each mapping unit in each of the primary basins, summed across the basin, and then averaged per unit area, to develop an overall basin score. This quantitative approach will allow for meaningful comparisons of the relative functional quality of wetland and other native habitats between basins. In addition, the approach is codified in Florida law and well accepted as a quantitative functional assessment method. The scoring process will be conducted primarily through a review of mapping materials and model output (e.g., water levels), but will be supported by limited field groundtruthing. A total of four man-field days (e.g., two ecologists in the field for two days) will be dedicated for each primary basin to assess and confirm conditions on the ground. This level of analysis would not be acceptable for project permitting. However, it is appropriate for regional planning. The functional assessment will provide a quantitative measure of the relative loss of wetland functions in the subject basins. In addition, from the spatial comparison of land use/cover between the reference period and current conditions it will be possible to quantify other landscape changes such as: ..a. Conversion of native uplands to: o Urban land uses (e.g., impervious surface); o Agricultural land uses (e.g., ditching & draining). ..a. Dredged coastal areas. ..a. Filled coastal areas. ..a. Major changes to coastal circulation patterns (e.g., causeways). These factors will be integrated into an anthropogenic disturbance index that will allow for a comparison of the relative level of man-induced impacts between basins and receiving waters. Task 4. Oeliverables The deliverable for this task will be a summary report describing the results of the existing conditions analyses, both from a countywide perspective as well as for each of the three highest priority watersheds. The report will also include a description of existing conditions in the Faka Union, the Okaloacochee / SR 29, and the Fakahatchee watersheds. Assessments will be based on comparisons of existing conditions and Performance Measures. Descriptions will Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 74 of 83 follow the task format: surface water, groundwater. The deliverable will also include the generated GIS databases associated with the work performed. Element 2: Assessment of Existing Conditions - Estuaries The objective of this element is to characterize existing conditions in the estuarine receiving waters of discharges from the major basins addressed in this scope of work. This characterization will be accomplished primarily through a synthesis of existing information. Similar to the assessment of existing watershed conditions, problems and/or opportunities will be identified by comparison to the Performance Measures. The four primary estuaries to be addressed include: Wiggins Pass, Naples Bay, Rookery Bay, and Ten Thousand Islands. This effort will include five (5) tasks as described below. Task 1. Volume and Timing of Freshwater Inflows The objective of this task is to characterize the volume and timing of freshwater discharges delivered to the receiving water estuaries. The PBS&J/DHI team will obtain, and consolidate into a single database, all available streamflow data for tributary inflows as depicted by the MIKE SHE model into the four estuaries of concern. Existing streamflow databases will be inventoried for applicable data, including: ..a. USGS gauged flow records. ..a. SFWMD DBHydro. ..a. Other sources (e.g., University studies; permit files; etc.). For each primary tributary, flow statistics for the period of record will be developed including, but not limited to, the following: ..a. Time series plots of daily flows. ..a. Average annual minimum, maximum, mean and median flows. ..a. Average monthly minimum, maximum, mean and median flows. ..a. Average wet season minimum, maximum, mean and median flows. ..a. Average dry season minimum, maximum, mean and median flows. ..a. Other statistical summaries as supported by the data. An attempt will be made to identify inflection points in the time series plots which could correspond to major hydrologic changes in each of the primary tributaries (e.g., impoundments; ditching and draining; land development, etc.). The flow conditions that existed prior to the inflection point could be considered to be a reference or benchmark period representing more natural conditions. If supported by adequate flow data, the PBS&J/DHI team will conduct statistical change analyses comparing flow conditions that existed pre- and post of any major hydrologic alterations. If pre-development flow data are not available, or are not adequate to discern a reference period flow regime, then flows generated from the SWFFS Natural Systems Model will be used to estimate pre-development flow conditions. The volume of freshwater discharged from each watershed into the receiving estuaries will be evaluated from the MIKE SHE model results. Conclusions will be drawn to associate impacts with the hydrologic characteristics of each watershed. In addition, the Index of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) software, or other comparable analytical methods, will be used to compare pre- and post flow statistics and conditions. This analytical approach comparing pre- and post Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 75 of 83 hydrologic alteration time periods will be subsequently used to develop performance standards for freshwater inflows. Task 2. Quality of Discharge The objective of this task is to characterize the water quality of freshwater discharges and pollutant loads delivered to the receiving water estuaries. The PBS&J/DHI team will obtain, and consolidate into a single database, all available water quality data for tributary inflows into the four estuaries of concern. Existing water quality databases will be inventoried for applicable data, including: ..a. EPA (STORET). ..a. USGS. ..a. SFWMD DBHydro and other data sources. ..a. FDEP. ..a. Collier County. ..a. Lee County. ..a. Other sources (e.g., University studies; permit files; etc.). Available data will be consolidated into a single database using SAS software. Appropriate statistical analysis of the data will be conducted (e.g., ranges, means, standard deviations, trends, etc.). Statistical summaries will be developed for each station and tributary. Where applicable, the summary date will be compared to appropriate regulatory standards and/or statewide averages. By combining volumetric flow data developed in Tasks 1 with concentration data developed under this task, annual and seasonal pollutant loadings will be estimated for critical parameters related to coastal eutrophication, water quality impairment, and the loss of natural functions. Critical parameters will include: ..a. Total nitrogen. ..a. Total phosphorus. ..a. Total suspended solids. ..a. Color. ..a. Bacteria. WBIDs identified in the State 303(d) listing as impaired, as well as other notable water quality problem segments, will be mapped. In addition, water quality conditions in each tributary will be summarized. Task 3. Quality of Receiving Waters The objective of this task is to characterize the water quality conditions in the receiving waters of each of the four estuaries of concern. As with task 2, the PBS&J/DHI team will obtain, and consolidate into a single database, all available water quality data for estuarine receiving waters in the four estuaries. Existing water quality databases will be inventoried for applicable data, including: ..a. EPA (STORET). ..a. USGS. Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 76 of 83 ..a. SFWMD DBHydro and other data sources. ..a. FDEP. ..a. Collier County. ..a. Lee County. ..a. Other sources (e.g., University studies; permit files; etc.). Available data will be consolidated into a single database using SAS software. Appropriate statistical analysis of the data will be conducted (e.g., ranges, means, standard deviations, trends, etc.). Statistical summaries will be developed for each station and tributary. Where applicable, the summary date will be compared to appropriate regulatory standards and/or statewide averages for critical parameters related to coastal eutrophication, water quality impairment, and the loss of natural functions. Critical parameters will include: ..a. Chlorophyll-a. ..a. Dissolved oxygen. ..a. Transparency. ..a. Bacteria. WBIDs identified in the State 303(d) listing as impaired, as well as other notable water quality problem areas, will be mapped. In addition, water quality conditions in each estuary will be summarized. The quality of freshwater discharged from each watershed into the receiving estuaries will be evaluated from the pollutant loading model results. Conclusions will be drawn to associate quality in the receiving water bodies with the pollution loads from each watershed. Task 4. Coastal Habitats The objective of this task is to address the loss of natural functions in the four estuaries of concern, primarily through a review of existing literature. In general, the literature indicates that these estuaries have been impacted by hydrologic alterations in their watersheds. The timing and volume of freshwater discharges to the estuaries have been significantly altered from natural conditions, with the primary problem being the delivery of too much freshwater. As a result, the historic areal extents of oyster bars and seagrass beds have been reduced by salinity alterations, shading, and smothering. The PBS&J/DHI team will conduct a literature review of water quality and living resource studies addressing the four estuaries of concern. Considerable work has been performed by the USGS, NOAA, FDEP Fish & Wildlife Research Institute, SFWMD, and Florida Gulf Coast University. Key literature addressing in-bay water quality and the distribution of living resources will be inventoried and summarized. If supported by adequate data, GIS maps will be prepared showing both the historic and existing areal extents of the following submerged and emergent coastal habitats: ..a. Oyster bars. ..a. Seagrass beds. ..a. Mangrove forests. ..a. Salt marshes. ..a. Salt barrens. ..a. Coastal beaches (Marco Island). Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 77 of 83 An appropriate reference period when more natural conditions existed will be identified. If supported by the data, an attempt will be made to conduct a quantitative change analysis of the areal extent of the coastal habitats listed above, comparing reference period conditions to existing conditions. This analysis will be conducted using GIS overlay techniques. In addition, the Natural Systems Model (SDI, 2007) developed for the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study will be evaluated for use in this effort. A narrative report will be prepared summarizing the water quality and coastal habitat analysis. Task 5. Deliverables The deliverable for this task will be a summary report describing the results of the existing conditions analyses and comparison to the Performance Measures for the four estuaries. The report will address the relationships of the estuaries and the contributing watersheds. A qualitative - and where feasible, quantitative - assessment of the loss of natural functions in each of the four estuaries of concern will be developed. In addition, each of the four estuaries will be compared to each other with respect to the degree of alteration. This analytical approach will be subsequently used to develop performance standards for coastal habitats. A summary of conditions in Marco Island and the beaches will be included as part of Rookery Bay. Deliverables will also include the GIS databases associated with the work performed. Element 3: Development of Performance Measures To evaluate the relative importance associated with an existing problem, and gain insight into the applicability and feasibility of specific alternative analyses, performance measures will be established. Performance measures are quantitative indicators of how well proposed alternative scenarios meet specified objectives. They will be established and used to evaluate potential problem areas within each basin prior to the identification of proposed improvement scenarios. They will be setup to address the same issues associated with the assessment of existing conditions, surface water, groundwater, and natural systems. Performance measures will be based on the natural system conditions and/or goals established by the County. Task 1. Water Budgets and Seasonal Water Levels. This performance measure addresses the changes in water budgets and seasonal water levels compared to both existing and natural system conditions. Task 2. Freshwater Discharge to Estuaries This performance measure will include the four estuaries, Wiggins Pass, Naples Bay, Rookery Bay, and Ten Thousand Islands. The performance of a proposed scenario will be determined by comparing the model simulation results for that scenario with both the natural condition, as determined from the historical record per Element 2 Task 1, and the existing condition, as determined from the existing conditions model runs. Task 3. Pollutant Load The pollutant loading model results for existing conditions (Element 1, Task 1.3) will be compared to expected pollution loads associated with the proposed alternative scenarios. The Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 78 of 83 performance measures will consider that pollution reductions expected at impaired or significantly impacted subbasins are preferred over pollutant reductions at less impacted subbasins. Task 4. Water Reservations and Minimum Water Levels For this performance measure, the PBS&J/DHI team will compare existing conditions model results with existing targets, such as the proposed water reservation targets for Picayune Strand and minimum water levels that have been established for the aquifers. Task 5. Flood Risk Key locations within each watershed that are representative of flooding conditions, as described for existing conditions, will be used as baseline for comparison of impacts resulting from alternative improvement scenarios. Task 6. Aquifer Recharge I Yield This performance measure will focus on issues related to groundwater recharge and aquifer yield. Targets specified in the document entitled "Proposed Minimum Water Level Criteria for the Lower West Coast Aquifer System within the South Florida Water Management District" will be used as the baseline comparison. Task 7. Natural Systems The development of performance measures for wetlands and native habitats will be based largely on the results of Element 1, Task 3. A quantitative assessment of the loss of wetlands and other native plant communities will be developed. In addition, a quantitative functional assessment under current conditions will be prepared. Through a comparison of historic and current conditions, quantitative targets for restoration of both areal extent and functional quality will be developed. Element 4: Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations As described for Element 1, the PBS&J/DHI team will compare the existing condition of each watershed against the defined Performance Measures. Subsequently, a broad list of potential solutions to problems will be identified and evaluated. This element will also consider watershed stressors resulting from future development such as increased water demands. The Element tasks are described below. Task 1. Identification of Potential Projects, Future Watershed Stressors, and Policies The objective of this task is to compile the information of existing watershed problems, future problems that may result from future development, potential solutions that have been identified through previous work, and potential solutions resulting from the analyses conducted as part of this project. Potential solutions would include projects that have been previously indentified in previous work including the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study (SWFFS), Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan, Immokalee Storm Water Management Plan, South Lee Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 79 of 83 County Watershed Management Plan, and other recent basin master plans. Projects will also include the water supply projects identified in the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWCWSP). Non-structural/management and structural projects will also be identified and proposed by the PBS&J/DHI team in coordination with Collier County and other local stakeholder groups. In addition, the PBS&J/DHI team may identify other potential projects or opportunities that have not been previously considered. Potential projects will be identified specifically for each watershed and may include the following types: Task 1.1 Non-Structural/Policy ..a. Structure operations. ..a. Water use management. ..a. Land acquisition for restoration/conservation. ..a. Land development practices. ..a. Water use regulations (rates, reuse, irrigatiQ!} practices, etc). ..a. Best Management Practices (BMPs). -- Task 1.2 Structural Improvements ..a. Culvert or bridge replacement. ..a. Water diversion. ..a. Restoration. ..a. Water Conservation Areas. ..a. Aquifer Storage and Recovery. ..a. Salt Water Intrusion Protection (injection wells/cutoff walls, etc.). ..a. Other BMPs. The PBS&J/DHI team will deliver a GIS database of proposed projects similar to that developed for the SWFFS. A conceptual description of each will be provided. Task 2. Initial Screening of Proposed Projects For this task, the PBS&J/DHI team will conduct a screening level analysis of the potential projects by comparing expected benefits to the Performance Measures and by estimating project performance under full build-out conditions. The evaluation of the projects will also include preliminary estimates of implementation costs as well as permitability and constructability. Constructability reviews will be conducted to make sure projects can be physically implemented. The objective of the task will be to eliminate from further consideration potential projects and policies that are judged to be impractical or that will provide little benefit to the County. Task 3. Development and Analysis of Alternative Scenarios For this task, the PBS&J/DHI team will assemble alternative scenarios consisting of a combination of watershed conditions under various development scenarios and improvement projects. Development scenarios will include watershed stressors and proposed projects resulting from Task 2. As indicated previously, watershed stressors are conditions that may result from future development such as increased potable water demand and impact to recharge areas. The identified scenarios will then be subject to a more detailed evaluation Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 80 of 83 based on comparisons to the performance measures. The work will include the following subtasks. Task 3.1 Set up Alternative Scenarios Proposed projects (non-structural and structural) will be grouped by watershed, functional criteria, perceived benefit and cost to create alternative improvement scenarios. Each scenario may assume implementation of the projects identified in the SWFFS Tentatively Selected Plan. It is estimated that 8 to 10 Alternative Scenarios will be selected for detailed evaluation. A hierarchy of relative importance/feasibility will be established to improve the overall efficacy of the alternative analysis process. Examples of such scenarios may include addition of proposed well fields, construction of storage reservoirs, converting of agricultural lands to urban, or restoration of farmland to natural conditions. The most cost effective and feasible projects will be considered first and verified by specific alternative simulations. Task 3.2 Run Model Simulations Those feasible and cost effective scenarios will be simulated to determine the impacts of proposed projects with respect to the Performance Measures. Each scenario will be modeled to define its characteristics in terms of surface water, groundwater, and natural systems. Task 3.3 Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios The benefits of each scenario will be evaluated with respect to its estimated contribution to meeting the Performance Measures. In addition, implementation cost estimates, both capital and operation and maintenance, will be developed for each scenario. Permitting requirements and public acceptance will also be important components of the evaluation process. Task 4. Selection of Recommended Watershed Management Actions The product of the evaluation of alternative scenarios will be a ranking of the evaluated scenarios and a recommended scenario consisting of a set of projects to be implemented at each watershed. The recommendations will include implementation costs and a project implementation sequence. Element 5: Public Involvement Public involvement is an important component of the watershed management plan process to obtain buy-in and support during plan development and implementation. For this project, the P8S&J/DHI team will participate in two public meetings at each of the top priority watersheds: ..a. Meeting to present the results of the identification of potential projects and their initial screening (Element 4, Tasks 1 and 2). This meeting will also be used to present to the public the performance measures and describe the methodology to evaluate the alternative scenarios. ..a. Meeting to present the alternative scenarios, results of a preliminary alternative evaluation of those scenarios, and draft recommendations. Agenda Item NO.1 08 October 13, 2009 Page 81 of 83 Element 6: Watershed Management Plan Reports The final product of this project will be the County's Watershed Management Plan. It will consist of four reports, one for each of the top priority watersheds, Cocohatchee-Corkscrew, Golden Gate, and Rookery Bay, and one for the Faka Union, Okaloacochee / SR 29, and Fakahatchee basins. The reports will complement the previous deliverables and will describe the methOdology and findings associated with Project Elements 3 through 5, performance measures, analysis of alternative projects, and recommendations. Draft reports will be provided for County review. Comments provided by the County and other agencies will be addressed and Final Report will be submitted. Draft and Final Reports will be provided in pdf format. One copy of each will also be provided in hard copy format. Element 7: Project Management and Progress Meetings This element will include general project management and coordination activities, as well as development of progress reports and invoicing. Each monthly invoice will be accompanied with-- a brief progress report indicating schedule progression and any milestone accomplishments. All progress meetings will be by conference call or Webex. The PBS&J/DHI team will also participate in one meeting at the County offices. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND BUDGET The work associated with the proposed scope will be completed by September 30, 2010. It has been assumed that the Notice to Proceed will be received by October 1, 2009. The cost estimated to complete the work is #1,303,397.38. This cost includes a 5% mark-up on subconsultant work. The PBS&J labor rates are shown in the attached Table 1. A detailed hourly cost breakdown is shown in the attached Table 2. TABLE 1 PBS&J Labor Rates Collier County Watershed Model Update and Plan Development RFP #08-5122 Labor Multiplier: 3.0 . . BURDi:NEQ V.BQR. ~i1~....~!~t;..($iHR)fl~' 200.00 185.00 158.00 131.00 109.00 99.00 86.00 72.00 142.00 135.00 105.00 79.00 122.00 88.00 79.00 152.00 112.00 89.00 69.00 159.00 111.00 74.00 56.00 62.00 46.00 155.00 Technical Director Project Manager Deputy Project Manager Sr. Engineer III Sr. Engineer II Sr. Engineer I Engineer II Engineer I GIS Project Manager GIS Sr. Professional GIS Professional II GIS Professional I Sr. Planner Planner II Planner I Sr. Environmental Scientist III Sr. Environmental Scientist II Environmental ScientisUEcologist Staff Environmental Scientist Sr. Hydrogeologist Hydrogeologist II Hydrogeologist I CADD Designer Administrative Assistant Clerical Survey Field Crew Agenda Item No. 108 October 13, 2009 Page 82 of 83 coO) ("I) OOco ...-0_ ~ -..N 0 -("I) f' ,2 co c '- a> a> a> Q) g 5 ...... ..0 co - 00.. ~... co..... "0(.) cO ~ a> =1ll OJ =' 0 oU <{ ... ~ 0 ~ 1ll :j ~ ~~ ~ ~ " ;J. ~ ~ ~ .. g ~ " ~= 8 ~ S m . '0 '0 01 v. - ! " ~ g ~ - ~ r ;; '" = '0 t ~ ,)j ~ ~ o 1ll 0 ~ w 0 N ~ ~Si '" I .. :5 g - ~ ,. ,)j 0 ~~ '" ~ -g ~q i!5 ~~~ ~ ~on 0 ~~_N .:::; ~ - I" ~~ 0' ~ ~ '" q ~ !l! ~ ~ i!5_ "'z ;!'2. '"' ~... Oi::'Ji :7~ "'0 :;ul 10.. et~ uz ;z~ ~:--e ("l ~z :;;~S~ ~~~~ ~~~! ~"w ~~ ~~ ~~ "'''- ~ i ~ " i ~~ ~ .1! . '. 0 0 0 0 0 c. 0 0 8 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :;: ~ c: c. ., :0 :e ~{ :: 0 ~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~ :!'l 0 i!! 0 'j ~ 1 0 ~~ 'n ." ~ = ~ N :'! - := ,.c ;..~ :.:j ..,. "'f"::l' ...,Nl"'\l o to f"', 8 ~ ~ g88gg ~~~~~ ~ ,,;w:= l.l; "' ~ 88888 ~~~~~- " "'1': u. Ii< i?, '/I 000000 ;:! M .... ~ 888888 ?~~~~~ ...: ~ ~.....: ~ f\.l (t) f'o- N '0 N (J)~-~ i "'I 2; 1': ~ ~~~g g~~~ ~ S!:~.~; 8888 gj~!H! ~~~:;; 8 ~ ., " ~f:"J0l 00 M Il'J r- U:') " ri 00.0 000 fO-, ,.." n. .n ~ ~ g ~ 888 ~~~ ~ ~. = ~ "I ~ ~ ro - - - " 0 '0 - ro ~ ro I '" '" .~ Q \I ~ 0 ill 00 Iii N - - - 00 ." ., ." r. '" ." 5? 5? ." ." C, ~ :;0: ... " - " " - c, ,~ 0 :;: " :;: !'J " ~ ro .. " ~ ~ ~ " ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 !'J c, N .< 00 ,., '0,::. ~ - m ." ~ " " ., :ciO ~ .......~'-V~ i $ i ~ 15 ~ 3: '" , 0 w o ! ~ i 0'1 ~ ~ Ec c ~ ~ 0 III ~ ~~~ ::f_g~ I~ _ ...z-l1-ao oijCc~ I~ ! 2::~~ ~~21 eoC'l2! 6g;:;X:ll ~ ;~a~~~~l~~~~~~~~ :~!!~jj~5?21g.25~tl.~~ ~~~'g~td~t-3~~~&~~1 I-trl-I l-nTI n~1 ~ I-I-I~ I_INI~ l~r'I~IM I~I~ IT '!i 10 w .".0" "'l::="'" ~.;f r-..I r;.; ""......... .... (.,) ("'oj ("l ~ N ;:, = '" <r r" ~ ~ w ... ~ ~ ~ I ~ B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G :::0 ;'n Q.l QQ .!! ,C ~= ~ ~~'~~ i . ~~~1~ j ~ ECCmv!i ~c5~~~~~ <r; _'" C1 C1 u u iD I III ~I~I~I~!~ '" l'i .. ..~ :;: I r ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ::;: IIJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::"'~ ;E ~ 11 _ ~ :i;.!! ~ :eo::: "0 ]-0 ~ ~Cl~ ~ ~~~.st::~ ~~.!<~~.:!~.;: .2~~~~~'~~ ~dj'5*~H wrr.t'a.}:oQ.ZU::; III1II I_I~I~IT ~I~ l'i 10 'N' W :;: :;; ~Ii j .r::? .~ ~~-~.~ ~!~~, .~ Q ~ .gi -i~ ~i n J:~~.<l ~Q,.O-o c::. t>lQ C ... I") l:::'" .~.2 'f, ~ ]~~ ~ ~.*~ 8 - N ~IT . iii 10 w 00' g ~ ~I~ "'- ~oo " ~ j l'i !l '" '" ~ ~ '" ~:E ~~ ~~ ~ 0 Cia: - '" C C '" ~ ~~ 'Hi; ~oi H~ ~J ~ ~~t H~ Ililii !P ~~5~ :::.~ 11111I -d..frl ~ ~'''I ~ " :!i ~ 5 ii Q ~- ~.. oe ~~ ~~~ u.i!:ir"l ",,,,'-' t;;~~::d 85:50 ~~= u5~~ r.:'::': _ a:':'I:;:Ir; M. a.. "" U'l l-